Re: [] Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

September 3, 2006

RE: [iequality] Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:51 pm

iequality/message/8097

" Tony Havics " <ph2@...>

ph2env

Sharon:

Before you make statements such as:

...................................

BUT THE BIGGEST TRANSGRESSION OF ETHICAL CONDUCT , FAR OUTWEIGHING

THE ABOVE NOTED BREACH OF ETHICS ON THE PART OF THE AMERICAN

INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE ASSOCIATION, GOES BACK TO THE YEAR 2000.

A paper, authored by known expert witnesses for the defense in mold

litigation and known not to be based on accepted scientific protocol

to make a conclusive finding of human illness or lack there of, was

named IAQ paper of the year by the American Industrial Hygiene

Association. How is it legitimately possible that a learned body

could endorse a paper based on scant scientific foundation as an

indoor air quality paper of the year? Answer. It's not.

The review paper in question, " 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. " is written by members of the AIHA. It is only a rat study

with math applied to conclude absence of human illness from

mycotoxin inhalation within the indoor environment. NONE of the

authors have lab experience doing rodent studies, that I am aware.

They do, however, have an extensive background as experts for the

defense. I am of the opinion this paper was originally written by

those trolling for business as expert defense witnesses, much like

the TCE paper recent authored by some of the same names.

This wrongful endorsement by the AIHA set in motion the marketing of

the junk science concept that it is not plausible one can become ill

from inhaling mycotoxins within an indoor environment. The AIHA's

hands are just as dirty as anyone else's who have helped to promote

this lie, including the CDC.

At the same time this was going on, Dr. Hardin was still Assistant

Surgeon General at NIOSH. He is now a principal at Veritox. In

2001, according to his under oath statements, he did have " some "

connections with Veritox/GlobalTox while still at NIOSH. Let's see,

could it possibly be when Dr. Robbins was brought in to evaluate Dr.

Dearborn's study of the 16 Cleveland infants? I think I could have

written the conclusion to what they would find, without even

understanding the science one iota. " Evidence does not support,

yada, yada, yada " .

With all the above said, I am of the opinion that the AIHA is

attempting to move in an ethical direction over mold issue. But, if

that is truly the case, THEN THOSE ETHICAL AIHA MEMBERS WHO ARE ON

THIS BOARD WILL PUSH TO GO BACK AND RETRACT THEIR ENDORSEMENT

OF " 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. " AS INDOOR AIR QUALITY

PAPER OF THE YEAR. The repercussions of this wrongful endorsement

are still be cited and used against the sick to this very day.

If the AIHA is intending to really apply some ethical cannons, then

stand up and take this endorsement back, boys!

................................................

Please go and look at:

1. The definition of " endorsement " - legal, business and

practical. Technical AIHA could sue you for you current comments.

2. Is the term endorsement anywhere associated with this paper?

For AIHA this is not the case unless it is a white paper or a book

publication. Even there, I have seen one group in AIHA present a

policy basis without consulting those best equipped in the

association to provide it.

3. The award criteria and purpose.

4. The Journal at the time was an ACGIH Journal - not AIHA.

5. The phrase - NONE of the authors have lab experience doing

rodent studies

- are you sure? or just guessing?

- and do the opposing experts have this? otherwise it's a

moot point

- from a practical standpoint each discipline relies on the

next to present the data properly so that each step can be relied

upon.

6. The statement " They do, however, have an extensive background

as experts for the defense " was not likely at the time the article

was written, and less so before the intiaition of the background

work on the paper prior to submittal.

7. Have you asked, with regard to the statement " I am of the

opinion this paper was originally written by those trolling for

business as expert defense witnesses " on whether you are doing a

parallel thing with a different opinion? in an arena that is even

less peer reviewed?

8. Statement: I am of the opinion - correct on the term

opinion.

9. regarding " I think I could have written the conclusion to what

they would find, "

- you should hold your tongue

- it was a group (including a pediatric pulmonologist) that

investigated it and if you listen to the hope in the voices of those

who thought maybe there is something here followed by dashed hopes

as the investigation continued you might speak differently

- go get a taped session of the group's discussion of the

external review. And get a hardcopy of the external review

findings. Then ask what came first - opinion or evidence.

And Sharon - it was a good solid logical paper at a time when

i " gnorance, prejudice and fear walked hand in hand " (Rush, Moving

Pictiures). It was a ballpark reality check that was needed.

You seem to have a personal problem with the paper and more so the

people who wrote it as you have not shown a lack of scientific

method with it. You have only implied/insinuated a lack of proper

opinion and conclusions - post-publication comments and opinions.

As far as 's comments on ethics of IHs out of their

competency - true. It happens with all professions (MDs, PE,

lawyers, nurses, etc.) but is still no excuse. However, expecting

IHs to be construction specialists and vica versa is wrong.

Understanding where to stop one's mouth and one's practice and

either subcontracting/refering to the proper folks or declining to

do the work is what is important.

Thus I say knowing what you don't know is more important than

knowing what you do know.

Tony

......................................................................

......

" Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

PO Box 34140

Indianapolis, IN 46234

(317) 752-6386

(317) 409-3238 cell

90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal

point...any consultant can give you the other 10%â„

This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may

contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are

intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the

addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been

addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or

distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you

please delete this message and attachments (including all copies)

and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at 317-752-6386.

Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other

than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive

confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views

only of the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may

not be copied or distributed without this statement.

--- In , " tigerpaw2c " <tigerpaw2c@...>

wrote:

>

> Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:46 pm

>

> snk1955@

> snk1955

>

> iequality/message/8090

>

> and Stuart,

>

> For reference, I attached your posts to which I am responding

below

> my comments.

>

> ,

>

> I can't really comment pertaining specifically to what a CIH needs

> to comprehend regarding building science in order to effectively

> perform an indoor air quality evaluation. But, logic would tell

me

> that one should have knowledge of construction materials,

> ventilation patterns, etc., that would make a structure more

> conducive to develop a fungal condition when moisture is added, IF

> they are to professionally and accurately evaluate a potentially

> sick building. However, I don't think that means that all CIH's

are

> intentionally breaching their ethical duties in evaluating sick

> buildings if they do not have a background in building science.

>

> Sometimes this issue reminds me of the HBO series, Deadwood. A

lot

> of lawlessness, whores and bullies; yet most involved are just

doing

> the best they can to act in a territory where there are few

> established rules.

>

> With that disclaimer said as to my understanding that the part one

> plays in this matter does not necessarily make them an evil doer -

> just because they don't have all the answers, I am writing in this

> post of two serious breach of ethics within the American

Industrial

> Hygiene Association.

>

> The first one is simple, Cannons of Ethical Conduct #3.

>

> " 3. Keep confidential personal and business information obtained

> during the exercise of industrial hygiene activities, except when

> required by law or overriding health and safety considerations. "

>

> This Ethical Cannon is a farce. There are no laws that " require

> overrriding health and safety considerations " that would supercede

> the contract law of " keep confidential personal and business

> information during the exercise of industrial hygiene

activities " .

>

> I am not aware of a single instance where an AIHA member has, on

> their own and without consent of the parties to a contract,

released

> the IAQ test results to a tenant/occupant living/working within a

> microbial hazardous environment, when contractually, the AIHA

> member is obligated to their client (building stakeholder) to keep

> this information confidential from the tenant/occupant.

>

> I am aware, just like Deadwood, where an AIHA member has made

their

> own rules to skirt around the matter in an attempt to do the

ethical

> thing and inform the tenant of the matter, without breaching the

> contract they have entered into with their client, the building

> stakeholder. But please, this Cannon is not based on ethics to

> fellow man. Its based on contract law, business related ethics

with

> a non-enforceable, exact opposite to the contract, disclaimer of

> implied ethics to fellowman thrown in.

>

> " Ethical Cannon #3 " is a spinning of meaningless words. What it

> means is that parties to a contract, ethically take precedence

over

> the lives and safety of those who are being made ill from a sick

> building...including children and infants. CIH's don't typically

> get called in unless there is a suspected problem with a

building.

> Which means, 9 times out of 10, this " Ethical Cannon " is leaving

the

> sick not fully informed of the matter. Ethical Cannon #4 is an

even

> bigger joke:

>

> " 4. Avoid circumstances where a compromise of professional

judgment

> or conflict of interest may arise. "

>

> See Cannon # 3. Wouldn't it be " a compromise of professional

> judgment or a conflict of interest " to " override health and safety

> considerations " above the contract that obligates one to " keep

> confidential personal and business information obtained during the

> exercise of industrial hygiene activities " ? True ethics: " When

in

> doubt, disclose " regardless of who is a party to what contract.

>

> BUT THE BIGGEST TRANSGRESSION OF ETHICAL CONDUCT , FAR OUTWEIGHING

> THE ABOVE NOTED BREACH OF ETHICS ON THE PART OF THE AMERICAN

> INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE ASSOCIATION, GOES BACK TO THE YEAR 2000.

>

> A paper, authored by known expert witnesses for the defense in

mold

> litigation and known not to be based on accepted scientific

protocol

> to make a conclusive finding of human illness or lack there of,

was

> named IAQ paper of the year by the American Industrial Hygiene

> Association. How is it legitimately possible that a learned body

> could endorse a paper based on scant scientific foundation as an

> indoor air quality paper of the year? Answer. It's not.

>

> The review paper in question, " 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. " is written by members of the AIHA. It is only a rat study

> with math applied to conclude absence of human illness from

> mycotoxin inhalation within the indoor environment. NONE of the

> authors have lab experience doing rodent studies, that I am

aware.

> They do, however, have an extensive background as experts for the

> defense. I am of the opinion this paper was originally written by

> those trolling for business as expert defense witnesses, much like

> the TCE paper recent authored by some of the same names.

>

> This wrongful endorsement by the AIHA set in motion the marketing

of

> the junk science concept that it is not plausible one can become

ill

> from inhaling mycotoxins within an indoor environment. The AIHA's

> hands are just as dirty as anyone else's who have helped to

promote

> this lie, including the CDC.

>

> At the same time this was going on, Dr. Hardin was still Assistant

> Surgeon General at NIOSH. He is now a principal at Veritox. In

> 2001, according to his under oath statements, he did have " some "

> connections with Veritox/GlobalTox while still at NIOSH. Let's

see,

> could it possibly be when Dr. Robbins was brought in to evaluate

Dr.

> Dearborn's study of the 16 Cleveland infants? I think I could

have

> written the conclusion to what they would find, without even

> understanding the science one iota. " Evidence does not support,

> yada, yada, yada " .

>

> With all the above said, I am of the opinion that the AIHA is

> attempting to move in an ethical direction over mold issue. But,

if

> that is truly the case, THEN THOSE ETHICAL AIHA MEMBERS WHO ARE ON

> THIS BOARD WILL PUSH TO GO BACK AND RETRACT THEIR ENDORSEMENT

> OF " 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. " AS INDOOR AIR QUALITY

> PAPER OF THE YEAR. The repercussions of this wrongful endorsement

> are still be cited and used against the sick to this very day.

>

> If the AIHA is intending to really apply some ethical cannons,

then

> stand up and take this endorsement back, boys!

>

> Sharon

>

September 3, 2006

Re: [iequality] Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:54 am

iequality/message/8099

snk1955@...

snk1955

Tony,

1. Is it current accepted scientific evidence for one to take a

single rodent study, apply math and deduce solely from this that all

human illness is not plausible from inhaling mycotoxins indoors?

Yes________ No________

2.Is " 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. a paper where the authors

took a rodent study, applied extrapolated math and deduce all human

illness is not plausible from inhaling mycotoxins within an indoor

environment? Yes_________ No__________

3 Did the AIHA name " 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. " paper of

the year in the year 2000? Yes________ No_________

4. Who within the AIHA decided this paper should be named paper of

the year in 2000?

Essay question:

5. What impact to you think this endorsement (meaning your learned

body naming this paper of the year) has on the understanding of

illnesses caused by mycotoxins within an indoor environment within

the IAQ community, the medical community, stakeholder community and

the public in general?

Essay question:

6. If this paper and the endorsement (see meaning above) by the

AIHA was adding to the confusion, to this day even, would you as an

AIHA member think it important to retract your endorsment (see

definition above) of this paper for the betterment of mankind and

clarity over the issue? Yes_______ NO_________

PS. You are right, I meant to say no lab experience with rodents

and mycotoxins, from what I can tell of all of their under oath

testimonies.

September 3, 2006

Thank you for posting this and all the wonderful work being done on our

behalf.

In a message dated 9/3/2006 1:02:16 PM Central Standard Time,

tigerpaw2c@... writes:

Re: [iequality] Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

September 3, 2006

Re: [iequality] Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

iequality/message/8111

Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:04 pm

snk1955

Hi Tony,

Besides the questions I have asked that you answer regarding the

indiscretions of the AIHA when " endorsing " a paper based on scant

scientific foundation to determine the absence of human illness from

inhaling mycotoxins indoors, I have now have time to try and answer

some of the questions you asked.

(Sharon K.) Here goes:

(Tony) Please go and look at:

1. The definition of " endorsement " - legal, business and

practical. Technical AIHA could sue you for you current comments.

approval or sanction: The program for supporting the arts won the

government's endorsement.

The act of endorsing: The athlete was highly paid to do endorsements

of products.

