Does anyone know who is funding this AOEC Seminar in March?

[Guest guest]

Hey,

Does anyone know who is the funding source for this upcoming seminar by AOEC

doctors?

https://www.acmt.net/content/meetings/Spring_Course_2006.pdf

I know the Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics is

supported by ATSDR (the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry) and

NIOSH

(the National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health),

But do you think they are funding a presentation by one of their doctors

entitled " Mold Health Effects, Fact v. Fiction " ?.

Dr. Baker runs the U of Minnesota Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Residency. AOEC and the ACOEM work closely together - same doctors in most

cases.

You don't think she is planning on quoting the ACOEM Mold Statement in her

presentation, do you? Because that is dancing close to the flame of CONFLICT

OF INTEREST. Wallace, MD, FACMT, Associate Director of Medical

Toxicology at Veritox (used to be GlobalTox), is also presenting at this

seminar.

Veritox principals wrote the ACOEM Mold Statement and have generated much

income supporting and being supported by this as expert defense witnesses.

Given the fact that the ACOEM Mold Statement is not based on current

accepted scientific evidence. It was written by known defensors of

GlobalTox/Veritox

and it was then " translated " into lay terms by it's authors for $40K -

(calling mold illnesses junk science, media hype and trial lawyers), this

seminar

could easily implicate NIOSH in a financial quagmire involving Conflict of

Interest!!!! Oh! And one of the principals of GlobalTox/Veritox is the

Retired Assistant Surgeon General with NIOSH. Looks Stinky! Stinky!

WONDER WHO IS FUNDING THIS SEMINAR?

Here is the presenter of " Mold Health Effects Fact vs. Fiction " comin up in

March

MINNESOTA

HealthPartners-University of Minnesota

Beth Baker MD, MPH Beth.A.Baker@...

a Geiger at a.A.Geiger@...

Phone: 651-254-5180

Fax: 651-254-1417

Mailing Address

Occupational and Environmental Medicine Residency

Regions Hospital, MS11503N

640 Street

St. , MN 55101

Web Address

www.healthpartners.com/Menu/0,1791,1376,00.html

Sounds like it could be real similar to the same set up used in the

following Wall Street Journal article:

December 29, 2005

On Campus, Industry Sets Up

A Perchlorate Confab

By PETER WALDMAN

Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

December 29, 2005; Page A5

For a look at how science advocacy by industry works, consider a symposium

held to discuss perchlorate, a military chemical that taints some

drinking-water supplies and that the Environmental Protection Agency seeks to

regulate.

The host was the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. The aim was

" a critical and objective evaluation " of research on the chemical, a

university official later said. But while the university lent its imprimatur and

thus credibility to the event, the symposium was paid for by defense contractors

and the Pentagon and orchestrated by industry consultants, who kept evidence

of their own role to a minimum.

Afterward, the Pentagon dispatched six conference participants to present

the event's conclusions to a National Research Council panel that was

evaluating perchlorate for the U.S. government.

Intertox Inc., a consulting firm that advises defense contractors, billed

them about $75,000 for organizing the September 2003 event, an invoice shows.

University documents show that Intertox chose the format and agenda and

selected the experts who would appear.

One session evaluated studies of the chemical's effects on developing brains

of rats. Two of the four scientists Intertox picked for this panel

previously had severely criticized the studies.

A third panel member, Elberger of the University of Tennessee, says

that when she was recruited by the head of Intertox, Pleus, he didn't

mention he worked for perchlorate users. The fourth reviewer was a consultant

to the defense industry, who presented a blistering attack on the rat

research without EPA rebuttal.

Dr. Pleus says that speaker was inserted at the last minute, and an EPA

scientist who'd been invited to balance his comments couldn't attend. Dr. Pleus

also said he didn't recall what he had said when recruiting Dr. Elberger of

Tennessee. And, in a written reply to questions, Dr. Pleus said that at the

symposium as a whole, which had several other panels, most reviewers knew

nothing about perchlorate ahead of time, and those who did added valuable

expertise.

The event brought the university a total of $64,500 in fees, profits and a

faculty grant, documents show. It's common for universities to accept funding

from interested parties for research and conferences, but usually the

university, not the interested parties, plans the events.

