Re: Judge Fryes Rats - Victims Awarded $2.3 Million

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony

1. a quick question:

What is the scientific evidence for adverse effects from mycotoxins in the home and office?

That would be the same adverse effects from mycotoxins as it would from anywhere else on the entire planet. And that goes to the root of how the original rat study in 2000, was spun to be abused in medical association position statements - originally ACOEM.

In other words, is it widely accepted scientific understanding that mycotoxin exposure can cause severe human illness? Yes.

It is widely acknowledge that mycotoxin exposure within an indoor environment can cause severe human illness? No

On what SOLE bases is illness from indoor mycotoxin exposure seperated from all other planet mycotoxin exposure? The 2000 Veritox and company study of rats with some math extrapolated. THAT"S IT. Zero, nada, zilch for any other basis that one could not inhale enough mycotoxins indoors to cause illness.

Can you cite any researcher that differenciates mycotoxin exposure indoors from outdoors to determine human illness? Can you cite any other review pieces besides ones involving the ACOEM authors of Kelman, Hardin or Saxon that conclude this? (If you cite a review piece, also cite the reference for this piece. I will bet you $100 all roads lead back to this study:

Robbins CA, Swenson, L.J., Nealley, M.L., Kelman, B.J. and Gots, R.E. Health effects of mycotoxins in indoor air: a critical review. Appl Occup Environ Hyg.2000;15:773-84.

I have been asking this question of many for quite some time. The only other one that people try to reference is one that is on some police guy out of Colorado's website or something.

2. Frye is different than Daubert, and each state will be different in how they handle it.

I don't know. I don't really focus on the courts and don't know much about them - other that from the aspect of what goes on in the courtroom has been stifling the medical science and leaving many unaware of the dangers - actually causing their illness from perpetuating the misinformation.

3. I find is dispariging that a judge threw out the evidence based on one "inhalation" study when most of EPA's limits are based on oral data not inhalation.

Well, you are talking about two different things. What difference would the EPA's limits have to do with if it is acceptable science to take some math and rat study to conclude all human illness is not plausible?

If you want to look at what the EPA has to say on the subject, look for information regarding the KNOWN limitations of mechanistic studies when concluding human illness, or in this case, lack there of.

Did I answer what you were asking? I don't really understand your question #2. What IS the difference between Daubert and Frye?

Sharon

[Guest guest]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search & DB=pubmed

[Guest guest]

Sharon:

1. a quick question:

What is the scientific evidence for adverse effects from mycotoxins in the home and office?

2. Frye is different than Daubert, and each state will be different in how they handle it.

3. I find is dispariging that a judge threw out the evidence based on one "inhalation" study when most of EPA's limits are based on oral data not inhalation.

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: Sunday, May 21, 2006 6:52 PMTo: iequality Subject: Judge Fryes Rats - Victims Awarded $2.3 Million

Well, so far I only have the title for an article regarding the following Sacramento mold case. But I wanted to let you all know what happened. This is a key finding to getting this issue out of the courts and into the doctors' offices where it belongs. Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. Harold and D. Lee Harold, Plaintiffs vs. California Casualty Insurance Company and Westmont Construction, Inc., Defendants Case # 02AS04291,

Catchy title, don't you think? Get it? Fryes - as in Frye. Rats as in the taking of rat studies and adding a little math to deduce all human illness is not plausible from indoor exposure to mycotoxins -even though NO mycotoxin researcher have come to this conclusion. The judge in this case called the Veritox finding a "huge leap". This is the specific study that was found to be not scientifically based in the Frye hearing of Dr. Correen Robbins, Veritox. April 14, 2006: Robbins CA, Swenson LJ, Hardin BD. Risk from inhaled mycotoxins in indoor office and residential environments. Int J Toxicol 2004;23: 3-10. Which is the 'second generation' of the following study, that is the sole foundation for the ACOEM Mold Statement of "Levels of exposure in the indoor environment, dose-response data in animals, and dose-rate considerations suggest that delivery by the inhalation route of a toxic dose of mycotoxins in the indoor environment is highly unlikely at best, even for the hypothetically most vulnerable subpopulations." ACOEM reference 63: Robbins CA, Swenson, L.J., Nealley, M.L., Kelman, B.J. and Gots, R.E. Health effects of mycotoxins in indoor air: a critical review. Appl Occup Environ Hyg.2000;15:773-84.

The Veritox "study" 2004, (that was just thown out) coupled with the ACOEM paper - also authored by Veritox principals - is the sole foundation for this statement in the AAAAI Mold position paper. Cited as reference #29. "Calculations for both acute and subacute exposures on the basis of the maximum amount of mycotoxins found per mold spore for various mycotoxins and the levels at which adverse health effects are observed make it highly improbable that home or office mycotoxin exposures would lead to a toxic adverse health effects.1,29

Thus we agree with the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine evidence-based statement and the Institute of Medicine draft, which conclude that the evidence does not support the contention that mycotoxin-mediated disease (mycotoxicosis) occurs through inhalation in nonoccupational settings."

