Re: Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...

[Guest guest]

Shell,

There are volumes of peer reviewed papers that conclude mold does indeed cause serious illness. Even though the ACOEM Mold Statement has been sufficiently discredited, it's legacy lives on because of the mindset it caused. The false science that was promoted was that people could not be exposed to enough mold in an INDOOR setting to cause serious illness.

So, what that has established in people's minds is that it doesn't matter if there are literally thousands of documents showing mold does indeed cause serious illness. It has to be proven that not only does it cause serious illness, but it has to be indoors.

This a ridiculous concept. Whether one is exposed indoors, outdoors or on the moon..it is well established mold causes illness. The concept of needing to differ location of exposure was established first by ACOEM.

The IOM Report, although more scientific, furthered the concept as the name of the paper is Damp INDOOR Spaces and Health.

So, the question is not can mold cause serious illness. The question is can INDOOR mold cause serious illness. Which, when you think about it, is a pretty silly concept. Why would mold cause serious illness in one location, but not another?

Sharon

I promised to relay my thoughts to the group after I read Dr. Ammann’s affidavit. Sorry it has taken me so long to respond.

Dr. Ammann’s affidavit in the NY cases is a big help in fighting the ACOEM propaganda. As an author of one of the papers ACOEM supposedly interpreted and summarized, her views about the ACOEM conclusions carry significant weight. As in the one NY case which allowed a plaintiff’s expert based on Dr. Ammann’s affidavit, it will help anywhere that defendants try to block plaintiff experts with the ACOEM paper.

Nevertheless, it is not the panacea that the plaintiff’s bar really needs. That would be a peer-reviewed paper by a credible researcher or organization that concludes that yes, mold exposure does indeed cause serious illness in some individuals.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of LiveSimplySent: Friday, November 30, 2007 2:55 PMTo: iequalitySubject: Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...

I just discovered that the aforementioned Harriett Ammann's essay isavailable, along with a lot of other interesting stuff on Dr.Shoemaker's biotoxin.info site..http://www.biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf

Messages in this topic (2) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Polls

See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.

[Guest guest]

Shell,

There are volumes of peer reviewed papers that conclude mold does indeed cause serious illness. Even though the ACOEM Mold Statement has been sufficiently discredited, it's legacy lives on because of the mindset it caused. The false science that was promoted was that people could not be exposed to enough mold in an INDOOR setting to cause serious illness.

So, what that has established in people's minds is that it doesn't matter if there are literally thousands of documents showing mold does indeed cause serious illness. It has to be proven that not only does it cause serious illness, but it has to be indoors.

This a ridiculous concept. Whether one is exposed indoors, outdoors or on the moon..it is well established mold causes illness. The concept of needing to differ location of exposure was established first by ACOEM.

The IOM Report, although more scientific, furthered the concept as the name of the paper is Damp INDOOR Spaces and Health.

So, the question is not can mold cause serious illness. The question is can INDOOR mold cause serious illness. Which, when you think about it, is a pretty silly concept. Why would mold cause serious illness in one location, but not another?

Sharon

I promised to relay my thoughts to the group after I read Dr. Ammann’s affidavit. Sorry it has taken me so long to respond.

Dr. Ammann’s affidavit in the NY cases is a big help in fighting the ACOEM propaganda. As an author of one of the papers ACOEM supposedly interpreted and summarized, her views about the ACOEM conclusions carry significant weight. As in the one NY case which allowed a plaintiff’s expert based on Dr. Ammann’s affidavit, it will help anywhere that defendants try to block plaintiff experts with the ACOEM paper.

Nevertheless, it is not the panacea that the plaintiff’s bar really needs. That would be a peer-reviewed paper by a credible researcher or organization that concludes that yes, mold exposure does indeed cause serious illness in some individuals.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of LiveSimplySent: Friday, November 30, 2007 2:55 PMTo: iequalitySubject: Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...

I just discovered that the aforementioned Harriett Ammann's essay isavailable, along with a lot of other interesting stuff on Dr.Shoemaker's biotoxin.info site..http://www.biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf

Messages in this topic (2) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Polls

See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.

[Guest guest]

I promised to relay my thoughts to the

group after I read Dr. Ammann’s affidavit. Sorry it has taken me so long

to respond.

Dr. Ammann’s affidavit in the NY

cases is a big help in fighting the ACOEM propaganda. As an author of one of

the papers ACOEM supposedly interpreted and summarized, her views about the

ACOEM conclusions carry significant weight. As in the one NY case which allowed

a plaintiff’s expert based on Dr. Ammann’s affidavit, it will help

anywhere that defendants try to block plaintiff experts with the ACOEM paper.

Nevertheless, it is not the panacea that

the plaintiff’s bar really needs. That would be a peer-reviewed paper by

a credible researcher or organization that concludes that yes, mold exposure

does indeed cause serious illness in some individuals.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell

J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweiss@...

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of LiveSimply

Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007

2:55 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Ammann essay,

location of PDF for printing...

I just

discovered that the aforementioned Harriett Ammann's essay is

available, along with a lot of other interesting stuff on Dr.

Shoemaker's biotoxin.info site..

http://www.biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf

[Guest guest]

Ken,

You wrote, " Thank you Attorney Bleiweiss, You have clearly and consicely in your last paragraph summed up the problem of classifying mold as being a cause of sickness and disease."

And Shel's last paragraph was, "Nevertheless, it is not the panacea that the plaintiff's bar really needs. That would be a peer-reviewed paper by a credible researcher or organization that concludes that yes, mold exposure does indeed cause serious illness in some individuals."

This is what drives me crazy over this issue. What Shel is discussing has to do with litigation, ie whether a courtroom standard burden of proof that the location of causation may be established for illnesses that are indicative of mold exposure.

That is the big debate, not whether mycoses and mycotoxicoses exist in humans. It is well established mold causes sickness and disease. There are literally tens of thousands of scientific peer reviewed papers written on the subject. Go to the Scirus search engine. Search the word "fungal" and any organ of your body. See what comes up.

If the courtroom and the ACOEM BS that was meant to limit liability for stakeholders, were not in the equation, then physicians would be trained to look more at fungal as a possible cause of illness and people would receive proper treatment earlier.

If people received proper treatment and were made aware that the mold they are living in could be the possible cause of their illnesses, they would not get as sick. Early diagnostics and treatment are the key to lessening the severity of these illnesses.

If the illnesses were less severe and not life changing or debilitating....there would be nothing to litigate over.

So.....by requiring that a courtroom standard burden of proof be established before the physicians are trained to look at molds as a possible cause of illness actually increases the health damages and causes more litigation.

If ever there was a situation where the precautionary principle is needed to break the cycle of a self perpetuating bad situation, it is the mold issue.

Sharon

See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.

[Guest guest]

Thank you Attorney Bleiweiss, You have clearly and consicely in your last paragraph summed up the problem of classifying mold as being a cause of sickness and disease. Until good scientists produce those peer reviewed studies that indicate the nature of mold infections court cases will remain a crap shoot where the astuteness of the litagator determines the case and not the science. I have no doubt the Dr. Ammann's of the world truly believe what thay are saying just as I have no doubt Dr. Shoemaker truly believes what he is preaching. The problem as I see it is neither the Ammann's nor the Shoemaker's have put together the mechanism to clearly state with scientific clarity how mold affects human health. The mechanism being as you have indicated is a proper peer reviewed study. While I happen to be in Dr Shoemaker's camp on this issue I fault him for failing to assemble the needed test program at his Hopkin's University Hospital Medical School where once completed and peer reviewed the study most assuredly would become the basis for understanding the dangers of mold. The study might take a million dollars of university resourses but a grant in that amount should easily at this point in time be available from interested government agencies. Until good scientists produce those peer reviewed studies that indicate the nature of mold infections court cases will remain a crap shoot where the astuteness of the litigator and not the science determines the case. Your key thought was a peer reviewed study from a creditable research institution would be needed to put the matter to rest. I agree. Ken Gibala ---------------------------------- Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...I just discovered that the aforementioned Harriett Ammann's essay isavailable, along with a lot of other interesting stuff on Dr.Shoemaker's biotoxin.info site..http://www.biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf

[Guest guest]

Thanks Sharon. My careless mistake in typing. I can

think of arguments as to why we need proof of indoor effects. And if I can so

can the defense attorneys, so we basically need these peer reviewed studies of

indoor exposures showing serious effects. Thanks for pointing out the

distinction.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell

J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweiss@...

