RE: Congress.org Call for Senate Investigation Conflicts of Interest, Mold Papers

[Guest guest]

Sharon:

I’ve been holding back for a couple

years now before stating this; but I figured it was time to throw it out there.

It appears that Veritox is a play on the

Latin words:

Veritas, veratatis (f) - truth

or reality; truthfulness, telling of truth

Toxicum, toxici (n) - poison

Thought you’d have fun with that.

Tony

Ps Veritas vos liberabit – the truth

will set you free

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

" Tony " Havics,

CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

5250 E US

36, Suite 830

Avon, IN

46123

off

fax

cell

90% of Risk Management is knowing where to

place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%(SM)

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.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@...

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007

12:41 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Congress.org

Call for Senate Investigation Conflicts of Interest, Mold Papers

Congress.org

Jan 29, 2007

" Toxic

Mold " WALL STREET

JOURNAL Uncovers Medical Associations' Conflict of Interest

Key " Science " Used by Defense In Mold

Litigation in Question

Washington,

DC - January 29, 2007 - After years of working together to enlighten the public

of the serious illnesses caused by mold, advocacy groups are thankful to the

Wall Street Journal for bringing the matter to greater light. Upon completing a

six month investigation, veteran Wall Street Journal reporter, Armstrong,

wrote of the leaders of the American

College of Occupational

and Environmental Medicine, ACOEM, permitting a litigation defense corporation,

Veritox Inc (aka GlobalTox Inc) to author the association's policy paper

regarding mold induced illnesses. The two Veritox authors were not prior

members of the physician trade association.

The Wall Street Journal article, Page One, January 9,

2007. " Amid Mold Suits, Experts Wear Two Hats " may be read at:

online.wsj.com/article_print/SB116831654647871083.html -or-

www.ciphi.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6500 & sid=000cd0970ddb9be8716b84ba3baf8f9c

The American College of Occupational and Environmental

Medicine mold policy paper is at the heart of the contention over the Toxic

Mold Issue. The paper claims to prove humans could not plausibly be exposed to

enough mold toxins within a damp indoor environment to cause symptoms of ill

health. " Highly unlikely at best, even among the most vulnerable of subpopulations "

is what the non-physician authors wrote.

As referenced by the WSJ, to make this key finding, the

authors borrowed data from one rodent study in which mold was forced into the

trachea of rats. They then applied calculations to make the leap that human

illness could not plausibly occur if one is exposed indoors. The leaders of

ACOEM put their imprimatur on the statement. The insurance industry and its

surrogates have since brandished it like the biblical jawbone of an ass.

But the EPA and the Institute of Medicine,

Damp Indoor Spaces Committee, have both identified the technique used by ACOEM

to make the key conclusion, as non-acceptable methodology for determining

existence or absence of human illness from indoor mold toxin exposure. The

finding represents an affront to anyone with rudimentary logic skills. It is a

complete non sequitur, where the premise does not support the conclusion.

Since the paper's publication in November of 2002, it

has saved worker's compensation insurers, property insurers, general liability

insurers and building stakeholders, hundreds and hundreds of millions of

dollars. Insurance industry surrogates - the paid witnesses - including some

ACOEM members themselves - and the lawyers, have earned millions in fees. Of more

importance, the sick receive no medical treatment and no compensation for

devastated lives and financial ruin.

ACOEM is a medical trade association made up of

approximately 7000 physicians. The organization writes evidence based protocol

for the treatment of injured workers under the platform of Workers Comp Reform.

Several of their evidence based conclusions are currently being used to

determine what illnesses and injuries will and will not be treated and/or

covered under workers compensation insurance guidelines.

In California,

under State Senate Bill 889, ACOEM evidence based guidelines are also known as

Medical Treatment Utilization Schedules, MTUS, and are the law that physicians

must follow when determining treatment for their patients. ACOEM affiliated

clinics, American Occupational and Environmental Clinics, are government funded

through the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry and a branch of

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of

Occupational Safety & Health. (NIOSH).

Several members of ACOEM serve as experts for the

defense in mold litigation. They promote the legitimacy of the mold policy

paper while billing as much as $700 per hour. The US Chamber of Commerce has

promoted the document throughout industry by trumpeting it as scientific proof

that serious mold induced illnesses are merely a result of " trial

lawyers " , " media reports " and " Junk Science " .

