RE: Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

[Guest guest]

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, PEpH2, LLCPO Box 34140Indianapolis, IN 46234 cell90% 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 . 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.

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@...Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 1:46 PMTo: iequality Subject: Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

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

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 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>> 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 usi 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]

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.

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

[Guest guest]

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.

Here goes:

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.

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?

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.

See above reply.

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:

"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."

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 AIHA’s Task Force on Microbial Growth as the representative for the AIHA Toxicology Committee, (1997-2000)."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

9. regarding"I think I could have written the conclusion to what they would find,"

- you should hold your tongue

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.

- 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.

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 before…."

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.

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!"

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.

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?

You have only implied/insinuated a lack of proper opinion and conclusions - post-publication comments and opinions.

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.

-----Original Message-----From: snk1955@... Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:04 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

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.

Here goes:

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.

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?

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.

See above reply.

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:

"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."

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 AIHA's Task Force on Microbial Growth as the representative for the AIHA Toxicology Committee, (1997-2000)."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

9. regarding"I think I could have written the conclusion to what they would find,"

- you should hold your tongue

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.

- 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.

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 before...."

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.

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!"

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.

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?

You have only implied/insinuated a lack of proper opinion and conclusions - post-publication comments and opinions.

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

[Guest guest]

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:

@... www.TrainerMan.com

Carlson wrote:

> 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 /m^3 (20,000 spores/m^3 ). 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.

>

>

> * Re: Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

>

> 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.

>

> Here goes:

>

> 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.

>

> 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?

>

>

> 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.

>

> See above reply.

>

>

>

> 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:

> //

> / " 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. " /

> //

> 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 AIHA's Task

> Force on Microbial Growth as the representative for the AIHA

> Toxicology Committee, (1997-2000). " /

>

> 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.

>

> 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.

>

>

>

> 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.

>

> 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.

>

>

>

> 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.

>

> 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 "

>

>

>

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

> what they would find, "

> - you should hold your tongue

>

> 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.

>

>

> - 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.

>

> 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

> before.... " *

>

>

>

>

> 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.

>

> 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! "

>

>

>

> 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.

>

> 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?

>

> You have only implied/insinuated a lack of proper opinion and

> conclusions - post-publication comments and opinions.

>

> 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

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

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 entity’s value, not necessarily monetary, for work or effort completed in a particular area or subject matter.

Endorsement - Verbal or written recognition of entity’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, PEpH2, LLCPO Box 34140Indianapolis, IN 46234 cell90% 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 . 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.

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@...Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 12:37 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Serious Breach of Ethics within the AIHA

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

[Guest guest]

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.

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!

Perhaps you should prepare a scientific paper either

a) rebutting the results of this frequently cited paper

or

prooving your purported point

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."

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.

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? 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.

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.

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

Award - Compensation usually consisting of verbal or written recognition of an entity’s value, not necessarily monetary, for work or effort completed in a particular area or subject matter.

Endorsement - Verbal or written recognition of entity’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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Remember - conflict leads to clarity.

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.

vir sapit qui pauca loquitor

Thanks for the ending compliment! Sharon..........................................................................

[Guest guest]

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 , ext. 484

Cell

Fax

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

>

> > 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.

<snip>

> > 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 /m^3 (20,000

spores/m^3 ). This

> > concentration has not been reported for

undisturbed /Stachybotrys/

> > spores, but could be experienced by professional remediators.

> >

> > Comments, anyone?

> >

> >

> > D. Carlson, CIAQC, CMRS

> >

[Guest guest]

1. "Nondisclosure of conflicts of interest is perilous to the advancement of science."

Appears to be a policy paper - not a scientific one. I'll wait and see.

2. It is the sole foundation for this statement with the ACOEM doc:

You'll notice that I didn't talk about the ACOEM paper. Don't change the subject to imply that I did.

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?

Ironically, I've used the ACOEM paper on behalf of plaintiffs. Perhaps you should read it a little more carefully.

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.

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, PEpH2, LLCPO Box 34140Indianapolis, IN 46234 cell90% 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 . 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.

"Nondisclosure of conflicts of interest is perilous to the advancement of science."

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.

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? 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.

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.

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

Award - Compensation usually consisting of verbal or written recognition of an entity’s value, not necessarily monetary, for work or effort completed in a particular area or subject matter.

Endorsement - Verbal or written recognition of entity’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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Remember - conflict leads to clarity.

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.

vir sapit qui pauca loquitor

Thanks for the ending compliment! Sharon..........................................................................