Re: WSJ Article False Witness by Lester Brinkman

December 3, 2006

December 1, 2006

To The Editors of the Wall Street Journal and Mr. Lester Brinkman,

My name is Mrs. Sharon Kramer. I advocate for those made ill from mold

exposure who are not able to obtain viable medical treatment because of much

misinformation being disseminated over the matter.

The article entitled " False Witness " and authored by Mr. Lester Brinkman has

a misstatement of fact that is potentially harmful to many, should it not be

corrected. It is misinformation that could cause the public to be lulled

into a false and dangerous sense of security regarding indoor mold exposure.

Mr. Brinkman wrote: " according to the American College of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine, current scientific evidence does not support the

proposition that molds or the mycotoxins produced by molds, whether inhaled in

home, school, or office environments, adversely affect human health. "

The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine makes no

such claims that indoor mold exposure is not harmful to human health. The area

of debate within the matter, is if an indoor exposure to mycotoxins may

produce toxic effects.

The actual quotes from the American College of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine, Mold Statement in regard to mycotoxins are,

1. " Particular attention is given to the possible health effects of

mycotoxins, which give rise to much of the concern and controversy surrounding

indoor molds "

2. . " 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. "

3. " Current scientific evidence does not support the proposition that human

health has been adversely affected by inhaled mycotoxins in home, school, or

office environments. "

With regard to ill health effects known from the molds themselves, the

American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine states:

1. A growing body of literature associates a variety of diagnosable

respiratory illnesses (asthma, wheezing, cough, phlegm, etc.), particularly in

children, with residence in damp or water-damaged homes (see reviews 3-5).

2. " Allergic and other hypersensitivity responses to indoor molds may be

immunoglobulin E (IgE) or immunoglobulin G (IgG) mediated, and both types of

response are associated with exposure to indoor molds. "

3. Individuals with allergic airway disease should take steps to minimize

their exposure to molds and other airborne allergens, eg, animal dander, dust

mites, pollens. For these individuals, it is prudent to take feasible steps

that reduce exposure to aeroallergens and to remediate sources of indoor mold

amplification

4. If evaluation of the occupational environment fails to disclose the

source of antigens, exposures in the home, school, or office should be

investigated. Once identified, the source of the mold or other inhaled foreign

antigens

should be remediated.

The following is the link to the American College of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine document.

_Evidence Based Statement | Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with

Molds in the Indoor Environment_ (http://www.acoem.org/guidelines.aspx?id=850)

As one can clearly see, Mr. Brinkman's statement of " according to the

American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, current scientific

evidence does not support the proposition that molds or the mycotoxins produced

by molds, whether inhaled in home, school, or office environments, adversely

affect human health. " is a false statement in need of correction.

I do agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Brinkman's evaluation of " But more is

necessary to curb fraud. State and federal legislation is needed to empower

prosecutors to pierce doctors' and scientific experts' effective immunity from

criminal prosecution. Drafting legislation to distinguish between legitimately

disputed diagnoses or theories of causation and manufacturing medical or

scientific evidence for money is a daunting task. But it is one that we must

undertake to preserve the integrity of the civil justice system. " .

And I find that it would have been appropriate in an article entitled " False

Witness " that takes the position there is much fraud on the plaintiff side

in environmental litigation, Mr. Brinkman and the Wall Street Journal should

have disclosed to the readers, Mr. Brinkman's long history and close

affiliation with the defense side of toxic tort litigation. It should have been

disclosed to the reader of the author's close affiliation with the Manhattan

Institute. The Manhattan Institute has played a significant part in much of

the

misinformation being propagated over the mold issue.

Below are links that illustrate Mr. Brinkman's long history with the defense

side of toxic tort litigation.

From the UCSF Tobacco Legacy Library regarding Mr. Brichman, RJ Reynolds

Documents

_http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=mcl46a00 & fmt=pdf & ref=results_

(http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=mcl46a00 & fmt=pdf & ref=results)

" FYI - The Manhattan Institute had a call from 60 Minutes.....the producer

might want to call an academic, and he provided Lester Brichman's name. "

" In response to Dan's question I said " no " neither we nor the litigation

project (which technically doesn't exist!) should not reach out to 60 Minutes

or

we'd wind up in the story or kill it. I'm not even going to tell the cos.

for fear PM [sic ] will try to do something " clever " .