In this case, the university -- which disclosed the industry sponsorship in

the program and in a Web site -- formed a four-member planning committee for

the three-day symposium. On it were Dr. Pleus, another industry consultant and

two professors at the medical center.

A university internal memo said that " Intertox preferred to be a 'silent'

player in the planning process. " Intertox staffers drafted most symposium

correspondence, and the documents then were sent to the university for

distribution on its letterhead with faculty signatures. To simplify things,

Intertox

obtained electronic signatures by the two university professors on the planning

committee.

In a letter of understanding with the university, Intertox removed mention

of its " assistance " in arranging the event's content, speakers, format and

funding. When a university planner emailed Intertox a draft announcement of the

event and asked if it was " OK to mention Intertox, " an Intertox employee

responded by deleting the reference to the firm.

Dr. Pleus called these " trivial " matters in which Intertox, which is based

in Seattle, was merely editing papers for accuracy. Dr. Pleus, who did a

postdoctoral program in pharmacology at the University of Nebraska a decade ago

and is an adjunct professor there, denied that his consulting firm tried to be a

silent organizer. He described the professors on the planning committee as

" distinguished scientists [who] would have been outraged at such an

arrangement. "

Dr. Pleus said his " active role " in developing the symposium was " highly

transparent, " and " all substantive decisions were made by consensus of the

planning committee. " He said his consulting firm performed " clerical and

administrative functions as a courtesy to university faculty and staff " and

never took

" any surreptitious action under the cover of the university's authority. " He

said the symposium exceeded the EPA's standards for objectivity in peer

reviews.

The university asked one of the professors on the planning committee,

Berndt, to respond to questions. He deferred to Dr. Pleus's responses in

many cases but said, " Obviously, we at UNMC were aware that Dr. Pleus had

consulted with the Perchlorate Study Group, " which is a group of defense

contractors that, documents show, paid Intertox about $465,000 in 2002. Dr.

Berndt

also said, " This conference was like any other conference I've been associated

with. This was an independent conference. "

After it closed, the university medical center issued a news release under

its letterhead that spoke of the reviewers' " questions " about the " basic

assumptions " of the EPA's risk assessment of the munitions chemical. University

documents show the announcement was mostly written by a Sacramento, Calif.,

public-relations firm that works for users of perchlorate. Dr. Pleus said he

brought in the P.R. firm " because they were knowledgeable on the subject and

[the university] had limited resources. "

Here is a portion of another report involving Intertox and GlobalTox/Veritox

regarding safe lead levels in school drinking water. GlobalTox got paid

$15K to review the work of Intertox:

Friday, March 25, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 a.m.

Report Says Lead Levels In Schools' Water Not Dire

.... " I am confident that no child experienced the level of sustained exposure

that would be necessary to cause any significant effect on mental

development, " wrote Eaton, a UW toxicology expert who reviewed Intertox's

study.

He cited three reasons: Studies done by Intertox and the UW's pediatric

environmental-health specialty unit both showed the health risks to Seattle

students were extremely low, partly because of the students' age. Exposure to

lead

is most hazardous from birth to age 4, a critical period of brain

development. And the students also weren't drinking school water year-round,

given

summer and winter breaks and weekends....

.... " Nevertheless, I do not believe that school drinking water could have

produced blood lead levels sufficient to produce any detectable or lasting

impact on health in any child, " wrote Hardin, a panel member whose Redmond

firm, GlobalTox, coordinated the peer review for $15,000.

SO I WONDER WHO IS FUNDING THIS UPCOMING SEMINAR?

Thanks,

Sharon

[Guest guest]

It is a good question. The doctor is listed as working for Health Partners,

which is my

insurance company. They have recently denied the claims my doctor has submitted

for my

allergy testing and treatment, and have made it retroactive to the first of last

year. This is

a change in policy for them, as they had previously been paying for this

treatment.

My own opinion is that they may have hired someone to help contain costs, and

that

person is hostile to any medical advances- they may even be on the side of those

who

declared a war of sorts on Environmental allergy doctors in the state (which has

been

going on for over 10 years).

This doctor has saved my life, no other doctor in the state of mn was able to

help me over

the more than 15 years I suffered from this problem.

I would not trust this seminar, due to the person paying this doctor's salary

has recently

joined ranks with a company that has added tremendously to my own suffering.