(Sharon) Are you saying that naming a paper, paper of the year, is

not a form of AIHA endorsing the validity of the paper? Are you

telling me the AIHA does not stand behind this paper as valid?

(Tony) 2. Is the term endorsement anywhere associated with this

paper? For AIHA this is not the case unless it is a white paper or

a book publication. Even there, I have seen one group in AIHA

present a policy basis without consulting those best equipped in the

association to provide it.

(Tony) 3. The award criteria and purpose.

(Sharon) See above reply.

(Tony) 4. The Journal at the time was an ACGIH Journal - not AIHA.

Someone from the AIHA should tell the authors of the paper this

information. From the Veritox website:

(Sharon) " Dr. Robbins published â€œThe Health Effects of Mycotoxins

in Indoor Air: A Critical Reviewâ€ (Applied Occupational and

Environmental Hygiene, October, 2000) for which she received an

award from the AIHA* for the best indoor air quality paper in 2000. "

They should be easy to get ahold of because also from their website:

" Dr. Robbins is a full member of the American Academy of Industrial

Hygiene and the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), and

an affiliate member of the American Conference of Governmental

Industrial Hygienists. She served on the AIHAâ€™s Task Force on

Microbial Growth as the representative for the AIHA Toxicology

Committee, (1997-2000). "

(Tony) 5. The phrase - NONE of the authors have lab experience

doing rodent studies

- are you sure? or just guessing?

- and do the opposing experts have this? otherwise it's a

moot point

- from a practical standpoint each discipline relies on the

next to present the data properly so that each step can be relied

upon.

(Sharon)Already corrected. Meant to say have no lab experience

within the areana of what they are writing this pre-eminent review

paper about, rodents and mycotoxins.

(Tony)6. The statement " They do, however, have an extensive

background as experts for the defense " was not likely at the time

the article was written, and less so before the intiaition of the

background work on the paper prior to submittal.

(Sharon) See the research from the University of San

Franscisco. Kelman, President of Veritox, is an old

defense expert witness. Gots, President of ICTM, is an old mulitiple

chemical sensitivity expert. So, you are right, there " expertise "

prior to when they wrote is paper had nothing to do with mold. They

were then experts on something else. Also see sourcewatch. Both of

the companies are on there.

(Tony) 7. Have you asked, with regard to the statement " I am of

the opinion this paper was originally written by those trolling for

business as expert defense witnesses " on whether you are doing a

parallel thing with a different opinion? in an arena that is even

less peer reviewed?

(Tony)8. Statement: I am of the opinion - correct on the term

opinion.

(Sharon) Yes. I know. I cannot get into their minds, however, I

can research recent history and past history of how the game works

to come to this conclusion. Thus, " I am of the opinion "

(Tony) 9. regarding " I think I could have written the conclusion

to what they would find, "

- you should hold your tongue

(Sharon) Maybe, sometimes, but sometimes not. And this is not a

time I should. Junk science of experts for the defense taking

rodent studies to conclude human illness is not plausible...and then

using and abusing medical associations and others for financial

benefit at the lives and expense of the innocent, is just not

something I am intending to hold my tongue about.

I am not the only one who finds what occurred at the CDC over the

Dearborn study to be a bit stinky. Dr. Ruth Etzel left the CDC over

it. What I said was " evidence does not support, yada, yada, yada "

Don't you think that sums it up? And sorry, I think I could have

written it ahead of time.

(Tony) - it was a group (including a pediatric pulmonologist)

that investigated it and if you listen to the hope in the voices of

those who thought maybe there is something here followed by dashed

hopes as the investigation continued you might speak differently

- go get a taped session of the group's discussion of the

external review. And get a hardcopy of the external review

findings. Then ask what came first - opinion or evidence.

(Sharon) WebMD:

" But regarding a connection between stachybotrys and hemosiderosis,

the evidence is too weak to justify policymaking, he says. That

conclusion generated controversy about the way the CDC handled the

case.

Ruth Etzel, MD, an epidemiologist formerly with the CDC who headed

the original study, says the agency's review of the work is " dead

wrong " and that the CDC has sought to bury the connection between

mold and disease. " Normally, when a new idea is presented, you do

more work and test it further in other places, " says Etzel, who says

she left the CDC as a result of the controversy and is now director

of the division of epidemiology and risk assessment at the food

safety and inspection service of the USDA. " What happened here was

that instead of moving forward, a decision was made to put a stop to

our work. " She says the current scientific consensus on the

dangerous health effects of mold stems largely from the Cleveland

study. " Previously, most physicians thought

of mold as quite innocuous, " she tells WebMD. " We were able to focus

on mold in a way that the medical world had never done beforeâ€¦. "

(Tony) And Sharon - it was a good solid logical paper at a time when

i " gnorance, prejudice and fear walked hand in hand " (Rush, Moving

Pictiures). It was a ballpark reality check that was needed.

(Sharon) I can't even believe you wrote the above statement. You

want a ballpark reality check? How about all the people who have

been left unaware of the dangers and been allowed to become ill

because of the misinformation promoted by this review piece? How

bout all the people who have not been able to obtain treatment

because their doctors have been told mold doesn't cause this.

(However, the doctors are not told this concept is founded SOLELY on

piece of junk science promoted and fed to them in order to limit

financial liability in the courtroom) There was nothing

ever " good " or " solid " about this paper. It was simply a slick

marketing piece right from the get go. And yes, AIHA had a dirty

hand in the marketing of this, while the lives of MANY have been

utterly ruined because of it. It has traveled from medical

association to medical association to medical association. When

Everyone who has even a inkling of logic skills knows this is not a

scientific premise to determine human illness or lack there of.

HOW HAS THIS BEEN ALLOWED TO HAPPEN??????????

Thank God, the AAAAI is soon standing up and saying " Enough! "

(Tony) You seem to have a personal problem with the paper and more

so the people who wrote it as you have not shown a lack of

scientific method with it.

(Sharon) Are you kidding? I have shown you the science every which

way there is. Hello? The IOM?

Dr. Rand? And yes, I do have a problem with those who wrote the rat

review paper. I have documentation of Dr. Hardin in 1996,

discussing the limitations of rodent studies when using them to

understand human illness. So how is it possible he knew it then,

but not in 2004, when he co-authored the second generation Veritox

paper, modeled on the first? Can you say mold litigation defense

support corporation?

(Tony) You have only implied/insinuated a lack of proper opinion and

conclusions - post-publication comments and opinions.

(Sharon)Maybe we are not talking of the same paper. Are you talking

about the Robbins et, al 2000?

So let me end with a question for you: As a member of the AIHA, do

you now understand the devastation that has been caused by this

math/ rodent studied being named as paper of the year in 2000? Do

you understand how the AIHA was the first in a broad and insidious

marketing scheme? And if you do, what are you intending to do to

correct the matter?

Sharon

September 3, 2006

RE: [iequality] Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

Fri Sep 1, 2006 12:33 pm

Carlson <steve.carlson@...>

liesch249

iequality/message/8118

Sharon, your increasingly strident conspiracy theories are growing

tiresome. The ACOEM paper was an excellent summary of existing

knowledge at the time of publishing, and most of it remains entirely

appropriate now. Their statement " Current scientific evidence does

not support the proposition that human health has been adversely

affected by inhaled mycotoxins " was indeed based on scant evidence,

because very little evidence was available, period. I assume if that

scientifically verifiable evidence becomes available, their position

would change. You seem to assume that a position opposing your

personal anecdotal experience must be " junk science " and based on

greed, when much simpler explanations are available. Why do you

ignore the fact that the ACOEM paper also says " mold is likely to

sensitize and produce allergic responses in allergic individuals. " ?

This statement alone might possibly explain most or all of the

problems you and others are experiencing. But we really don't know,

and neither do you.

I know you desperately want answers, but that is simply not going to

happen soon IMO. I cannot know what you have experienced (and hope I

never do first hand), and for that you have my sympathy. But from

what I have seen, your arguments against the paper are even weaker

than the evidence used to support it.

Now, in the interest of carrying this debate forward to today rather

than sniping at a 4 year old document, have you seen the August 2006

issue of the Environmental Reporter, specifically the

article " Mycotoxins: Continuing Review of the Literature " ?

An excerpt:

So far, the animal studies reported in the literature verify that

mycotoxins produced by some fungi that grow in indoor environments

can produce changes in some physiological parameters in the animals.

Thus, very high doses of appropriate strains of Stachybotrys

chartarum spores produce indicators of lung damage (Rosenblum et

al., 2006) and nasal irritation (Islam et al., 2006). The models

that extrapolate these doses to human health effects indicate that

the no effect level is much higher than any exposures that have been

recorded in indoor environments. (Kelman et al., 2004) This review

suggests that levels of Stachybotrys spores, provided that they

contain sufficient quantities of Satratoxin G and H could result in

irritation if present in concentrations in excess of 2x10-5/m3

(20,000 spores/m3). This concentration has not been reported for

undisturbed Stachybotrys spores, but could be experienced by

professional remediators.

Comments, anyone?

D. Carlson, CIAQC, CMRS

Liesch Associates, Inc.

September 3, 2006

Re: [iequality] Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

iequality/message/8119

Fri Sep 1, 2006 1:21 pm

Klane <keith0304@...>

Hi !

Well said and about time someone did.

-

Klane, M.S.Ed., CIH, CHMM, CET

Klane's Education Information Training Hub (KEITH)

" Take a step in the right direction "

93 Norridgewock Road

Fairfield, Maine 04937-3116

207-453-KEITH (5348)

Fax: 207-453-5226

@... www.TrainerMan.com

September 3, 2006

Re: Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

iequality/message/8139

Sat Sep 2, 2006 1:07 pm

" Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH " <wab@...>

waneabaker

Gentlemen:

I can't help but agree that Ms. Kramer sometimes gets a bit carried

away. Her passion is driven by personal experience, as I'm sure you

realize.

But have you actually studied the ACOEM document? I don't mean have

you read it -- have you studied it? Are you familiar with the

references? Do you know the authors and their role in this

industry? Are you cognizant of the facts behind how that document

came into existence? It may be four years old, but it's still

entirely relevant because of its use in litigation, and the

continued assertion that it represents the consensus of an esteemed

group of medical professionals.

(BTW, before I go any further, I must point out that we at s

are firmly middle-of-the-road. We're not 'mold minimizers', nor are

we `fear mongers'. We're scientists and engineers, we base our work

on a careful study of the existing science, and we apply a liberal

dose of common sense when there is a dearth of science. As you've

pointed out, there is in fact a great deal in this conversation that

remains uncertain.)

The ACOEM's so-called " evidence-based statement " appears scholarly.

And it does contain some great information, but Sharon's right --

it's also fundamentally flawed.

For those who are relatively new to the history of this listserv and

its predecessor, I presented my concerns regarding this bit of

Mystical Magical Mathematical Manipulation more than three years ago

on the " old " list. Following is a brief reiteration.

As one example of what appear to be attempts to confuse and

obfuscate, have you noticed how units of measure are freely mixed

(spores/m3 vs. CFU/m3) near the end of the section

titled " Toxicity " ?

Working purely in decimal orders of magnitude, which is entirely

appropriate in this analysis, and:

(1) recognizing that most S. chartarum spores are non-culturable;

and

(2) knowing that PathCon's analyses in Ref 80 were based on culture

media (MEA and RBA) that essentially select against S. chartarum;

and

(3) acknowledging that hyphal fragments

a. are laden with the same mycotoxins, and

b. far outnumber airborne spores, and

c. are completely ignored by both the PathCon and ACOEM papers

then, some simple arithmetic indicates that exposures to airborne

concentrations of fungal mass consistent with the Magical Mystical

Murine Model Mathematics are actually quite plausible in damp

buildings.

If the foregoing paragraph is unclear due to my use of abbreviations

(or the fact that it's one ridiculously long sentence), I

apologize. If it's unclear because you don't understand the

science, and/or aren't sufficiently familiar with the literature,

that's another matter.

And this " new review " apparently goes right back to Kelman's models

that attempt to extrapolate from rodent studies to human health

effects! So it's the same Magical Mystical Math with a fresh coat

of paint. If your work is wholly dependent on serving as expert for

the defense, I can appreciate your enthusiasm. If your work is more

balanced, or if you're really just interested in the science (or

lack thereof), it's time to pay closer attention.

In some venues, there is tremendous reliance on " junk science " on

both sides of this debate. Let's not include this listserv as one

of those venues.

Regards,

Wane

<><><><><><><><><><><>

Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH

Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality

MICHAELS ENGINEERING

" Real Professionals. Real Solutions "

La Crosse, St. , Milwaukee

Phone 608.785.1900, ext. 484

Cell 608.792.1528

Fax 608.784.2270

mailto:wab@...

On the web at: http://www.michaelsengineering.com

" To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything

be more fun? "

- Graham

September 3, 2006

RE: [iequality] Re: Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

iequality/message/8146

Sat Sep 2, 2006 10:06 pm

" Tony Havics " <ph2@...>

ph2env

Wane:

I should make it clear, you'll notice that I have only commented on

the one

paper that was published in a peer reviewed journal:

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

R.E.: Health

effects of mycotoxins in indoor air: a critical review. Appl Occup

Environ Hyg.

15:773-84. 2000.

The ACOEM position paper is white paper (policy paper) - not a

scientific paper.

Different medium, different purpose, with an endorsement, different

presentation, different review, different ability to comment on, etc.

I'll leave it at that.

