Important discussion on IEQuality board

[Guest guest]

Members,

I apologize for the cross posting from the IEQuality board, but there

is a discussion taking place that everyone should be aware of.

Basically it's about the science/junk science that has been written

over the years, where it has come from and gone to. How we and many in

the medical community have been foolishly lead to believe these

position papers are gospel concerning the effects of mycotoxins and

human health.

For those of you that are not on the IEQuailty board, I will post this

information just as it has been released. Yes, even professionals are

monitored on other boards...

KC

[Guest guest]

Re: [iequality] Certifications Restraint of Trade

iequality/message/8057

Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:37 am

snk1955@...

snk1955

Tony,

I have been studying the issues of Conflicts of Interest and Sham

Peer Reviews in the writings of those who set national protocol over

the mold issue for about 3 years now.

I am of the opinion that the American Industrial Hygiene Association

is by and large an honorable. group. But you have some bad apples

in the bunch. And they appear to be within the inner circle of the

AIHA.

The AIHA was the very first organizations to set the deceit of the

reality of mold induced illnesses in motion. In year 2000, the AIHA

named " 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 best indoor air

quality paper of the year.

From the Veritox website, " Dr. Robbins published “The Health

Effects of Mycotoxins in Indoor Air: A Critical Review†(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. "

We all know that Robbins, Swenson, and Kelman are prinicipals of the

litigation defense support corporation, Veritox. Gots and Neally

are from the litigation defense support corporation of ICTM. We also

know ya can't take a rat study, add math and determine all human

illness is not happening. So how did this paper become AIHA's paper

of the year?

With the blessing and support of AIHA behind it, the above Junk

Science paper became the foundation for the concept that human

illness is not plausible from inhaling mycotoxins within an indoor

environment. From there the lie spread to the ACOEM, USCC, AAAAI,

and most recently the American College of Medical Toxicology. AIHA

has played a key part in the medical mob mentality that has left so

many ill and unable to obtain proper medical treatment.

So please, don't try to tell me that just because you all are

filling out COI statements now, means that everything is honky dory

with the ethics at the AIHA. Attached are the COI statements that

were recently filled out for the new ACMT Practice and Policy paper.

(this is the latest spin on the paper that AIHA named paper of the

year, 2000) In this one Veritox principal, Sudakin discloses that he

testifies a little bit in court. There are some financial

disclosures missing from this COI, like shares in Veritox, I

believe. But at least Sudakin did disclose he is a defensor. Kurt

didn't even bother to fill his out.

https://www.acmt.net/main/page.asp?pageid=194

In this doc, Sudakin and Kurt say the IOM is wrong. Only they know

the truth of the matter. Do you think this could merely be a

document meant to be used as a litigation rebuttal because the IOM

was used in court to show how ridiculous the Veritox smoke blowing

really is and it was found by the courts to be the junk that it is?

So, its a step in the right direction for the AIHA to strengthen

COI, but it is only a step. COI alone does not solve the problem. So

while I am of the opinion that the AIHA appears to be moving in the

right direction ethically and that their membership is by and large

honorable, you all still have some HUGE skeletons that need to come

out of your closet.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Re: [iequality] Certifications Restraint of Trade

Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:39 pm

iequality/message/8065

Geyer <mgeyer@...>

bs101master

Sharon:

Oh how correct you are, i.e., skeletons are in the closet! The AIHA

has a big ethical issue that needs to be addressed regarding mold,

and my comments/observations to the AIHA regarding this ethical

issue have gone un-addressed, un-answered, and un-noticed.

I began studying molds in structures back in 1979, while completing

my undergraduate studies and operating a small construction

business – specializing in remodels and renovations. (I sometime

joke about how my college education was paid for by replacing rotten

bathroom floors in off-campus student housing....but, it was a BIG

part of my work.) I got interested in the molds I was finding and I

took a lot of biology and mycology classes to support my interest.

Back then, the plant pathologists where the ones in the " know " about

molds, and taking air samples with stacked plates was a

bloody chore! Multiple, redundant, indoor and outdoor sampling was

very limited. Moreover, few people (in my construction projects)

offered any horror stories regarding how they lost their memory to

mold, though allergy complaints were frequent, and we contractors

cleaned things up with little personal protection, but used careful

job-site protections, e.g., we didn't spread contaminants around.

Now, fast forward 20 years. The media has hyped mold as the root

cause of so many IAQ problems, illnesses and injuries, the attorneys

are involved, and the AIHA see an opportunity. I recall an AIHA

meting in San Diego where a significant mucky-muck of the AIHA gave

a speech: " Mold is Gold. " Implying that there were a lot of fees

to be made by CIHs doing mold work. I was appalled, but, he was

right - there is, and there was, and science took a back-seat to the

money trail. Many CIHs stepped to the plate and marketed themselves

as mold experts; even though classic IH is all about chemical

contaminants, not biologicals; there are some profound differences.

The mycology community also stepped in and said " We are the mold

experts! " And they are correct, but not in context.

Mold is a symptom of a moisture issue; without sufficient moisture,

most molds will not grow and the species that cause injury will not

grow in dry conditions – but, I am preaching to the choir here.

Excessive moisture in the built environment is the root cause of the

problem that needs to be corrected. Molds respond to moisture in a

way that they are genetically engineered to do. as: decay

organisms. It is a natural phenomenon. It is normal, and it does

not necessarily represent " contamination; " which is contrary to what

the IICRC S520 document wants you to believe. While mycologists can

differentiate the species of mold (I can't), I believe they don't

have a clue how to mitigate causation. The same can be said of many

CIHs. Construction is a science. The means, methods and

applications of construction are NOT common sense; though I have

been told this by some CIHs. Mitigating moisture in the built

environment is not common sense; albeit there are some easy fixes.

When I was a contractor, I took over 60 college units to become

acquainted with, and understand, biologicals (molds, bacteria, and

insects). I wanted to understand how these critters affect the

built environment. There were no books or classes specific

to: " Keeping Mold out of Your Home " - I had to draw my own

conclusions. It was not common sense, but I felt it made me a

better contractor.

What appalls me is the utter lack of knowledge by many " mold

experts " regarding the science of construction, and the purpose and

methods of moisture control. This knowledge is missing in most

folks who are conducting mold work today, and the arrogance by many

CIHs in saying that construction experience is unnecessary and/or it

is common sense.....BULL! Canon No. 5 of the AIHA states that CIHs

must practice within their area of competence, and that competence

is determined by education, training, and experience. Competence

is not common sense! However, when it comes to opining on mold

within the built envelope, few CIHs meet the criteria of Canon No.

5. This has been a very disturbing issue for some CIHs who have

been party litigation, as a defendant, and I have been used by the

plaintiff's counsel to demonstrate Professional Negligence by the

CIH. In the cases I have worked on, it has been VERY easy for me

the assist counsel to discredit the CIH using Canon No. 5, thereby

opening a claim of negligence and professional liability.

Does the AIHA have skeletons?....Yes they do. And AIHA needs to

address this problem head-on. This said, I believe many competent

and worthy CIHs recognized the need and went out and got themselves

better educated in construction science (e.g., means, methods and

materials), and I hope they are continuing to do so. Personally, I

am a licensed contractor with over 30-yrs in the business, and I

only scratch the surface of construction knowledge. Construction is

broad and it is a science. Any person who speaks of construction

as " common sense " deserves to be a skeleton in a closet! To say so

is professional negligence, and demeaning to all of us who spend our

life's work in construction attempting to better the science.

For what it is worth...

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

[Guest guest]

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