Re: Significance Court Order That Impacts Us All - Spread the Word!!!!!

[Guest guest]

seems like these people should have to pay all the ill for the

suffering all these years. Thank you Sharon,

>

>

> June 11, 2006

>

> Please forward the following valuable information to all

interested parties.

> Ie. Physicians, Researchers, Attorneys, Mold Victims, Health

Advocates,

> Building Stakeholders and Regulatory Bodies.

>

> Are you aware of the Order, April 14, 2006, Sacramento, CA?

It is an

> issue changing significant finding that will remove ‘road

blocks’ and allow

> the medical understanding of mold induced illnesses to more

readily move

> forward.

> The significance of this Ruling as it pertains to mold

litigation is:

>

> The defense argument of " not plausible, improbable and junk

science " has now

> been determined by the courts to be " not plausible, improbable and

junk

> science " .

> The Ruling is a huge blow to those who are most concerned

about

> perpetuating the litigation defense argument that serious mold

illnesses do occur

> from exposure within an indoor environment. The Ruling discredits

the entire

> foundation of All the medical associations, government documents,

etc, that

> illness from inhaling mycotoxins indoors is " not plausible,

improbable and junk

> science " . One could say those, who more concerned of financial

liability

> than they are of the lives and safety of others, just got a

“fatal dose†of

> their own medicine.

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Case # 02AS04291, Harold and D. Lee Harold, Plaintiffs vs.

California

> Casualty Insurance Company and Westmont Construction, Inc.,

Defendants

>

> Honorable P. Kenny, Judge of the Superior Court of

California,

> County of Sacramento

> The Plaintiffs were represented by Alfert, Attorney at Law;

J.

> Cochrane, Attorney at Law, and Kahn, Attorney at Law.

> The Defendant, California Casualty Insurance Company, was

represented by

> M. , Attorney at Law, and S. McLay, Attorney

at Law.

> The Defendant, Westmont Construction Company, was represented by

E.

> Enabnit, Attorney at Law.

> Jury award to plaintiffs: $2.3 Million.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Subject paper deemed not acceptable by Ruling, April 14,

2006

>

> Title: Risk from inhaled mycotoxins in indoor office and

residential

> environments. Int J

> Toxicol 2004; 23: 3-10.

> Robbins CA, Swenson LJ, Hardin BD (Principals of litigation defense

support

> corp.

> Veritox, Inc and formerly named GlobalTox, Inc.)

> Slang: Veritox, 2004

>

> The above is the review piece that was found not to be based upon

sound

> science and therefore not to be presented in the court before a

jury. The judge

> found it to be a " huge leap " , for PhD's to take rodent studies,

apply a

> little math and then write a review that all human illness is not

plausible from

> mycotoxin inhalation within an indoor environment. Dr. Robbins of

Veritox,

> Inc., could not cite anyone else's research or review paper that

made the same

> conclusion.

> The reason for this is because there are not any.

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> To understand why this is such a boon to move the medical science

forward

> and a huge blow to the defense in mold litigation, one has to go

back to the

> year 2000:

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~

> 2000

> Title: Health effects of mycotoxins in indoor air: a critical

review. Appl

> Occup Environ

> Hyg.2000;15:773-84.

> Robbins CA, Swenson, L.J., Nealley, M.L., Kelman, B.J. and Gots,

R.E.

> Slang: Veritox, 2000

>

> Robbins, Swenson and Kelman - Principals in defense litigation

support corp,

> Veritox.

> Nealley and Gots -Defense experts with International Center for

Toxicology

> and Medicine.

>

> Veritox 2000 is based on the same premise as the Veritox 2004

cited above.

> Rodents, authors added math, human illness not plausible.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> 2002

> The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

(ACOEM) Mold

> Statement

> Title: Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the

Indoor

> Environment

> October 27, 2002

> Kelman BJ (Veritox), Hardin BD (Veritox), Saxon AJ.(University of

California

> - UC)

> Edited & published in the Journal of ACOEM, the JOEM 2003

> Slang: ACOEM MS, 2002

>

> " Levels of exposure in the indoor environment, dose-response data

in

> animals, and dose-rate considerations suggest that delivery by the

> inhalation route of a toxic dose of mycotoxins in the indoor

environment is

> highly unlikely at best, even for the hypothetically most

vulnerable

> subpopulations. "

>

> Sole reference for the above statement:

> Veritox, 2000. Reference 63

> NONE of the other 83 references cited for this ‘state of the art

review piece

> ’ support the above conclusion.

