A new paper links gliomas in the brain or spinal cords to a specific mutation and then using epidemiological correlation to “suggest” cause from haloalkene, a common chemical in use for 600 years and in the 20th century in nearly every home with fire extinguishers, but then denying they are trying to suggest cause down at the bottom.
This paper is only EXPLORATORY due to the link to a link to a correlation and the tiny sample size, barely greater than the paper that linked vaccines to autism and wheat to brain cancer. The authors used data 17 firefighters and 18 others and they found a “mutational signature” in firefighters but also in the other group, and they claim that the others were probably exposed to SBS42 haloalkanes by painting or being a mechanic. Even for activist epidemiology, this is a stretch.
Even more reason for scientific skepticism is that this paper was written to confirm claims the authors had already made. Trial lawyers manufacture “emerging evidence” claims they can use in front of juries using a highly successful strategy that involves getting a high-profile paper written and then additional papers written to cite it and shore up its credibility. (1)
Then it will appear in a correlation by IARC or Ramazzini Institute or an NIEHS group and calls for bans will commence, with lawsuits to follow.
No one is saying that the authors are working for a trial lawyer. Like with Naomi Oreskes, PhD, that wouldn’t be known unless a lawsuit gets them under oath, the conflicts of interest these authors declare, funding from pharmaceutical and other companies, have no bearing on the epidemiology claims, but it seems odd that a class of compounds in use for 600 years, and common in homes and businesses for the last 200 years, are being suggested as causal for cancer.
Scientists ask the obvious question just as the public should; given their prevalence, where are all the dead bodies? Cancers haven’t increased, they’ve gone down, primarily thanks to declines in cigarette smoking, and likely will go down even more because young people are skeptical of ‘in moderation’ claims about alcohol that just seem strange about an actual carcinogen.
Share this article
Epidemiology can correlate anything to anything in 2025 because we can detect anything in anything in 2025 and that means a spreadsheet can suggest a link. There are chemicals that are legitimately restricted to experts for good reason, just as smallpox is and gain of function research for bat coronaviruses should have been restricted from Chinese labs, but that is not a good reason to put firefighters at real risk while claiming they need bans against virtual ones.
The best way to save lives of firefighters is fewer fires, and that is what flame-retardant chemicals achieve.
NOTE:
(1) Here is an example from activist scholar Dr. Henk Tennekes who outlined the tactics that got him banned from academia in 1992:
Hank Campbell is the founder of Science 2.0