" Former Helms staffer will be joining the Institute in July as sr. vp of

federal grant

From the Manhattan Institute website:

_http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/life/summer2005/pdf/faculty_briefs.pdf_

(http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/life/summer2005/pdf/faculty_briefs.pdf)

" President Bush with Prof. Lester Brickman (at left) for â€œA Conversation on

Asbestos Litigation Reform.â€

" Lester Brickman received the 2004 Legal Reform Research Award from the US

Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform. "

From the PointofLaw website:

PointofLaw.com

is a website sponsored by the Center for Legal Policy at the _Manhattan

Institute_ (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/) and _Liability Project_

(http://www.aei.org/research/projectID.23/project.asp) at the American

Enterprise

Institute. Focusing on America's civil justice system, the site includes

original discussions featuring some of the nation's top legal scholars, an

ongoing

forum on liability issues, a bibliography of important books and articles,

and links to topical legal news stories. Contributors:Lester Brickman is a

professor of law at the N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva

University.

His areas of expertise include administrative alternatives to mass tort

litigation, asbestos litigation, and contingency fee reform. Professor Brickman

has written extensively on these and other topics, he has testified at

congressional hearings, and he is widely quoted in the press.

Attached is a document illustrating the US Chamber and Manhattan Institute

involvement in the mold issue.

Additional example of the known dangers of mold exposure, the Center for

Disease Control on the subject:

_www.otispregnancy.org/pdf/mold.pdf_

(http://www.otispregnancy.org/pdf/mold.pdf)

I thank the Wall Street Journal and Mr. Brinkman, in advance for correcting

the ironically false statement of " according to the American College of

Occupational and Environmental Medicine, current scientific evidence does not

support the proposition that molds or the mycotoxins produced by molds, whether

inhaled in home, school, or office environments, adversely affect human

health. " in the " False Witness " article.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Sharon Kramer

2031 Arborwood Place

Escondido, Ca 92029

December 3, 2006

what is it going to take? some kind of mass class action lawsuit to

get this all on the table and proven beyond dought. were is our

lawfirm rideing in on great white horses? anyone with knowledge of

the justice system knows that not one single mold case would ever had

been won, or settled out of court if there was no proof that

mold/mycotoxins cause illnesses and even death. this is bs and is

going way beyond the time limit of aceptance. theres to many power

forces behind this trying to keep this from being reconized. a damn

horse gets better treatment than we do. and its going to drag on for

another ten years if something major is not done. winning a case here

and there is not enough. designing websites,makeing patitions, is not

enough. theres 100's a groups spread out, each based on different

parts of this illness that need to come together.because this illness

has not ever been reconized as what it is, incompasing a wide range

of diseases, we are basically spread out everywhere. you got the mcs

groups, the cfs groups, the fibmyalgia groups, the arthritis groups,

the ms, autisum, immune disfuction and on and on. how many are sick

from mold exposure, how any have been misdiagnosed and dont even know

it? it's pretty sad. why is this happening? theres not one dought in

my mind that those fighting so hard to keep this quite know just

exactually how ill mycotoxin exposure can make you and that it

effects 2 things that add to thier favor. the brain and energy. they

also know that the experts out there are not all together on this and

that hurts us. this is something i dont really understand. from what

i see if all the experts got together it would be a pretty complete

package of everything going on with us. genetics, dna

mutation,tilt,mcs,autoimunity,nos,allergies,ect. a multiple organ

syndrome with hypersensatives.i dont think theres one single part of

our body that is left untouched. some not to this point yet, some way

beyond this point, close to death, many die with cansers. we are not

the few, we are just the few known. we are in a war against very

powerful cooperations that risk going broke if this illness is

reconized.there well have to be major changes to save us and our

planet. many of these large cooperations and thier products are

actually causeing fungus to mutate and become more toxic, it does

what it has to do to servive. maybe bush thinks he can take all the

rich people to live on mars or maybe irac. these cooperaations are

getting richer at our expence and they know it. so whats thier plan?

i bet some of them have family members sick from mold. do they care?