> ACOEM MS, 2002 was presented as a position statement purportedly

> representative of 7000 physicians’ understanding of mold/mold

toxin induced illness.

> ACOEM is made up primarily of physicians who evaluate injured

workers on

> behalf of insurers and employers.

>

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> 2003

> US Chamber/Manhattan Institute Mold Statement

> Title: A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold

> Hardin, PhD (Veritox), Saxon MD (UC), Correen

Robbins, PhD,

> CIH

> (Veritox) and Bruce J. Kelman, Ph.D., DABT (Veritox)

> Slang: USCC MS, 2003

>

> “Thus the notion that ‘toxic mold’ is an insidious secret

‘killer’ as so

> many

> media reports and trial lawyers would claim is ‘Junk Science’

unsupported

> by actual scientific study.â€

> Sole references for the above statement:

> Veritox, 2000 and ACOEM MS 2002

> The USCC MS 2003 has been reported by the Veritox authors to be

a " lay

> translation " of the ACOEM Mold Statement. They were

‘commissioned’ by the

> Manhattan Institute to write this lay translation and received

$40,000 for this ‘

> commissioned lay translation’ of the ACOEM Mold Statement. It was

then shared

> with stakeholder industries (real estate, building, mortgage and

insurance)

> in a fanfare presentation in Washington, DC, July 17, 2003.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> 2003

> National Association of Realtors (NAR)

> Title: Moldy Claims: The Junk Science of Toxic Mold

> Kelman BJ.(Veritox) Hardin BD.(Veritox) Saxon AJ.(UC)

> Slang: NAR 2003

>

> “Thus the notion that ‘toxic mold’ is an insidious secret

‘killer’ as so

> many

> media reports and trial lawyers would claim is ‘Junk Science’

unsupported

> by actual scientific study.â€

>

> Sole references for the above statement:

> Veritox, 2000, ACOEM MS 2002 and USCC MS 2003.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> 2004

> Title: Risk from inhaled mycotoxins in indoor office and

residential

> environments. Int J

> Toxicol 2004; 23: 3-10.

> Robbins CA, Swenson LJ, Hardin BD. (Veritox, Inc. Principals)

> Slang: Veritox, 2004

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> 2003 to 2005

> Various Government Regulatory (CDC & EPA), Medical Associations

(ACAAI,

> SOT), Industrial Hygeine Associations (AIHA), etc. make the

findings of " not

> plausible " citing Veritox 2000, ACOEM MS 2002, USCC MS 2003, NAR

2003 and/or

> Veritox 2004. These five review papers have been cited as

authoritative documents

> by the defense in virtually every mold litigation case in the US.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> 2006

> American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) Mold

Position

> Title: The medical effects of mold exposure

> Bush RK, Terr A.(UC), Saxon AJ (UC) and Wood RA.

> Slang: Quad AI 2006

>

> “Calculations for both acute and subacute exposures on the basis

of the

> maximum amount of mycotoxins found per mold spore for various

> mycotoxins and the levels at which adverse health effects are

observed

> make it highly improbable that home or office mycotoxin exposures

would

> lead to a toxic adverse health effects.1, 29

>

> Thus we agree with the American College of Occupational and

> Environmental Medicine evidence-based statement and the Institute

of

> Medicine draft, which conclude that the evidence does not support

the

> contention that mycotoxin-mediated disease (mycotoxicosis) occurs

> through inhalation in nonoccupational settings. "

>

>

> Sole reference for the above statements:

> ACOEM MS 2002 - Reference 1; Veritox 2004 - Reference 29.

>

> Note: Saxon (UC) is an author of ACOEM MS 2002, USCC 2003, NAR

2003, & Quad

> AI

> 2006

> Veritox principals are authors of Veritox 2000, ACOEM MS 2002,

USCC 2003,

> NAR

> 2003 & Veritox 2004.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> 2006

> Robbins Order, Ruling, April 14, 2006

> Veritox 2004 does not pass .

>

> Veritox 2004 is the ‘second generation’ of Veritox 2000. Both

‘review papers

> ’ are founded on the same premise that is now debunked as not

being of sound

> scientific protocol to determine absence of human illness from

mycotoxin

> inhalation indoors.

>

> ACOEM MS 2002, USCC MS 2003, NAR MS 2003, and Quad AI MS 2006 are

all

> founded on the Veritox 2004 or Veritox 2000.