Tony

......................................................................

......

" Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

PO Box 34140

Indianapolis, IN 46234

(317) 752-6386

(317) 409-3238 cell

90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal

point...any

consultant can give you the other 10%â„

September 3, 2006

Re: [iequality] Re: Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

iequality/message/8148

Sun Sep 3, 2006 4:34 am

" Carl E. Grimes " <grimes@...>

grimeshh

Wane,

You and I have our differences, but I will clearly and emphatically

state that your support of Sharon Kramer's assertions (below) is a

commonality, not a difference.

Although I am not qualified to critique the validity of scientific

research and of the subsequent published studies, as you and others

are, I can say emphatically (based on my education, etc) that proper

procedure, foundation and logic, while necessary, are not sufficient.

Scientific inquiry always begins with a judgement, the conclusions

can be affected by judgement, and application of the findings is of

course always based on judgement; all according to appropriate

procedure and sometimes supported by law. As you clearly assert,

common sense is also required.

The process of a scientific experiment (as with any system) cannot be

self-validating. It must also stand on other principles such as

independant verification.

Remember the excitement of the claims of cold fusion, until they

couldn't be independantly verified? Or the medical assertion that

infants can't feel the pain of surgery, until someone investigated

and could find only a single study in Britain from the 1920's? When a

claim tries to stand only on it's own and is then generally accepted

prior to independant verification, it can lead to the type of

distortion and misuse that Sharon is asserting.

Which begs the question: Has the study and the paper in question been

challanged by repeating the experiment? Independantly or otherwise?

If not, then why is it being so wholeheartedly accepted and honored

as established science when the same authorities demand that contrary

studies await a mature body of independant verfication? (E.g. the

more recent one indicating inflamation and brain cell death in

murines from inhaled mycotoxins). If the ACOEM position cannot be

independantly verified we may be at risk of supporting the " cold

fusion " of our profession.

Wane, I'm not qualified to determine where the truth lies in this

matter, but I applaud your courage in taking the lead in this

unpopular stand and for again demonstrating your passion for finding

the truth.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

September 3, 2006

Re: [iequality] Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

iequality/message/8120

Fri Sep 1, 2006 1:37 pm

snk1955@...

snk1955

Steve,

Can you cite for me the scientific foundation for the following

statement within the ACOEM mold statement? I will give you a hint,

it was picked paper of the year, 2000 by the AIHA. And....there is

absolutely NO scientific paper that makes the same conclusion.

" 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. "

Can you tell me how this statement within this document may still be

impacting the misinformation over the science?

I am working in today's world over this matter. And before the true

science can accurately move forward, junk like this needs to be

brought to light for what it really is. Its a defense argument meant

for the courtroom. It has no scientific foundation and it has

negatively impacted, and continues to negatively impact the

scientific understanding as it stands today.

So, one has to go back and correct the mistakes of yesterday in

order to move forward with tomorrow. Sorry if I am boring you, but

there are a lot of lives at stake here.

Sharon

September 3, 2006

RE: [iequality] Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

iequality/message/8124

Fri Sep 1, 2006 5:16 pm

" Tony Havics " <ph2@...>

ph2env

Sharon:

Since you seem to have so much time on your hands - I'm assuming

this is opposed to those of us who labor long hours for a living.

Perhaps you should prepare a scientific paper either

a) rebutting the results of this frequently cited paper

or

prooving your purported point

As for your questions, if you had Listened earlier this year, you'd

realize that there foundational processes, procedures, and

variability factors that are used to support that paper. So NO

paper, even if it does not straightforwardly discuss these

foundations (for the reason that it would be onerous at best to do

it every time, and take up space for other better things to read),

relies a single study or concept. And as I said before we (the

scientific community) apply and extrapolate using math and deduce

human illness is not plausible in many arenas - we wouldn't have

exposure limits if we didn't - we wouldn't have recomended daily

allowances for instances.

Now, for arguument's sake, Let me call:

Award - Compensation usually consisting of verbal or written

recognition of an entityâ€™s value, not necessarily monetary, for

work or effort completed in a particular area or subject matter.

Endorsement - Verbal or written recognition of entityâ€™s value, not

necessarily monetary but usually, for work or effort to be completed

based upon a) past performance and their recognition by a

concerned part(ies) whom this endorsement may impact to the

endorser's desired effect.

The paper was given an award. Their use of it in marketing is not

an endorsement by the AIHA in the fashion you choose to contrive -

otherwise I would be asking awarded authors for money on behalf of

the AIHA.

It was a well constructed, well-laid out, logical paper using a

standard risk assessment process to derive a conclusion as listed.

It discussed limitations and assumptions, and presented the authors

deductions and opinions. Remember that every scientific paper is at

some point opinion. The scientific field and journal system allows

critics to send letters to the editor with comments, rebuttals,

etc. (or publish data to the contrary - except that lack of

responses are usually not publish which is a bias toward only

publish bad things that happen - this is recognized in the

literature but not by the public ) If you knew and did not send a

letter to the editor and someone else who disagreed knew and did

not - then shame on you and them. Either a) Shut up and leave the

science to those who are willing to learn it and understand it and

use it appropriately or publish yourself.

Remember - conflict leads to clarity.

Tony

vir sapit qui pauca loquitor

......................................................................

......

" Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

PO Box 34140

Indianapolis, IN 46234

(317) 752-6386

(317) 409-3238 cell

90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal

point...any consultant can give you the other 10%â„

September 3, 2006

Re: [iequality] Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

iequality/message/8126

Fri Sep 1, 2006 2:18 pm

snk1955@...

snk1955

Dear IEQuality Board Members,

To those of you who understand what I am saying and understand the

significance of the need to go back and retract " endorsments " of

junk science, I would like to thank all of you who have sent me off

board posts regarding this matter. Is there any one of you willing

to post your thoughts of this on board?

Sharon

September 3, 2006

Re: [iequality] Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

iequality/message/8144

Sat Sep 2, 2006 1:56 pm

snk1955@...

snk1955

Tony,

(Tony) Since you seem to have so much time on your hands - I'm

assuming this is opposed to those of us who labor long hours for a

living.

(Sharon) Wrong assumption. As matter of fact, one of the decision

makers for one of your sponsors for the ACT conference coming up, is

one of my clients. Small world!

(Tony) Perhaps you should prepare a scientific paper either

a) rebutting the results of this frequently cited paper

or

prooving your purported point

(Sharon) Done. I am about to be published in the Journal of Allergy

and Clinical Immunology subject: " Nondisclosure of conflicts of

interest is perilous to the advancement of science. "

(Tony)As for your questions, if you had Listened earlier this year,

you'd realize that there foundational processes, procedures, and

variability factors that are used to support that paper.

(Sharon)The above is an incorrect statement in regard to the paper

of the year, AIHA 2000. The premise was flawed from the get go. It

was a high dose, acute exposure to mold in rats (not even

mycotoxins) that was the foundation for the mathematical

extrapolations to deduce absence of human illness from indoor

inhalation of mycotoxins. It is the sole foundation for this

statement with the ACOEM doc:

" 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. "

There is no other peer reviewed scientific research that supports

the methods or conclusions of this paper, other than one also

authored by the prinicipals of Veritox in 2004.

If a paper seeks to make a conclusion based on a known to be flawed

premise, then no amount of " foundational processes, procedures, and

variability factors " (aka smoke and mirrors) are relevant in

establishing a conclusion.

Surely you are not trying to say it is acceptable scientific

protocol to deduce absence of human illnesses based solely on a

premise of a rat study with extrapoloted math added to the equation

are you? Have even read this paper you are attempting to

discuss?

(Tony) So NO paper, even if it does not straightforwardly discuss

these foundations (for the reason that it would be onerous at best

to do it every time, and take up space for other better things to

read), relies a single study or concept. And as I said before we

(the scientific community) apply and extrapolate using math and

deduce human illness is not plausible in many arenas - we wouldn't

have exposure limits if we didn't - we wouldn't have recomended

daily allowances for instances.

(Sharon)Incorrect. This paper you are attempting to justify as

science is founded only on a rodent study and extrapolated math.

You really should read it. The rest of your post in this area is

irrelevant to the discussion.

(Tony) Now, for arguument's sake, Let me call:

Award - Compensation usually consisting of verbal or written

recognition of an entityâ€™s value, not necessarily monetary, for

work or effort completed in a particular area or subject matter.

Endorsement - Verbal or written recognition of entityâ€™s value, not

necessarily monetary but usually, for work or effort to be completed

based upon a) past performance and their recognition by a

concerned part(ies) whom this endorsement may impact to the

endorser's desired effect.

The paper was given an award. Their use of it in marketing is not

an endorsement by the AIHA in the fashion you choose to contrive -

otherwise I would be asking awarded authors for money on behalf of

the AIHA.

(Sharon) You write: " their recognition by a concerned part(ies) whom

this endorsement may impact to the endorser's desired effect....The

paper was given an award. Their use of it in marketing is not an

endorsement by the AIHA in the fashion you choose to contrive "

With all due respect meant Tony, I find it difficult to believe that

you are quite that naive about the monetary value a moniker of a

medical association, or any respected organization can add to the

weight of a paper. I think you may be feigning a bit of ignorance

on this point.

You also write: " otherwise I would be asking awarded authors for

money on behalf of the AIHA. "

Have you ever generated any income while stating that human illness

is not plausible from inhaling mycotoxins indoors, based on the

ACOEM mold statement? If so, you have generated income as a result

of the promotion of the Robbins et al, 2000 paper...as legitimate

science.

(Tony) It was a well constructed, well-laid out, logical paper using

a standard risk assessment process to derive a conclusion as

listed. It discussed limitations and assumptions, and presented the

authors deductions and opinions.

(Sharon) What you write above is fiction. The IOM, the EPA, Dr.

Rand et al (who actually do lab research with rodents and

mycotoxins) and the courts have all found what was done is this

study is not accepted science to form the conclusions it has.

(Tony) Remember that every scientific paper is at some point

opinion. The scientific field and journal system allows critics to

send letters to the editor with comments, rebuttals, etc. (or

publish data to the contrary - except that lack of responses are

usually not publish which is a bias toward only publish bad things

that happen - this is recognized in the literature but not by the

public ) If you knew and did not send a letter to the editor and

someone else who disagreed knew and did not - then shame on you and

them.

(Sharon)Trust me on this one, I have nothing to be ashamed of

regarding the lack of speaking out about the deceit of the paper you

are attempting to promote as legitimate science.

(Tony) Either a) Shut up and leave the science to those who are

willing to learn it and understand it and use it appropriately or

publish yourself.

(Sharon) Well I won't shut up. There are too many lives at stake.

And I think for you to make such a statement of " shut up " is a bit

crass, undermines the validity to what you are trying to promote and

does not bode well to establish yourself as an authority on the

subject.

But I will " leave the science to those who are willing to learn it

and understand it and use it appropriately " . Maybe some day, you

come join them.

(Tony) Remember - conflict leads to clarity.

(Sharon) Exactly right. That's why I take the time to try to

explain the true science of the matter to you. Even though I am

inclined to think you might already know.

(Tony) vir sapit qui pauca loquitor

(Sharon)Thanks for the ending compliment!

Sharon

September 3, 2006

RE: [iequality] Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

Sat Sep 2, 2006 11:56 pm

" Tony Havics " <ph2@...>

ph2env

iequality/message/8150

(Sharon) 1. " Nondisclosure of conflicts of interest is perilous

to the advancement of science. "

(Tony) Appears to be a policy paper - not a scientific one. I'll

wait and see.

(Sharon) 2. It is the sole foundation for this statement with the

ACOEM doc:

(Tony) You'll notice that I didn't talk about the ACOEM paper.

Don't change the subject to imply that I did.

(Sharon) 3. Have you ever generated any income while stating that

human illness is not plausible from inhaling mycotoxins indoors,

based on the ACOEM mold statement?

(Tony) Ironically, I've used the ACOEM paper on behalf of

plaintiffs. Perhaps you should read it a little more carefully.

(Sharon) 4. Well I won't shut up. There are too many lives at

stake. And I think for you to make such a statement of " shut up " is

a bit crass, undermines the validity to what you are trying to

promote and does not bode well to establish yourself as an authority

on the subject.

(Tony) The medium of peer review publishing was designed so that

individuals like yourself can respond. You, however, choose to

verbal assault papers in another medium because you cannot

apparently do it with science.

Tony

......................................................................

......

" Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

PO Box 34140

Indianapolis, IN 46234

(317) 752-6386

(317) 409-3238 cell

90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal

point...any consultant can give you the other 10%â„

September 17, 2006

Oops, sorry for the delay in my response to this. There were a few posts I

wanted to respond to that slipped by me. This is one of them.

Thank you for posting this very enlightening series of conversations as well

as the publication that this revolves around. I could not help but note the

following statement made in the article. The article was in reference to

inhalation of mycotoxins and related illness.

" Even though there is general agreement that active mold growth

in indoor environments is unsanitary and must be corrected,

the point at which mold contamination becomes a threat to

health is unknown. "

The use of the word sanitary being used to denigrate the serious

implications associated with inhalation of mycotoxins. In other words, whereby

coming to

the conclusion that because it is not known to which point mold

contamination becomes a threat to health, that the only common understanding of

exposure

to elevated levels of mold (mycotoxins) is that it is simply " unsanitary " ?

