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

[Guest guest]

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