There is another little "error" going on here. The IOM agrees with judge, NOT ACOEM:

“Except for a few studies on cancer, toxicologic studies of mycotoxins are acute or short-term studies that use high exposure concentrations to reveal immediate effects in small populations of animals. Chronic studies that use lower exposure concentrations and approximate human exposure more closely have not been done except for a small number of cancer studies.â€

And lets not forget the Manhattan Institute (US Chamber of Commerce aka stakeholders) paper also based on the rat studies and for which the Veritox authors were paid $40K for their "lay translation" of the ACOEM paper. That one says: “Thus the notion that ‘toxic mold’ is an insidious secret ‘killer’ as so many media reports and trial lawyers would claim is ‘Junk Science’ unsupported by actual scientific study.â€

BTW, besides the Veritox principals, Saxon - UCLA, is listed as an author of the ACOEM paper, the Manhattan Institute paper and the AAAAI paper. He testifies in mold cases - guess who are his clients.

I didn't even mention the Realtors "Moldy Claims, the Junk Science of Toxic Mold". Its also authored by Hardin, Kelman and Saxon. It too, is based on the ONE rat study.

Finally with this judge calling nonsense on what has been going on for over four years, maybe some sanity instead of greed will drive this issue. Maybe families that are ill will be able to get some proper medical treatment, rather than the intentional and financially motivated distain, distrust and disrespect they are currently been subjected to while the lives and health of them and their CHILDREN are going down the drain. This, while the boys at VeriTox and all those who knowingly allowed this situation to happen are living large.

This perverse situation is a National Disgrace.

Sharon Kramer

[Guest guest]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search & DB=pubmed

There is nothing in PubMed that says it is not plausible one can become ill from mycotoxin exposure within an indoor environment - except review pieces based on the Veritox rat study. Point out one specific. It ain't there. Only "studies done by Veritox and fellow ACOEM authors have come to that conclusion.

This thing actually belongs in the Journal of Irreproducible Results. ( except that Journal is now owned by a Bay Area Skeptic and is a marketing place for junk, also. Tricky! tricky!) All the real JIR members left to start a new Journal.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

1. You said: Can you cite any researcher that differenciates mycotoxin exposure indoors from outdoors to determine human illness? Can you cite any other review pieces besides ones involving the ACOEM authors of Kelman, Hardin or Saxon that conclude this? (If you cite a review piece, also cite the reference for this piece. I will bet you $100 all roads lead back to this study:

I can, but it will have to wait. The experts there are not experts in creating limits. If they were, they would've known how to back up that decision - to meet Frye.

2.

Did I answer what you were asking? I don't really understand your question #2. What IS the difference between Daubert and Frye?

Frye [Frye v. United States, 293 F.1013 (1923)] in essence requires that the matter brought before the court already have been accepted in the scientific literature. In simplistic form - the classical - if one can cite 3 sources for an item it doesn't need to be cited = it's generally accepted.

Daubert [ Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993)] allows evidence that meets several criteria falling within the terms of relevance and relibility but does not require that it already be accepted in the literature.

Sharon, please investigate the background before making broad statements of triumph.

2 & 3.

The problem is that many agencies and committees have agreed that animal evidence can be used with safety/uncertainty factors to set appropriate exposure limits. If the judge doesn't agree with this then he has ignored the premise of Frye and the general formulation that scientists for years have used. Thus he/she is hypocritical. By the judge's asessment, it then stands to reason that we should just create WAG (Wild Ass Guess) limits as fundamentals don't matter. [i am presuming that this is the basis of the judge - I don't actually have the written opinion]

Also remember:

"Plausibility is not a substitute for evidence, however great may be the emotional wish to believe."

- E. Bright , Harvard University, An Introduction to Scientific Research, 1952.

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

A Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2,LLC

Indianapolis, IN

“Plausibility is not a substitute for evidence, however great may be the emotional wish to believe.”

E. Bright , Harvard University

An Introduction to Scientific Research, 1952.

Re: Judge Fryes Rats - Victims Awarded $2.3 Million

Hi Tony

1. a quick question:

What is the scientific evidence for adverse effects from mycotoxins in the home and office?

That would be the same adverse effects from mycotoxins as it would from anywhere else on the entire planet. And that goes to the root of how the original rat study in 2000, was spun to be abused in medical association position statements - originally ACOEM.

In other words, is it widely accepted scientific understanding that mycotoxin exposure can cause severe human illness? Yes.

It is widely acknowledge that mycotoxin exposure within an indoor environment can cause severe human illness? No

On what SOLE bases is illness from indoor mycotoxin exposure seperated from all other planet mycotoxin exposure? The 2000 Veritox and company study of rats with some math extrapolated. THAT"S IT. Zero, nada, zilch for any other basis that one could not inhale enough mycotoxins indoors to cause illness.

Can you cite any researcher that differenciates mycotoxin exposure indoors from outdoors to determine human illness? Can you cite any other review pieces besides ones involving the ACOEM authors of Kelman, Hardin or Saxon that conclude this? (If you cite a review piece, also cite the reference for this piece. I will bet you $100 all roads lead back to this study:

Robbins CA, Swenson, L.J., Nealley, M.L., Kelman, B.J. and Gots, R.E. Health effects of mycotoxins in indoor air: a critical review. Appl Occup Environ Hyg.2000;15:773-84.