I am also curious just how does one measure within animal studies migraines,

dizziness, nausea, muscle aches, pain, weakness, fatigue, difficulty

concentrating, memory loss, allergies, dyspnea, etc., which so many of these

symptoms are often experienced by those with mold exposures. Are the rats

rating

these symptoms on a scale of one to ten?

It is interesting that the standard for proving a correlation to the

subjective and objective symptoms, findings and data to mold related illness

seems

to be different from standards used for determining other subjective and

objective factors that result from personal injury sustained in areas outside

of

toxic tort for mold. In cases of mold exposure plaintiffs are not only

having to prove out damages, but having to prove that illness from mold

exposure

in of itself even exists.

Thank you Sharon for being our " mold warrior. "

In a message dated 9/3/2006 2:27:12 PM Central Standard Time,

tigerpaw2c@... writes:

RE: [iequality] Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

Sat Sep 2, 2006 11:56 pm

" Tony Havics " <ph2@...>

ph2env

_http://health.http://healthhttp://heahttp://heahttp://healt_

(iequality/message/8150)

(Sharon) 1. " Nondisclosure of conflicts of interest is perilous

to the advancement of science. "

(Tony) Appears to be a policy paper - not a scientific one. I'll

wait and see.

(Sharon) 2. It is the sole foundation for this statement with the

ACOEM doc:

(Tony) You'll notice that I didn't talk about the ACOEM paper.

Don't change the subject to imply that I did.

(Sharon) 3. Have you ever generated any income while stating that

human illness is not plausible from inhaling mycotoxins indoors,

based on the ACOEM mold statement?

(Tony) Ironically, I've used the ACOEM paper on behalf of

plaintiffs. Perhaps you should read it a little more carefully.

(Sharon) 4. Well I won't shut up. There are too many lives at

stake. And I think for you to make such a statement of " shut up " is

a bit crass, undermines the validity to what you are trying to

promote and does not bode well to establish yourself as an authority

on the subject.

(Tony) The medium of peer review publishing was designed so that

individuals like yourself can respond. You, however, choose to

verbal assault papers in another medium because you cannot

apparently do it with science.

Tony

......................................................................

......

" Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

PO Box 34140

Indianapolis, IN 46234

(317) 752-6386

(317) 409-3238 cell

90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal

point...any consultant can give you the other 10%Ã¢â€ž

September 17, 2006

,

Below is the most important post in the series of discussion on the

IEQuality chatboard. What is being done over the mold issue to deny these

illnesses

is a technique established by the Tobacco Industry. Some of the names in the

Big Tobacco RICO are the same names that are writing national protocol over

the mold issue. They are simply following the same technique. Some, on the

IEQuality board would prefer I just shut up. But not all by a long shot. You

should see some of the private emails I get with the gist of " You go girl " .

For those of you who have not been able to follow this, we started with

indiscretions on the part of the AIHA. They are the first of many

organizations

involved in the deceit. Their original role was to provide elevated stature

to a paper written by an old Phillp expert defense witness and an old

State Farm defensor, by first publishing it in the journal as legitimate

science and secondly naming it paper of the year.

Although not founded upon any scientific study to make its conclusions, the

doc implies it is not plausible one can become seriously ill from inhaling

mycotoxins indoors. The concept was first embraced and promoted by the AIHA in

the year of 2000. The gist of this entire serious is how medical and other

respected associations have promoted junk science under the methods

established by Big Tobacco. The common goal of the " scientists " involved in

both of

these issues is to limit liability for stakeholders by denying the root cause

or even the existence of serious illness. Keep the physicians and the public

ignorant. Win more lawsuits.

So, from the IEQuality Chatboard:

Greg, Wayne, Carl, Steve and Others,

Thank you for speaking out about the science. And thank you for voicing

your opinion that I, too, should have a right to speak.

So you all understand, I do study science. I have a college degree in the

science I study. It's just that the science I study, which is how a concept is

marketed, is different than the science you all study.

Unfortunately, the science of marketing is greatly impacting your science,

and not in a positive manner. Medical and other trusted associations are

being misused to promote schools of thought that are not scientific in

foundation, yet are beneficial to those who have financial stakes in moldie

buildings.

This promotion of a wrong concept comes on the backs of those who have been

made ill from moldie buildings.

With that said, let me show you the fundamental flaw within the ACOEM Mold

Statement that has been used as a weapon against the sick in order to limit

financial liability within the courtroom. The primary fundamental flaw has

little to do with your science and much to do with the science of marketing.

The concept being promoted within the ACOEM Mold Statement is that they have

been able to scientifically deduce it is implausible (highly unlikely at

best, even for the most vulnerable of subpopulations) mycotoxin exposure within

an indoor environment could ever reach a threshold level that would cause

human illness.

Yet, none of the 40 papers cited within the toxicity section make this

conclusion.

No other document before or since the ACOEM mold statement purports to be

able to make this conclusion, except for one. It is also authored by the

principals of the same litigation defense support corp,Veritox in the year of

2004. This paper is also based on other's research work with math applied by

the

authors to make their conclusions.

If none of the papers purportedly being reviewed within the ACOEM Mold

Statement, make the finding of implausibility of human illness from mycotoxin

exposure, then where within the document is this conclusion made?

There are six papers (that I have attached their abstracts at the end)

referenced within the section of mathematical extrapolations in regard to human

toxicity. They are all rodent studies and make no conclusions themselves

regarding a human threshold level/dose response.

They are:

74. Creasia DA, et al. Acute inhalation toxicity of T-2 mycotoxin in mice.

Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1987;8:230-5.

75. Creasia DA, et al. Acute inhalation toxicity of T-2 mycotoxin in the rat

and guinea pig. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1990;14:54-9.

31.Nikulin M, et al. Experimental lung mycotoxicosis in mice induced by

Stachybotrys atra. Int J Exp Pathol. 1996;77:213-8.

76 Rao CY, Brain JD, Burge HA. Reduction of pulmonary toxicity of

Stachybotrys chartarum spores by methanol extraction of mycotoxins. Appl Environ

Microbiol. 2000;66:2817-21.

77.Rao CY, Burge HA, Brain JD. The time course of responses to

intratracheally instilled toxic Stachybotrys chartarum spores in rats.

Mycopathologia.

2000;149:27-34.

79.Nikulin M, et al. Effects of intranasal exposure to spores of

Stachybotrys atra in mice. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1997;35:182-8.

The authors chose to use the Rao study, River-Dawley rats, for the

foundation upon which they based their mathematical extrapolations purported

to be indicative of human exposure. The River-Dawley rats had high

levels of S. chartarum spores intratracheally instilled into 10-week-old males

for a minute amount of time, as is stated in the above cited reference #76.

From the ACOEM Mold Statement, " High doses (30 x 106 spores/kg and higher)

produced pulmonary inflammation and hemorrhage in both species. A range of

doses were administered in the rat studies and multiple, sensitive indices of

effect were monitored, demonstrating a graded dose response with 3 x 106

spores/kg being a clear no-effect dose " .... " If the no-effect 3 x 106 spores/kg

intratracheal bolus dose in rats is regarded as a 1-minute administration (3 x

106 spores/kg/min), achieving the same dose rate in humans (using the same

default assumptions as previously) would require airborne concentrations of 3.0

x

109 spores/m3 for an infant, 9.5 x 109 spores/m3 for a child, or 22.0 x 109

spores/m3 for an adult. "

One could argue about the methol challenge, sensitivity of rats over mice,

River-Dawley rats vs. Jarvis rats, NOAEL & LOAEL, varying mycotoxins

produced by the same molds, and many aspects of the above cited mechanistic

studies. But to argue these points would irrelevant in understanding the deceit

of the paper. To argue these points would only be buying in to the smoke and

mirrors of the marketing of the matter. It is not the studies themselves

where the fundamental flaw of the paper lays.

It is the mathematical calculations that took one high dose, acute rat study

and applied extrapolated math to conclude the absence of human illness.

This is the fundemental flaw of the paper. This is where the marketing lies

lays.

The false statement of the document is, " The preceding calculations suggest

lower bound estimates of airborne S. chartarum spore concentrations

corresponding to essentially no-effect acute and subchronic exposures. "

It is only the " preceding calculations " that support the statement of,

" " 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.h

According to the IOM, Damp Indoor Spaces and Health Report, 2004, there is

no legitimate science to support the above statements within the ACOEM Mold

Statement. It is not even a point of any scientific debate.

IOM, Chapter 4 Mycotoxins

" 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. "

" 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. "

" Thus results of animal studies cannot be used by themselves to draw

conclusions about human health effects. "

In addition, the ending sentence of the Rao, Burge et. al, that the ACOEM

authors used as a foundation for their extrapolations, states:

" The consequences of low-level chronic exposure remain to be investigated,

as does the relevance of the rodent data to human exposure. " [EMPHASIS ADDED.]

It is commonly known, accepted science that one cannot take a rat study, add

some math and deduce all human illness is not plausible from indoor

mycotoxin exposure. And for one to do so is to knowingly promote Junk Science.

Sharon Kramer

BBA, Marketing

74. Creasia DA, et al. Acute inhalation toxicity of T-2 mycotoxin in mice.

Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1987;8:230-5.

Experiments were conducted to study the acute inhalation toxicity of T-2

mycotoxin in both young adult and mature mice. For a 10-min aerosol exposure,

the 24-hr LC50 of T-2 mycotoxin in young adult mice was 0.08 Â± 0.04 mg

T-2/liter air and that for mature mice was 0.325 Â± 0.1 mg T-2/liter air. Deaths

among

mice exposed to the higher aerosol concentrations used in this study (i.e.,

1.5 to 2.4 mg T-2/liter air) occurred in less than 5 hr. General clinical

symptoms in these animals immediately postexposure were tremors, lethargy,

stilted gait, and, in some animals, prostration.[sound familiar?] In

experiments

separate from the concentration-response studies, total deposition of T-2

aerosol and selective retention of T-2 in the respiratory tract and nasal

turbinates were determined analytically from 3H-labeled T-2. When total

deposition

of T-2 was quantitated, there was excellent agreement between that amount of

T-2 deposited and that amount of T-2 predicted from calculations based on

aerosol size and animal minute volume. Based on the aerosol deposition data,

the

LD50 values of T-2 mycotoxins was 0.24 mg/kg for young adult mice and 0.94

mg/kg for mature mice. For mice, inhalation of T-2 mycotoxin is at least 10

times more toxic than systemic administration (LD50 4.5 mg/kg) and at least 20

times more toxic than dermal administration (LD50 > 10 mg/kg).

75. Creasia DA, et al. Acute inhalation toxicity of T-2 mycotoxin in the rat

and guinea pig. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1990;14:54-9.

In this study, concentration-response parameters were determined for rats

and guinea pigs systematically exposed to an aerosol of T-2 toxin. The LC50 for

a 10-min exposure to T-2 toxin aerosol was 0.02 mg T-2/liter air for rats and

0.21 mg T-2/liter air for guinea pigs. Data from total T-2 deposition in

rats and guinea pigs exposed to their respective LC50 aerosol concentration

gave

an LD50 of 0.05 mg T-2/kg body weight for the rat and 0.4 mg T-2/kg body

weight for the guinea pig. These data show that inhaled T-2 toxin is

approximately 20 times more toxic to the rat (0.05 mg T-2/kg body wt inhaled vs

1.0 mg

T-2/kg body wt ip) and at least twice as toxic to the guinea pig (0.4 mg

T-2/kg body wt inhaled vs 1â€“2 mg T-2/kg body wt ip) than ip administered T-2

toxin. Histopathologic examination of major organs in both the rat and guinea

pig

after respiratory exposure to T-2 toxin indicated that lesions were similar

to those described after systemic administration of the toxin. Gross and

microscopic alterations of respiratory tract tissue after T-2 aerosol exposure

were minimal and could not account for the increase in toxicity.

31.Nikulin M, et al. Experimental lung mycotoxicosis in mice induced by

Stachybotrys atra. Int J Exp Pathol. 1996;77:213-8.

Stachybotrys atra is often isolated from building materials in houses with

moisture problems. Spores of S. atra can contain mycotoxins which may lead to

various symptoms in exposed residents in damp houses. The pathogenesis of S.

atra-induced lung diseases has not been elucidated. The purpose of the

present study was to investigate lung mycotoxicosis experimentally in mice after

an

intranasal exposure to spores of S. atra-fungus. One group of mice received

one intranasal injection of spores of a toxic strain of S. atra (1 x 10(6)

spores) and the other group spores of a less toxic strain. Spores of both

strains contained spirolactones and spirolactams while the highly toxic strain

contained also trichothecene mycotoxins, satratoxins. The spores containing

satratoxins caused severe intra-alveolar, bronchiolar and interstitial

inflammation with haemorrhagic exudative processes in the alveolar and

bronchiolar

lumen. A significant difference was observed in the severity of the lung damage

caused by the two strains of S. atra. The spores without satratoxins induced a

milder inflammation, so that the toxic compounds of S. atra-spores are most

likely responsible for the severity of the lung injury.

76 Rao CY, Brain JD, Burge HA. Reduction of pulmonary toxicity of

Stachybotrys chartarum spores by methanol extraction of mycotoxins. Appl Environ

Microbiol. 2000;66:2817-21.