> Statements of " not plausible, improbable, and junk science "

within all

> papers are debunked by the debunking of the Veritox 2004.

>

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~

> Additional Information of Significance, 2006

>

> The Institute of Medicine (IOM), Damp Indoor Spaces and Health

Report, was a

> primary exhibit in the hearing that discredited the Veritox

2004.

>

> IOM Chapter 4 Mycotoxins

> Summary:

> “Except for a few studies on cancer, toxicologic studies of

mycotoxins are

> acute or short-term studies that use high exposure concentrations

to reveal

> immediate effects in small populations of animals. Chronic

studies that use

>

> lower exposure concentrations and approximate human exposure more

> closely have not been done except for a small number of cancer

studies.â€

>

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~

> 2006

> Minutes from the US Surgeon General's Workshop on Indoor Air are

published

>

> " Dr. Noreen [Chair of the IOM Damp Indoor Spaces and Health

Report,

> 2004] indicated that the report did not consider only respiratory

symptoms, but

> that these were the symptoms for which associations were

strongest. She

> noted that " absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, " and

said that the

> report did not intend to dismiss the possibility of effects for

which the

> existing evidence of association was not strong or for which

evidence was not

> available. "

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

2006

>

> State of California Report in Response to A.B. 284, Chapter 550,

Statutes

> of 2001

> Indoor Mold: A General Guide to Health Effects, Prevention, and

Remediation.

> (CRB-06-001 , January 2006)

> W. Umbach, Ph.D., and Pamela J. , R.N., P.H.N.

> .

> Page 72 " Some experts believe that the ACOEM statement understates

risks and

> effects. "

> Page 75 " The question of whether health effects result from indoor

exposure

> to mycotoxins is controversial, as stated in the text and is noted

above.

> The conclusion in the present report that such effects are at

least plausible

> reflects, for example ... " There is an accumulated weight of

evidence linking

> indoor airborne mold and/or mycotoxin exposures to multisystem

adverse human

> health effects. "

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

2006

>

> Center for Science in the Public

Interest

>

> Washington,

DC

>

> Integrity in Science Watch -- Week of 3/31/2006

> Allergy Journal Authors Failed to Disclose Conflicts of Interest

> The prestigious Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (JACI)

last month

> failed to disclose two physicians' roles as insurance company

defense

> experts in their scientific review " The Medical Effects of Mold

Exposure, " which

> downplayed risks to human health from household mold. According to

court

> documents obtained by the Center for Science in the Public

Interest, Dr. Abba I.

> Terr, Stanford University School of Medicine, and Dr.

Saxon, University

> of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine, were paid up to

$600 an hour

> for testimony in cases brought by homeowners alleging their

illnesses were

> caused by mold. JACI, the journal of the American Academy of

Allergy, Asthma

> and Immunology (AAAAI), requires authors to disclose conflicts of

interest to

> the editor, who then has discretion in publishing them. In a letter

to editor

> Leung, CSPI urged AAAAI to make disclosure mandatory and

prevent

> authors who fail to disclose conflicts of interest from publishing

in the journal

> for three years.

> Week of

4/24/06

>

> Allergy Journal Strengthens Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Policy

> The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (JACI), an Elsevier

> publication, will require greater financial disclosure from

authors and automatically

> publish those disclosures, the editor said. Two mold experts, Dr.

Abba Terr

> and Dr. Saxon, failed to disclose their roles as defense

witnesses in

> mold exposure liability lawsuits when publishing a review in the

journal

> earlier this year that downplayed the risks from household mold

exposure. Editor

> Leung said future author conflict of interest forms

accompanying JACI

> submissions will now include " specific questions " about expert

witnessing and

> the journal will " ensure that all published manuscripts will carry

a conflict

> of interest statement regarding each author. "

> Week of

6/5/06

>

> Environmental Journal Retracts Fraudulent Study on

Chromium

>

> [significance: Journal of ACOEM Retracts Fraudulent Study Authored

by Expert

> Defense Witnesses for Usage in Court]

> The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine [Journal of

ACOEM]

> will retract a 1997 article on chromium written under the names of

two Chinese

> scientists after a Wall Street Journal investigation revealed that

the

> article was actually drafted and edited by consultants for a major

chromium

> polluter. Chemrisk, founded and directed by Dennis Paustenbach

(see

> http://www.IntegrityinScience.org/), purchased in 1995 JianDong

Zhang's original data on the

> link between chromium-6 in drinking water and cancer in Chinese

villages.

