The claims on occupational risks, chemicals correlated with the disease, occur every week, from non -stick spatulas to flame retardant sofas, and the group attacked more for those efforts than pregnant women are lifeguards as firefighters.
A new paper Link gliomas in the brain or spinal cords with a specific mutation and then using epidemiological correlation to “suggest” cause of haloalkene, a common chemist in use for 600 years and in the twentieth century in almost all homes with fire extinguishing, but then denying that they try to suggest causing in the background.
This document is only exploratory due to the link to a link to a correlation and the small sample size, barely greater than the role that linked vaccines with autism and wheat with brain cancer. The authors used 17 firefighters and another 18 and found a “mutational firm” in firefighters but also in the other group, and claim that the others were probably exposed to the Haloalkanos SBS42 painting or being mechanical. Even for activist epidemiology, this is a section.
Even more reasons for scientific skepticism is that this document was written to confirm the claims that the authors had already made. The “emerging evidence” of the manufacture of litigating lawyers affirms that they can use in front of the jurors using a highly successful strategy that implies obtaining a written high profile and then additional documents written to cite it and underpin their creditability. (1)
Is being white the big risk factor for a brain tumor in firefighters? A man? Of course, using epidemiology, it can affirm that, as can affirm that autism is linked to the popularity of organic foods, but the greatest risk factor is what neutral people quickly indicate: age. Live enough and there is a 100% chance that you get some type of cancer.
Then it will appear in a correlation of the IARC or the Ramazzini Institute or in a Grupo Niehs and calls to the prohibitions will begin, with demands to follow.
No one says that the authors are working for a litigating lawyer. As with Naomi Oreskes, PHD, which would not be known unless a lawsuit makes them under oath, the conflicts of interest that these authors declare, the pharmaceutical funds and other companies, are not related to the claims of epidemiology, but it seems strange that a class of compounds in use for 600 years, and in common in homes and businesses during the last 200 years, are suggested as causes for cancer.
Scientists ask the obvious question as the public should; Given its prevalence, where are all bodies? Cancers have not increased, have come down, mainly thanks to the decrease in smoking, and will probably decrease even more because young people are skeptical about ‘moderation’ statements about alcohol that seem strange about a real carcinogen.
Epidemiology can correlate anything with anything in 2025 because we can detect anything in anything in 2025 and that means that a spreadsheet can suggest a link. There are chemicals that are legitimately restricted to experts for a good reason, as well as smallpox and research on the investigation of functions for bats of bats should have been restricted from Chinese laboratories, but that is not a good reason to put firefighters at real risk while they claim that they need prohibitions against virtual.
The best way to save the life of firefighters is less fires, and that is what the flame retardant chemicals achieve.
NOTE:
(1) Here is an example of the activist scholar Dr. Henk Tennekes that described the tactics that took him out of the Academy in 1992: 
#Epidemiologists #blame #science #fifteenth #century #modern #brain #tumors
