Perhaps you are unfamiliar with medical research but stating that available data is poor quality is an objective assessment. I provided a brief explanation in parentheses which you excluded for some reason.

I also provided a reference that is open access but here is the relevant section for you:

In Canada, there are no national data on the incidence or prevalence of silicosis. In the province of Alberta, where silicosis is a notifiable disease, health insurance data revealed 861 cases with at least one reported diagnosis of ‘silicosis’ during a period of 10 years from 2000. These results were based on raw data and not a secondary review of primary imaging and clinical information. Data from 2000 through 2009 showed that only 29 workers' compensation claims were accepted for silicosis in Alberta. Data from Quebec's compensation system revealed 351 compensated cases of silicosis between 1988 and 1998. Of note, workers who participated in regular surveillance had milder disease at the time of compensation.

The JAMA study is from 2019-2022. Data that is 20-30 years old is relatively poor quality.

Changes in medicine, workplace safety rules and occupational trends makes it hard to compare to silicosis rates in Canada to the US in order to assess the claims of the comment I replied to therefore I think the relative incidence described in this review article (from 2022) is inaccurate.

If you want to disregard my quality assessment, the discussion ends with the review article showing silicosis rates are 3x higher in Canada.

Can you elaborate on how any of this shows I have an axe to grind or that I’m biased?

Canadian here who believes our labour safety standards are generally better than the USA (based on anecdote and experience, not data).

Canadian data is poor quality. On any issue you might care to pick, the topic is better studied in the United States. I run into this all the time. For example, we make allocation decisions at a charity I volunteer at with, about what health problems unemployed LGBT people tend to have. We use data for American urban populations. The data doesn't exist for Canada, AFAIK. It's a smaller country! There's simply less research and statistic-taking done! It's a reasonable statement.

Besides -- commenting on the lack of good data usually implies the exact opposite of what you seem to think -- it is an admission by the poster that their argument is based on weak evidence.

> it is an admission by the poster that their argument is based on weak evidence.

Which is exactly why I limited my reply to a discussion about the California study and healthcare systems rather than reiterating the claims in the 2022 article I referenced which states silicosis incidence is 3x higher in Canada, based on 20-30 year old data.

Although I live in the US now I’m a dual citizen and practiced medicine in both countries, the only axe I have to grind with Canada is the harsh winters which are incompatible with my fragile desert descent body.