> Chemrisk, which had been hired by Pacific Gas and Electric, the

California

> utility company being sued for chromium contamination, then

reworked the data to

> show that Zhang, who objected to the publication, had reversed his

conclusion

> on the chromium-cancer link The JOEM retraction, signed by editor

Dr.

> Brandt-Rauf, states that the article did not comply with the

journal's policy

> because " financial and intellectual input to the paper by outside

parties was

> not disclosed. " Since its publication, the fake article has

influenced

> regulatory decisions on chromium, including being used by a

scientific panel for a

> 2001 report which forced California health officials to revise a

> recommendation for how much chromium-6 should be allowed in

drinking water.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Summary

> Many people have been ill with serious mold/mycotoxin induced

illnesses.

> They have been unable to obtain proper medical treatment prior to

the time these

> illnesses have become progressively and irreversibly debilitating.

Many

> physicians and citizens have been falsely told that mold does not

cause serious

> illness, leaving the medical community and public uneducated and

unaware of

> the true danger.

> The medical misinformation promoted for the benefit of the defense

in mold

> litigation has stifled and confused the already young field of

science. It has

> fueled contention. The promotion of the concept " not plausible,

improbable,

> junk science " within the medical community and the general public

has been a

> primary cause for the lack of early detection and timely medical

treatment.

> This in turn, has cost stakeholders with financial interest in the

moldy

> buildings, unnecessary billions. The misinformation, that has

retarded proper

> medical understanding, has also caused a tremendous increase in

financial

> responsibility for stakeholders. Increased health damages

sustained equals

> increased resultant stakeholder liability. .

>

> Mold itself, has not been the crux of the problem. The denial of

illness in

> an attempt to limit liability has directly caused greater illness -

and

> thereby has caused greater liability. The situation has been

wastefully self

> perpetuating. The defense argument of “not plausible, improbable

and junk scienceâ€

> has proven to be its own worst enemy.

>

> Dr Borak, overseer for the " peer review process " of the

ACOEM Mold

> Statement, summed the matter up best in an email he wrote in 2002:

>

> Email September 8, 2002

> From: Borak, Chair of the Scientific Committee, ACOEM

> Dean Grove, Past President, ACOEM

> CC: Bernacki, ACOEM President 2002; Barry

Eisenberg,

> Executive Director ACOEM; Tim Key, ACOEM President 2003.

>

> " Dean et al:

>

> I am having quite a challenge in finding an acceptable path for

the

> proposed position paper on mold. Even though a great deal of work

has

> gone in, it seems difficult to satisfy a sufficient spectrum of

the College,

> or

> at least those concerned enough to voice their views.

>

> I have received several sets of comments that find the current

version,

> much revised, to still be a defense argument. On the other hand,

> Hardin and his colleagues are not willing to further dilute the

paper. The

> have done a lot, and I am concerned that we will soon have to

either

> endorse or let go. I do not want to go to the BOD and then be

rejected.

> That would be an important violation of . I have assured

him that if

> we do not use it he can freely make whatever other uses he might

want to

> make. If we " officially " reject it, then we turn is efforts into

garbage.

> .... "

>

> Garbage it was, based on the Veritox 2000 ‘review’ and

provided credibility

> by the imprimatur of ACOEM. Once the credibility was established

by the

> ACOEM, the garbage was then spread to other purported state of the

art, mold

> review papers.

> The unscientific concept that one could take a single review of

rodent

> studies with math applied and determine all human illness from

inhaling mycotoxins

> indoors could never happen, took on a life of its own and grew. It

became

> understood that one could never become seriously ill from inhaling

mold

> indoors.

> No one seemed to remember exactly how this concept came to be.

They just

> knew it to be true because they had read it in many

authoritative " state of the

> art " mold review papers.

> The lives, health and financial well being of thousands have been

forever

> damaged because of it.

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> And that is the Landmark Significance of the Ruling on April

14,

> 2006, Sacramento, California, regarding " Risk from inhaled

mycotoxins in indoor

> office and residential environments. Int J Toxicol 2004; 23: 3-

10.Robbins CA,

> Swenson LJ, Hardin BD. (Veritox, 2004). The courts have found

Veritox 2004 is

> not plausible, improbable and Junk Science.

>

> Needless to say, I am thrilled. Maybe NOW we can get this issue

out of the

> courts and into doctors’ offices where it belongs. Maybe NOW we

can all stop

> wasting time, lives and money!