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

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

Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007

1:30 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Shell,

There are volumes of peer reviewed papers

that conclude mold does indeed cause serious illness. Even though the

ACOEM Mold Statement has been sufficiently discredited, it's legacy lives on

because of the mindset it caused. The false science that was promoted was that

people could not be exposed to enough mold in an INDOOR setting to cause

serious illness.

So, what that has established in people's

minds is that it doesn't matter if there are literally thousands of documents

showing mold does indeed cause serious illness. It has to be proven that

not only does it cause serious illness, but it has to be indoors.

This a ridiculous concept. Whether

one is exposed indoors, outdoors or on the moon..it is well established mold

causes illness. The concept of needing to differ location of exposure was

established first by ACOEM.

The IOM Report, although more scientific,

furthered the concept as the name of the paper is Damp INDOOR Spaces and

Health.

So, the question is not can mold cause

serious illness. The question is can INDOOR mold cause serious

illness. Which, when you think about it, is a pretty silly

concept. Why would mold cause serious illness in one location, but not

another?

Sharon

In a message dated 12/17/2007 9:10:19

A.M. Pacific Standard Time, sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss writes:

I promised to relay my thoughts to the group after I read Dr.

Ammann’s affidavit. Sorry it has taken me so long to respond.

Dr. Ammann’s affidavit in the NY cases is a big help in

fighting the ACOEM propaganda. As an author of one of the papers ACOEM

supposedly interpreted and summarized, her views about the ACOEM conclusions

carry significant weight. As in the one NY case which allowed a plaintiff’s expert

based on Dr. Ammann’s affidavit, it will help anywhere that defendants try to

block plaintiff experts with the ACOEM paper.

Nevertheless, it is not the panacea that the plaintiff’s bar

really needs. That would be a peer-reviewed paper by a credible researcher or

organization that concludes that yes, mold exposure does indeed cause serious

illness in some individuals.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of LiveSimply

Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007

2:55 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Ammann essay,

location of PDF for printing...

I just discovered that the aforementioned Harriett Ammann's essay

is

available, along with a lot of other interesting stuff on Dr.

Shoemaker's biotoxin.info site..

http://www.biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf

Messages

in this topic (2) Reply (via web post) | Start

a new topic

Messages

| Files

| Photos

| Links

| Polls

See AOL's top

rated recipes and easy

ways to stay in shape for winter.

[Guest guest]

Thanks Sharon. My careless mistake in typing. I can

think of arguments as to why we need proof of indoor effects. And if I can so

can the defense attorneys, so we basically need these peer reviewed studies of

indoor exposures showing serious effects. Thanks for pointing out the

distinction.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell

J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweiss@...

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

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

Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007

1:30 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Shell,

There are volumes of peer reviewed papers

that conclude mold does indeed cause serious illness. Even though the

ACOEM Mold Statement has been sufficiently discredited, it's legacy lives on

because of the mindset it caused. The false science that was promoted was that

people could not be exposed to enough mold in an INDOOR setting to cause

serious illness.

So, what that has established in people's

minds is that it doesn't matter if there are literally thousands of documents

showing mold does indeed cause serious illness. It has to be proven that

not only does it cause serious illness, but it has to be indoors.

This a ridiculous concept. Whether

one is exposed indoors, outdoors or on the moon..it is well established mold

causes illness. The concept of needing to differ location of exposure was

established first by ACOEM.

The IOM Report, although more scientific,

furthered the concept as the name of the paper is Damp INDOOR Spaces and

Health.

So, the question is not can mold cause

serious illness. The question is can INDOOR mold cause serious

illness. Which, when you think about it, is a pretty silly

concept. Why would mold cause serious illness in one location, but not

another?

Sharon

In a message dated 12/17/2007 9:10:19

A.M. Pacific Standard Time, sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss writes:

I promised to relay my thoughts to the group after I read Dr.

Ammann’s affidavit. Sorry it has taken me so long to respond.

Dr. Ammann’s affidavit in the NY cases is a big help in

fighting the ACOEM propaganda. As an author of one of the papers ACOEM

supposedly interpreted and summarized, her views about the ACOEM conclusions

carry significant weight. As in the one NY case which allowed a plaintiff’s expert

based on Dr. Ammann’s affidavit, it will help anywhere that defendants try to

block plaintiff experts with the ACOEM paper.

Nevertheless, it is not the panacea that the plaintiff’s bar

really needs. That would be a peer-reviewed paper by a credible researcher or

organization that concludes that yes, mold exposure does indeed cause serious

illness in some individuals.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of LiveSimply

Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007

2:55 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Ammann essay,

location of PDF for printing...

I just discovered that the aforementioned Harriett Ammann's essay

is

available, along with a lot of other interesting stuff on Dr.

Shoemaker's biotoxin.info site..

http://www.biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf

Messages

in this topic (2) Reply (via web post) | Start

a new topic

Messages

| Files

| Photos

| Links

| Polls

See AOL's top

rated recipes and easy

ways to stay in shape for winter.

[Guest guest]

Ken,

I have seen a great many papers stating unequivocably that mold

exposures cause many serious illnesses.

Even though you are right in the sense that nobody has compiled all

the data together in a compelling enough fashion for laypeople,

and the scientific papers are not all held together by some unifying

eureka moment, THE DATA IS OUT THERE IF YOU LOOK FOR IT.

To people who read all the scientific literature, (and not just the

'ACOEM position papers', and their ilk) its pretty obvious. Actually,

Dr. Shoemaker published a long list last month of papers that he drew

upon in his work. its part of his submission to the NTP. One could

gain a lot of understanding of the big picture by simply looking at

many of those papers.

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=7D79A69E-F1F6-975E-70EA80AB43A6C710

Also, his presentation that he did at the meeting is interesting:

http://biotoxin.info/docs/NTP_12_6_07_Understanding%20mold%20illness_2.pdf

What is missing for the skeptics among you to really understand this

picture, both the science, and how it plays out on real people lives?

(I would think that many of you would already know that!)

>

>

> Thank you Attorney Bleiweiss,

>

>

> You have clearly and consicely in your last paragraph summed up the problem

> of classifying mold as being a cause of sickness and disease.

>

> Until good scientists produce those peer reviewed studies that indicate the

> nature of mold infections court cases will remain a crap shoot where the

> astuteness of the litagator determines the case and not the science.

>

> I have no doubt the Dr. Ammann's of the world truly believe what thay are

> saying just as I have no doubt Dr. Shoemaker truly believes what he is

> preaching.

>

> The problem as I see it is neither the Ammann's nor the Shoemaker's have put

> together the mechanism to clearly state with scientific clarity how mold

> affects human health. The mechanism being as you have indicated is a proper

> peer reviewed study. While I happen to be in Dr Shoemaker's camp on this

> issue I fault him for failing to assemble the needed test program at his

> Hopkin's University Hospital Medical School where once completed and

> peer reviewed the study most assuredly would become the basis for

> understanding the dangers of mold. The study might take a million dollars

> of university resourses but a grant in that amount should easily at this

> point in time be available from interested government agencies.