ok, lets say stem cell research comes up with something to help us,

how much longer will that drag this out,and how much more will fungus

mutate to overcome it, are we bound to become freaks of nature

because we went against nature for the sake of money? what are my

grandchildren going to have to suffer through? i know theres a lot of

people worried and fed up. what does it take for change. theres a old

saying that knowledge=change. we have knowledge but its scattered,how

can we get everyone to come together? theres got to be something we

can do and people that care. we need people with energy that are well

to take interest in our fight.we are so close, something big to get

us the attention we need to force this issue to be dealy with. even

if we didn't get far with a class action it would get attention. it

would say to the world that we are mad and we want something to be

done. we need the world to know how unsafe it is to live and work

around moldy environments. we need renters to know that they are

getting exposed to molds in these rental apartments, people buying

homes need to know that they could buy a home that could kill them

and workers need to know that thier job could make them very ill and

everyone should have this knowledge and the right to choose if they

want to risk thier health.--

-- In , snk1955@... wrote:

>

> Prof Brinkman's quote from the WSJ article, False Witness:

>

> 1. " according to the American College of Occupational and

Environmental

> Medicine, current scientific evidence does not support the

proposition that

> molds or the mycotoxins produced by molds, whether inhaled in

home, school, or

> office environments, adversely affect human health. "

>

> 2. Direct quotes from ACOEM mold statement:

> " 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. "

>

> " Current scientific evidence does not support the proposition that

human

> health has been adversely affected by inhaled mycotoxins in home,

school, or

> office environments. "

>

> 3. The WSJ article, November 29, 2006:

>

> False Witness

> By LESTER BRICKMAN

> December 2, 2006; Page A9

>

> Last year, in a shot heard round the mass tort world, U.S.

District Court

> Judge Janis Jack, presiding over 10,000 claims of silicosis -- a

lung disease

> caused by exposure to silica (sand) dusts, issued a report

documenting

> widespread, fraudulent medical diagnoses. The fraud was discovered

when Judge Jack

> permitted the defendants to extensively question the doctors who

had diagnosed

> the alleged injuries. While this sounds like standard operating

procedure,

> most judges would not have permitted such discovery. Indeed, the

fraud would

> never have come to light but for a courageous judge willing to, in

effect,

> put the tort system on trial.

> Judge Jack largely corroborated my own published findings of

fraudulent

> production of medical evidence in asbestos litigation.......

> Substantially the same fraudulent practices have been used in

other mass

> tort litigations. " Fen-phen " is one example. Several law firms and

about 10

> echocardiogram companies which started screening businesses spent

millions of

> dollars to set up makeshift " echo mills " in hotel rooms and

elsewhere to

> administer echocardiograms to users of these diet drugs.

Approximately a few

> thousand users suffered heart valve injuries, but tens of

thousands responded to

> advertisements to find out whether they qualified for

compensation........

> Silicone is another example. Screenings by lawyers in silicone

breast

> implant litigation ginned up tens of thousands of claims of

connective tissue and

> rheumatoid diseases that were supported by the specious diagnoses

of a few

> dozen doctors who were mostly referred by the lawyers. Cursory

examinations --

> sometimes in lawyers' offices doubling as examining rooms -- were

done on an

> assembly line basis by cardiologists charging as much as $6,000

per

> examination and diagnosing more than 90% of the women with

symptoms that would make

> them eligible for compensation.

> However, the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine

concluded

> that " there is no evidence that silicone breast implants

contribute to an

> increase in autoimmune (connective tissue) diseases . . . and

[there is] no link

> between implants and connective disease or rheumatic conditions. "

> Nonetheless, approximately $4 billion to $5 billion has been paid

by the manufacturers

> for connective tissue and autoimmune disease claims.

> Mold litigation is still another example of a mass tort infected

by

> fraudulent medical and scientific evidence. Mold is a ubiquitous

fungus to which

> everyone is exposed; according to the American College of

Occupational and

> Environmental Medicine, current scientific evidence does not

support the

> proposition that molds or the mycotoxins produced by molds,

whether inhaled in home,

> school, or office environments, adversely affect human health. The

scientific

> evidence notwithstanding, mold litigation, a multibillion dollar

industry,

> proceeds because a small number of experts paid fees of as much as

$10,000 a

> day have regularly testified that mold causes a terrifying array

of diseases

> from lung cancer to cirrhosis of the liver.