>

> Sharon Kramer

> 760-822-8026

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

WOOHOO, Thanks Sharon, about time they threw that junk science where

it belongs, in the trash. should be a class action from all the

victoms that lost theri case because of that trash and got nada

zilch.

>

>

> June 11, 2006

>

> Please forward the following valuable information to all

interested parties.

> Ie. Physicians, Researchers, Attorneys, Mold Victims, Health

Advocates,

> Building Stakeholders and Regulatory Bodies.

>

> Are you aware of the Order, April 14, 2006, Sacramento, CA?

It is an

> issue changing significant finding that will remove ‘road

blocks’ and allow

> the medical understanding of mold induced illnesses to more

readily move

> forward.

> The significance of this Ruling as it pertains to mold

litigation is:

>

> The defense argument of " not plausible, improbable and junk

science " has now

> been determined by the courts to be " not plausible, improbable and

junk

> science " .

> The Ruling is a huge blow to those who are most concerned

about

> perpetuating the litigation defense argument that serious mold

illnesses do occur

> from exposure within an indoor environment. The Ruling discredits

the entire

> foundation of All the medical associations, government documents,

etc, that

> illness from inhaling mycotoxins indoors is " not plausible,

improbable and junk

> science " . One could say those, who more concerned of financial

liability

> than they are of the lives and safety of others, just got a

“fatal dose†of

> their own medicine.

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Case # 02AS04291, Harold and D. Lee Harold, Plaintiffs vs.

California

> Casualty Insurance Company and Westmont Construction, Inc.,

Defendants

>

> Honorable P. Kenny, Judge of the Superior Court of

California,

> County of Sacramento

> The Plaintiffs were represented by Alfert, Attorney at Law;

J.

> Cochrane, Attorney at Law, and Kahn, Attorney at Law.

> The Defendant, California Casualty Insurance Company, was

represented by

> M. , Attorney at Law, and S. McLay, Attorney

at Law.

> The Defendant, Westmont Construction Company, was represented by

E.

> Enabnit, Attorney at Law.

> Jury award to plaintiffs: $2.3 Million.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Subject paper deemed not acceptable by Ruling, April 14,

2006

>

> Title: Risk from inhaled mycotoxins in indoor office and

residential

> environments. Int J

> Toxicol 2004; 23: 3-10.

> Robbins CA, Swenson LJ, Hardin BD (Principals of litigation defense

support

> corp.

> Veritox, Inc and formerly named GlobalTox, Inc.)

> Slang: Veritox, 2004

>

> The above is the review piece that was found not to be based upon

sound

> science and therefore not to be presented in the court before a

jury. The judge

> found it to be a " huge leap " , for PhD's to take rodent studies,

apply a

> little math and then write a review that all human illness is not

plausible from

> mycotoxin inhalation within an indoor environment. Dr. Robbins of

Veritox,

> Inc., could not cite anyone else's research or review paper that

made the same

> conclusion.

> The reason for this is because there are not any.

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> To understand why this is such a boon to move the medical science

forward

> and a huge blow to the defense in mold litigation, one has to go

back to the

> year 2000:

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~

> 2000

> Title: Health effects of mycotoxins in indoor air: a critical

review. Appl

> Occup Environ

> Hyg.2000;15:773-84.

> Robbins CA, Swenson, L.J., Nealley, M.L., Kelman, B.J. and Gots,

R.E.

> Slang: Veritox, 2000

>

> Robbins, Swenson and Kelman - Principals in defense litigation

support corp,

> Veritox.

> Nealley and Gots -Defense experts with International Center for

Toxicology

> and Medicine.

>

> Veritox 2000 is based on the same premise as the Veritox 2004

cited above.

> Rodents, authors added math, human illness not plausible.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> 2002

> The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

(ACOEM) Mold

> Statement

> Title: Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the

Indoor

> Environment

> October 27, 2002

> Kelman BJ (Veritox), Hardin BD (Veritox), Saxon AJ.(University of

California

> - UC)

> Edited & published in the Journal of ACOEM, the JOEM 2003

> Slang: ACOEM MS, 2002

>

> " Levels of exposure in the indoor environment, dose-response data

in

> animals, and dose-rate considerations suggest that delivery by the

> inhalation route of a toxic dose of mycotoxins in the indoor

environment is

> highly unlikely at best, even for the hypothetically most

vulnerable

> subpopulations. "

>

> Sole reference for the above statement:

> Veritox, 2000. Reference 63

> NONE of the other 83 references cited for this ‘state of the art

review piece

> ’ support the above conclusion.

