Activism

[Guest guest]

Are you active in any capacity in changing the environment for the

better? CMT related or not?

I am going to school to be a Special Ed teacher. Because of my

experience as a child with disabilities, I am finding that I have a

strong potential for success in this field. I want to eventually be an

advocate for children, working in administration and making sure that

schools are in compliance with IDEA.

Lorna

[Guest guest]

Yes, Lorna, I am activist of sorts for CMT. I am also serving on my

county's Advisory Board for Drug and Alcohol Policy and Programs. Add my

newest interest now I am on my Homeowner's Association Board, trying to

straighten out the cr** and represent Homeowner's Rights. I follow

disability activism also and am interested in Disability Rights and

enforcement of ADA guidelines ~ Gretchen

[Guest guest]

Carl,

The anonymous advice is well written. But it missed the third way to

address this matter. And that would be for our elected officials in Washington

DC to get off their duffs and call the US Chamber of Commerce and other

PACs on the carpet for promoting false science to the courts. A simple two

hour hearing by the government oversight committee or the science and

technology committee would shut this down.

Is that too much too ask of those who we pay to sit in those seats in DC?

They know EXACTLY where the deceit that was marketed to the courts over

this issue lays and how the false science of the Chamber and company

continues to be presented to the courts, while lives hang in the balance.

_http://www.topix.com/health/2009/11/amicus-brief-filed-mold-in-apt-2-infant

-deaths-cites-us-chamber-acoem-litigation-defense-report_

(http://www.topix.com/health/2009/11/amicus-brief-filed-mold-in-apt-2-infant-dea\

ths-cites-us-c

hamber-acoem-litigation-defense-report)

This used to be a Republican driven problem. But lack of action by the

Democrats, who have controlled the House and the Senate since 2006, now makes

it their problem.

Education is a two part endeavor:

1. Education of the true science

2. Education of how the false science gets marketed to the courts for the

purpose of instilling judicial perception bias is another.

I can tell you, there is not a single mold attorney out there that will

directly take on the US Chamber of Commerce over this issue. From what I can

tell, 99.999% of the mold attorneys out there are ignorant of how

pre-marketing to the courts that their clients are liars and whiners via ACOEM

and

the Chamber impacts their cases. They have trouble seeing beyond their own

litigations. And then scratch their heads wondering why they lost. They

don't get it that the courts think they are losers before they even speak

the first word.

The US Chamber paper was SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN FOR JUDGES. Judges have it

pre-marketed to them that all claims of illness from mold are just a result

of " trial lawyers, media and junk science " .

_http://www.blip.tv/file/2756814/_ (http://www.blip.tv/file/2756814/)

Nor, apparently is there a single politician in Washington DC that will do

it either. So sad. A two hour hearing on the Hill and the mass marketing

of the deceit would be publicly known, allowing the education of the true

science to flourish.

So why should you and I have to spend years fighting to educate of the

true science when all it would take is a couple of hours of elected officials

in DC to stop turning a blind eye to the deceit that is causing a major

problem?

_http://www.blip.tv/file/1179464/_ (http://www.blip.tv/file/1179464/)

And please, share this message with annoymous. If those in the know of

where the deceit lays would speak out about it in DC, instead of just trying

to educate to the true science because they don't like to get down in the

dirt, we would be there.

You yourself wrote of the fear of retribution that keeps good men silent.

Evil flourishes when good men stand by and do nothing. And if ever there

was an issue that clearly demonstrates this point, it is the mold issue.

" INDUSTRY VIEWS: THE BEST AND WORST OF IAQ IN 2006

Carl Grimes, President, Healthy Habitats, Denver, Colo.

