IE CONNECTIONS SCIENCE IN PUBLIC INTEREST JACI FAILURE TO DISCLOSE

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

We don't have Political Think Tanks. We don't have PR Firms. We don't have

the financial backing of the insurance and other stakeholder industries.

What we do have is the TRUTH and each other. PLEASE FORWARD this important

information to your friends and associates who are helping those made ill from

mold exposure. The word is getting out. It is becoming common knowledge that

the defense mantra of " not plausible " is not plausible!

Sharon Kramer

Indoor Environment Connections

12339 Carroll Avenue

Rockville, MD 20852

Your Indoor Air Quality Information Specialists

JOURNAL’S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE

The Web site of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical

Immunology last month posted an “important correction to

the February 2006 issue,†in which it said information

about conflicts of interests of two authors “was

inadvertently omitted at the time of publication.†The

article in question was a position paper called “The

Medical Effects of Mold Exposure,†which reviewed

scientific literature on the relationship and concluded,

among other things, that “evidence does not support the

contention that mycotoxin-mediated disease (mycotoxicosis)

occurs through inhalation in nonoccupational settings.â€

Omitted from the position paper were the declarations by

authors Dr. Saxon and Dr. Abba Terr that they had

received compensation for serving as expert witnesses in

mold litigation. According to the correction notice, Saxon

and Terr provided the journal with the information about

their conflicts of interest. Terr was included on an expert

witness list for Allstate Insurance Company in a case in

Sacramento, Calif. Another court document shows that Saxon

received $54,362.57 for his role in a lawsuit in which the

defense prevailed over an Arizona woman, Kari Kilian, who

claimed her exposure to mold had caused a neurocognitive

disorder and other symptoms. The journal’s correction said

this information “should have appeared†in print alongside

declared conflicts of interest for two other authors and a

statement that a fifth author had no conflict of interest.

The Integrity in Science Project, which is part of the

Center for Science in the Public Interest, reported in a

newsletter on April 24 that the journal would strengthen

its requirements on the disclosure of conflicts of

interest. Earlier in the month, Merrill Goozner, director

for the Integrity in Science Project, had sent a letter to

Dr. Leung, journal editor, urging him to publish all

conflicts of interest disclosed to the journal. The April

24 Integrity in Science newsletter quoted Leung as saying

that under the journal’s change in policy, “All published

manuscripts will carry a conflict of interest statement

regarding each author.â€

June 15, 2006

Please forward the following 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 easily go

forward.

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

perpetuating the litigation defense myth of serious mold illnesses do not 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 are more concerned of financial liability

than they are of the lives and safety of others, just got a “dose†of their

own medicine at a “level of which we see effectsâ€.

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 " .

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

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 in the case, 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.

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

Mold Columns

Publishing

May 25, 2006

.....Defendants called Saxon, M.D., of UCLA Medical School; and Coreen

A. Robbins, MHS, Ph.D., CIH of Veritox in Redmond, Wash.

Robbins countered plaintiffs’’ experts’ opinions on mold hazards and the

remediation procedures and opined that the couple could have moved back into

the house after Westmont’s repair work was completed.

Judge Kenney held a -Frye hearing before trial and limited Robbins’s

testimony by precluding any reference to animal studies of mold hazards.

Reviewing Robbins’ deposition testimony, Judge Kenney concluded that the

basis for her testimony on mycotoxins and human exposure was a literature

review, which he found insufficient.

'Also, when I reviewed the DHS report from April of 2005, DHS, Department of

Health Services was talking about the fact that they were unable to

establish personal exposure levels at this point in time based on a lack of

sufficient information, and yet Dr. Robbins is asking to take an even greater

step and

go beyond establishing, for example, a personal exposure level and jump to

modeling, which is far more tenuous and far more unreliable even in

establishing something that is as hard as a personal exposure level. So those

are the

difficulties I’m having with Dr. Robbins’ testimony,' Judge Kenney said.

The judge said that he is familiar with the use of animal studies and

derivative models for humans and that such models are commonly accepted in the

scientific community, but he said he is not sure such models for mycotoxin

exposure would pass a -Frye test for admissibility.