> ACOEM MS, 2002 was presented as a position statement purportedly

> representative of 7000 physicians’ understanding of mold/mold

toxin induced illness.

> ACOEM is made up primarily of physicians who evaluate injured

workers on

> behalf of insurers and employers.

>

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> 2003

> US Chamber/Manhattan Institute Mold Statement

> Title: A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold

> Hardin, PhD (Veritox), Saxon MD (UC), Correen

Robbins, PhD,

> CIH

> (Veritox) and Bruce J. Kelman, Ph.D., DABT (Veritox)

> Slang: USCC MS, 2003

>

> “Thus the notion that ‘toxic mold’ is an insidious secret

‘killer’ as so

> many

> media reports and trial lawyers would claim is ‘Junk Science’

unsupported

> by actual scientific study.â€

> Sole references for the above statement:

> Veritox, 2000 and ACOEM MS 2002

> The USCC MS 2003 has been reported by the Veritox authors to be

a " lay

> translation " of the ACOEM Mold Statement. They were

‘commissioned’ by the

> Manhattan Institute to write this lay translation and received

$40,000 for this ‘

> commissioned lay translation’ of the ACOEM Mold Statement. It was

then shared

> with stakeholder industries (real estate, building, mortgage and

insurance)

> in a fanfare presentation in Washington, DC, July 17, 2003.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> 2003

> National Association of Realtors (NAR)

> Title: Moldy Claims: The Junk Science of Toxic Mold

> Kelman BJ.(Veritox) Hardin BD.(Veritox) Saxon AJ.(UC)

> Slang: NAR 2003

>

> “Thus the notion that ‘toxic mold’ is an insidious secret

‘killer’ as so

> many

> media reports and trial lawyers would claim is ‘Junk Science’

unsupported

> by actual scientific study.â€

>

> Sole references for the above statement:

> Veritox, 2000, ACOEM MS 2002 and USCC MS 2003.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> 2004

> Title: Risk from inhaled mycotoxins in indoor office and

residential

> environments. Int J

> Toxicol 2004; 23: 3-10.

> Robbins CA, Swenson LJ, Hardin BD. (Veritox, Inc. Principals)

> Slang: Veritox, 2004

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> 2003 to 2005

> Various Government Regulatory (CDC & EPA), Medical Associations

(ACAAI,

> SOT), Industrial Hygeine Associations (AIHA), etc. make the

findings of " not

> plausible " citing Veritox 2000, ACOEM MS 2002, USCC MS 2003, NAR

2003 and/or

> Veritox 2004. These five review papers have been cited as

authoritative documents

> by the defense in virtually every mold litigation case in the US.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> 2006

> American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) Mold

Position

> Title: The medical effects of mold exposure

> Bush RK, Terr A.(UC), Saxon AJ (UC) and Wood RA.

> Slang: Quad AI 2006

>

> “Calculations for both acute and subacute exposures on the basis

of the

> maximum amount of mycotoxins found per mold spore for various

> mycotoxins and the levels at which adverse health effects are

observed

> make it highly improbable that home or office mycotoxin exposures

would

> lead to a toxic adverse health effects.1, 29

>

> Thus we agree with the American College of Occupational and

> Environmental Medicine evidence-based statement and the Institute

of

> Medicine draft, which conclude that the evidence does not support

the

> contention that mycotoxin-mediated disease (mycotoxicosis) occurs

> through inhalation in nonoccupational settings. "

>

>

> Sole reference for the above statements:

> ACOEM MS 2002 - Reference 1; Veritox 2004 - Reference 29.

>

> Note: Saxon (UC) is an author of ACOEM MS 2002, USCC 2003, NAR

2003, & Quad

> AI

> 2006

> Veritox principals are authors of Veritox 2000, ACOEM MS 2002,

USCC 2003,

> NAR

> 2003 & Veritox 2004.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> 2006

> Robbins Order, Ruling, April 14, 2006

> Veritox 2004 does not pass .

>

> Veritox 2004 is the ‘second generation’ of Veritox 2000. Both

‘review papers

> ’ are founded on the same premise that is now debunked as not

being of sound

> scientific protocol to determine absence of human illness from

mycotoxin

> inhalation indoors.

>

> ACOEM MS 2002, USCC MS 2003, NAR MS 2003, and Quad AI MS 2006 are

all

> founded on the Veritox 2004 or Veritox 2000.