> While there are ongoing federal investigations of silica and

asbestos

> litigation in New York and of fen-phen litigation in Philadelphia,

federal

> prosecutors have not indicted the doctors and scientific experts.

To prove fraud in

> those cases will require the testimony of other doctors and

scientific

> experts; and it may be that prosecutors are concerned

that " reasonable doubt " is

> virtually inherent in a process that relies on a " battle of the

experts " for

> evidence of fraud. Meanwhile, doctors and scientific experts are

obviously well

> aware of their effective immunity from prosecution. They do not

need a " get

> out of jail free " card because they already have a " never go to

jail " card.

> Part of the solution is for judges to approach mass tort

litigation with a

> healthy skepticism when mass claims have been generated by the

type of

> litigation screenings used in asbestos, silica, fen-phen and

breast implant

> litigations. Integral to these litigation screenings are mass-

produced medical

> services which are manufactured for money -- practices which

flourish when courts

> insulate them from the extensive discovery presided over by Judge

Jack.

> But more is necessary to curb fraud. State and federal legislation

is needed

> to empower prosecutors to pierce doctors' and scientific experts'

effective

> immunity from criminal prosecution. Drafting legislation to

distinguish

> between legitimately disputed diagnoses or theories of causation

and manufacturing

> medical or scientific evidence for money is a daunting task. But

it is one

> that we must undertake to preserve the integrity of the civil

justice system.

> Mr. Brickman is professor of law at the Cardozo School of Law of

Yeshiva

> University.

> 4. From the UCSF Tobacco Legacy Library regarding Prof Brichman,

RJReynolds

> Documents

> _http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?

tid=mcl46a00 & fmt=pdf & ref=results_

> (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?

tid=mcl46a00 & fmt=pdf & ref=results)

>

> " FYI - The Manhattan Institute had a call from 60 Minutes.....the

producer

> might want to call an academic, and he provided Lester Brichman's

name. "

>

> " In response to Dan's question I said " no " neither we nor the

litigation

> project (which technically doesn't exist!) should not reach out to

60 Minutes or

> we'd wind up in the story or kill it. I'm not even going to tell

the cos.

> for fear PM [sic ] will try to do something " clever " .

>

> " Former Helms staffer will be joining the Institute in July as sr.

vp of

> federal grant

>

> From the Manhattan Institute website:

> _http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/life/summer2005/pdf/faculty_briefs.pdf_

>

(http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/life/summer2005/pdf/faculty_briefs.pdf)

>

> " President Bush with Prof. Lester Brickman (at left) for â€œA

Conversation on

> Asbestos Litigation Reform.â€

> " Lester Brickman received the 2004 Legal Reform Research Award

from the US

> Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform. "

>

> From the PointofLaw website:

>

> PointofLaw.com

> is a website sponsored by the Center for Legal Policy at the

_Manhattan

> Institute_ (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/) and _Liability

Project_

> (http://www.aei.org/research/projectID.23/project.asp) at the

American Enterprise

> Institute. Focusing on America's civil justice system, the site

includes

> original discussions featuring some of the nation's top legal

scholars, an ongoing

> forum on liability issues, a bibliography of important books and

articles,

> and links to topical legal news stories. Contributors:Lester

Brickman is a

> professor of law at the N. Cardozo School of Law at

Yeshiva

> University. His areas of expertise include administrative

alternatives to mass tort

> litigation, asbestos litigation, and contingency fee reform.

Professor Brickman

> has written extensively on these and other topics, he has

testified at

> congressional hearings, and he is widely quoted in the press.

>

> (http://www.otispregnancy.org/pdf/mold.pdf)

> The lay translation of the ACOEM Mold Statement was shared by the

Manhattan

> Institute with the US Chamber and affiliates in July of 2003. It

ends with

> the sentence, â€œThus the notion that â€˜toxic moldâ€™ is an

insidious secret â€˜

> killerâ€™ as so many media reports and trial lawyers would claim

is â€˜Junk Scienceâ€™

> unsupported by actual scientific study.â€

>

> Just one example of thousands regarding ill health and mold. It's

a CDC doc.