WORST –...Which leads directly to the second on my Worst list. No,

it’s not the ACOEM and their position statement as reported in the

Sharon Kramer interview last month. Rather, it’s the silence of all

those in the know. And there seems to be a lot of them. I’ve had

15

conversations with “a number†of people since I wrote that interview

who essentially confirm the disingenuousness of that paper. Some

even add additional evidence and further wrongdoing. Yet not a one,

not a single one, is willing to go public with their information. When

I ask them why I can’t use their name, or why they don’t write a

rebuttal, they all offer essentially the same answer: the fear of

retribution. "

Carl,

It has personally cost me over $1,000,000.00 not to shut up. I am not a

scientist. I am not a physician. Where the Hell are the good men to speak

out that could shut this down? If ever there was a case of the bystander

effect where those who could stop a crime do not because it is not their

responsibility, THIS IS IT.

Go back and tell anonymous that option #3 is the most expedient method.

And tell him I said it is morally wrong to sit silently and watch the deceit

continue when they could stop the gang rape of so many US citizens if they

and the other honorable men and women of science would just speak up.

_http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/28/california.gang.rape.bystander/index.ht

ml_

(http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/28/california.gang.rape.bystander/index.html)

And tell him I said " Hi " from the trenches.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Thank you Carl-you know I'm not much of a leader, but I'm a great follower. If

someone would tell me what to do, where to write, what to say, i would do it.

You're going in the right direction-so thanks!

>

> Group,

>

> I received the following in a private e-mail. I think what they have

> to say is important and they gave me permission to re-post it

> here. I have a comment at the end.

>

> -----begin re-post-----

>

> There are only two ways to limit the ability of people to profit

> using poison or by neglect of science.

>

> 1. Public education. Teach the

[Guest guest]

Carl - That advice is well taken. I remember the Mc's case well. The

public saw the large initial " judgment award " but not the " remittitur " or

reduction in the award. And, it happeneded in the Ballard trial. But what the

public does not see or remember is the procedural change made upon appeal of the

judgment. People don't understand that there is a " deterrent " factor in a harsh

money award.

The temperature of the coffee was shocking. The fact that almost everyone runs

through the " drive through " makes the conduct egregious because of the amount of

people who could potentially be harmed. A lawsuit is hardly a cake-walk, but it

is represented as such but those who are interested in tort reform, to minimize

their " exposure as a cost of doing business. "

There are more trials that need to be held to show " egregiousness " and " willfull

disregard of the health and safety of the public. "

So people can rant on about rich lawyers all they want but they should look up

the Leukemia trial in Woburn, Mass. in which the lawyer, played by

Travolta, Jan Schlictmann lost everything. Everything. Everything. The Civil

Action. This got press about how the system functions.

Thanks for that post.

>

> Group,

>

> I received the following in a private e-mail. I think what they have

> to say is important and they gave me permission to re-post it

> here. I have a comment at the end.

[Guest guest]

- I don't disagree. But you have to come to the table with irrefutable

medicals from your own doctors and a link or " nexus " to where the exposure

injury happened. It is tough.

No one expects their doctors to BE the problem, adding insult to injury. They

expect the relationship to not be controlled by " outside forces "

I think people hae to wary of non-profits until they know where all the funding

comes from. These organizations might have ties to pharma or agribusiness and

they are hidden and not openly revealed and look as if they are in business for

all the right reasons.

Drug companies are always looking for some " cohort " to do a " trial " with and

often use funding into a non-profit to get their foot in the door, so they can

gain favor with government officials. They can be the nicest well-meaning

people in the world but the dough that funds the jobs may not be in alignment

with the best interests of the people they are purportedly " serving. "

Caveat Emptor. Let the Buyer Beware. There are a lot of charlatans around

looking to make " gold from mold " and it is sometimes hard to tell who the bad

ones are. There is only money in failure, not success, for programs, tailored

to " help " the masses. It is true in education as well as health care. Think of

bailout. Bailout is for failure.

>

> There is another big factor involved in litigation. It's called dirty money.

There is a lot of corruption and pay-offs all over the country especially in

mold cases that have significant damages at stake. There are many articles on

the Internet about the corruption in the system. Start with the Wall Street

Journal articled titled " Justice for Sale. "

>

>