This week s announcement from Mount Sinai Hospital s World Trade Center Health Program that Ground Zero workers have been found to have a 15 percent higher rate of cancer than expected set off cries for more compensation for the heroic WTC victims of the toxic dust at the site of the terrorist destruction over 11 years ago.
The reality of the statistical analysis, or more accurately manipulation of the data to arrive at the expected, satisfying (to politicians and those now eligible for compensation) results will offend not only scientists and epidemiologists who know how to parse such data, but the real victims of the terrorist attack. The new findings are basically a re-hash of those announced in June of 2012 by NIOSH s Dr. John Howard.
At that time, we pointed out that this is not a win-win for those who toiled at the 9-11 site: Considering that the size of the 9/11 federal health care fund is fixed, compensating those diagnosed with one of the covered cancers will reduce the amount available for those who suffered from ailments much more clearly linked to the attacks, such as respiratory or gastrointestinal problems.
The scientific flaws in the report are obvious: some of the most egregious include the lack of a dose-response those who were most exposed to the dust did not have an increased risk of cancer; for those cancers ostensibly found at a higher rate prostate, thyroid, and an aggregate of various blood-forming cancers there is zero biological link among prior studies to anything in the dust, or even occupationally; and even among those, there was no specific type of cancer found to be elevated, only a conglom of all the different types, which is simply not valid, epidemiologically.
It must be said, that the official publication in Environmental Health Perspectives, was far less breathless than most of the popular media coverage. Here is their abstract summary:
Estimates should be interpreted with caution given the short follow-up and long latency period for most cancers, the intensive medical surveillance of this cohort, and the small numbers of cancers at specific sites. However, our findings highlight the need for continued follow up and surveillance of WTC responders.
I would interpret this to mean that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the folks at the Mt. Sinai WTC center desire to keep federal funding coming for more, and more, such follow-up studies in order to justify both their own staff salaries and the compensation for cancers now certified as being WTC-dust related.
ACSH s Dr. Gilbert Ross emphasized, Hey, here s a better idea! Why not compensate all the victims of any terrorist attack on Americans, anywhere, anytime, for all injuries? I believe that the federal government should pay for all the healthcare, prosthetics and rehab that the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing sustained. That would be reasonable, as opposed to this phony cancer claim regarding the 9-11 attacks. (Disclosure: my wife sustained serious but non-permanent injuries on 9-11 and she/we received a small amount of money from the original Feinberg fund).