I have been asking this question of many for quite some time. The only other one that people try to reference is one that is on some police guy out of Colorado's website or something.

2. Frye is different than Daubert, and each state will be different in how they handle it.

I don't know. I don't really focus on the courts and don't know much about them - other that from the aspect of what goes on in the courtroom has been stifling the medical science and leaving many unaware of the dangers - actually causing their illness from perpetuating the misinformation.

3. I find is dispariging that a judge threw out the evidence based on one "inhalation" study when most of EPA's limits are based on oral data not inhalation.

Well, you are talking about two different things. What difference would the EPA's limits have to do with if it is acceptable science to take some math and rat study to conclude all human illness is not plausible?

If you want to look at what the EPA has to say on the subject, look for information regarding the KNOWN limitations of mechanistic studies when concluding human illness, or in this case, lack there of.

Did I answer what you were asking? I don't really understand your question #2. What IS the difference between Daubert and Frye?

Sharon

FAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

[Guest guest]

Hey Tony,

Frye [Frye v. United States, 293 F.1013 (1923)] in essence requires that the matter brought before the court already have been accepted in the scientific literature. In simplistic form - the classical - if one can cite 3 sources for an item it doesn't need to be cited = it's generally accepted.

Well no wonder it didn't pass. She couldn't cite even one other reference, as I understand it.

So Frye is more stringent than Daubert if I am understanding you correctly?

"Plausibility is not a substitute for evidence, however great may be the emotional wish to believe."

And implausibility based on junk science is not a substitute for evidence either, however great may be the financial wish to believe.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

The problem is that many agencies and committees have agreed that animal evidence can be used with safety/uncertainty factors to set appropriate exposure limits. If the judge doesn't agree with this then he has ignored the premise of Frye and the general formulation that scientists for years have used. Thus he/she is hypocritical. By the judge's asessment, it then stands to reason that we should just create WAG (Wild Ass Guess) limits as fundamentals don't matter.

Please remember that when it comes to individual responses to environmental exposures, "exposure limits" are what do not matter. The classical IH/toxicology preoccupation with exposure limits is limiting the progression of the science regarding mold/bioaerosol health effects. The current "science" is being used to create liability exposure limits.

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

Message 5 From: "snk1955@..." snk1955@... Date: Mon May 22, 2006 0:26pm(PDT) Subject: Re: Judge Fryes Rats - Victims Awarded $2.3 MillionHi Tony1. a quick question: What is the scientific evidence for adverse effects from mycotoxins in the home and office?That would be the same adverse effects from mycotoxins as it would from anywhere else on the entire planet. And that goes to the root of how the original rat study in 2000, was spun to be abused in medical

association position statements - originally ACOEM. In other words, is it widely accepted scientific understanding that mycotoxin exposure can cause severe human illness? Yes. It is widely acknowledge that mycotoxin exposure within an indoor environment can cause severe human illness? No On what SOLE bases is illness from indoor mycotoxin exposure seperated from all other planet mycotoxin exposure? The 2000 Veritox and company study of rats with some math extrapolated. THAT"S IT. Zero, nada, zilch for any other basis that one could not inhale enough mycotoxins indoors to cause illness. Can you cite any researcher that differenciates mycotoxin exposure indoors from outdoors to determine human illness? Can you cite any other review pieces besides ones involving the ACOEM authors of Kelman, Hardin or

Saxon that conclude this? (If you cite a review piece, also cite the reference for this piece. I will bet you $100 all roads lead back to this study: Robbins CA, Swenson, L.J., Nealley, M.L., Kelman, B.J. and Gots, R.E. Health effects of mycotoxins in indoor air: a critical review. Appl Occup Environ Hyg.2000;15:773-84. I have been asking this question of many for quite some time. The only other one that people try to reference is one that is on some police guy out of Colorado's website or something.>>>>> Sure you aint a lawyer Sharon. Thats a nice non-answer...2. Frye is different than Daubert, and each state will be different in how they handle it. I don't know. I don't really focus on the courts and don't know much about them - other that from the aspect of what goes on

in the courtroom has been stifling the medical science and leaving many unaware of the dangers - actually causing their illness from perpetuating the misinformation. >>>>>So a court case that doesnt give the decision you want is stifling science but when a judge makes a "scientific" courtroom decision that you agree with thats a good thing? That is such a contradiction it aint funny. Neither Judges,lawyers nor you are qualified to judge the veracity of research. Interpretation of research data to suit ones owns objectives (or lawsuit) is a completely different issue. Data is just data. Interpreting the meaning and significance of data is the issue. Thats why 2 people can look at the same research and reach different conclusions. Both may be right. Or wrong. Or one may be right and the other wrong. But in all those possible outcomes the data HAS NOT CHANGED!!! Please realise Sharon that what you are

disagreeing with is the interpretation of, and conclusions drawn from some research. (Again bad research is a different issue.) And please recognise that a legal standard of proof is not the same as scientific evidence in support of a theory. Stuart McCallum