According to a public release, “Possible vaccine for mesothelioma proven safe,” we get the following report:

Building upon their previous research which demonstrated that DC vaccinations induced anti-tumor immunity and conferred a survival benefit in mice, Dr. Aerts and colleagues sought to test the clinical relevance of their finding. After recruiting 10 human patients recently diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma of the epithelial subtype, they cultured immature DC from their blood and exposed the DC to the antigen produced by the patients’ tumors. The DC were also exposed to keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH), which was used as a surrogate marker to show an immune response. The DC were then matured and injected back into the patients in three doses over a two-week interval.

Serum samples from all patients showed a significant increase of pre- versus post-vaccine antibodies to KLH. In the four patients whose tumor material was sufficient for testing, there was clear induction of cytotoxicity against their own tumors after vaccination. Three patients showed signs of tumor regression, though this could not be conclusively or directly attributed to the vaccine. [emphasis added]

Mesothelioma is a serious and deadly disease, thus the significance of this development cannot be overstated. As the release mentions, “Once diagnosed, mesothelioma has a median survival time of 12 months. The standard chemotherapeutic treatment only improves survival time by about three months.”

With flu-like symptoms being the most serious side effect, this vaccine may have the power to actually prevent mesothelioma in those exposed to high levels of asbestos.

Take the time to read up on this important breakthrough. You can read the public release at Eurekalert.org, or see an article by The Palm Beach Post, “Vaccine for Asbestos-Related Cancer Looks Safe.”

From a “Mesothelioma Alert” announcing the recruitment:

Oncologists and drug researchers believe that a combination of Pemextred, a chemotherapy drug marketed as Alimta, is especially effective in treating patients with pleural mesothelioma when combined with Cisplatin, another anti-cancer medicine. The duo has been approved as a standard course of treatment for those suffering from this type of cancer.

We are reminded that interested parties should first speak with their physician or an oncologist before contacting trial representatives.

Visit TransWorldNews to read the full Mesothelioma Alert and get further details on how to participate.

According to a quote in La Presse, Charest said, “Chrysotile (asbestos) can be used in a safe manner; this is what WHO reports say.”

Yet, as the angry physicians point out, the WHO takes the exact opposite of this position. The WHO’s actual position is that “the most efficient way to eliminate all asbestos-related diseases is to stop the use of all types of asbestos.”

In their letter the physicians say:

Premier Charest, you have the right to oppose the WHO position. However, and especially because of the public trust in your position, you do not have the right to misrepresent the WHO position as being what you perhaps wish it were, instead of what it is.

This more recent outcry comes in the wake of a January 28, 2010 letter from scientists from 28 countries pleading with Charest to ban all exports of asbestos from Quebec. The scientist sought to enlighten Charest to his own double standard exposed by the discrepancy between Quebec’s strict asbestos standards and the dangerously under-regulated use of exported asbestos in India. 

According to an article from The Gazette , On hot seat over asbestos, Dr. Menzies from Montreal Chest Institute called Charest’s actions and mind-set morally unacceptable.  “[S]elling asbestos to countries that clearly lack the resources to enforce workplace safety standards is like selling guns to children.  You can say that you warned them about the danger, but it is still morally unacceptable.”

This powerful letter had 8 main points of note:

1. Quebec itself is experiencing an epidemic of asbestos-related disease
2. Quebec itself does not use chrysotile asbestos
3. Quebec is removing chrysotile asbestos from its buildings
4. Quebec itself has failed to achieve “safe use” of chrysotile asbestos
5. There is no safe exposure level for chrysotile asbestos
6. Industry misinformation is funded by your government
7. Efforts by the asbestos industry to intimidate and silence scientists
8. Sabotage of a U.N. environmental convention

Seemingly unaffected by its message, Charest went to India on an economic trade mission and accepted no responsibility for the mass amounts of asbestos being exported to India from Quebec. In fact, it was on this mission that Charest made these false statements.

Charest is reported as saying that the Quebec has closed its mind on the asbestos question a long time ago and will not change its position.

The physicians put it best, “Premier Charest, a closed mind is a very dangerous thing, particularly in a political leader.”

For further background see, Charest Side-Steps Asbestos Export Responsibility As He Applauds His Own Environmental Awareness and Scientists Urge Premier Of Quebec To Stop The Hypocrisy And Ban Asbestos Exports.