'My fundamental problem is in looking at it from a Frye standpoint I

just didn’t see kind of acceptance in the scientific community with regard to

what she had done that would allow it to be sort of presented as such,' Judge

Kenney said.

'Modeling has severe limitations, and one of the difficulties I was having

here was this reliance upon animal studies to jump to a modeling conclusion

generally with — again, I’m speaking from my own experience because there

is

nothing here in this transcript — generally one will use the data that one

can

receive either from animal exposure studies or other information to then

input in a model to make a determination with some degree of reliability,' the

judge continued. 'Here I’m not hearing any of those things. I’m hearing

essentially this jump from a literature review to a postulated model to a no

harm

result "

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

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

and why it is such a significant ruling - that dispels the myth of serious mold

induced illnesses are not occurring, 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 of Commerce/Center for Legal Policy -Manhattan Institute Mold

Statement

“Center for Legal Policy is a leading voice for reform of America’s civil

justice system.†according to their website.

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

political think-tank, the Manhattan Institute to write this lay translation.

The

authors received $40,000 for interpreting the national protocol writing,

medical association’s (ACOEM) understanding to mean that all mold illness is

based

upon ‘Junk Scienceâ€. 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.

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

2005

Example of Impact on the Courts

Testimony of Bruce J. Kelman, President of Veritox, Inc.

Author of Veritox 2000, ACOEM MS 2002, USCC MS 2003, NAR 2003 & Co-principal

Veritox 2004

February 18, 2005, Haynes vs. Adair Homes, Inc. Case No. CCO211573,

In the Court of the State of Oregon.

" Based on the studies that you have done, the literature that you have

discussed, and your experience and training, have you formed an opinion based

on

reasonable scientific probability or certainty as to whether or not there was

enough mycotoxin in the home to have caused any illness to Mrs. Haynes, Mi

chael Haynes, or Liam Haynes? " Dr. Kelman's answer: " Yes. " The attorney: " And,

what is that opinion, doctor? " Kelman: _ " There could not be_

(aoldb://mail/write/exhibits/pg%2016%20Kelman%20states%20what%20others%20will%20\

not.tif) . I

mean, the differences between the maximum dose that we could come up with

and the level at which we see effects for a broad range of mycotoxins is just

too great. "

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

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 Executive Summary:

“Toxicologic studies, which examine such responses using animal and cellular

models, cannot be used by themselves to draw conclusions about human health

effects.â€

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€

IOM Chapter 4 Mycotoxins

Summary

Considerations in Evaluation of Evidence

“Most of the information reviewed in this chapter is derived from studies in

vitro (that is studies in an artificial

environment, such as a test tube or a culture medium) or animal studies. In

vitro

studies, as explained below, are not suitable for human risk assessment. Risk

can

be extrapolated from animal studies to human health effects only if chronic

animal exposures have produced sufficient information to establish

no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) and lowest-observed-adverse-effect

levels

(LOAELs). Extrapolation of risk exposure from animal experiments must always

take into account species differences between animals and humans, sensitivities

of vulnerable human populations, and gaps in animal data.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.

Week of 6/12/06

Top Allergy Journal Will Publish Contributors' Conflicts of Interest

The nation's leading allergy journal now requires authors to publish their

ties to industry whenever their articles appear in that journal. The Journal

of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, the official scientific journal of the

American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, recently adopted _new

guidelines_ (https://www.editorialmanager.com/jaci/default.asp) requiring

authors to disclose consultant arrangements, stock or other equity ownership,

patent licensing arrangements, and expert witness testimony. Editor-in-Chief

Y.M. Leung initiated the policy change after the Center for Science in

the Public Interest uncovered the journal's failure to report that a review on

the health risk of mold exposure had been authored by two key defense

witnesses in mold liability lawsuits. (See Integrity in Science Watch, 3/31 and

4/24)

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

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.

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

BBA Marketing from the University of Mississippi and Advocate for Mold

Victims

760-822-8026

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