Re: More misconceptions From Policy Holders of America

[Guest guest]

February 23, 2006

H. Bruce Kruger

Managing Director

Practice and Policy

AAAAI

Dear Mr. Kruger:

I am writing you on behalf of members of Policyholders of America who have

expressed deep concerns about your organization’s publication of an article

entitled: " The Medical Effects of Mold Exposure " , by Bush, et al.

Policyholders of America (“POAâ€) is a non-profit, consumer advocacy

organization with more than 3 million members nationwide. Many of our members,

particularly in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, have experienced health effects

due

to exposure to mold and the mycotoxins certain molds produce. POA prides

itself on its moderate position regarding mold problems.

As you know, many medical organizations have discovered that their peer

reviewed research is flawed due to “garbage in, garbage out†syndrome. By

that,

I am referring to instances where researchers and/or authors cite only

articles proving their position despite credible research to the contrary, and

their position is impacted by income derived from expert testimony, or worse,

if

the research itself is skewed or altered to reflect desired results that

enhance the author’s revenue derived from expert testimony.

In the case of your organization’s position paper, POA fears that the AAAAI

has been duped.

Many of the authors of this position paper have an agenda that was not

disclosed nor has their circular logic been disclosed. They cite their own

studies, at the exclusion of studies to the contrary, to enhance their

position.

And, of course, their income is largely derived from one-sided litigation

testimony.

We saw similar conduct in the tobacco litigation days when tobacco companies

would commission literature reviews and those reviews would be authored by

the very experts who (a) exclusively testified on behalf of tobacco companies,

( reviewed only papers supporting their “cause†at the exclusion of more

credible papers authored by researchers holding contrary viewpoints and ©

created a circular pattern whereby they would author flawed papers and get

them published, cite those papers as “gospel†in every subsequent paper

they

would author and cite all such research in every trial in which they were the

named expert.

The group of authors involved in this latest effort totally dismissed

important research conducted by Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center

and

other publicly-funded universities. Even the CDC has characterized one of the

mycotoxin (trichothecene) produced by the Stachybotrys and Fusarium species of

mold as potentially deadly, yet your authors minimize the risks.

I have forwarded, under separate cover, just a few of those papers for your

review.

POA is not interested in getting into a protracted argument about the

motivation behind this article and how your organization may have been duped;

we

are interested however in arming homeowners exposed to certain

mycotoxin-producing mold with credible research so that informed medical

decisions can be

made.

We urge your board to consider distancing itself from this paper and any

author, regardless of what side of the fence they sit, whose income is derived

from biased expert witness assignments.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Melinda Ballard

President