During the past few years, we, as regional governments, have stopped defining our future according to our borders and territories, but rather as a single ecosystem - a single region.

These are inspiring words. We all have a responsibility to, not only our own communities, but to those surrounding us, to those we affect. We must recognize that our actions influence our neighbors as well as the entire world, and we have a duty to serve as protectors and as examples of sustainable policy.

Inspiring words, indeed. It’s too bad that they are shadowed by Charest’s blatant disregard for their meaning.

When confronted by Indian union workers at a news conference in Mumbai about the export of mass amounts of asbestos from Quebec to India, Charest denied any responsibility. He said simply that the responsibility rests with the Indian government. He said “We have taken all our responsibilities, we’ve put in place standards and have promoted them” (Emphasis mine).

Wait, what about all that single ecosystem, single region jargon? I guess not when it comes to Quebec making money on the export of a deadly material that is strictly regulated within its own borders.

Anup Srivastava of the Building and Wood Workers International union said, “We are here before the summit of sustainable development and we’re talking about environmental questions, but I think the message is clear: asbestos is not green.”

Srivastava cited Quebec as the second largest exporter of asbestos to India. Although Charest maintains that “there’s a limit to what we can do”, surely a ban on asbestos exports to India would have a huge impact on the standards currently in effect there.

Yet Charest refuses to elaborate, and perhaps even acknowledge, his contradictory position on the environment and asbestos exports by Quebec. For a little background, see my related post, “Scientists Urge Premier Of Quebec To Stop The Hypocrisy And Ban Asbestos Exports“.

Read a more detailed report on Charest’s visit to India at The Canadian Press, Charest faces more questions about export of asbestos during visit to India.

Asbestos is a dangerous fiber which causes deadly diseases which often take decades to emerge.  Charest and Quebec are well aware of the dangers of asbestos and have strict regulations in place regarding its use in Quebec.  In fact, Quebec uses “virtually none of the asbestos it mines because the substance can cause deadly diseases.”  However, the asbestos is exported to developing countries where there are no such regulations and the dangers of asbestos are not well known, countries like India.

In a letter to Charest from the scientists, they chide, “We are extremely disturbed that the asbestos industry in India – Quebec’s No. 1 asbestos customer, with whom the Quebec industry works closely – has recently sent letters to a number of scientists in India saying that legal action will be taken against them if they do not retract their statements and published articles concerning the threat to health posed by chrysotile asbestos.”  They say, “This seems to represent a high level of hypocrisy.”  The scientists are convinced that Charest and his government are working with India’s asbestos industry to silence the Indian scientists speaking out against asbestos.

In an article from The Globe And Mail titled, Ban asbestos exports, scientists urge Charest, we are told:

Quebec government has zero tolerance for exposure to asbestos for workers in the province.

…based on scientific studies conducted mainly in the 50 countries that have banned chrysotile asbestos, there is no safe exposure level, and that even the

‘We find it shocking that the exposure level you endorse for people overseas is 10 times higher than the level permitted by all other provinces in Canada, by the U.S., by the European Union and by other Western industrialized countries.  We call on you to show equal concern for the lives of workers in the developing world.’

With such an extreme example of hypocrisy exposed of Charest to the Quebec public, we can only hope that the scientists’ letter will not fall on deaf ears.  We will watch with interest the chain of events that follows.

According to an EPA News Release these parties had not handled asbestos in a safe way. They did not seal wet asbestos-containing products properly in leak-tight containers. In addition to this improper handling, the parties also neglected to inform the EPA that a demolition was planned before the work had begun. This is required under the Clean Air Act and the Asbestos NESHAP.

It is encouraging to see that the EPA is taking asbestos regulations seriously and following through on penalties. Hopefully soon those companies and other parties who actually handle the asbestos and asbestos-containing products will begin to comply with the standards in the first place.

Visit the EPA New Releases Page for more information.

• Surgery to remove the pleura and surrounding tissue.
• Surgery to remove sections of the pleura, the lung, part of diaphragm, or lining around chest.
• External beam radiation therapy.
• Surgery, followed by chemotherapy.
• Surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy.

Stage II, III, and IV Treatment Options

• Drain fluid buildup from the chest or abdomen.
• Surgery.
• Radiation therapy.
• Chemotherapy.
• Surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy.
• Chemotherapy directed at chest or abdomen.