> _www.otispregnancy.org/pdf/mold.pdf_

> (http://www.otispregnancy.org/pdf/mold.pdf)

>

> Sharon Kramer

>

December 3, 2006

One line of argument that people in mold cases are not making, but which

needs to be made.

Human lives are much more fragile than the lives of animals living in

laboratories. The only analogy

that could be made is if a human being was living in a cage, received three

meals a day, and could not talk

or in any way explain what was happening to him or her.

Poor people's lives are exceedingly fragile. What might not hurt a

well-to-do person so very much,

like not being able to remember at one's usual level, or sleep properly, or

remember your boss's instructions,

will quickly result in a chain reaction of devastating consequences in most

humans lives, at least those who

live normal lives.

Animals can't talk. They can't explain what is happening to them when they

are in these experiments that are used

to 'prove' the nontoxicity of individual mycotoxins (and make no mistake

about it, when funding comes it is to 'prove'

things one way or another these days)

In the real world, those who live in moldy buildings are subjected to a

witches brew of numerous chemical and

biological toxicants from the mold and bacteria growth in them. Their bodies

react as bodies do, with defenses

designed to protect us from death or disease.

This is extremely disruptive and by all of OUR experiences, often results in

health issues that impact us for years,

quite possibly for our lives.

Why do they ignore us? Why do they poison us? MONEY...

On 12/3/06, snk1955@... <snk1955@...> wrote:

>

> Prof Brinkman's quote from the WSJ article, False Witness:

>

> 1. " according to the American College of Occupational and Environmental

> Medicine, current scientific evidence does not support the proposition

> that

> molds or the mycotoxins produced by molds, whether inhaled in home,

> school, or

> office environments, adversely affect human health. "

>

> 2. Direct quotes from ACOEM mold statement:

> " 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. "

>

> " Current scientific evidence does not support the proposition that human

> health has been adversely affected by inhaled mycotoxins in home, school,

> or

> office environments. "

>

> 3. The WSJ article, November 29, 2006:

>

December 3, 2006

Exactly!

" who " wrote:

everyone should have this knowledge and the right to choose if they

want to risk thier health.--

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

---

> what is it going to take? some kind of mass class action lawsuit to

> get this all on the table and proven beyond dought. were is our

> lawfirm rideing in on great white horses? anyone with knowledge of the

> justice system knows that not one single mold case would ever had been

> won, or settled out of court if there was no proof that

> mold/mycotoxins cause illnesses and even death. this is bs and is

> going way beyond the time limit of aceptance. theres to many power

> forces behind this trying to keep this from being reconized. a damn

> horse gets better treatment than we do. and its going to drag on for

> another ten years if something major is not done. winning a case here

> and there is not enough. designing websites,makeing patitions, is not

> enough. theres 100's a groups spread out, each based on different

> parts of this illness that need to come together.because this illness

> has not ever been reconized as what it is, incompasing a wide range of

> diseases, we are basically spread out everywhere. you got the mcs

> groups, the cfs groups, the fibmyalgia groups, the arthritis groups,

> the ms, autisum, immune disfuction and on and on. how many are sick

> from mold exposure, how any have been misdiagnosed and dont even know

> it? it's pretty sad. why is this happening? theres not one dought in

> my mind that those fighting so hard to keep this quite know just

> exactually how ill mycotoxin exposure can make you and that it effects

> 2 things that add to thier favor. the brain and energy. they also know

> that the experts out there are not all together on this and that hurts

> us. this is something i dont really understand. from what i see if all

> the experts got together it would be a pretty complete package of

> everything going on with us. genetics, dna

> mutation,tilt,mcs,autoimunity,nos,allergies,ect. a multiple organ

> syndrome with hypersensatives.i dont think theres one single part of

> our body that is left untouched. some not to this point yet, some way

> beyond this point, close to death, many die with cansers. we are not

> the few, we are just the few known. we are in a war against very

> powerful cooperations that risk going broke if this illness is

> reconized.there well have to be major changes to save us and our

> planet. many of these large cooperations and thier products are

> actually causeing fungus to mutate and become more toxic, it does what

> it has to do to servive. maybe bush thinks he can take all the rich

> people to live on mars or maybe irac. these cooperaations are getting

> richer at our expence and they know it. so whats thier plan? i bet

> some of them have family members sick from mold. do they care? ok,

> lets say stem cell research comes up with something to help us, how

> much longer will that drag this out,and how much more will fungus

> mutate to overcome it, are we bound to become freaks of nature because

> we went against nature for the sake of money? what are my

> grandchildren going to have to suffer through? i know theres a lot of

> people worried and fed up. what does it take for change. theres a old

> saying that knowledge=change. we have knowledge but its scattered,how

> can we get everyone to come together? theres got to be something we

> can do and people that care. we need people with energy that are well

> to take interest in our fight.we are so close, something big to get us

> the attention we need to force this issue to be dealy with. even if we

> didn't get far with a class action it would get attention. it would

> say to the world that we are mad and we want something to be done. we

> need the world to know how unsafe it is to live and work around moldy

> environments. we need renters to know that they are getting exposed to

> molds in these rental apartments, people buying homes need to know

> that they could buy a home that could kill them and workers need to

> know that thier job could make them very ill and everyone should have

> this knowledge and the right to choose if they want to risk thier

> health.--

>

> -- In , snk1955@... wrote:

> >

> > Prof Brinkman's quote from the WSJ article, False Witness:

> >

> > 1. " according to the American College of Occupational and

> Environmental

> > Medicine, current scientific evidence does not support the

> proposition that

> > molds or the mycotoxins produced by molds, whether inhaled in

> home, school, or

> > office environments, adversely affect human health. "

> >

> > 2. Direct quotes from ACOEM mold statement:

> > " 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. "

> >

> > " Current scientific evidence does not support the proposition that

> human

> > health has been adversely affected by inhaled mycotoxins in home,

> school, or

> > office environments. "

> >

> > 3. The WSJ article, November 29, 2006:

> >

> > False Witness

> > By LESTER BRICKMAN

> > December 2, 2006; Page A9

> >

> > Last year, in a shot heard round the mass tort world, U.S.

> District Court

> > Judge Janis Jack, presiding over 10,000 claims of silicosis -- a

> lung disease

> > caused by exposure to silica (sand) dusts, issued a report

> documenting

> > widespread, fraudulent medical diagnoses. The fraud was discovered

> when Judge Jack

> > permitted the defendants to extensively question the doctors who

> had diagnosed

> > the alleged injuries. While this sounds like standard operating

> procedure,

> > most judges would not have permitted such discovery. Indeed, the

> fraud would

> > never have come to light but for a courageous judge willing to, in

> effect,

> > put the tort system on trial.

> > Judge Jack largely corroborated my own published findings of

> fraudulent

> > production of medical evidence in asbestos litigation.......

> > Substantially the same fraudulent practices have been used in

> other mass

> > tort litigations. " Fen-phen " is one example. Several law firms and

> about 10

> > echocardiogram companies which started screening businesses spent

> millions of

> > dollars to set up makeshift " echo mills " in hotel rooms and

> elsewhere to

> > administer echocardiograms to users of these diet drugs.

> Approximately a few

> > thousand users suffered heart valve injuries, but tens of

> thousands responded to

> > advertisements to find out whether they qualified for

> compensation........

> > Silicone is another example. Screenings by lawyers in silicone

> breast

> > implant litigation ginned up tens of thousands of claims of

> connective tissue and

> > rheumatoid diseases that were supported by the specious diagnoses

> of a few

> > dozen doctors who were mostly referred by the lawyers. Cursory

> examinations --

> > sometimes in lawyers' offices doubling as examining rooms -- were

> done on an

> > assembly line basis by cardiologists charging as much as $6,000

> per

> > examination and diagnosing more than 90% of the women with

> symptoms that would make

> > them eligible for compensation.

> > However, the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine

> concluded

> > that " there is no evidence that silicone breast implants

> contribute to an

> > increase in autoimmune (connective tissue) diseases . . . and

> [there is] no link

> > between implants and connective disease or rheumatic conditions. "

> > Nonetheless, approximately $4 billion to $5 billion has been paid

> by the manufacturers

> > for connective tissue and autoimmune disease claims.

