WorkCompCentral Revised ACOEM Mold Statement Doesn’t Appease Critics:

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

In a modern day tale of the Emperor's New Robe, ACOEM continues to feign that they put out current accepted science over the mold issue ten years ago as health policy...and that it is still science today.

(Some of the bigger pdf links below, take a minute to open)

So where is our government to shut this down (when the interests of the US Chamber are involved)?

Does "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," apply here?

Ignore that those funky math calculations end up being a real embarrassment (and a sure loss) for any defense attorney who tries to use them in an honest court.

I suppose we should thank ACOEM for helping to keep the defense bar easily exposed as parading bare in their denials of causation.

But lives are still lost by their selling of doubt. (and of course the position of ACOEM and the US Chamber will still be effective to beat people down for several months before trial. They will still cause many sick people - whether in litigation or not - to be misdiagnosed & left unaware while staying in moldy buildings as their health mysteriously deteriorates, sometimes into death).

WCC's writing (excerpts below) is excellent. I would highly suggest that anyone who is having difficulty obtaining medical treatment or who has a mold claim buy this article. It only costs $7.00.

If you can, please send Jim and at WCC a note to thank them for helping us bring this to public light and buy the article. jim@... & patjenreilly@...

To purchase & read this article in its entirety, go to: http://www.workcompcentral.com/signup/news/index.php?id=34467318de5e107dbebf8abd510d320cj

I pulled out a few quotes below. This one is most indicative of ACOEM's continued imperialist attitude of no need for transparency and democracy (or any research after 2002 cited) when setting health policy that impacts all:

"McLellan said the general public also had the opportunity to comment on the revisions."

Did I miss something? I never got to see what they were putting out before they did it, or to comment on what they wrote. I see nowhere that they took our scientifically evidenced suggestions to heart. Does anyone else?

PS. On a personal note, on March 25th, in the San Diego North County Courtroom of Dept 30 at 1:30, the State of CA is anticipated to gag a US citizen (me) from ever writing and evidencing again of how the US Chamber of Commerce got their unclean hands in the mold issue by teaming up with the Manhattan Institute think-tank and paying Hardin and Kelman to write a policy paper for the Chamber that is a lay translation mass marketed to the courts. of what they wrote for ACOEM

The ACOEM mold statement meaning (that has not conceptually changed with this new version) in lay words according to the Chamber: "Thus the notion that toxic mold is an insidious secret killer as so many media and trial lawyers would claim is junk science unsupported by actual scientific study."

THE US CHAMBER VERSION OF ACOEM's CITES FALSE AUTHORSHIP OF BEING CO-WRITTEN BY A PHYSICIAN. NOPE! Just Hardin and Kelman.

This anticipated ruling that will make me gag on the 25th and our founding fathers role over in their graves, will establish new (underground) case law that US citizens can be silenced by the courts from writing words that are adverse to the interest of the insurance industry & US Chamber of Commerce (and ACOEM).... without even having to first sue the citizen for the words or show any evidence they are incorrect.

Specifically, on March 25th, I will most likely be illegally gagged from writing "He [Chamber author, Kelman] admitted the Manhattan Institute paid GlobalTox $40,000 to write a position paper regarding the potential health risks of toxic mold exposure." I have never even been sued for these words and they are 100% evidenced to be correct many times over!!!

This means all of the following words will be gagged, too, of how ACOEM's science over the mold issue is waaaaay too close to that of the paid for hire endeavor of US Chamber and a think-tank:

"In 2003, with the involvement of the US Chamber of Commerce and ex-developer, US Congressman (R-CA), the GlobalTox paper was disseminated to the real estate, mortgage and building industries' associations. A version of the Manhattan Institute commissioned piece may also be found as a position statement on the website of a United States medical policy-writing body, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine."

The only words I have written of this matter that have even been challenged as incorrect are "altered his under oath statements" was a false accusation of perjury - and the courts cannot even state how this claim pans out.

See LINK of complaint from 2005 for the five words "altered his under oath statements" & injunctive relief sought on March 25th gag me to hide how the Chamber/Manhattan Institute money & unclean hands got into this issue and policy...and they are trying to shut me up so that they can do it again!!!

So much for the 1st Amendment or protecting the public when the U$ Chamber is involved!

On Saturday, March 26th, I am scheduled to speak of all of the above at a workers health rights conference in San Francisco.

Wonder if I can do it via some sort of webcast from my jail cell....when I tell the courts on Friday the 25th, to pound sand.

We are not the United States of the US Chamber of Commerce! (are we????)

If you think we are and you think this is A OK, then remain silent.

But know that there will be no one to tell the insidious tale if you let me be forever silenced caused by

Fear of Retribution. or loss of reputation should they dare to speak out.

What my story REALLY is, is the loss of Democracy in the United States...and those that let it/aided it to happen by remaining silent of what they know of the deceit.

Sharon

*****************************************************************************************

WorkCompCentral Top 03/09/11

Revised ACOEM Mold Statement Doesn’t Appease Critics:

By Reilly, Correspondent

The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine has released long-awaited revisions to its contentious position paper on the health effects of mold exposure, but one mold activist said the paper will not help workers’ compensation claimants because the college’s position is essentially unchanged....

The paper, released Feb. 24, says indoor molds have an “important, but minor overall role in allergic airway disease. Except for persons with severely impaired immune systems, indoor mold is not a source of fungal infections.â€

The conclusion isn’t significantly different than the statement in ACOEM’s original position statement, which drew fire from critics who say the college is too cozy with claims payers....

“What they put out is exactly what we expected,†Kramer said. “It is a new and improved litigation defense argument that is not based on currently accepted science.â€...

ACOEM’s original paper relied in part on a test in which mice were exposed to a specific strain of mold and suffered no significant health effects. The test was extrapolated to reach the conclusion that exposure to mold would have no effect in humans.

“It is insurance fraud. Nothing has changed,†[Kramer] said. “They took data from a single rodent study. Those calculations have been thrown out of court.†(I added the links!)

ACOEM came under fire for its 2002 position paper after a Wall Street Journal report revealed that the two authors, Bruce Kelman and Hardin, were toxicologists and defense witnesses who testified that there was no health effect caused by exposure to mold....

McLellan said the general public also had the opportunity to comment on the revisions.....â€Public comments did go to the Council of Scientific Advisors.â€

******************************************************************************************

Sharon Noonan Kramer