Beginning on January 15, 2007, ACOEM President Tee

Guidotti, MD, began posting rebuttals to the Wall Street Journal article on the

Occ-Env-Med-L and Flood-Relief chatboards. The two primary points of the WSJ

article Guidotti professes are incorrect concern the validity of the science of

the ACOEM mold policy and concern of conflicts of interest. Dr. Guidotti wrote,

" ACOEM is not alone in its interpretation of the evidence. For reasons

that are unclear, Mr. Armstrong, the WSJ reporter, chose to imply that

the ACOEM statement is at odds with the report of the Institute of Medicine,

Damp Indoor Spaces. " For the record, Mr Armstrong is correct. The two

papers are at odds.

Dr. Guidotti also posted, " The article includes an

indirect quote attributed to me that 'no disclosure is needed because the paper

represents the consensus of its membership and is a statement of the society,

not the individual authors.' That is a correct description of the policy in

force at the time the statement was released. " He continued with,

" The statement was initiated by the College precisely because the topic is

important in environmental medicine. The lead author who was chosen (a retired

Assistant Surgeon General) had no conflict of interest at the time. "

As to " no disclosure is needed " because it was

a " statement of the society " , Dr. Guidotti appears to perceive his trade

organization as above reproach. Moreover he failed to mention that the retired

Assistant Surgeon General of NIOSH was then employed by Veritox and is now a

principal of the corporation. In 2002, when provided his free initial

membership to ACOEM for the purpose of drafting the " evidence based "

mold paper, the company was actively serving as consultants for the defense in

mold litigation.

Internal ACOEM documents obtained through FOIA requests

show that the authors' conflicts of interest were of grave concern among

members of ACOEM while the policy paper was being drafted. One member asked

" Do you know if the authors have any potential conflicts of interest, such

as having been retained as expert witnesses by any attorneys? I must tell you,

I did speak with Dr. Bork (ACOEM Scientific Affairs) about the

statement and he was quite sure that at least one of the three authors had

actually seen a patient who had mold exposure, but he wasn't exactly sure. Of

course the other two aren't licensed to practice medicine anyway. "

nne Dreger, Communications Director of ACOEM

emailed then President of ACOEM, Bernacki, MD, stating, " Also, I'm

sure you've been following the Duke thread and are aware that there is concern

regarding 'Conflict of Interest. " The next day, she sent an email to

members of ACOEM on behalf of Dr. Bernacki stating, " Your Board of

Directors recognizes that mold is a potentially controversial topic. Because of

that potential for controversy, this evidence based paper faced strenuous and

extensive peer-review and a " Conflict of Interest " statement was

obtained from the authors of the paper. "

The authors' conflict disclosure statements were never

made available to the members of ACOEM, even when requested. In 2003 one member

wrote, " Related to this topic, some weeks ago many of us on the list were

anticipating the conflict of interest statements from the JOEM [Journal of

ACOEM] in regard to the authors of the 'Mold Statement' adopted by the ACOEM.

It seems they got lost in the mail. This question arises if this is just an

oversight, or if such a disclosure of conflicts is purposeful, as many of us

who are members of ACOEM who actually see patients with mold exposure were

excluded from the discussion. "

When interviewed for the WSJ article, Dr.

Borak, overseer of the mold policy peer review process, indicated he was

unaware the authors had conflicted interests. Yet, in an email authored by him

in Sept, 2002, Dr. Borak acknowledged he was aware the paper would have " currency

in other ways and other places " for the authors. The email also referenced

concern that the ACOEM mold paper was a " defense argument " that would

be turned into " garbage " if rejected by the Board of Directors.

Veritox's founder, a co-author of the mold paper, had

been providing expert testimony for Big Tobacco and other firms seeking

environmental defense since at least 1994. The third mold paper author, Dr

Saxon of UCLA, had been a mold defense expert witness since 1999. It is

not logical that a medical association would unwittingly designate three men,

who were not even members of their organization, to author a paper on a

multi-billion dollar,controversial subject -without having full knowledge of

the men's backgrounds.

The system of denying causation and enlisting the help

of paid surrogates to give a gloss of credibility was a proven part of the Big

Tobacco playbook. To understand more of relevant conflicts, search the University of San Francisco Tobacco Legacy Library @

legacy.library.ucsf.edu/. Several of the names within the Wall Street Journal

article may also be found within this library's archives.

Needless to say, Consumer, Worker, Health and

Environmental Advocacy Groups are calling for a Senate Investigation.

Contact your Senators and Congressmen in support of the

need for investigation.

Sharon Kramer

MDAwareness@...