The treatment options are varied because the time between exposure to asbestos and onset of disease are so varied. There can be many years between exposure and disease. The earlier malignant mesothelioma is detected, the better the prognosis for successful treatment.

New treatments

In the July 15, 2003 issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology, an article by Laurie Barclay, M.D. discussed a new chemotherapy treatment option of combining pemetrexed (Alimta) and cisplatin. As of the date of Dr. Barclay’s article, the drug combination was in phase III trial but the results look promising and, according to the author, follow-up trials are already being conducted using the pemetrexed and cisplatin combination, as well as another drug combination of pemetrexed plus gemcitagine.

In 2004, the US FDA approved Alimta (pemetrexed disodium), used in combination with cisplatin (Platinol®), for use as a chemotherapy treatment for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Alimta will be distributed by Eli Lilly.

The National Institute of Health’s National Library of Medicine provides updated information about federally and privately supported clinical research in human volunteers, along with information about a trial’s purpose, who may participate, locations, and phone numbers for more details. Go to the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

You may remember our report on an even more recent medical breakthrough in mesothelioma treatment using radiotherapy as opposed to chemotherapy.  Visit our post, Australian Researchers Pioneering New Mesothelioma Treatment Using Radiotherapy, for more detailed information on this new technique.

For more information on mesothelioma visit Asbestos-Mesothelioma.com.

Lively’s job at the plant involved hands on, daily interaction with asbestos. He would cut, mold, and fit asbestos insulation and cement.

The dangers of asbestos were known starting in the 1930’s, however, DuPont failed to warn its employees of these dangers until 1970. By this time many of its workers had already died due to their exposure to asbestos. DuPont claims that, “The safety and health of our employees, our neighbors and our community has, and continues to be, DuPont’s highest priority” (emphasis mine).

Really? The highest priority? Why did it take 40 years to decide to let employees know that they were working with materials that could kill them and their families?

Currently, Roger is pursuing a lawsuit on behalf of his mother, who never worked at DuPont and who never worked with asbestos. She merely lived with a man who did. This lawsuit alleges that DuPont should have warned its employees about the dangers of wearing asbestos covered work clothes home and should have given them instructions on the safe management of asbestos.

With its employees, neighbors, and community as its highest priority, the death of employees and their family members should not be required in order to, 40 years later, force DuPont to warn its insulators.

Watch it on Asbestos News Minute.

After Pullman’s claim was denied in March, the Smithsonian Secretary, G. Wayne Clough initiated a study into the asbestos situation at the Smithsonian.  Although Pullman’s settlement is, “no admission of guilt,” Clough’s study did uncover a number of “oversights.”  From The Washington Post:

The engineer’s report, which the Smithsonian gave to The Post, said that the institution failed to use the most reliable method of asbestos testing, which would “afford greater protection for employees, contractors, and the public.”

While the Smithsonian had conducted baseline studies to locate asbestos in facilities years ago, the institution had failed to reinspect buildings every three years, a commonly accepted “best management practice,” the report said.

The Smithsonian also failed to keep a complete record on asbestos-containing material. Workers often did not have adequate information on the location of asbestos or how to work around it, according to the report.

In addition to the settlement money, Mr. Pullman will also have 65 percent of his medical insurance paid by the Smithsonian, and all of his medical treatments related to his asbestosis will be covered by the Museum.  The sanctions filed by the Museum against Mr. Pullman when he came forward alleging safety violations concerning asbestos will also be deleted from his records, and neither of the two parties may disparage each other.

Again, from The Washington Post:

Marshall said his client was pleased with the settlement. “Mr. Pullman feels that he has done his part in the fight for a safer workplace and for the right of workers to advocate the same without fear of retaliation,” Marshall said.

Read the full article, “Smithsonian settles asbestos lawsuit“, from The Washington Post.

Watch it on Asbestos News Minute.

Our final system is called the Brigham System.

Brigham System

The Brigham System looks at different variables such as the involvement of the lymph nodes and the surgical ability to remove a malignant mesothelioma tumor. It is not often used to stage mesothelioma; however, when used it divides malignant mesothelioma into four stages:

For more information visit Asbestos-Mesothelioma.com and MedicineNet.com.