The Four Most Pernicious Myths in Asbestos Litigation: Part I: Safe Chrysotile and Idiopathic Mesothelioma

Abstract

The now well documented phenomenon of "doubt science" has crept into litigation generally, but has had a particularly deleterious effect in asbestos litigation, giving rise to pernicious myths that are told and re-told every day in legal briefs and in court proceedings. Defendants routinely challenge the admissibility of testimony from plaintiffs' expert witnesses when those experts testify about certain key concepts in asbestos medicine and asbestos science. Defendants boldly proclaim plaintiffs' experts' opinions to be "junk science" and seek to have them precluded regardless of how well documented, well researched, well supported and well accepted those opinions are. This has become all too routine in asbestos litigation, where defendants predictably seek to preclude testimony about medical and scientific issues that have been settled for decades and that are not legitimately disputed outside of litigation by the unbiased scientific community of national and international regulatory agencies and scientific organizations.

Malignant Mesothelioma in a Motor Vehicle Mechanic

“…This point is finely demonstrated by the repeated overlooking of mesothelioma cases from the Raybestos-Manhattan friction products plant in Connecticut. 29,30 Multiple authors over a period of several years reported that there were no mesotheliomas from this chrysotile-using factory and cited that evidence in support of their opinion that work with friction products was safe (after all, they argued, if the raw chrysotile was not causing mesothelioma in the manufacturing workers, then it would not pose any danger to mechanics working with the finished products). Those authors, however, overlooked seven cases of mesothelioma from that plant, which resulted in a significant underappreciation of the mesothelioma risk.…”

“…Many authors have reported cases of pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma among auto mechanics, 8,14,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] as well as among factory workers who handled the raw materials that were used to make friction products, [25][26][27][28][29][30] and even in pet dogs living with auto workers. 31 These reports are relevant because they correlate the raw materials with mesothelioma as well as the finished products.…”

“…8,[36][37][38] National and international public health agencies, regulatory bodies, and public health experts have cautioned about the risks of manufacturing and working with asbestos-containing friction materials. 1,[3][4][5]6,8,13,14,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] Despite identifying many cases of mesothelioma among individual auto workers, however, epidemiological studies have often failed to demonstrate a statistically significant increased incidence of mesothelioma. 38,[45][46][47][48][49][50] The epidemiology is not uniform, however.…”

“…National and international public health agencies, regulatory bodies, and public health experts have cautioned about the risks of manufacturing and working with asbestos-containing friction materials. 1,3–5,6,8,13,14,16–34,36–38,39–44…”

Chemicals Denial—A Challenge to Science and Policy

“…The authors describe how polluters made what is labelled as 'causality-denial' and 'biomagnification-denial' claims, and how this affected public health. Yet two other studies, focusing on litigation on asbestos in the U.S., show how certain pollution defendants routinely rejected solid facts and manufactured controversy and doubt [37,38].…”