The fungus Stachybotrys chartarum has been implicated in cases of

nonspecific indoor air quality complaints in adults and in cases of pulmonary

hemorrhaging in infants. The effects that have been described have been

attributed to

mycotoxins. Previous dose-effect studies focused on exposure to a single

mycotoxin in a solvent, a strategy which is unlikely to accurately characterize

the effects of inhaled spores. In this study we examined the role of

mycotoxins in the pulmonary effects caused by S. chartarum spores and the dose

dependency of these effects.[sic in rats] S. chartarum spores were extracted in

methanol to reduce the mycotoxin content of the spores. Then either untreated

(toxin-containing) or methanol-extracted S. chartarum spores were

intratracheally instilled into male 10-week-old River-Dawley rats.

[Here is a topic

for a whole nother day] After 24 h, the lungs were lavaged, and the

bronchoalveolar lavage fluid was analyzed to determine differences in lactic

dehydrogenase, albumin, hemoglobin, myeloperoxidase, and leukocyte differential

counts. Weight change was also monitored. Our data show that methanol

extraction

dramatically reduced the toxicity of S. chartarum spores. No statistically

significant effects were observed in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluids of the

animals that were treated with methanol-extracted spores at any dose.

Conversely, dose-dependent effects of the toxin-containing spores were observed

when

we examined the lactic dehydrogenase, albumin, and hemoglobin concentrations,

the polymorphonuclear leukocyte counts, and weight loss. Our findings show

that a single, intense exposure to toxin-containing S. chartarum spores results

in pulmonary inflammation and injury in a dose-dependent manner.

Importantly, the effects are related to methanol-soluble toxins in the spores.

77.Rao CY, Burge HA, Brain JD. The time course of responses to

intratracheally instilled toxic Stachybotrys chartarum spores in rats.

Mycopathologia.

2000;149:27-34.

Stachybotrys chartarum is a fungal species that can produce mycotoxins,

specifically trichothecenes.[and what else?] Exposures in the indoor environment

have reportedly induced neurogenic symptoms in adults and hemosiderosis in

infants. However, little evidence has linked measured exposures to any fungal

agent with any health outcome. We present here a study that focuses on

quantitatively assessing the health risks from fungal toxin exposure. [in rats]

Male, 10 week old River-Dawley rats were intratracheally instilled with

approximately 9.6 million Stachybotrys chartarum spores in a saline suspension.

The lungs were lavaged 0 h (i.e., immediately post-instillation), 6, 24 or

72 h after instillation. Biochemical indicators (albumin, myeloperoxidase,

lactic dehydrogenase, hemoglobin) and leukocyte differentials in the

bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and weight change were measured. We have

demonstrated that

a single, acute pulmonary exposure to a large quantity of Stachybotrys

chartarum spores by intratracheal instillation causes severe injury detectable

by

bronchoalveolar lavage.[in rats] The primary effect appears to be

cytotoxicity and inflammation with hemorrhage. There is a measurable effect as

early as

6 h after instillation, which may be attributable to mycotoxins in the fungal

spores. The time course of responses supports early release of some toxins,

with the most severe effects occurring between 6 and 24 h following exposure.

By 72 h, recovery has begun, although macrophage concentrations remained

elevated. [so how does this information even remotely relate to HUMAN, low

dose,

chronic exposure?}

1. WR, Platts-Mills TAE. Aerobiology and Inhalant Allergens.

In: Middleton E, Jr et al, eds. Allergy: Principles and Practice. St. Louis:

Mosby Co.; 1998:367-403.

2. Horner WE, et al. Fungal allergens. Clin Microbiol Rev.

1995;8:161-79.

3. Billings CG, P. Damp housing and asthma. Monaldi Arch Chest

Dis. 1998;53:43-9.

4. Burr ML. Health effects of indoor molds. Rev Environ Health.

2001;16:97-103.

5. Macher J. Health effects of bioaerosols. In: Macher J, ed.

Bioaerosols: assessment and control. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of

Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1999:3-1 to -12.

6. Purokivi MK, et al. Changes in pro-inflammatory cytokines in

association with exposure to moisture-damaged building microbes. Eur Respir J.

2001;18:951-8.

7. Roponen M, et al. Fungal spores as such do not cause nasal

inflammation in mold exposure. Inhal Toxicol. 2002;14:541-9.

8. Fink J, Zacharisen MC. Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis. In: Middleton

E, Jr. et al, eds. Allergy: Principles and Practice. St. Louis: Mosby Co.;

1998:994-1004.

9. Flaherty DK, et al. Multilaboratory comparison of three

immunodiffusion methods used for the detection of precipitating antibodies in

hypersensitivity pneumonitis. J Lab Clin Med. 1974;84:298-306.

10. California Department of Health Services, Environmental Health

Investigations Branch: Misinterpretatin of Stachybotrys serology, 2000.

www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/deodc/ehib/ehib2/topics/serologyf2.htm, accessed 2002.

11. Greenberger PA. Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, allergic

fungal sinusitis, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Clin Allergy Immunol.

2002;16:449-68.

12. Greenberger PA, R. Diagnosis and management of allergic

bronchopulmonary aspergillosis. Ann Allergy. 1986;56:444-8.

13. Cockrill BA, Hales CA. Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis. Ann

Rev Med. 1999;50:303-16.

14. Zhaoming W, Lockey RF. A review of allergic bronchopulmonary

aspergillosis. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 1996;6:144-51.

15. Slavin RG. Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis. Clin Rev

Allergy. 1985;3:167-82.

16. Katzenstein AL, Sale SR, Greenberger PA. Allergic Aspergillus

sinusitis: a newly recognized form of sinusitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol.

1983;72:89-93.

17. deShazo RD, Swain RE. Diagnostic criteria for allergic fungal

sinusitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1995;96:24-35.

18. Schubert MS, Goetz DW. Evaluation and treatment of allergic fungal

sinusitis. I. Demographics and diagnosis. J Allergy Clin Immunol.

1998;102:387-94.

19. Schubert MS. Fungal rhinosinusitis: diagnosis and therapy. Curr

Allergy Asthma. Rep 2001;1:268-76.

20. Blonz ER. Is there an epidemic of chronic candidiasis in our midst?

JAMA. 1986;256:3138-9.

21. Executive Committee of the American Academy of Allergy and

Immunology. Clinical ecology. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1986;78:269-71.

22. Hawkins C, Armstrong D. Fungal infections in the immunocompromised

host. Clin Haematol. 1984;13:599-630.

23. Walsh TJ, Dixon DM. Nosocomial aspergillosis: environmental

microbiology, hospital epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment. Eur J Epidemiol.

1989;5:131-42.

24. Singh N. Trends in the epidemiology of opportunistic fungal

infections: predisposing factors and the impact of antimicrobial use practices.

Clin

Infect Dis. 2001;33:1692-6.

25. Munoz P, Burillo A, Bouza E. Environmental surveillance and other

control measures in the prevention of nosocomial fungal infections. Clin

Microbiol Infect. 2001;7 Suppl 2: 38-45.

26. Ciegler A, et al. Mycotoxins: occurrence in the environment. In:

Shank RC, ed. Mycotoxins and N-nitroso Compounds: Environmental Risks. Volume

I.

Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc.; 1981:1-50.

27. Committee on Protection Against Mycotoxins. National Research

Council. Protection against trichothecene mycotoxins. 1983. Washington, DC,

National Academy Press.

28. Hendry KM, Cole EC. A review of mycotoxins in indoor air. J Toxicol

Environ Health. 1993;38:183-98.

29. Nikulin M, et al. Stachybotrys atra growth and toxin production in

some building materials and fodder under different relative humidities. Appl

Environ Microbiol. 1994;60:3421-24.

30. Rao CY. Toxigenic fungi in the indoor environment. In: Spengler JD,

Samset JM, McCarthy JS, eds. Indoor Air Quality Handbook. McGraw Hill;

2001:46-2 and 46-4.

31. Nikulin M, et al. Experimental lung mycotoxicosis in mice induced by

Stachybotrys atra. Int J Exp Pathol. 1996;77:213-8.

32. Jarvis BB, et al. Study of toxin production by isolates of

Stachybotrys chartarum and Memnoniella echinata isolated during a study of

pulmonary

hemosiderosis in infants. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998;64:3620-5.

33. Vesper SJ, et al. Hemolysis, toxicity, and randomly amplified

polymorphic DNA analysis of Stachybotrys chartarumstrains. Appl Environ

Microbiol.

1999;65:3175-81.

34. Andersen B, Nielsen KF, Jarvis BB. Characterization of Stachybotrys

from water-damaged buildings based on morphology, growth, and metabolic

production. Mycologia. 2002;94(3):392-403.

35. Tobin RS, et al. Significance of fungi in indoor air: report of a

working group. Can J Public Health. 1987;78:S1-S32.

36. JE, et al. Cytotoxic fungal spores in the indoor atmosphere of

the damp domestic environment. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1992;79:337-43.

37. Rao CY, Burge HA, Chang JC. Review of quantitative standards and

guidelines for fungi in indoor air. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 1996;46:899-908.

38. Tuomi T, et al. Mycotoxins in crude building materials from

water-damaged buildings. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000;66:1899-904.

39. Schiefer HB. Mycotoxins in indoor air: a critical toxicological

viewpoint. Indoor air â€™90: Proceedings of the fifth international conference

on

indoor air. 167-72. 1990.

40. World Health Organization. Selected mycotoxins: ochratoxins,

trichothecenes, ergot. Environmental Health Criteria 105. Geneva:

1990:30,77,169.

41. Drobotko VG. stachybotryotoxicosis: a new disease of horses and

humans. Am Rev Soviet Med. 1945;2:238-42.

42. Kaminski E, Stawicki S, Wasowicz E. Volatile flavor compounds

produced by molds of Aspergillus,. Pennicillium, and Fungi imperfecti. Appl

Microbiol. 1974;27:1001-4.

43. Pohland AE. Mycotoxins in review. Food Addit Contam. 1993;10:17-28.

44. Forgacs J, Carll WT. Mycotoxicoses. Adv Vet Sci. 1962;7:273-382.

45. Ciegler A, JW. Mycotoxins and mycotoxicoses. BioScience.

1980;30:512-15.

46. Hudler GW. Magical Mushrooms, Mischievous Molds. Princeton

University Press, 1998.

47. Emanuel DA, Wenzel FJ, Lawton BR. Pulmonary mycotoxicosis. Chest.

1975;67:293-7.

48. Di Paolo N, et al. Inhaled mycotoxins lead to acute renal failure.

Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1994;9 Suppl 4:116-20.

49. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

Preventing organic dust toxic syndrome. 1994 Apr.

50. Pratt DS, May JJ. Feed-associated respiratory illness in farmers.

Arch Environ Health. 1984;39:43-8.

51. Brinton, W. T., Vastbinder, E. E., Greene, J. W., Marx, J. J., Jr,

Hutcheson, R. H., Schaffner, W.: An outbreak of organic dust toxic syndrome in

a college fraternity. JAMA 1987; 258:1210-1212.

52. May JJ, et al. A study of silo unloading: the work environment and

its physiologic effects. Am J Ind Med. 1986;10:318.

53. Lacey J, Crook B. Fungal and actinomycete spores as pollutants of

the workplace and occupational allergens. Ann Occup Hyg. 1988;32:515-33.

54. Malmberg P, Rask-Andersen A, Rosenhall L. Exposure to microorganisms

associated with allergic alveolitis and febrile reactions to mold dust in

farmers. Chest. 1993;103:1202-9.

55. Croft WA, Jarvis BB, Yatawara CS. Airborne outbreak of trichothecene

toxicosis. Atmospheric Environment. 1986;20:549-52.

56. Johanning E, Morey PR, Jarvis BB. Clinical-epidemiological

investigation of health effects caused by Stachybotrys atra building

contamination.

Proceedings of Indoor Air â€™93: Health effects 1993;1:225-30.

57. Johanning E, et al. Health and immunology study following exposure

to toxigenic fungi (Stachybotrys chartarum ) in a water-damaged office

environment. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1996;68:207-18.

58. Hodgson MJ, et al. Building-associated pulmonary disease from

exposure to Stachybotrys chartarum and Aspergillus versicolor. JOEM.

1998;40:241-9.

59. Jarvis BB. Mycotoxins and indoor air quality. In: Morey PR, Feeley

JC, Otten JA, eds. Biological Contaminants in Indoor Environments.

Philadelphia: ASTM, 1990:201-14.

60. Flannigan B, JD. Health implications of fungi in indoor

environments: an overview. In: Samson RA, et al, eds. Health Implications of

Fungi

in Indoor Environments. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1994:3-28.

61. Menzies D, Bourbeau J. Building-related illnesses. N Engl J Med.

1997;337:1524-31.

62. Fung F, R, S. Stachybotrys, a mycotoxin-producing

fungus of increasing toxicologic importance. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol.

1998;36:79-86.

63. Robbins CA, et al. Health effects of mycotoxins in indoor air: a

critical review. Appl Occup Environ Hyg.2000;15:773-84.

64. Sudakin DL. Stachybotrys chartarum: current knowledge of its role in

disease. MedGenMed. 2000;E11.

65. Page EH, Trout DB. The role of Stachybotrys mycotoxins in buildings

related illness. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 2001;62:644-8.

66. Terr AI. Stachybotrys: relevance to human disease. Ann Allergy

Asthma Immunol. 2001;87:57-63.

67. Burge HA. Fungi: toxic killers or unavoidable nuisances? Ann Allergy

Asthma Immunol. 2001;87:52-6.

68. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Acute pulmonary

hemorrhage/hemosiderosis among infants â€“ Cleveland, January 1993-November

1994.

MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1994;43:881-83.

69. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Update: pulmonary

hemorrhage/hemosiderosis among infants â€“ Cleveland, Ohio, 1993-1996. MMWR

Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997;46:33-5.

70. MontaÃ±a E, et al. Environmental risk factors associated with

pediatric idiopathic pulmonary hemorrhage and hemosiderosis in a Cleveland

community. Pediatrics. 1997;99:e5.

71. Etzel RA, et al. Acute pulmonary hemorrhage in infants associated

with exposure to Stachybotrys atra and other fungi. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.

1998;152:757-62.

72. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Availability of

case definition for acute idiopathic pulmonary hemorrhage in infants. MMWR Morb

Mortal Wkly Rep. 2001;50:494-95.

73. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Update: pulmonary

hemorrhage/hemosiderosis among infants â€“ Cleveland, Ohio, 1993-1996. MMWR

Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2000;49:180-84.

74. Creasia DA, et al. Acute inhalation toxicity of T-2 mycotoxin in

mice. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1987;8:230-5.

75. Creasia DA, et al. Acute inhalation toxicity of T-2 mycotoxin in the

rat and guinea pig. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1990;14:54-9.

76. Rao CY, Brain JD, Burge HA. Reduction of pulmonary toxicity of

Stachybotrys chartarum spores by methanol extraction of mycotoxins. Appl

Environ

Microbiol. 2000;66:2817-21.

77. Rao CY, Burge HA, Brain JD. The time course of responses to

intratracheally instilled toxic Stachybotrys chartarum spores in rats.

Mycopathologia. 2000;149:27-34.

78. EPA Office of Research and Development. Volume I: General Factors.

Exposure Factors Handbook. 1997 Aug. Washington, DC, US Environmental

Protection Agency.

79. Nikulin M, et al. Effects of intranasal exposure to spores of

Stachybotrys atra in mice. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1997;35:182-8.

80. Shelton BG, et al. Profiles of airborne fungi in buildings and

outdoor environments in the United States. Appl Environ Microbiol.

2002;68:1743-53.

81. Macher J. Bioaerosols: assessment and control. Cincinnati, OH:

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1999.

82. American Industrial Hygiene Association. Report of Microbial Growth

Task Force. Fairfax, VA: AIHA Press, 2001.

83. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, Indoor Air Division. Mold

remediation in schools and commercial buildings. 2001 Mar. Washington DC, US

Environmental Protection Agency.

September 18, 2006

Sharon,

Your posts are extremely eye opening. It makes sense that there is a cross

over from those involved with the tobacco industry to the mold issue, when so

much financially is at stake. Who better to conceal the truth. Are you able

to provide us with the names of any of these individuals?

That there is an organized campaign to market the false and misleading

belief as to the so called harmless nature of the toxic molds that are

increasingly showing up in our buildings that we live in, work in, shop and eat

in, and

as a result end up sick in, is beyond despicable. Those that attempt to

conceal the truth disregarding the health and safety of individuals for

purposes

of profit and greed are criminal in their intent to harm for financial gain.

" When in despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and

love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time

they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of

it--always. " Mahatma Gandhi

Please continue to post these discussions as all of us hear chant, " You go

girl " .

In a message dated 9/17/2006 11:15:40 AM Central Standard Time,

snk1955@... writes:

,

Below is the most important post in the series of discussion on the

IEQuality chatboard. What is being done over the mold issue to deny these

illnesses

is a technique established by the Tobacco Industry. Some of the names in the

Big Tobacco RICO are the same names that are writing national protocol over

the mold issue. They are simply following the same technique. Some, on the

IEQuality board would prefer I just shut up. But not all by a long shot. You

should see some of the private emails I get with the gist of " You go girl " .

September 18, 2006

I just don't understand how this criminal activity can go on like

this for so long. Can we ever expect these people to be prosecuted

or that we will get help. Does Congressman Conyers office know this

info and how come I don't hear something being done. With the

election coming and in my state Senator Biden hopes to run for

president. I have contacted is office several times even wrote a 7

page letter to him in 2000. I thank you Sharon for all your work. I

am sicker because I have no hope because of these people. It opens us

up for abuse, if the government doesn't have to acknowledge this

illness how can we expect our relatives or employers to listen to

us. I am getting so tired of reading day after day firefighters,

police stations, schools, homes and even court houses and they keep

saying hardly anyone is getting sick. With all this technology how

can all of the press, government etc be controlled by bad info.

Someone give me some hope.

>

> ,

>

> Below is the most important post in the series of discussion on

the

> IEQuality chatboard. What is being done over the mold issue to

deny these illnesses

> is a technique established by the Tobacco Industry. Some of the

names in the

> Big Tobacco RICO are the same names that are writing national

protocol over

> the mold issue. They are simply following the same technique.

Some, on the

> IEQuality board would prefer I just shut up. But not all by a long

shot. You

> should see some of the private emails I get with the gist of " You

go girl " .

>

> For those of you who have not been able to follow this, we started

with

> indiscretions on the part of the AIHA. They are the first of many

organizations

> involved in the deceit. Their original role was to provide

elevated stature

> to a paper written by an old Phillp expert defense witness

and an old

> State Farm defensor, by first publishing it in the journal as

legitimate

> science and secondly naming it paper of the year.

>

> Although not founded upon any scientific study to make its

conclusions, the

> doc implies it is not plausible one can become seriously ill from

inhaling

> mycotoxins indoors. The concept was first embraced and promoted

by the AIHA in

> the year of 2000. The gist of this entire serious is how medical

and other

> respected associations have promoted junk science under the

methods

> established by Big Tobacco. The common goal of the " scientists "

involved in both of

> these issues is to limit liability for stakeholders by denying the

root cause

> or even the existence of serious illness. Keep the physicians and

the public

> ignorant. Win more lawsuits.

>

> So, from the IEQuality Chatboard:

>

> Greg, Wayne, Carl, Steve and Others,

>

> Thank you for speaking out about the science. And thank you for

voicing

> your opinion that I, too, should have a right to speak.

>

> So you all understand, I do study science. I have a college degree

in the

> science I study. It's just that the science I study, which is how

a concept is

> marketed, is different than the science you all study.

>

> Unfortunately, the science of marketing is greatly impacting your

science,

> and not in a positive manner. Medical and other trusted

associations are

> being misused to promote schools of thought that are not

scientific in

> foundation, yet are beneficial to those who have financial stakes

in moldie buildings.

> This promotion of a wrong concept comes on the backs of those who

have been

> made ill from moldie buildings.

>

> With that said, let me show you the fundamental flaw within the

ACOEM Mold

> Statement that has been used as a weapon against the sick in order

to limit

> financial liability within the courtroom. The primary fundamental

flaw has

> little to do with your science and much to do with the science of

marketing.

>

> The concept being promoted within the ACOEM Mold Statement is that

they have

> been able to scientifically deduce it is implausible (highly

unlikely at

> best, even for the most vulnerable of subpopulations) mycotoxin

exposure within

> an indoor environment could ever reach a threshold level that

would cause

> human illness.

>

> Yet, none of the 40 papers cited within the toxicity section make

this

> conclusion.

> No other document before or since the ACOEM mold statement

purports to be

> able to make this conclusion, except for one. It is also authored

by the

> principals of the same litigation defense support corp,Veritox in

the year of

> 2004. This paper is also based on other's research work with math

applied by the

> authors to make their conclusions.

>

> If none of the papers purportedly being reviewed within the ACOEM

Mold

> Statement, make the finding of implausibility of human illness

from mycotoxin

> exposure, then where within the document is this conclusion made?

>

> There are six papers (that I have attached their abstracts at the

end)

> referenced within the section of mathematical extrapolations in

regard to human

> toxicity. They are all rodent studies and make no conclusions

themselves

> regarding a human threshold level/dose response.

>

> They are:

>

> 74. Creasia DA, et al. Acute inhalation toxicity of T-2 mycotoxin

in mice.

> Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1987;8:230-5.

>

> 75. Creasia DA, et al. Acute inhalation toxicity of T-2 mycotoxin

in the rat

> and guinea pig. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1990;14:54-9.

>

> 31.Nikulin M, et al. Experimental lung mycotoxicosis in mice

induced by

> Stachybotrys atra. Int J Exp Pathol. 1996;77:213-8.

>

> 76 Rao CY, Brain JD, Burge HA. Reduction of pulmonary toxicity of

> Stachybotrys chartarum spores by methanol extraction of mycotoxins.

Appl Environ

> Microbiol. 2000;66:2817-21.

>

> 77.Rao CY, Burge HA, Brain JD. The time course of responses to

> intratracheally instilled toxic Stachybotrys chartarum spores in

rats. Mycopathologia.

> 2000;149:27-34.

>

> 79.Nikulin M, et al. Effects of intranasal exposure to spores of

> Stachybotrys atra in mice. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1997;35:182-8.

>

> The authors chose to use the Rao study, River-Dawley rats,

for the

> foundation upon which they based their mathematical extrapolations

purported

> to be indicative of human exposure. The River-Dawley rats

had high

> levels of S. chartarum spores intratracheally instilled into 10-

week-old males

> for a minute amount of time, as is stated in the above cited

reference #76.

>

> From the ACOEM Mold Statement, " High doses (30 x 106 spores/kg and

higher)

> produced pulmonary inflammation and hemorrhage in both species. A

range of

> doses were administered in the rat studies and multiple, sensitive

indices of

> effect were monitored, demonstrating a graded dose response with 3

x 106

> spores/kg being a clear no-effect dose " .... " If the no-effect 3 x

106 spores/kg

> intratracheal bolus dose in rats is regarded as a 1-minute

administration (3 x

> 106 spores/kg/min), achieving the same dose rate in humans (using

the same

> default assumptions as previously) would require airborne

concentrations of 3.0 x

> 109 spores/m3 for an infant, 9.5 x 109 spores/m3 for a child, or

22.0 x 109

> spores/m3 for an adult. "

>

> One could argue about the methol challenge, sensitivity of rats

over mice,

> River-Dawley rats vs. Jarvis rats, NOAEL & LOAEL, varying

mycotoxins

> produced by the same molds, and many aspects of the above cited

mechanistic

> studies. But to argue these points would irrelevant in

understanding the deceit

> of the paper. To argue these points would only be buying in to the

smoke and

> mirrors of the marketing of the matter. It is not the studies

themselves

> where the fundamental flaw of the paper lays.

>

> It is the mathematical calculations that took one high dose, acute

rat study

> and applied extrapolated math to conclude the absence of human

illness.

> This is the fundemental flaw of the paper. This is where the

marketing lies

> lays.

>

> The false statement of the document is, " The preceding

calculations suggest

> lower bound estimates of airborne S. chartarum spore

concentrations

> corresponding to essentially no-effect acute and subchronic

exposures. "

>

> It is only the " preceding calculations " that support the statement

of,

> " " 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.h

>

> According to the IOM, Damp Indoor Spaces and Health Report, 2004,

there is

> no legitimate science to support the above statements within the

ACOEM Mold

> Statement. It is not even a point of any scientific debate.

>

> IOM, Chapter 4 Mycotoxins

>

> " 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. "

>

> " 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. "

>

> " Thus results of animal studies cannot be used by themselves to

draw

> conclusions about human health effects. "

>

> In addition, the ending sentence of the Rao, Burge et. al, that the

ACOEM

> authors used as a foundation for their extrapolations, states:

>

> " The consequences of low-level chronic exposure remain to be

investigated,

> as does the relevance of the rodent data to human exposure. "

[EMPHASIS ADDED.]

>

> It is commonly known, accepted science that one cannot take a rat

study, add

> some math and deduce all human illness is not plausible from

indoor

> mycotoxin exposure. And for one to do so is to knowingly promote

Junk Science.

>

> Sharon Kramer

> BBA, Marketing

>

> 74. Creasia DA, et al. Acute inhalation toxicity of T-2 mycotoxin

in mice.

> Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1987;8:230-5.

>

> Experiments were conducted to study the acute inhalation toxicity

of T-2

> mycotoxin in both young adult and mature mice. For a 10-min

aerosol exposure,

> the 24-hr LC50 of T-2 mycotoxin in young adult mice was 0.08 Â±

0.04 mg

> T-2/liter air and that for mature mice was 0.325 Â± 0.1 mg T-

2/liter air. Deaths among

> mice exposed to the higher aerosol concentrations used in this

study (i.e.,

> 1.5 to 2.4 mg T-2/liter air) occurred in less than 5 hr. General

clinical

> symptoms in these animals immediately postexposure were tremors,

lethargy,

> stilted gait, and, in some animals, prostration.[sound familiar?]

In experiments

> separate from the concentration-response studies, total deposition

of T-2

> aerosol and selective retention of T-2 in the respiratory tract

and nasal

> turbinates were determined analytically from 3H-labeled T-2. When

total deposition

> of T-2 was quantitated, there was excellent agreement between that

amount of

> T-2 deposited and that amount of T-2 predicted from calculations

based on

> aerosol size and animal minute volume. Based on the aerosol

deposition data, the

> LD50 values of T-2 mycotoxins was 0.24 mg/kg for young adult mice

and 0.94

> mg/kg for mature mice. For mice, inhalation of T-2 mycotoxin is at

least 10

> times more toxic than systemic administration (LD50 4.5 mg/kg)

and at least 20

> times more toxic than dermal administration (LD50 > 10 mg/kg).