>

> Until good scientists produce those peer reviewed studies that indicate the

> nature of mold infections court cases will remain a crap shoot where the

> astuteness of the litigator and not the science determines the case.

>

> Your key thought was a peer reviewed study from a creditable research

> institution would be needed to put the matter to rest. I agree.

>

> Ken Gibala

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ken,

I have seen a great many papers stating unequivocably that mold

exposures cause many serious illnesses.

Even though you are right in the sense that nobody has compiled all

the data together in a compelling enough fashion for laypeople,

and the scientific papers are not all held together by some unifying

eureka moment, THE DATA IS OUT THERE IF YOU LOOK FOR IT.

To people who read all the scientific literature, (and not just the

'ACOEM position papers', and their ilk) its pretty obvious. Actually,

Dr. Shoemaker published a long list last month of papers that he drew

upon in his work. its part of his submission to the NTP. One could

gain a lot of understanding of the big picture by simply looking at

many of those papers.

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=7D79A69E-F1F6-975E-70EA80AB43A6C710

Also, his presentation that he did at the meeting is interesting:

http://biotoxin.info/docs/NTP_12_6_07_Understanding%20mold%20illness_2.pdf

What is missing for the skeptics among you to really understand this

picture, both the science, and how it plays out on real people lives?

(I would think that many of you would already know that!)

>

>

> Thank you Attorney Bleiweiss,

>

>

> You have clearly and consicely in your last paragraph summed up the problem

> of classifying mold as being a cause of sickness and disease.

>

> Until good scientists produce those peer reviewed studies that indicate the

> nature of mold infections court cases will remain a crap shoot where the

> astuteness of the litagator determines the case and not the science.

>

> I have no doubt the Dr. Ammann's of the world truly believe what thay are

> saying just as I have no doubt Dr. Shoemaker truly believes what he is

> preaching.

>

> The problem as I see it is neither the Ammann's nor the Shoemaker's have put

> together the mechanism to clearly state with scientific clarity how mold

> affects human health. The mechanism being as you have indicated is a proper

> peer reviewed study. While I happen to be in Dr Shoemaker's camp on this

> issue I fault him for failing to assemble the needed test program at his

> Hopkin's University Hospital Medical School where once completed and

> peer reviewed the study most assuredly would become the basis for

> understanding the dangers of mold. The study might take a million dollars

> of university resourses but a grant in that amount should easily at this

> point in time be available from interested government agencies.

>

> Until good scientists produce those peer reviewed studies that indicate the

> nature of mold infections court cases will remain a crap shoot where the

> astuteness of the litigator and not the science determines the case.

>

> Your key thought was a peer reviewed study from a creditable research

> institution would be needed to put the matter to rest. I agree.

>

> Ken Gibala

>

>

[Guest guest]

Certainly no point I have made goes to how

and when doctors should be trained. I am interested in support for winning mold personal injury cases on behalf of

plaintiffs. The ACOEM paper makes that nearly impossible. I am advising my in

the pipeline clients to settle for whatever

they can get. I am not taking new contingent fee mold PI cases. If injured mold

victims can’t get help legally it makes it even worse than being harmed

but winning.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell

J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweiss@...

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

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

Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007

4:08 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Ken,

You wrote, " Thank you Attorney Bleiweiss, You have clearly and consicely in your last paragraph

summed up the problem of classifying mold as being a cause of sickness and

disease. "

And Shel's last paragraph was,

" Nevertheless, it is not the panacea that the plaintiff's bar really

needs. That would be a peer-reviewed paper by a credible researcher or

organization that concludes that yes, mold exposure does indeed cause serious

illness in some individuals. "

This is what drives me crazy over this

issue. What Shel is discussing has to do with litigation, ie whether a

courtroom standard burden of proof that the location of causation may be

established for illnesses that are indicative of mold exposure.

That is the big debate, not whether

mycoses and mycotoxicoses exist in humans. It is well established mold causes

sickness and disease. There are literally tens of thousands of scientific peer

reviewed papers written on the subject. Go to the Scirus search

engine. Search the word " fungal " and any organ of your

body. See what comes up.

If the courtroom and the ACOEM BS that was

meant to limit liability for stakeholders, were not in the equation, then

physicians would be trained to look more at fungal as a possible cause of

illness and people would receive proper treatment earlier.

If people received proper treatment and

were made aware that the mold they are living in could be the possible cause of

their illnesses, they would not get as sick. Early diagnostics and

treatment are the key to lessening the severity of these illnesses.

If the illnesses were less severe and not

life changing or debilitating....there would be nothing to litigate over.

So.....by requiring that a courtroom

standard burden of proof be established before the physicians are trained to

look at molds as a possible cause of illness actually increases the

health damages and causes more litigation.

If ever there was a situation where the

precautionary principle is needed to break the cycle of a self perpetuating

bad situation, it is the mold issue.

Sharon

See AOL's top

rated recipes and easy

ways to stay in shape for winter.

[Guest guest]

The thing that is so infuriating to me is the fact that mold is often

the " straw that broke the camels back " for many people.

Its the insult to their health that puts them into a downward spiral.

Look at something like mold-caused cerebral hypoperfusion. Nobody is

arguing that mold causes massive inflammation. However, nobody takes

it the next step and says, " Okay, what is massive inflammation likely

to DO "

Cerebral hypoperfusion causes stroke and dementia. I think that we

should also look at the economics of the workday world. Americans are

among the most productive workers in the world. We are also among the

most expensive workers in the world.

In order to justify our high salaries we need to be the very best. To

be anything less means a machine can probably do it cheaper and

better. To injure an American worker such that you take even as little

of ten or fifteen percent of their mental capacity (and I think that

mold illness has the potential to do far more) is the equivalent of

aging them twenty or thirty years. For a twenty year old, that may not

matter. Even people with fifty year old brains are still employable,

at least for now. But, why don't we employ seventy and eighty year old

people very often? Because they can't keep up. Why shouldn't we allow

very old people on the road? Because its unsafe.

When you look at mold neuro issues they look a very much like aging.

Aging is in many ways a brain injury that mimics mold and I think that

ond of the reasons is that mold exposure accelerates processes that

occur naturally. We know that mold exposure causes dramatic increases

in reactive oxygen species, and the formation of advanced glycation

end products (AGEs) which is an irreversible process. Mold toxins are

also known to destroy our store of neural progenitor cells (stem

cells) which can cause impairment of hippocampal neurogenesis, just as

it does in cancer chemotherapy and radiation. But we refuse to put a

dollar value on that because we know that that kind of loss is really

important. Understanding how to treat that kind of injury is crucial

to properly compensating mold lllness survivors. In some cases, people

with less demanding jobs may be able to return to work in a relatively

short time. In other cases, the damage may be irreversible.

For example, compare the processing ability that would br required for

someone whose career was walking dogs, versus a concert pianist. Quite

a bit of difference. Another factor in finding employment is whether

your employment depends on your degree (which is a piece of paper

which can't be taken away) or in your day to day skill. In the past,

businesses often carried a lot of employees who were not so

productive, but not any more. A brain injury is a serious economic

disaster for almost anybody in the new economy. Because if you can't

think, you can't be productive. Jobs as seemingly simple as waiting on

tables require prodigious mental feats that people with mold illness

just cannot undertake. People with a strong past work history often

will not be hired for any work at a salary level far beneath what they

previously earned. Emplyers don't think that they will stay or take

the jobs seriously enough. This causes real problems.