Shame on

all of them.

PS- I left a msg with her voicemail asking her to call me re the upcoming

seminar.

>

> Hey,

>

> Does anyone know who is the funding source for this upcoming seminar by AOEC

> doctors?

>

> https://www.acmt.net/content/meetings/Spring_Course_2006.pdf

>

> I know the Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics is

> supported by ATSDR (the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry) and

NIOSH

> (the National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health),

>

> But do you think they are funding a presentation by one of their doctors

> entitled " Mold Health Effects, Fact v. Fiction " ?.

>

> Dr. Baker runs the U of Minnesota Occupational and Environmental Medicine

> Residency. AOEC and the ACOEM work closely together - same doctors in most

> cases.

>

> You don't think she is planning on quoting the ACOEM Mold Statement in her

> presentation, do you? Because that is dancing close to the flame of CONFLICT

> OF INTEREST. Wallace, MD, FACMT, Associate Director of Medical

> Toxicology at Veritox (used to be GlobalTox), is also presenting at this

seminar.

>

> Veritox principals wrote the ACOEM Mold Statement and have generated much

> income supporting and being supported by this as expert defense witnesses.

>

> Given the fact that the ACOEM Mold Statement is not based on current

> accepted scientific evidence. It was written by known defensors of

GlobalTox/Veritox

> and it was then " translated " into lay terms by it's authors for $40K -

> (calling mold illnesses junk science, media hype and trial lawyers), this

seminar

> could easily implicate NIOSH in a financial quagmire involving Conflict of

> Interest!!!! Oh! And one of the principals of GlobalTox/Veritox is the

> Retired Assistant Surgeon General with NIOSH. Looks Stinky! Stinky!

>

>

>

> WONDER WHO IS FUNDING THIS SEMINAR?

>

>

>

> Here is the presenter of " Mold Health Effects Fact vs. Fiction " comin up in

> March

>

> MINNESOTA

> HealthPartners-University of Minnesota

> Beth Baker MD, MPH Beth.A.Baker@H...

> a Geiger at a.A.Geiger@h...

> Phone: 651-254-5180

> Fax: 651-254-1417

> Mailing Address

> Occupational and Environmental Medicine Residency

> Regions Hospital, MS11503N

> 640 Street

> St. , MN 55101

> Web Address

> www.healthpartners.com/Menu/0,1791,1376,00.html

>

>

> Sounds like it could be real similar to the same set up used in the

> following Wall Street Journal article:

>

> December 29, 2005

>

> On Campus, Industry Sets Up

> A Perchlorate Confab

> By PETER WALDMAN

> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

> December 29, 2005; Page A5

>

> For a look at how science advocacy by industry works, consider a symposium

> held to discuss perchlorate, a military chemical that taints some

> drinking-water supplies and that the Environmental Protection Agency seeks to

regulate.

>

> The host was the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. The aim was

> " a critical and objective evaluation " of research on the chemical, a

> university official later said. But while the university lent its imprimatur

and

> thus credibility to the event, the symposium was paid for by defense

contractors

> and the Pentagon and orchestrated by industry consultants, who kept evidence

> of their own role to a minimum.

>

> Afterward, the Pentagon dispatched six conference participants to present

> the event's conclusions to a National Research Council panel that was

> evaluating perchlorate for the U.S. government.

>

> Intertox Inc., a consulting firm that advises defense contractors, billed

> them about $75,000 for organizing the September 2003 event, an invoice shows.

> University documents show that Intertox chose the format and agenda and

> selected the experts who would appear.

> One session evaluated studies of the chemical's effects on developing brains

> of rats. Two of the four scientists Intertox picked for this panel

> previously had severely criticized the studies.

>

> A third panel member, Elberger of the University of Tennessee, says

> that when she was recruited by the head of Intertox, Pleus, he didn't

> mention he worked for perchlorate users. The fourth reviewer was a consultant

> to the defense industry, who presented a blistering attack on the rat

> research without EPA rebuttal.

>

> Dr. Pleus says that speaker was inserted at the last minute, and an EPA

> scientist who'd been invited to balance his comments couldn't attend. Dr.