> Statements of " not plausible, improbable, and junk science "

within all

> papers are debunked by the debunking of the Veritox 2004.

>

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~

> Additional Information of Significance, 2006

>

> The Institute of Medicine (IOM), Damp Indoor Spaces and Health

Report, was a

> primary exhibit in the hearing that discredited the Veritox

2004.

>

> IOM Chapter 4 Mycotoxins

> Summary:

> “Except for a few studies on cancer, toxicologic studies of

mycotoxins are

> acute or short-term studies that use high exposure concentrations

to reveal

> immediate effects in small populations of animals. Chronic

studies that use

>

> lower exposure concentrations and approximate human exposure more

> closely have not been done except for a small number of cancer

studies.â€

>

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~

> 2006

> Minutes from the US Surgeon General's Workshop on Indoor Air are

published

>

> " Dr. Noreen [Chair of the IOM Damp Indoor Spaces and Health

Report,

> 2004] indicated that the report did not consider only respiratory

symptoms, but

> that these were the symptoms for which associations were

strongest. She

> noted that " absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, " and

said that the

> report did not intend to dismiss the possibility of effects for

which the

> existing evidence of association was not strong or for which

evidence was not

> available. "

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

2006

>

> State of California Report in Response to A.B. 284, Chapter 550,

Statutes

> of 2001

> Indoor Mold: A General Guide to Health Effects, Prevention, and

Remediation.

> (CRB-06-001 , January 2006)

> W. Umbach, Ph.D., and Pamela J. , R.N., P.H.N.

> .

> Page 72 " Some experts believe that the ACOEM statement understates

risks and

> effects. "

> Page 75 " The question of whether health effects result from indoor

exposure

> to mycotoxins is controversial, as stated in the text and is noted

above.

> The conclusion in the present report that such effects are at

least plausible

> reflects, for example ... " There is an accumulated weight of

evidence linking

> indoor airborne mold and/or mycotoxin exposures to multisystem

adverse human

> health effects. "

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

2006

>

> Center for Science in the Public

Interest

>

> Washington,

DC

>

> Integrity in Science Watch -- Week of 3/31/2006

> Allergy Journal Authors Failed to Disclose Conflicts of Interest

> The prestigious Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (JACI)

last month

> failed to disclose two physicians' roles as insurance company

defense

> experts in their scientific review " The Medical Effects of Mold

Exposure, " which

> downplayed risks to human health from household mold. According to

court

> documents obtained by the Center for Science in the Public

Interest, Dr. Abba I.

> Terr, Stanford University School of Medicine, and Dr.

Saxon, University

> of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine, were paid up to

$600 an hour

> for testimony in cases brought by homeowners alleging their

illnesses were

> caused by mold. JACI, the journal of the American Academy of

Allergy, Asthma

> and Immunology (AAAAI), requires authors to disclose conflicts of

interest to

> the editor, who then has discretion in publishing them. In a letter

to editor

> Leung, CSPI urged AAAAI to make disclosure mandatory and

prevent

> authors who fail to disclose conflicts of interest from publishing

in the journal

> for three years.

> Week of

4/24/06

>

> Allergy Journal Strengthens Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Policy

> The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (JACI), an Elsevier

> publication, will require greater financial disclosure from

authors and automatically

> publish those disclosures, the editor said. Two mold experts, Dr.

Abba Terr

> and Dr. Saxon, failed to disclose their roles as defense

witnesses in

> mold exposure liability lawsuits when publishing a review in the

journal

> earlier this year that downplayed the risks from household mold

exposure. Editor

> Leung said future author conflict of interest forms

accompanying JACI

> submissions will now include " specific questions " about expert

witnessing and

> the journal will " ensure that all published manuscripts will carry

a conflict

> of interest statement regarding each author. "

> Week of

6/5/06

>

> Environmental Journal Retracts Fraudulent Study on

Chromium

>

> [significance: Journal of ACOEM Retracts Fraudulent Study Authored

by Expert

> Defense Witnesses for Usage in Court]

> The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine [Journal of

ACOEM]

> will retract a 1997 article on chromium written under the names of

two Chinese

> scientists after a Wall Street Journal investigation revealed that

the

> article was actually drafted and edited by consultants for a major

chromium

> polluter. Chemrisk, founded and directed by Dennis Paustenbach

(see

> http://www.IntegrityinScience.org/), purchased in 1995 JianDong

Zhang's original data on the

> link between chromium-6 in drinking water and cancer in Chinese

villages.