We need to start looking at mold illnesses as the injuries that they

are. People have difficulty finding words (aphasia) they lose their

ability to hold more than one or two things in their mind at a time

(working memory) they lose the ability to store memories reliably

(long term potentiation)

These changes look a lot like aging. How much is twenty or thirty

years of your mental ability worth? How much more would it cist you if

you started to go senile ten or fifteen or twenty or thirty or fourty

years earlier than you might otherwise.

See what I mean?

[Guest guest]

The thing that is so infuriating to me is the fact that mold is often

the " straw that broke the camels back " for many people.

Its the insult to their health that puts them into a downward spiral.

Look at something like mold-caused cerebral hypoperfusion. Nobody is

arguing that mold causes massive inflammation. However, nobody takes

it the next step and says, " Okay, what is massive inflammation likely

to DO "

Cerebral hypoperfusion causes stroke and dementia. I think that we

should also look at the economics of the workday world. Americans are

among the most productive workers in the world. We are also among the

most expensive workers in the world.

In order to justify our high salaries we need to be the very best. To

be anything less means a machine can probably do it cheaper and

better. To injure an American worker such that you take even as little

of ten or fifteen percent of their mental capacity (and I think that

mold illness has the potential to do far more) is the equivalent of

aging them twenty or thirty years. For a twenty year old, that may not

matter. Even people with fifty year old brains are still employable,

at least for now. But, why don't we employ seventy and eighty year old

people very often? Because they can't keep up. Why shouldn't we allow

very old people on the road? Because its unsafe.

When you look at mold neuro issues they look a very much like aging.

Aging is in many ways a brain injury that mimics mold and I think that

ond of the reasons is that mold exposure accelerates processes that

occur naturally. We know that mold exposure causes dramatic increases

in reactive oxygen species, and the formation of advanced glycation

end products (AGEs) which is an irreversible process. Mold toxins are

also known to destroy our store of neural progenitor cells (stem

cells) which can cause impairment of hippocampal neurogenesis, just as

it does in cancer chemotherapy and radiation. But we refuse to put a

dollar value on that because we know that that kind of loss is really

important. Understanding how to treat that kind of injury is crucial

to properly compensating mold lllness survivors. In some cases, people

with less demanding jobs may be able to return to work in a relatively

short time. In other cases, the damage may be irreversible.

For example, compare the processing ability that would br required for

someone whose career was walking dogs, versus a concert pianist. Quite

a bit of difference. Another factor in finding employment is whether

your employment depends on your degree (which is a piece of paper

which can't be taken away) or in your day to day skill. In the past,

businesses often carried a lot of employees who were not so

productive, but not any more. A brain injury is a serious economic

disaster for almost anybody in the new economy. Because if you can't

think, you can't be productive. Jobs as seemingly simple as waiting on

tables require prodigious mental feats that people with mold illness

just cannot undertake. People with a strong past work history often

will not be hired for any work at a salary level far beneath what they

previously earned. Emplyers don't think that they will stay or take

the jobs seriously enough. This causes real problems.

We need to start looking at mold illnesses as the injuries that they

are. People have difficulty finding words (aphasia) they lose their

ability to hold more than one or two things in their mind at a time

(working memory) they lose the ability to store memories reliably

(long term potentiation)

These changes look a lot like aging. How much is twenty or thirty

years of your mental ability worth? How much more would it cist you if

you started to go senile ten or fifteen or twenty or thirty or fourty

years earlier than you might otherwise.

See what I mean?

[Guest guest]

Quack, While I agree mold can cause what you say.... I think that is the problem.... It can [possibly] cause these illnesses. So until there can be a definite method to identify when mold is causing illness I'm suspecting there can be no liability. If mold exposures cause illness in 20% of the population it seems a claimant must show he was a part of the 20% population susceptible to the illness before the illness can result in a recoverable claim. Invaribly when a person becomes sick there are more of his family that do not get sick. Thus science seems to be saying mold can not yet be proven the cause of the sickness until other parameters are identified. It took 50 years before the cause and effect relationship of tobacco could be accepted. I'm of an age where I remember every step of the way. The mold situation seems to be taking the same path. Unfortunately there will be no deep pockets with mold as there was with the tobacco companies. Ken==================== Re: Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...The thing that is so infuriating to me is the fact that mold is oftenthe "straw that broke the camels back" for many people.Its the insult to their health that puts them into a downward spiral.Look at something like mold-caused cerebral hypoperfusion. Nobody isarguing that mold causes massive inflammation. However, nobody takesit the next step and says, "Okay, what is massive inflammation likelyto DO"Cerebral hypoperfusion causes stroke and dementia. I think that weshould also look at the economics of the workday world. Americans areamong the most productive workers in the world. We are also among themost expensive workers in the world.In order to justify our high salaries we need to be the very best. Tobe anything less means a machine can probably do it cheaper andbetter. To injure an American worker such that you take even as littleof ten or fifteen percent of their mental capacity (and I think thatmold illness has the potential to do far more) is the equivalent ofaging them twenty or thirty years. For a twenty year old, that may notmatter. Even people with fifty year old brains are still employable,at least for now. But, why don't we employ seventy and eighty year oldpeople very often? Because they can't keep up. Why shouldn't we allowvery old people on the road? Because its unsafe.When you look at mold neuro issues they look a very much like aging.Aging is in many ways a brain injury that mimics mold and I think thatond of the reasons is that mold exposure accelerates processes thatoccur naturally. We know that mold exposure causes dramatic increasesin reactive oxygen species, and the formation of advanced glycationend products (AGEs) which is an irreversible process. Mold toxins arealso known to destroy our store of neural progenitor cells (stemcells) which can cause impairment of hippocampal neurogenesis, just asit does in cancer chemotherapy and radiation. But we refuse to put adollar value on that because we know that that kind of loss is reallyimportant. Understanding how to treat that kind of injury is crucialto properly compensating mold lllness survivors. In some cases, peoplewith less demanding jobs may be able to return to work in a relativelyshort time. In other cases, the damage may be irreversible.For example, compare the processing ability that would br required forsomeone whose career was walking dogs, versus a concert pianist. Quitea bit of difference. Another factor in finding employment is whetheryour employment depends on your degree (which is a piece of paperwhich can't be taken away) or in your day to day skill. In the past,businesses often carried a lot of employees who were not soproductive, but not any more. A brain injury is a serious economicdisaster for almost anybody in the new economy. Because if you can'tthink, you can't be productive. Jobs as seemingly simple as waiting ontables require prodigious mental feats that people with mold illnessjust cannot undertake. People with a strong past work history oftenwill not be hired for any work at a salary level far beneath what theypreviously earned. Emplyers don't think that they will stay or takethe jobs seriously enough. This causes real problems.We need to start looking at mold illnesses as the injuries that theyare. People have difficulty finding words (aphasia) they lose theirability to hold more than one or two things in their mind at a time(working memory) they lose the ability to store memories reliably(long term potentiation)These changes look a lot like aging. How much is twenty or thirtyyears of your mental ability worth? How much more would it cist you ifyou started to go senile ten or fifteen or twenty or thirty or fourtyyears earlier than you might otherwise.See what I mean?

