You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
PostScript
Letter
Authors' reply to letters from Egilman et al and Oliver et al
  1. Julian Peto1,
  2. Clare Gilham1,
  3. Christine Rake1,
  4. Andrew Darnton2,
  5. John Hodgson2,
  6. Garry Burdett3
  1. 1 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  2. 2 Health and Safety Executive, Bootle, UK
  3. 3 Health and Safety Laboratory, Buxton, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Julian Peto, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel St, London WC1E 7HT, UK; julian.peto{at}lshtm.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2016-103870

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Dr Egilman and colleagues claim our report1 implies that chrysotile does not cause mesothelioma. So did the International Chrysotile Association, the website of which highlighted our paper with the misleading headline ‘reliable scientific data confirms negligible role of chrysotile in UK patients with asbestos-related lung disease’.2 Our results are consistent with the strong evidence that chrysotile did not cause a large proportion of UK mesotheliomas, but they certainly do not show that the risk is negligible. We said ‘the rapid clearance of chrysotile from the lung with a half-life of a few months explains its virtual absence in our samples, and implies that we cannot estimate its effects except by noting that amphibole lung burdens account very well for mesothelioma incidence’. In relation to lung cancer, we …

    View Full Text

    Linked Articles