>

> 75. Creasia DA, et al. Acute inhalation toxicity of T-2 mycotoxin

in the rat

> and guinea pig. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1990;14:54-9.

>

> In this study, concentration-response parameters were determined

for rats

> and guinea pigs systematically exposed to an aerosol of T-2 toxin.

The LC50 for

> a 10-min exposure to T-2 toxin aerosol was 0.02 mg T-2/liter air

for rats and

> 0.21 mg T-2/liter air for guinea pigs. Data from total T-2

deposition in

> rats and guinea pigs exposed to their respective LC50 aerosol

concentration gave

> an LD50 of 0.05 mg T-2/kg body weight for the rat and 0.4 mg T-

2/kg body

> weight for the guinea pig. These data show that inhaled T-2 toxin

is

> approximately 20 times more toxic to the rat (0.05 mg T-2/kg body

wt inhaled vs 1.0 mg

> T-2/kg body wt ip) and at least twice as toxic to the guinea pig

(0.4 mg

> T-2/kg body wt inhaled vs 1â€ " 2 mg T-2/kg body wt ip) than ip

administered T-2

> toxin. Histopathologic examination of major organs in both the rat

and guinea pig

> after respiratory exposure to T-2 toxin indicated that lesions

were similar

> to those described after systemic administration of the toxin.

Gross and

> microscopic alterations of respiratory tract tissue after T-2

aerosol exposure

> were minimal and could not account for the increase in toxicity.

>

> 31.Nikulin M, et al. Experimental lung mycotoxicosis in mice

induced by

> Stachybotrys atra. Int J Exp Pathol. 1996;77:213-8.

>

> Stachybotrys atra is often isolated from building materials in

houses with

> moisture problems. Spores of S. atra can contain mycotoxins which

may lead to

> various symptoms in exposed residents in damp houses. The

pathogenesis of S.

> atra-induced lung diseases has not been elucidated. The purpose of

the

> present study was to investigate lung mycotoxicosis experimentally

in mice after an

> intranasal exposure to spores of S. atra-fungus. One group of mice

received

> one intranasal injection of spores of a toxic strain of S. atra (1

x 10(6)

> spores) and the other group spores of a less toxic strain. Spores

of both

> strains contained spirolactones and spirolactams while the highly

toxic strain

> contained also trichothecene mycotoxins, satratoxins. The spores

containing

> satratoxins caused severe intra-alveolar, bronchiolar and

interstitial

> inflammation with haemorrhagic exudative processes in the alveolar

and bronchiolar

> lumen. A significant difference was observed in the severity of

the lung damage

> caused by the two strains of S. atra. The spores without

satratoxins induced a

> milder inflammation, so that the toxic compounds of S. atra-spores

are most

> likely responsible for the severity of the lung injury.

>

> 76 Rao CY, Brain JD, Burge HA. Reduction of pulmonary toxicity of

> Stachybotrys chartarum spores by methanol extraction of mycotoxins.

Appl Environ

> Microbiol. 2000;66:2817-21.

>

> The fungus Stachybotrys chartarum has been implicated in cases of

> nonspecific indoor air quality complaints in adults and in cases of

pulmonary

> hemorrhaging in infants. The effects that have been described have

been attributed to

> mycotoxins. Previous dose-effect studies focused on exposure to a

single

> mycotoxin in a solvent, a strategy which is unlikely to accurately

characterize

> the effects of inhaled spores. In this study we examined the role

of

> mycotoxins in the pulmonary effects caused by S. chartarum spores

and the dose

> dependency of these effects.[sic in rats] S. chartarum spores were

extracted in

> methanol to reduce the mycotoxin content of the spores. Then

either untreated

> (toxin-containing) or methanol-extracted S. chartarum spores were

> intratracheally instilled into male 10-week-old River-

Dawley rats. [Here is a topic

> for a whole nother day] After 24 h, the lungs were lavaged, and

the

> bronchoalveolar lavage fluid was analyzed to determine differences

in lactic

> dehydrogenase, albumin, hemoglobin, myeloperoxidase, and leukocyte

differential

> counts. Weight change was also monitored. Our data show that

methanol extraction

> dramatically reduced the toxicity of S. chartarum spores. No

statistically

> significant effects were observed in the bronchoalveolar lavage

fluids of the

> animals that were treated with methanol-extracted spores at any

dose.

> Conversely, dose-dependent effects of the toxin-containing spores

were observed when

> we examined the lactic dehydrogenase, albumin, and hemoglobin

concentrations,

> the polymorphonuclear leukocyte counts, and weight loss. Our

findings show

> that a single, intense exposure to toxin-containing S. chartarum

spores results

> in pulmonary inflammation and injury in a dose-dependent manner.

> Importantly, the effects are related to methanol-soluble toxins in

the spores.

>

> 77.Rao CY, Burge HA, Brain JD. The time course of responses to

> intratracheally instilled toxic Stachybotrys chartarum spores in

rats. Mycopathologia.

> 2000;149:27-34.

>

> Stachybotrys chartarum is a fungal species that can produce

mycotoxins,

> specifically trichothecenes.[and what else?] Exposures in the

indoor environment

> have reportedly induced neurogenic symptoms in adults and

hemosiderosis in

> infants. However, little evidence has linked measured exposures to

any fungal

> agent with any health outcome. We present here a study that focuses

on

> quantitatively assessing the health risks from fungal toxin

exposure. [in rats]

> Male, 10 week old River-Dawley rats were intratracheally

instilled with

> approximately 9.6 million Stachybotrys chartarum spores in a saline

suspension.

> The lungs were lavaged 0 h (i.e., immediately post-instillation),

6, 24 or

> 72 h after instillation. Biochemical indicators (albumin,

myeloperoxidase,

> lactic dehydrogenase, hemoglobin) and leukocyte differentials in

the

> bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and weight change were measured. We

have demonstrated that

> a single, acute pulmonary exposure to a large quantity of

Stachybotrys

> chartarum spores by intratracheal instillation causes severe

injury detectable by

> bronchoalveolar lavage.[in rats] The primary effect appears to be

> cytotoxicity and inflammation with hemorrhage. There is a

measurable effect as early as

> 6 h after instillation, which may be attributable to mycotoxins in

the fungal

> spores. The time course of responses supports early release of

some toxins,

> with the most severe effects occurring between 6 and 24 h

following exposure.

> By 72 h, recovery has begun, although macrophage concentrations

remained

> elevated. [so how does this information even remotely relate to

HUMAN, low dose,

> chronic exposure?}

>

> 1. WR, Platts-Mills TAE. Aerobiology and Inhalant

Allergens.

> In: Middleton E, Jr et al, eds. Allergy: Principles and Practice.

St. Louis:

> Mosby Co.; 1998:367-403.

> 2. Horner WE, et al. Fungal allergens. Clin Microbiol Rev.

> 1995;8:161-79.

> 3. Billings CG, P. Damp housing and asthma. Monaldi

Arch Chest

> Dis. 1998;53:43-9.

> 4. Burr ML. Health effects of indoor molds. Rev Environ

Health.

> 2001;16:97-103.

> 5. Macher J. Health effects of bioaerosols. In: Macher J, ed.

> Bioaerosols: assessment and control. Cincinnati, OH: American

Conference of

> Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1999:3-1 to -12.

> 6. Purokivi MK, et al. Changes in pro-inflammatory cytokines

in

> association with exposure to moisture-damaged building microbes.

Eur Respir J.

> 2001;18:951-8.

> 7. Roponen M, et al. Fungal spores as such do not cause nasal

> inflammation in mold exposure. Inhal Toxicol. 2002;14:541-9.

> 8. Fink J, Zacharisen MC. Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis. In:

Middleton

> E, Jr. et al, eds. Allergy: Principles and Practice. St. Louis:

Mosby Co.;

> 1998:994-1004.

> 9. Flaherty DK, et al. Multilaboratory comparison of three

> immunodiffusion methods used for the detection of precipitating

antibodies in

> hypersensitivity pneumonitis. J Lab Clin Med. 1974;84:298-306.

> 10. California Department of Health Services, Environmental

Health

> Investigations Branch: Misinterpretatin of Stachybotrys serology,

2000.

> www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/deodc/ehib/ehib2/topics/serologyf2.htm, accessed

2002.

> 11. Greenberger PA. Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis,

allergic

> fungal sinusitis, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Clin Allergy

Immunol.

> 2002;16:449-68.

> 12. Greenberger PA, R. Diagnosis and management of

allergic

> bronchopulmonary aspergillosis. Ann Allergy. 1986;56:444-8.

> 13. Cockrill BA, Hales CA. Allergic bronchopulmonary

aspergillosis. Ann

> Rev Med. 1999;50:303-16.

> 14. Zhaoming W, Lockey RF. A review of allergic

bronchopulmonary

> aspergillosis. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 1996;6:144-51.

> 15. Slavin RG. Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis. Clin

Rev

> Allergy. 1985;3:167-82.

> 16. Katzenstein AL, Sale SR, Greenberger PA. Allergic

Aspergillus

> sinusitis: a newly recognized form of sinusitis. J Allergy Clin

Immunol.

> 1983;72:89-93.

> 17. deShazo RD, Swain RE. Diagnostic criteria for allergic

fungal

> sinusitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1995;96:24-35.

> 18. Schubert MS, Goetz DW. Evaluation and treatment of allergic

fungal

> sinusitis. I. Demographics and diagnosis. J Allergy Clin Immunol.

> 1998;102:387-94.

> 19. Schubert MS. Fungal rhinosinusitis: diagnosis and therapy.

Curr

> Allergy Asthma. Rep 2001;1:268-76.

> 20. Blonz ER. Is there an epidemic of chronic candidiasis in

our midst?

> JAMA. 1986;256:3138-9.

> 21. Executive Committee of the American Academy of Allergy and

> Immunology. Clinical ecology. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1986;78:269-

71.

> 22. Hawkins C, Armstrong D. Fungal infections in the

immunocompromised

> host. Clin Haematol. 1984;13:599-630.

> 23. Walsh TJ, Dixon DM. Nosocomial aspergillosis:

environmental

> microbiology, hospital epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment. Eur

J Epidemiol.

> 1989;5:131-42.

> 24. Singh N. Trends in the epidemiology of opportunistic

fungal

> infections: predisposing factors and the impact of antimicrobial

use practices. Clin

> Infect Dis. 2001;33:1692-6.

> 25. Munoz P, Burillo A, Bouza E. Environmental surveillance and

other

> control measures in the prevention of nosocomial fungal

infections. Clin

> Microbiol Infect. 2001;7 Suppl 2: 38-45.

> 26. Ciegler A, et al. Mycotoxins: occurrence in the

environment. In:

> Shank RC, ed. Mycotoxins and N-nitroso Compounds: Environmental

Risks. Volume I.

> Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc.; 1981:1-50.

> 27. Committee on Protection Against Mycotoxins. National

Research

> Council. Protection against trichothecene mycotoxins. 1983.

Washington, DC,

> National Academy Press.

> 28. Hendry KM, Cole EC. A review of mycotoxins in indoor air.

J Toxicol

> Environ Health. 1993;38:183-98.

> 29. Nikulin M, et al. Stachybotrys atra growth and toxin

production in

> some building materials and fodder under different relative

humidities. Appl

> Environ Microbiol. 1994;60:3421-24.

> 30. Rao CY. Toxigenic fungi in the indoor environment. In:

Spengler JD,

> Samset JM, McCarthy JS, eds. Indoor Air Quality Handbook. McGraw

Hill;

> 2001:46-2 and 46-4.

> 31. Nikulin M, et al. Experimental lung mycotoxicosis in mice

induced by

> Stachybotrys atra. Int J Exp Pathol. 1996;77:213-8.

> 32. Jarvis BB, et al. Study of toxin production by isolates of

> Stachybotrys chartarum and Memnoniella echinata isolated during a

study of pulmonary

> hemosiderosis in infants. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998;64:3620-5.

> 33. Vesper SJ, et al. Hemolysis, toxicity, and randomly

amplified

> polymorphic DNA analysis of Stachybotrys chartarumstrains. Appl

Environ Microbiol.

> 1999;65:3175-81.

> 34. Andersen B, Nielsen KF, Jarvis BB. Characterization of

Stachybotrys

> from water-damaged buildings based on morphology, growth, and

metabolic

> production. Mycologia. 2002;94(3):392-403.

> 35. Tobin RS, et al. Significance of fungi in indoor air:

report of a

> working group. Can J Public Health. 1987;78:S1-S32.

> 36. JE, et al. Cytotoxic fungal spores in the indoor

atmosphere of

> the damp domestic environment. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1992;79:337-

43.

> 37. Rao CY, Burge HA, Chang JC. Review of quantitative

standards and

> guidelines for fungi in indoor air. J Air Waste Manag Assoc.

1996;46:899-908.

> 38. Tuomi T, et al. Mycotoxins in crude building materials

from

> water-damaged buildings. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000;66:1899-

904.

> 39. Schiefer HB. Mycotoxins in indoor air: a critical

toxicological

> viewpoint. Indoor air â€™90: Proceedings of the fifth

international conference on

> indoor air. 167-72. 1990.