[Guest guest]

Quack, While I agree mold can cause what you say.... I think that is the problem.... It can [possibly] cause these illnesses. So until there can be a definite method to identify when mold is causing illness I'm suspecting there can be no liability. If mold exposures cause illness in 20% of the population it seems a claimant must show he was a part of the 20% population susceptible to the illness before the illness can result in a recoverable claim. Invaribly when a person becomes sick there are more of his family that do not get sick. Thus science seems to be saying mold can not yet be proven the cause of the sickness until other parameters are identified. It took 50 years before the cause and effect relationship of tobacco could be accepted. I'm of an age where I remember every step of the way. The mold situation seems to be taking the same path. Unfortunately there will be no deep pockets with mold as there was with the tobacco companies. Ken==================== Re: Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...The thing that is so infuriating to me is the fact that mold is oftenthe "straw that broke the camels back" for many people.Its the insult to their health that puts them into a downward spiral.Look at something like mold-caused cerebral hypoperfusion. Nobody isarguing that mold causes massive inflammation. However, nobody takesit the next step and says, "Okay, what is massive inflammation likelyto DO"Cerebral hypoperfusion causes stroke and dementia. I think that weshould also look at the economics of the workday world. Americans areamong the most productive workers in the world. We are also among themost expensive workers in the world.In order to justify our high salaries we need to be the very best. Tobe anything less means a machine can probably do it cheaper andbetter. To injure an American worker such that you take even as littleof ten or fifteen percent of their mental capacity (and I think thatmold illness has the potential to do far more) is the equivalent ofaging them twenty or thirty years. For a twenty year old, that may notmatter. Even people with fifty year old brains are still employable,at least for now. But, why don't we employ seventy and eighty year oldpeople very often? Because they can't keep up. Why shouldn't we allowvery old people on the road? Because its unsafe.When you look at mold neuro issues they look a very much like aging.Aging is in many ways a brain injury that mimics mold and I think thatond of the reasons is that mold exposure accelerates processes thatoccur naturally. We know that mold exposure causes dramatic increasesin reactive oxygen species, and the formation of advanced glycationend products (AGEs) which is an irreversible process. Mold toxins arealso known to destroy our store of neural progenitor cells (stemcells) which can cause impairment of hippocampal neurogenesis, just asit does in cancer chemotherapy and radiation. But we refuse to put adollar value on that because we know that that kind of loss is reallyimportant. Understanding how to treat that kind of injury is crucialto properly compensating mold lllness survivors. In some cases, peoplewith less demanding jobs may be able to return to work in a relativelyshort time. In other cases, the damage may be irreversible.For example, compare the processing ability that would br required forsomeone whose career was walking dogs, versus a concert pianist. Quitea bit of difference. Another factor in finding employment is whetheryour employment depends on your degree (which is a piece of paperwhich can't be taken away) or in your day to day skill. In the past,businesses often carried a lot of employees who were not soproductive, but not any more. A brain injury is a serious economicdisaster for almost anybody in the new economy. Because if you can'tthink, you can't be productive. Jobs as seemingly simple as waiting ontables require prodigious mental feats that people with mold illnessjust cannot undertake. People with a strong past work history oftenwill not be hired for any work at a salary level far beneath what theypreviously earned. Emplyers don't think that they will stay or takethe jobs seriously enough. This causes real problems.We need to start looking at mold illnesses as the injuries that theyare. People have difficulty finding words (aphasia) they lose theirability to hold more than one or two things in their mind at a time(working memory) they lose the ability to store memories reliably(long term potentiation)These changes look a lot like aging. How much is twenty or thirtyyears of your mental ability worth? How much more would it cist you ifyou started to go senile ten or fifteen or twenty or thirty or fourtyyears earlier than you might otherwise.See what I mean?

[Guest guest]

Shel,

What you say, I know to be true. As an example, I am aware of a woman with a very solid workers comp case of injury from mold. Her lungs and immune system are severely injured. She has the cognitive difficulties that many complain about after an excessive exposure. She can't get an attorney to help her because these cases are so expensive, even when there is much documentation to support the injury. No plaintiff attorney can afford to take her workers' comp case. The poor woman is having to defend herself only with the aid of a state ombudsman who knows nothing of mold. It is disgusting. And if she does not meet the criteria of mold injury, she will never get the proper medical attention she needs.

One area being looked into over this issue by the GAO is,

Sharon

Certainly no point I have made goes to how and when doctors should be trained. I am interested in support for winning mold personal injury cases on behalf of plaintiffs. The ACOEM paper makes that nearly impossible. I am advising my in the pipeline clients to settle for whatever they can get. I am not taking new contingent fee mold PI cases. If injured mold victims can’t get help legally it makes it even worse than being harmed but winning.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.

[Guest guest]

Shel,

Sometimes I think I should stick my toes into the expert witness arena regarding the ACOEM Mold Statement and all the damage it has done. The reason I think I could possibly do this, is because this is not science. It is merely the marketing of a concept based on non-science. My degree is in marketing. My experience is in marketing. I have certainly obtain a certain level of expertise over the conflicts of interest of this issue and have even been published in medical journals regarding my understanding of the marketing over the matter.

I don't know. Do you guys think I could do this? Do they ever bring marketeers in as experts? Have been asked to provide an affidavit for a mold case. Will show you all the rough draft intro.

1. My name is Sharon Noonan Kramer. I hold a BBA in Marketing from the University of Mississippi, 1977. I have 30 years in field experience of Sales and Marketing. In addition to my college education and work experience, I am corporately trained by NCR Corp to understand how a concept marketed.

2. Since 2003, I have been researching and studying the marketing of the concept that it is implausible humans experience symptoms indicative of poisoning from exposure to microbial toxins and other contaminants that are found within water damaged buildings. This false concept of implausibility, widely marketed by influential medical associations, is not founded upon any accepted scientific methodology to make such a determination. Much like the history of tobacco issue, misinformation downplaying the severity of mold induced illnesses has been propagated extensively within medical communities and within the courts. The intent of this misinformation is to deny financial liability for insurers and stakeholders of moldy buildings when occupants and workers become ill from excessive mold exposure within the stakeholder owned and insured buildings.

3. My research into the conflicts of interest over the matter was the foundation for a January 2007 front page Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article titled, “Court of Opinion, Amid Suits Over Mold Experts Wear Two Hats, Authors of Science Paper Often Cited by Defense Also Help in Litigation†The original paper I authored that gained the WSJ’s attention was titled “American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Exposed, A Case Study in Sham Peer Review and Conflicts of Interestâ€.

4. My writings regarding stakeholder industries’ ability to exhibit undue influence over medical associations and with regard to the mold issue have been published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (JACI), the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health (IJOEH) and Medscape General Medscape (MGM). I have been the subject of an article regarding the mold issue for the Indoor Environment Connection, trade newspaper of the mold remediation industry, titled “Kramer vs. Corruptionâ€.

5. I have moderated a United States Senate Staff briefing over this matter to assist in educating our government. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee and the Senate Public Works Committee were my sponsors. My chosen panel to educate the US Senate as to the legitimate scientific understanding was comprised of a microbiologist, olaronthologist, immunologist, physicist and biotoxin treating physician.

6. Through my urging, there is currently a Federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit underway regarding the mold issue. One of the key areas of the GAO audit is “Please consider in your study…..What medical and scientific standards are used in determining admissibility of evidence of both acute and persistent health consequences resulting from exposure to mold? Which individuals and organizations have promogulated these standards and what, if any, conflicts of interest exist regarding these standards?â€

7. Efforts spearheaded by me have caused the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) to change their conflict of interest disclosure policy for those who publish within their journal to include income generated as expert witnesses for litigation. Like the subject of the WSJ article, ACOEM, the AAAAI allowed their position statement on mold induced illnesses to be authored by those who generate substantial income as expert witnesses for the defense in mold litigation. The paper was a true embarrassment to AAAAI. The authors’ conflicts were publicly called out by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), at my urging. AAAAI received so many complaints from physicians and scientists, that they were forced to publish several papers refuting their own position statement on mold induced illnesses.

8. I have reviewed....

Is that nuts to think I could possibly do this? I have never even sat in a witness chair. LOL

Sharon

The standard of proof in a typical civil suit for personal injury can be stated as more probable than not. However the ACOEM controversy does not go so much to the standard that must be proved as to the qualifications a professional witness has to have in order to be allowed to testify as an expert. Getting in this expert testimony is what is made very difficult by the ACOEM “studyâ€. And it is nearly impossible to win a case without an expert witness when the other side has one.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.