Pleus

> also said he didn't recall what he had said when recruiting Dr. Elberger of

> Tennessee. And, in a written reply to questions, Dr. Pleus said that at the

> symposium as a whole, which had several other panels, most reviewers knew

> nothing about perchlorate ahead of time, and those who did added valuable

expertise.

>

> The event brought the university a total of $64,500 in fees, profits and a

> faculty grant, documents show. It's common for universities to accept funding

> from interested parties for research and conferences, but usually the

> university, not the interested parties, plans the events.

>

> In this case, the university -- which disclosed the industry sponsorship in

> the program and in a Web site -- formed a four-member planning committee for

> the three-day symposium. On it were Dr. Pleus, another industry consultant

and

> two professors at the medical center.

> A university internal memo said that " Intertox preferred to be a 'silent'

> player in the planning process. " Intertox staffers drafted most symposium

> correspondence, and the documents then were sent to the university for

> distribution on its letterhead with faculty signatures. To simplify things,

Intertox

> obtained electronic signatures by the two university professors on the

planning

> committee.

>

> In a letter of understanding with the university, Intertox removed mention

> of its " assistance " in arranging the event's content, speakers, format and

> funding. When a university planner emailed Intertox a draft announcement of

the

> event and asked if it was " OK to mention Intertox, " an Intertox employee

> responded by deleting the reference to the firm.

>

> Dr. Pleus called these " trivial " matters in which Intertox, which is based

> in Seattle, was merely editing papers for accuracy. Dr. Pleus, who did a

> postdoctoral program in pharmacology at the University of Nebraska a decade

ago

> and is an adjunct professor there, denied that his consulting firm tried to be

a

> silent organizer. He described the professors on the planning committee as

> " distinguished scientists [who] would have been outraged at such an

> arrangement. "

>

> Dr. Pleus said his " active role " in developing the symposium was " highly

> transparent, " and " all substantive decisions were made by consensus of the

> planning committee. " He said his consulting firm performed " clerical and

> administrative functions as a courtesy to university faculty and staff " and

never took

> " any surreptitious action under the cover of the university's authority. " He

> said the symposium exceeded the EPA's standards for objectivity in peer

> reviews.

>

> The university asked one of the professors on the planning committee,

> Berndt, to respond to questions. He deferred to Dr. Pleus's responses

in

> many cases but said, " Obviously, we at UNMC were aware that Dr. Pleus had

> consulted with the Perchlorate Study Group, " which is a group of defense

> contractors that, documents show, paid Intertox about $465,000 in 2002. Dr.

Berndt

> also said, " This conference was like any other conference I've been

associated

> with. This was an independent conference. "

>

> After it closed, the university medical center issued a news release under

> its letterhead that spoke of the reviewers' " questions " about the " basic

> assumptions " of the EPA's risk assessment of the munitions chemical.

University

> documents show the announcement was mostly written by a Sacramento, Calif.,

> public-relations firm that works for users of perchlorate. Dr. Pleus said he

> brought in the P.R. firm " because they were knowledgeable on the subject and

> [the university] had limited resources. "

>

>

> Here is a portion of another report involving Intertox and GlobalTox/Veritox

> regarding safe lead levels in school drinking water. GlobalTox got paid

> $15K to review the work of Intertox:

>

> Friday, March 25, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 a.m.

>

> Report Says Lead Levels In Schools' Water Not Dire

>

> ... " I am confident that no child experienced the level of sustained exposure

> that would be necessary to cause any significant effect on mental

> development, " wrote Eaton, a UW toxicology expert who reviewed

Intertox's

study.

>

> He cited three reasons: Studies done by Intertox and the UW's pediatric

> environmental-health specialty unit both showed the health risks to Seattle

> students were extremely low, partly because of the students' age. Exposure to

lead

> is most hazardous from birth to age 4, a critical period of brain

> development. And the students also weren't drinking school water year-round,

given

> summer and winter breaks and weekends....

>

> ... " Nevertheless, I do not believe that school drinking water could have

> produced blood lead levels sufficient to produce any detectable or lasting

> impact on health in any child, " wrote Hardin, a panel member whose

Redmond

> firm, GlobalTox, coordinated the peer review for $15,000.

>

> SO I WONDER WHO IS FUNDING THIS UPCOMING SEMINAR?

>

> Thanks,

> Sharon