> Chemrisk, which had been hired by Pacific Gas and Electric, the

California

> utility company being sued for chromium contamination, then

reworked the data to

> show that Zhang, who objected to the publication, had reversed his

conclusion

> on the chromium-cancer link The JOEM retraction, signed by editor

Dr.

> Brandt-Rauf, states that the article did not comply with the

journal's policy

> because " financial and intellectual input to the paper by outside

parties was

> not disclosed. " Since its publication, the fake article has

influenced

> regulatory decisions on chromium, including being used by a

scientific panel for a

> 2001 report which forced California health officials to revise a

> recommendation for how much chromium-6 should be allowed in

drinking water.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Summary

> Many people have been ill with serious mold/mycotoxin induced

illnesses.

> They have been unable to obtain proper medical treatment prior to

the time these

> illnesses have become progressively and irreversibly debilitating.

Many

> physicians and citizens have been falsely told that mold does not

cause serious

> illness, leaving the medical community and public uneducated and

unaware of

> the true danger.

> The medical misinformation promoted for the benefit of the defense

in mold

> litigation has stifled and confused the already young field of

science. It has

> fueled contention. The promotion of the concept " not plausible,

improbable,

> junk science " within the medical community and the general public

has been a

> primary cause for the lack of early detection and timely medical

treatment.

> This in turn, has cost stakeholders with financial interest in the

moldy

> buildings, unnecessary billions. The misinformation, that has

retarded proper

> medical understanding, has also caused a tremendous increase in

financial

> responsibility for stakeholders. Increased health damages

sustained equals

> increased resultant stakeholder liability. .

>

> Mold itself, has not been the crux of the problem. The denial of

illness in

> an attempt to limit liability has directly caused greater illness -

and

> thereby has caused greater liability. The situation has been

wastefully self

> perpetuating. The defense argument of “not plausible, improbable

and junk scienceâ€

> has proven to be its own worst enemy.

>

> Dr Borak, overseer for the " peer review process " of the

ACOEM Mold

> Statement, summed the matter up best in an email he wrote in 2002:

>

> Email September 8, 2002

> From: Borak, Chair of the Scientific Committee, ACOEM

> Dean Grove, Past President, ACOEM

> CC: Bernacki, ACOEM President 2002; Barry

Eisenberg,

> Executive Director ACOEM; Tim Key, ACOEM President 2003.

>

> " Dean et al:

>

> I am having quite a challenge in finding an acceptable path for

the

> proposed position paper on mold. Even though a great deal of work

has

> gone in, it seems difficult to satisfy a sufficient spectrum of

the College,

> or

> at least those concerned enough to voice their views.

>

> I have received several sets of comments that find the current

version,

> much revised, to still be a defense argument. On the other hand,

> Hardin and his colleagues are not willing to further dilute the

paper. The

> have done a lot, and I am concerned that we will soon have to

either

> endorse or let go. I do not want to go to the BOD and then be

rejected.

> That would be an important violation of . I have assured

him that if

> we do not use it he can freely make whatever other uses he might

want to

> make. If we " officially " reject it, then we turn is efforts into

garbage.

> .... "

>

> Garbage it was, based on the Veritox 2000 ‘review’ and

provided credibility

> by the imprimatur of ACOEM. Once the credibility was established

by the

> ACOEM, the garbage was then spread to other purported state of the

art, mold

> review papers.

> The unscientific concept that one could take a single review of

rodent

> studies with math applied and determine all human illness from

inhaling mycotoxins

> indoors could never happen, took on a life of its own and grew. It

became

> understood that one could never become seriously ill from inhaling

mold

> indoors.

> No one seemed to remember exactly how this concept came to be.

They just

> knew it to be true because they had read it in many

authoritative " state of the

> art " mold review papers.

> The lives, health and financial well being of thousands have been

forever

> damaged because of it.

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> And that is the Landmark Significance of the Ruling on April

14,

> 2006, Sacramento, California, regarding " Risk from inhaled

mycotoxins in indoor

> office and residential environments. Int J Toxicol 2004; 23: 3-

10.Robbins CA,

> Swenson LJ, Hardin BD. (Veritox, 2004). The courts have found

Veritox 2004 is

> not plausible, improbable and Junk Science.

>

> Needless to say, I am thrilled. Maybe NOW we can get this issue

out of the

> courts and into doctors’ offices where it belongs. Maybe NOW we

can all stop

> wasting time, lives and money!

>

> Sharon Kramer

> 760-822-8026

>

>

>