[Guest guest]

The difficult task here is selling the court on there being a marketing question involved here. I don’t think most courts would bite.

But it is the truth. And it is EXACTLY what happened. It is not science. It's marketing.

VeriTox wrote junk. ACOEM legitimized it. The Chamber promoted it. The AAAAI and ACMT perpetuated it. NIOSH/ASTDR solidified it as government accepted science. AOEC then took the gov endorsement to train physicians of such.

It is really quite an impressive feat of marketing. They added math to just a rodent study and have wreaked shear havoc while saving insurers and stakeholders, I would venture to guess, billions. I am awestruck by their marketing ability.

SharonSee AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.

[Guest guest]

Ken,

Whoa there! I think your spin may have made a Freudian slip! Crimnal

prosecutions are held to that standard.

You are wrong in that this interpretation is not how civil law suits

work. (The two can exist side by side, though.)

And also if you are saying that 'something else' might have caused the

illnesses, when somebody is healthy for most of their life and very

suddenly their health falls apart due to massive mold exposure, that

may be true. As long as the likelihood of that something else is low

and the likelihood of mold causing it is high, then the lawsuit should

win.

What else strikes people down in the prime of life?

What else would have caused these many sudden illnesses then? When

they are all alike? When they all result in similar post-exposure

issues.

As I am sure you know, civil lawsuits are required to prove that it

" is more likely than not " that the cause of the illness was X.

That is a HELL of a lot different than the (criminal lawsuit) standard

you are advocating (which I think might still be attainable for many

people nonetheless.)

But its not what is required in civil lawsuits. The standard in civil

lawsuits (not criminal cases) is 'more likely than not.

I DO think that criminal prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon

is appropriate in cases where there was a malicious intent to do

bodily harm.

That does apply in many cases, too. That should be treated like any

other assault, bioterrorism case, etc.

Assaults on families with deadly biological warfare agents should be prosecuted.

See http://biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf

See http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/trichothecene/casedef.asp

> While I agree mold can cause what you say.... I think that is the

problem....

>

> It can [possibly] cause these illnesses.

>

> So until there can be a definite method to identify when mold is causing

illness I'm suspecting there can be no liability.

>

> If mold exposures cause illness in 20% of the population it seems a claimant

must show he was a part of the 20% population susceptible to the illness before

the illness can result in a recoverable claim.

>

> Invaribly when a person becomes sick there are more of his family that do not

get sick. Thus science seems to be saying mold can not yet be proven the cause

of the sickness until other parameters are identified.

>

> It took 50 years before the cause and effect relationship of tobacco could be

accepted. I'm of an age where I remember every step of the way. The mold

situation seems to be taking the same path. Unfortunately there will be no deep

pockets with mold as there was with the tobacco companies.

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

Ken,

Whoa there! I think your spin may have made a Freudian slip! Crimnal

prosecutions are held to that standard.

You are wrong in that this interpretation is not how civil law suits

work. (The two can exist side by side, though.)

And also if you are saying that 'something else' might have caused the

illnesses, when somebody is healthy for most of their life and very

suddenly their health falls apart due to massive mold exposure, that

may be true. As long as the likelihood of that something else is low

and the likelihood of mold causing it is high, then the lawsuit should

win.

What else strikes people down in the prime of life?

What else would have caused these many sudden illnesses then? When

they are all alike? When they all result in similar post-exposure

issues.

As I am sure you know, civil lawsuits are required to prove that it

" is more likely than not " that the cause of the illness was X.

That is a HELL of a lot different than the (criminal lawsuit) standard

you are advocating (which I think might still be attainable for many

people nonetheless.)

But its not what is required in civil lawsuits. The standard in civil

lawsuits (not criminal cases) is 'more likely than not.

I DO think that criminal prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon

is appropriate in cases where there was a malicious intent to do

bodily harm.

That does apply in many cases, too. That should be treated like any

other assault, bioterrorism case, etc.

Assaults on families with deadly biological warfare agents should be prosecuted.

See http://biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf

See http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/trichothecene/casedef.asp

> While I agree mold can cause what you say.... I think that is the

problem....

>

> It can [possibly] cause these illnesses.

>

> So until there can be a definite method to identify when mold is causing

illness I'm suspecting there can be no liability.

>

> If mold exposures cause illness in 20% of the population it seems a claimant

must show he was a part of the 20% population susceptible to the illness before

the illness can result in a recoverable claim.

>

> Invaribly when a person becomes sick there are more of his family that do not

get sick. Thus science seems to be saying mold can not yet be proven the cause

of the sickness until other parameters are identified.

>

> It took 50 years before the cause and effect relationship of tobacco could be

accepted. I'm of an age where I remember every step of the way. The mold

situation seems to be taking the same path. Unfortunately there will be no deep

pockets with mold as there was with the tobacco companies.

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

It can’t possible hurt. The worst thing they can say is NO. Go for it. It is another avenue to get the truth out. Just stay within the marketing arena and you should be ok.

EnviroBob

Thanks, Bob. Staying within the marketing arena is all I ever do.See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.

[Guest guest]

The standard of proof in a typical civil

suit for personal injury can be stated as more probable than not. However the

ACOEM controversy does not go so much to the standard that must be proved as to

the qualifications a professional witness has to have in order to be allowed to

testify as an expert. Getting in this expert testimony is what is made very

difficult by the ACOEM “study”. And it is nearly impossible to win a case

without an expert witness when the other side has one.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell

J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweiss@...

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of LiveSimply

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

9:08 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Ken,

Whoa there! I think your spin may have made a Freudian slip! Crimnal

prosecutions are held to that standard.

You are wrong in that this interpretation is not how civil law suits

work. (The two can exist side by side, though.)

And also if you are saying that 'something else' might have caused the

illnesses, when somebody is healthy for most of their life and very

suddenly their health falls apart due to massive mold exposure, that

may be true. As long as the likelihood of that something else is low

and the likelihood of mold causing it is high, then the lawsuit should

win.

What else strikes people down in the prime of life?

What else would have caused these many sudden illnesses then? When

they are all alike? When they all result in similar post-exposure

issues.

As I am sure you know, civil lawsuits are required to prove that it

" is more likely than not " that the cause of the illness was X.

That is a HELL of a lot different than the (criminal lawsuit) standard

you are advocating (which I think might still be attainable for many

people nonetheless.)

But its not what is required in civil lawsuits. The standard in civil

lawsuits (not criminal cases) is 'more likely than not.

I DO think that criminal prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon

is appropriate in cases where there was a malicious intent to do

bodily harm.

That does apply in many cases, too. That should be treated like any

other assault, bioterrorism case, etc.

Assaults on families with deadly biological warfare agents should be

prosecuted.

See http://biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf

See http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/trichothecene/casedef.asp

> While I agree mold can cause what you say.... I think that is the

problem....

>

> It can [possibly] cause these illnesses.

>

> So until there can be a definite method to identify when mold is causing

illness I'm suspecting there can be no liability.

>

> If mold exposures cause illness in 20% of the population it seems a

claimant must show he was a part of the 20% population susceptible to the

illness before the illness can result in a recoverable claim.

>

> Invaribly when a person becomes sick there are more of his family that do

not get sick. Thus science seems to be saying mold can not yet be proven the

cause of the sickness until other parameters are identified.

>

> It took 50 years before the cause and effect relationship of tobacco could

be accepted. I'm of an age where I remember every step of the way. The mold

situation seems to be taking the same path. Unfortunately there will be no deep

pockets with mold as there was with the tobacco companies.