> > Mold litigation is still another example of a mass tort infected

> by

> > fraudulent medical and scientific evidence. Mold is a ubiquitous

> fungus to which

> > everyone is exposed; according to the American College of

> Occupational and

> > Environmental Medicine, current scientific evidence does not

> support the

> > proposition that molds or the mycotoxins produced by molds,

> whether inhaled in home,

> > school, or office environments, adversely affect human health. The

> scientific

> > evidence notwithstanding, mold litigation, a multibillion dollar

> industry,

> > proceeds because a small number of experts paid fees of as much as

> $10,000 a

> > day have regularly testified that mold causes a terrifying array

> of diseases

> > from lung cancer to cirrhosis of the liver.

> > While there are ongoing federal investigations of silica and

> asbestos

> > litigation in New York and of fen-phen litigation in Philadelphia,

> federal

> > prosecutors have not indicted the doctors and scientific experts.

> To prove fraud in

> > those cases will require the testimony of other doctors and

> scientific

> > experts; and it may be that prosecutors are concerned

> that " reasonable doubt " is

> > virtually inherent in a process that relies on a " battle of the

> experts " for

> > evidence of fraud. Meanwhile, doctors and scientific experts are

> obviously well

> > aware of their effective immunity from prosecution. They do not

> need a " get

> > out of jail free " card because they already have a " never go to

> jail " card.

> > Part of the solution is for judges to approach mass tort

> litigation with a

> > healthy skepticism when mass claims have been generated by the

> type of

> > litigation screenings used in asbestos, silica, fen-phen and

> breast implant

> > litigations. Integral to these litigation screenings are mass-

> produced medical

> > services which are manufactured for money -- practices which

> flourish when courts

> > insulate them from the extensive discovery presided over by Judge

> Jack.

> > But more is necessary to curb fraud. State and federal legislation

> is needed

> > to empower prosecutors to pierce doctors' and scientific experts'

> effective

> > immunity from criminal prosecution. Drafting legislation to

> distinguish

> > between legitimately disputed diagnoses or theories of causation

> and manufacturing

> > medical or scientific evidence for money is a daunting task. But

> it is one

> > that we must undertake to preserve the integrity of the civil

> justice system.

> > Mr. Brickman is professor of law at the Cardozo School of Law of

> Yeshiva

> > University.

> > 4. From the UCSF Tobacco Legacy Library regarding Prof Brichman,

> RJReynolds

> > Documents

> > _http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?

> tid=mcl46a00 & fmt=pdf & ref=results_

> > (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?

> tid=mcl46a00 & fmt=pdf & ref=results)

> >

> > " FYI - The Manhattan Institute had a call from 60 Minutes.....the

> producer

> > might want to call an academic, and he provided Lester Brichman's

> name. "

> >

> > " In response to Dan's question I said " no " neither we nor the

> litigation

> > project (which technically doesn't exist!) should not reach out to

> 60 Minutes or

> > we'd wind up in the story or kill it. I'm not even going to tell

> the cos.

> > for fear PM [sic ] will try to do something " clever " .

> >

> > " Former Helms staffer will be joining the Institute in July as sr.

> vp of

> > federal grant

> >

> > From the Manhattan Institute website:

> > _http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/life/summer2005/pdf/faculty_briefs.pdf_

> >

> (http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/life/summer2005/pdf/faculty_briefs.pdf)

> > > " President Bush with Prof. Lester Brickman (at left) for âEURœA

> Conversation on > Asbestos Litigation Reform.âEUR > " Lester Brickman

> received the 2004 Legal Reform Research Award from the US > Chamber

> of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform. " > > From the PointofLaw

> website: > > PointofLaw.com > is a website sponsored by the Center

> for Legal Policy at the _Manhattan > Institute_

> (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/) and _Liability Project_ >

> (http://www.aei.org/research/projectID.23/project.asp) at the

> American Enterprise > Institute. Focusing on America's civil justice

> system, the site includes > original discussions featuring some of

> the nation's top legal scholars, an ongoing > forum on liability

> issues, a bibliography of important books and articles, > and links to

> topical legal news stories. Contributors:Lester Brickman is a >

> professor of law at the N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva

> > University. His areas of expertise include administrative

> alternatives to mass tort > litigation, asbestos litigation, and

> contingency fee reform. Professor Brickman > has written extensively

> on these and other topics, he has testified at > congressional

> hearings, and he is widely quoted in the press. > >

> (http://www.otispregnancy.org/pdf/mold.pdf) > The lay translation of

> the ACOEM Mold Statement was shared by the Manhattan > Institute with

> the US Chamber and affiliates in July of 2003. It ends with > the

> sentence, âEURœThus the notion that âEUR˜toxic moldâEUR™ is an insidious

> secret âEUR˜ > killerâEUR™ as so many media reports and trial lawyers

> would claim is âEUR˜Junk ScienceâEUR™ > unsupported by actual scientific

> study.âEUR > > > > Just one example of thousands regarding ill health

> and mold. It's a CDC doc. > _www.otispregnancy.org/pdf/mold.pdf_ >

> (http://www.otispregnancy.org/pdf/mold.pdf) > > > Sharon Kramer > > >

> > >

December 3, 2006

Here is an interesting protocol they could use in animal tests.

They could take 100 mice , 50 of whom were housed in small " moldy homes " and

50 of whom were housed in " non moldy homes " , everything else being the same

and place them in a large enclosed space, in which there were both food

sources (the food sources would be physically removed from the homes by an

equidistant amount) and a typical complement of hungry predators, and see

how many of each group of mice were still alive at the end of say, a year or

two, and how many of each group had reproduced.. the survival /

reproduction rate..

That would be a much more realistic test...

On 12/3/06, snk1955@... <snk1955@...> wrote:

>

> I agree wholeheartedly. I think it is criminal what is happening to

> families for the sake of the almighty dollar.

>

December 3, 2006

-sorry, don't take me wrong, i love horses and all animals.some of my

best friends were animals.-- In ,

LiveSimply <quackadillian@...> wrote:

>

> One line of argument that people in mold cases are not making, but

which

> needs to be made.

>

> Human lives are much more fragile than the lives of animals living

in

> laboratories. The only analogy

> that could be made is if a human being was living in a cage,

received three

> meals a day, and could not talk

> or in any way explain what was happening to him or her.

>

> Poor people's lives are exceedingly fragile. What might not hurt a

> well-to-do person so very much,

> like not being able to remember at one's usual level, or sleep

properly, or

> remember your boss's instructions,

> will quickly result in a chain reaction of devastating consequences

in most

> humans lives, at least those who

> live normal lives.

>

> Animals can't talk. They can't explain what is happening to them

when they

> are in these experiments that are used

> to 'prove' the nontoxicity of individual mycotoxins (and make no

mistake

> about it, when funding comes it is to 'prove'

> things one way or another these days)

>

> In the real world, those who live in moldy buildings are subjected

to a

> witches brew of numerous chemical and

> biological toxicants from the mold and bacteria growth in them.

Their bodies

> react as bodies do, with defenses

> designed to protect us from death or disease.

>

> This is extremely disruptive and by all of OUR experiences, often

results in

> health issues that impact us for years,

> quite possibly for our lives.

>

> Why do they ignore us? Why do they poison us? MONEY...

>

> On 12/3/06, snk1955@... <snk1955@...> wrote:

> >

> > Prof Brinkman's quote from the WSJ article, False Witness:

> >

> > 1. " according to the American College of Occupational and

Environmental

> > Medicine, current scientific evidence does not support the

proposition

> > that

> > molds or the mycotoxins produced by molds, whether inhaled in

home,

> > school, or

> > office environments, adversely affect human health. "

> >

> > 2. Direct quotes from ACOEM mold statement:

> > " 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. "

> >

> > " Current scientific evidence does not support the proposition

that human

> > health has been adversely affected by inhaled mycotoxins in home,

school,

> > or

> > office environments. "

> >

> > 3. The WSJ article, November 29, 2006:

> >

>

December 3, 2006

There is soooo much corruption over the mold issue, it's like shooting fish

in a barrel to find it.

December 3, 2006

That's a good thought. Did you read about the mice they enclosed with a square

of new fabric overnight? Dead in the morning. Makes ya never want to install

carpet again, ever.

Re: [] Re: WSJ Article " False Witness " by Lester

Brinkman