> 40. World Health Organization. Selected mycotoxins:

ochratoxins,

> trichothecenes, ergot. Environmental Health Criteria 105. Geneva:

1990:30,77,169.

> 41. Drobotko VG. stachybotryotoxicosis: a new disease of horses

and

> humans. Am Rev Soviet Med. 1945;2:238-42.

> 42. Kaminski E, Stawicki S, Wasowicz E. Volatile flavor

compounds

> produced by molds of Aspergillus,. Pennicillium, and Fungi

imperfecti. Appl

> Microbiol. 1974;27:1001-4.

> 43. Pohland AE. Mycotoxins in review. Food Addit Contam.

1993;10:17-28.

> 44. Forgacs J, Carll WT. Mycotoxicoses. Adv Vet Sci.

1962;7:273-382.

> 45. Ciegler A, JW. Mycotoxins and mycotoxicoses.

BioScience.

> 1980;30:512-15.

> 46. Hudler GW. Magical Mushrooms, Mischievous Molds. Princeton

> University Press, 1998.

> 47. Emanuel DA, Wenzel FJ, Lawton BR. Pulmonary mycotoxicosis.

Chest.

> 1975;67:293-7.

> 48. Di Paolo N, et al. Inhaled mycotoxins lead to acute renal

failure.

> Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1994;9 Suppl 4:116-20.

> 49. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

(NIOSH).

> Preventing organic dust toxic syndrome. 1994 Apr.

> 50. Pratt DS, May JJ. Feed-associated respiratory illness in

farmers.

> Arch Environ Health. 1984;39:43-8.

> 51. Brinton, W. T., Vastbinder, E. E., Greene, J. W., Marx, J.

J., Jr,

> Hutcheson, R. H., Schaffner, W.: An outbreak of organic dust toxic

syndrome in

> a college fraternity. JAMA 1987; 258:1210-1212.

> 52. May JJ, et al. A study of silo unloading: the work

environment and

> its physiologic effects. Am J Ind Med. 1986;10:318.

> 53. Lacey J, Crook B. Fungal and actinomycete spores as

pollutants of

> the workplace and occupational allergens. Ann Occup Hyg.

1988;32:515-33.

> 54. Malmberg P, Rask-Andersen A, Rosenhall L. Exposure to

microorganisms

> associated with allergic alveolitis and febrile reactions to mold

dust in

> farmers. Chest. 1993;103:1202-9.

> 55. Croft WA, Jarvis BB, Yatawara CS. Airborne outbreak of

trichothecene

> toxicosis. Atmospheric Environment. 1986;20:549-52.

> 56. Johanning E, Morey PR, Jarvis BB. Clinical-epidemiological

> investigation of health effects caused by Stachybotrys atra

building contamination.

> Proceedings of Indoor Air â€™93: Health effects 1993;1:225-30.

> 57. Johanning E, et al. Health and immunology study following

exposure

> to toxigenic fungi (Stachybotrys chartarum ) in a water-damaged

office

> environment. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1996;68:207-18.

> 58. Hodgson MJ, et al. Building-associated pulmonary disease

from

> exposure to Stachybotrys chartarum and Aspergillus versicolor.

JOEM. 1998;40:241-9.

>

> 59. Jarvis BB. Mycotoxins and indoor air quality. In: Morey PR,

Feeley

> JC, Otten JA, eds. Biological Contaminants in Indoor Environments.

> Philadelphia: ASTM, 1990:201-14.

> 60. Flannigan B, JD. Health implications of fungi in

indoor

> environments: an overview. In: Samson RA, et al, eds. Health

Implications of Fungi

> in Indoor Environments. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1994:3-28.

> 61. Menzies D, Bourbeau J. Building-related illnesses. N Engl

J Med.

> 1997;337:1524-31.

> 62. Fung F, R, S. Stachybotrys, a mycotoxin-

producing

> fungus of increasing toxicologic importance. J Toxicol Clin

Toxicol.

> 1998;36:79-86.

> 63. Robbins CA, et al. Health effects of mycotoxins in indoor

air: a

> critical review. Appl Occup Environ Hyg.2000;15:773-84.

> 64. Sudakin DL. Stachybotrys chartarum: current knowledge of

its role in

> disease. MedGenMed. 2000;E11.

> 65. Page EH, Trout DB. The role of Stachybotrys mycotoxins in

buildings

> related illness. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 2001;62:644-8.

> 66. Terr AI. Stachybotrys: relevance to human disease. Ann

Allergy

> Asthma Immunol. 2001;87:57-63.

> 67. Burge HA. Fungi: toxic killers or unavoidable nuisances?

Ann Allergy

> Asthma Immunol. 2001;87:52-6.

> 68. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Acute

pulmonary

> hemorrhage/hemosiderosis among infants â€ " Cleveland, January 1993-

November 1994.

> MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1994;43:881-83.

> 69. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Update:

pulmonary

> hemorrhage/hemosiderosis among infants â€ " Cleveland, Ohio, 1993-

1996. MMWR

> Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997;46:33-5.

> 70. MontaÃ±a E, et al. Environmental risk factors associated

with

> pediatric idiopathic pulmonary hemorrhage and hemosiderosis in a

Cleveland

> community. Pediatrics. 1997;99:e5.

> 71. Etzel RA, et al. Acute pulmonary hemorrhage in infants

associated

> with exposure to Stachybotrys atra and other fungi. Arch Pediatr

Adolesc Med.

> 1998;152:757-62.

> 72. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Availability of

> case definition for acute idiopathic pulmonary hemorrhage in

infants. MMWR Morb

> Mortal Wkly Rep. 2001;50:494-95.

> 73. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Update:

pulmonary

> hemorrhage/hemosiderosis among infants â€ " Cleveland, Ohio, 1993-

1996. MMWR

> Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2000;49:180-84.

> 74. Creasia DA, et al. Acute inhalation toxicity of T-2

mycotoxin in

> mice. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1987;8:230-5.

> 75. Creasia DA, et al. Acute inhalation toxicity of T-2

mycotoxin in the

> rat and guinea pig. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1990;14:54-9.

> 76. Rao CY, Brain JD, Burge HA. Reduction of pulmonary toxicity

of

> Stachybotrys chartarum spores by methanol extraction of

mycotoxins. Appl Environ

> Microbiol. 2000;66:2817-21.

> 77. Rao CY, Burge HA, Brain JD. The time course of responses

to

> intratracheally instilled toxic Stachybotrys chartarum spores in

rats.

> Mycopathologia. 2000;149:27-34.

> 78. EPA Office of Research and Development. Volume I: General

Factors.

> Exposure Factors Handbook. 1997 Aug. Washington, DC, US

Environmental

> Protection Agency.

> 79. Nikulin M, et al. Effects of intranasal exposure to spores

of

> Stachybotrys atra in mice. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1997;35:182-8.

> 80. Shelton BG, et al. Profiles of airborne fungi in buildings

and

> outdoor environments in the United States. Appl Environ Microbiol.

> 2002;68:1743-53.

> 81. Macher J. Bioaerosols: assessment and control. Cincinnati,

OH:

> American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1999.

> 82. American Industrial Hygiene Association. Report of

Microbial Growth

> Task Force. Fairfax, VA: AIHA Press, 2001.

> 83. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, Indoor Air Division. Mold

> remediation in schools and commercial buildings. 2001 Mar.

Washington DC, US

> Environmental Protection Agency.

>

September 18, 2006

,

You can go to the Wall Street Journal on line, search " Big Tobacco " . You

can read the 1750 page document with MANY names in it.

One can also go to ucsf library on line and read their tobacco docs. Here

is a familiar name from this data base:

_Philip Glossary of Names: I-J-K_

(http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/pm_gloss.I-J-K.html)

Kelman, Bruce J. Ph.D. D.A.B.T. Golder Associates, National Director,

Health and Environmental Sciences - Defense Expert Witness

_Tobacco Documents | Profiles | People | Kelman, Bruce J., Ph.D._

(http://tobaccodocuments.org/profiles/people/kelman_bruce_j.html)

_Eur J Public Health -- Sign In Page_

(http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/10/3/161?maxtoshow= & HITS=10 & hits=1\

0 & RESULTFORMAT= & fulltext=clearing+the

+air & searchid=1 & FIRSTINDEX=0 & resourcetype=HWCIT)

CIAR was the Center for Indoor Air Reseach. It was a tobacco funded

" research " organization. That was disbanded in 1999 by, I believe, gov't order.

As

the focus of the research was the health effects of second hand smoke indoors,

or.... other possible causes of illness such as dust mites and cockroaches,

you will find some of these CIAR docs referenced within the mold issue.

12. Platts-Mills ($590,642); a project evaluating ventilation,

wheezing, and allergens. (Now the President of the AAAAI)

3521. CIAR also published a quarterly newsletter called " CIAR Currents "

from 1991 to 1998. In total, CIAR published 19 editions of " CIAR Currents, "

none

of which disclosed that CIAR was controlled and funded by the tobacco

industry.

3523. From 1988 until its dissolution as required by the MSA in 1999, CIAR

funded over 150 projects at over 75 institutions that resulted in roughly 250

peer-reviewed publications. Total research funding provided through CIAR was

in excess of $60,000,000.

3524. In addition to SAB projects, CIAR funded a class of studies called

" Applied Projects, " similar to CTR Special Projects, which were approved and

directed by the Board of Directors with no review or recommendation by the

Scientific Advisory Board. As described below, CIAR Applied Projects were used

by

Defendants to generate data and conclusions to support the industry's

position on passive smoking.

3525. CIAR Board member and Lorillard scientist Vello Norman wrote in his

minutes of the February 2, 1989 Board of Directors meeting:

CIAR funds two kinds of studies:

a. Research -- involvement by SAB, peer review, etc.

b. Special Studies -- would normally be initiated by the Board,

not subject to peer review (airlines, indoor air surveys, reviews, etc.)

Board member Tom Osdene took notes from the same meeting,

recording that " Special Studies " were distinct from CIAR " research, " were

not peer reviewed, would be initiated by the Board, and were also called

" Applied Projects. "

3526. Fellow Board member and Philip scientist Bob Pages wrote in a

September 14, 1990 memorandum that CIAR was a " vehicle to sponsor/conduct

special projects (Applied Studies). "

3527. In a May 14, 1992 memorandum to Jim , Pages distinguished

" Applied Studies " from CIAR's ordinary research in these terms:

The SAB recommends proposals for funding after they have been

peer reviewed. Proposals can only be funded subsequent to approval

by the Board. A second class of research projects -- Applied Studies

-- are also funded if approved by the Board; such projects are not

normally reviewed or recommended by the SAB.

3528. Funding for Applied Projects was often billed by CIAR as " Special

Assessments " in addition to the yearly market share-based payments of the

companies to CIAR.

3529. CIAR Applied Projects was used by Defendants to fund studies that were

previously approved by the TI-ETSAG, or Hoel Committee, and underway at the

time of CIAR's formation in early 1988. These studies included:

1. Enstrom ($525,000); this study examined the

association between spousal smoking and lung cancer using

CPS 1 data.

2. Torbjorn Malmfors ($638,806); a study of air cabin air

quality aboard SAS aircraft.

3. /ORNL ($920,794); three projects measuring

ETS and passive exposure to tobacco smoke in Knoxville; in

a restaurant/bar; and in a corporate facility.

4. / Guerin/ORNL ($1.7 million); an

ETS exposure study of subjects in 16 cities across the

country. (Guerin was a member of the CIAR SAB.)

5. Marvin Kastenbaum ($170,935); a statistical project to

develop certain tables to evaluate indoor air components.

(Kastenbaum was a statistician employed by the Tobacco

Institute.)

6. /Hazleton Labs (later called Covance Labs)

($8.0 million); a number of exposure/measurement studies

conducted in foreign cities.

7. ETS " Treatises " (funding amount unknown); textbooks on

ETS and related indoor air topics (See BR2000545-0785

(JD 065024); (no bates) (JD 044893); (no bates) (JD 080699);

(no bates) (JD 080700)).

8. Lehrer ($2.45 million); at least three projects

assessing ETS and asthma in children and adults, and a

project to assess asthmatic responses to perfumes.

9. Alan Hedge ($979,092); this study examined " the extent to

which ETS is related to the perception of comfort and health

of office workers in office buildings, " as well as ventilation

conditions.

10. Genevieve Matanowski ($2.3 million); one project ($1.6

million) was a confounders study designed to attack

documented associations between ETS and lung cancer; the

second project ($679,000) investigated lung cancer in nonsmokers

in South America. (Matanowski was a member of

the CIAR SAB.)

11. Ragnar Rylander ($333,031); a study using a questionnaire

to determine lifestyle differences (confounders) between

groups in Sweden and Switzerland.

-1297-

12. Platts-Mills ($590,642); a project evaluating

ventilation, wheezing, and allergens.

13. Milt Meckler ($127,318); a project to assess the impact of a

ventilation/filtration system on indoor air. (Meckler was a

paid Tobacco Institute consultant.)

14. Demetrios Moschandreas/IITRI ($525,312); three projects

assessing perceptions/reactions of persons to ETS in the air.

(Moschandreas was a member of the CIAR SAB.)

15. ($72,760); a project to test for gas and

particle phase substances in indoor air in Brazil.

16. Gray on/HBI ($138,000); testing of air samples in

office buildings.

Sign In

Re: [] Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Activity