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

The standard of proof in a typical civil

suit for personal injury can be stated as more probable than not. However the

ACOEM controversy does not go so much to the standard that must be proved as to

the qualifications a professional witness has to have in order to be allowed to

testify as an expert. Getting in this expert testimony is what is made very

difficult by the ACOEM “study”. And it is nearly impossible to win a case

without an expert witness when the other side has one.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell

J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweiss@...

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of LiveSimply

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

9:08 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Ken,

Whoa there! I think your spin may have made a Freudian slip! Crimnal

prosecutions are held to that standard.

You are wrong in that this interpretation is not how civil law suits

work. (The two can exist side by side, though.)

And also if you are saying that 'something else' might have caused the

illnesses, when somebody is healthy for most of their life and very

suddenly their health falls apart due to massive mold exposure, that

may be true. As long as the likelihood of that something else is low

and the likelihood of mold causing it is high, then the lawsuit should

win.

What else strikes people down in the prime of life?

What else would have caused these many sudden illnesses then? When

they are all alike? When they all result in similar post-exposure

issues.

As I am sure you know, civil lawsuits are required to prove that it

" is more likely than not " that the cause of the illness was X.

That is a HELL of a lot different than the (criminal lawsuit) standard

you are advocating (which I think might still be attainable for many

people nonetheless.)

But its not what is required in civil lawsuits. The standard in civil

lawsuits (not criminal cases) is 'more likely than not.

I DO think that criminal prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon

is appropriate in cases where there was a malicious intent to do

bodily harm.

That does apply in many cases, too. That should be treated like any

other assault, bioterrorism case, etc.

Assaults on families with deadly biological warfare agents should be

prosecuted.

See http://biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf

See http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/trichothecene/casedef.asp

> While I agree mold can cause what you say.... I think that is the

problem....

>

> It can [possibly] cause these illnesses.

>

> So until there can be a definite method to identify when mold is causing

illness I'm suspecting there can be no liability.

>

> If mold exposures cause illness in 20% of the population it seems a

claimant must show he was a part of the 20% population susceptible to the

illness before the illness can result in a recoverable claim.

>

> Invaribly when a person becomes sick there are more of his family that do

not get sick. Thus science seems to be saying mold can not yet be proven the

cause of the sickness until other parameters are identified.

>

> It took 50 years before the cause and effect relationship of tobacco could

be accepted. I'm of an age where I remember every step of the way. The mold

situation seems to be taking the same path. Unfortunately there will be no deep

pockets with mold as there was with the tobacco companies.

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

This is a prime example why those fighting the term MCS when it ocmes to

litigation. Advocates of the " diagnosis " of MCS do not realize the legal

ramifications under Daubert and the Cullen definition that has basically

been the kiss of death in any legal action primarily trials.

What has perplexed me is: When the law catches up with science/medicine

can those cases that were ruled against be revisited? Is there any

" grandfathering " type of recourse that these victims can implement?

Angel De Fazio, B.S.A.T.

President

National Toxic Encephalopathy Foundation

POB 29194

Las Vegas, NV 89126

view the FDA petition to have Angel Perfume by Thierry Mugler declared a

Drug at

http://www.national-toxic-encephalopathy-foundation.org/PETITIONFDA.pdf

> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:27:06 -0600

>

> Reply-To: iequality

> To: iequality

> Subject: RE: Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...

>

> The standard of proof in a typical civil suit for personal injury can be

> stated as more probable than not. However the ACOEM controversy does not go

> so much to the standard that must be proved as to the qualifications a

> professional witness has to have in order to be allowed to testify as an

> expert. Getting in this expert testimony is what is made very difficult by

> the ACOEM " study " . And it is nearly impossible to win a case without an

> expert witness when the other side has one.

>

>

>

> Shell Bleiweiss

>

> Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

>

> Environmental and OSHA Law

>

> Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

>

> (direct)

>

> (general)

>

> sbleiweiss@...

>

> http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com <http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com/>

>

>

>

> _____

>

> From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf

> Of LiveSimply

> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:08 AM

> To: iequality

> Subject: Re: Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...

>

>

>

> Ken,

>

> Whoa there! I think your spin may have made a Freudian slip! Crimnal

> prosecutions are held to that standard.

> You are wrong in that this interpretation is not how civil law suits

> work. (The two can exist side by side, though.)

>

> And also if you are saying that 'something else' might have caused the

> illnesses, when somebody is healthy for most of their life and very

> suddenly their health falls apart due to massive mold exposure, that

> may be true. As long as the likelihood of that something else is low

> and the likelihood of mold causing it is high, then the lawsuit should

> win.

>

> What else strikes people down in the prime of life?

>

> What else would have caused these many sudden illnesses then? When

> they are all alike? When they all result in similar post-exposure

> issues.

>

> As I am sure you know, civil lawsuits are required to prove that it

> " is more likely than not " that the cause of the illness was X.

>

> That is a HELL of a lot different than the (criminal lawsuit) standard

> you are advocating (which I think might still be attainable for many

> people nonetheless.)

>

> But its not what is required in civil lawsuits. The standard in civil

> lawsuits (not criminal cases) is 'more likely than not.

>

> I DO think that criminal prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon

> is appropriate in cases where there was a malicious intent to do

> bodily harm.

>

> That does apply in many cases, too. That should be treated like any

> other assault, bioterrorism case, etc.

>

> Assaults on families with deadly biological warfare agents should be

> prosecuted.

>

> See http://biotoxin. <http://biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf>

> info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf

> See http://www.bt. <http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/trichothecene/casedef.asp>

> cdc.gov/agent/trichothecene/casedef.asp

>

>> While I agree mold can cause what you say.... I think that is the

> problem....

>>

>> It can [possibly] cause these illnesses.

>>

>> So until there can be a definite method to identify when mold is causing

> illness I'm suspecting there can be no liability.

>>

>> If mold exposures cause illness in 20% of the population it seems a

> claimant must show he was a part of the 20% population susceptible to the

> illness before the illness can result in a recoverable claim.

>>

>> Invaribly when a person becomes sick there are more of his family that do

> not get sick. Thus science seems to be saying mold can not yet be proven the

> cause of the sickness until other parameters are identified.

>>

>> It took 50 years before the cause and effect relationship of tobacco could

> be accepted. I'm of an age where I remember every step of the way. The mold

> situation seems to be taking the same path. Unfortunately there will be no

> deep pockets with mold as there was with the tobacco companies.

>>

>> Ken

>

>

>

>

" Disease is the retribution of outraged nature. "

Hosea Ballou

" Some remedies are worse than the disease. "

Pubilius Syrus

" Toliet water was MEANT to be FLUSHED, not WORN! "

Angel

" If having endured much, we at last asserted our 'right to know' and if,

knowing, we have concluded that we are being asked to take senseless and

frightening risks, then we should no longer accept the counsel of those

who tell us that we must fill our world with poisonous chemicals, we

should look around and see what other course is open to us. "

Carson

" My toxicasa (world) is your toxicasa (world). "

Judith Goode

" For cheese does not prove equally injurious to all men, for there are

some who can take it to satiety, without being hurt by it in the least,

but, on the contrary, it is wonderful what strength it imparts to those it

agrees with; but there are some who do not bear it well, their

constitutions are different, they differ in this respect, that what in

their body is incompatible with cheese, is roused and put it in commotion

by such a thing; and those in whose bodies such a humor happens to prevail

in greater quantity and intensity, are likely to suffer the more from it.

But if the thing had been pernicious to the whole nature of man, it would

have hurt all. "

Hippocrates

[Guest guest]

I am afraid not. Once a case has been tried to conclusion and all appeal

periods run, or once a case has been settled, it is a done deal.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweiss@...

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

Re: Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...

>

>

>

> Ken,

>

> Whoa there! I think your spin may have made a Freudian slip! Crimnal

> prosecutions are held to that standard.

> You are wrong in that this interpretation is not how civil law suits

> work. (The two can exist side by side, though.)

>

> And also if you are saying that 'something else' might have caused the

> illnesses, when somebody is healthy for most of their life and very

> suddenly their health falls apart due to massive mold exposure, that

> may be true. As long as the likelihood of that something else is low

> and the likelihood of mold causing it is high, then the lawsuit should

> win.

>

> What else strikes people down in the prime of life?

>

> What else would have caused these many sudden illnesses then? When

> they are all alike? When they all result in similar post-exposure

> issues.

>

> As I am sure you know, civil lawsuits are required to prove that it

> " is more likely than not " that the cause of the illness was X.

>

> That is a HELL of a lot different than the (criminal lawsuit) standard

> you are advocating (which I think might still be attainable for many

> people nonetheless.)

>

> But its not what is required in civil lawsuits. The standard in civil

> lawsuits (not criminal cases) is 'more likely than not.

>

> I DO think that criminal prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon

> is appropriate in cases where there was a malicious intent to do

> bodily harm.

>

> That does apply in many cases, too. That should be treated like any

> other assault, bioterrorism case, etc.

>

> Assaults on families with deadly biological warfare agents should be

> prosecuted.

>

> See http://biotoxin. <http://biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf>

> info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf

> See http://www.bt. <http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/trichothecene/casedef.asp>

> cdc.gov/agent/trichothecene/casedef.asp

>

>> While I agree mold can cause what you say.... I think that is the

> problem....

>>

>> It can [possibly] cause these illnesses.

>>

>> So until there can be a definite method to identify when mold is causing

> illness I'm suspecting there can be no liability.

>>

>> If mold exposures cause illness in 20% of the population it seems a

> claimant must show he was a part of the 20% population susceptible to the

> illness before the illness can result in a recoverable claim.

>>

>> Invaribly when a person becomes sick there are more of his family that do

> not get sick. Thus science seems to be saying mold can not yet be proven

the

> cause of the sickness until other parameters are identified.

>>

>> It took 50 years before the cause and effect relationship of tobacco

could

> be accepted. I'm of an age where I remember every step of the way. The

mold

> situation seems to be taking the same path. Unfortunately there will be no

> deep pockets with mold as there was with the tobacco companies.

>>

>> Ken

>

>

>

>

" Disease is the retribution of outraged nature. "

Hosea Ballou

" Some remedies are worse than the disease. "

Pubilius Syrus

" Toliet water was MEANT to be FLUSHED, not WORN! "

Angel

" If having endured much, we at last asserted our 'right to know' and if,

knowing, we have concluded that we are being asked to take senseless and

frightening risks, then we should no longer accept the counsel of those

who tell us that we must fill our world with poisonous chemicals, we

should look around and see what other course is open to us. "

Carson

" My toxicasa (world) is your toxicasa (world). "

Judith Goode

" For cheese does not prove equally injurious to all men, for there are

some who can take it to satiety, without being hurt by it in the least,

but, on the contrary, it is wonderful what strength it imparts to those it

agrees with; but there are some who do not bear it well, their

constitutions are different, they differ in this respect, that what in

their body is incompatible with cheese, is roused and put it in commotion

by such a thing; and those in whose bodies such a humor happens to prevail

in greater quantity and intensity, are likely to suffer the more from it.

But if the thing had been pernicious to the whole nature of man, it would

have hurt all. "

Hippocrates

[Guest guest]

It would be interesting to say the least.

I believe there would be some chance that some judge would let it in. Of course

marketing experts testify on marketing questions. The difficult task here is

selling the court on there being a marketing question involved here. I don’t

think most courts would bite.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell

J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweiss@...

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

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

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

11:37 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Shel,

Sometimes I think I should stick my toes

into the expert witness arena regarding the ACOEM Mold Statement and all the

damage it has done. The reason I think I could possibly do this, is

because this is not science. It is merely the marketing of a concept

based on non-science. My degree is in marketing. My experience is in

marketing. I have certainly obtain a certain level of expertise over the

conflicts of interest of this issue and have even been published in

medical journals regarding my understanding of the marketing over the matter.

I don't know. Do you guys think I could

do this? Do they ever bring marketeers in as experts? Have been

asked to provide an affidavit for a mold case. Will show you all the

rough draft intro.

1. My name is Sharon Noonan Kramer. I hold a BBA in

Marketing from the University

of Mississippi,

1977. I have 30 years in field experience of Sales and Marketing. In addition

to my college education and work experience, I am corporately trained by NCR

Corp to understand how a concept marketed.

2. Since 2003, I have been researching and studying the marketing

of the concept that it is implausible humans experience symptoms indicative of

poisoning from exposure to microbial toxins and other contaminants that are

found within water damaged buildings. This false concept of implausibility,

widely marketed by influential medical associations, is not founded upon any

accepted scientific methodology to make such a determination. Much like the

history of tobacco issue, misinformation downplaying the severity of mold

induced illnesses has been propagated extensively within medical communities

and within the courts. The intent of this misinformation is to deny financial

liability for insurers and stakeholders of moldy buildings when occupants and

workers become ill from excessive mold exposure within the stakeholder owned

and insured buildings.

3. My research into the conflicts of interest over the matter was the foundation for a January 2007 front page

Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article titled, “Court of Opinion, Amid Suits Over

Mold Experts Wear Two Hats, Authors

of Science Paper Often Cited by Defense Also Help in Litigation” The original paper I authored that gained the WSJ’s

attention was titled “American College of Occupational and Environmental

Medicine (ACOEM) Exposed, A Case Study in Sham Peer Review and Conflicts of

Interest”.

4. My writings regarding stakeholder industries’ ability to

exhibit undue influence over medical associations and with regard to the mold

issue have been published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

(JACI), the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health

(IJOEH) and Medscape General Medscape (MGM). I have been the subject of

an article regarding the mold issue for the Indoor Environment Connection,

trade newspaper of the mold remediation industry, titled “Kramer vs.

Corruption”.

5. I have moderated a United States Senate Staff briefing over

this matter to assist in educating our government. The Senate Health,

Education, Labor and Pension Committee and the Senate Public Works Committee

were my sponsors. My chosen panel to educate the US Senate as to

the legitimate scientific understanding was comprised of a microbiologist,

olaronthologist, immunologist, physicist and biotoxin treating physician.

6. Through my urging, there is currently a Federal Government Accountability

Office (GAO) audit underway regarding the mold issue. One of the key

areas of the GAO audit is “Please consider in your study…..What medical and

scientific standards are used in determining admissibility of evidence of both

acute and persistent health consequences resulting from exposure to mold? Which

individuals and organizations have promogulated these standards and what, if

any, conflicts of interest exist regarding these standards?”

7. Efforts spearheaded by me have caused the American Academy

of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) to change their conflict of interest

disclosure policy for those who publish within their journal to include income

generated as expert witnesses for litigation. Like the subject of the WSJ

article, ACOEM, the AAAAI allowed their position statement on mold induced

illnesses to be authored by those who generate substantial income as expert

witnesses for the defense in mold litigation. The paper

was a true embarrassment to AAAAI. The authors’

conflicts were publicly called out by the Center for Science in the Public

Interest (CSPI), at my urging. AAAAI received so many complaints from

physicians and scientists, that they were forced to publish several papers

refuting their own position statement on mold induced illnesses.

8. I have reviewed....

Is that nuts to think I could possibly do

this? I have never even sat in a witness chair. LOL

Sharon

In a message dated 12/18/2007 9:17:24

A.M. Pacific Standard Time, sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss writes:

The standard of proof in a typical civil suit for personal injury

can be stated as more probable than not. However the ACOEM controversy does not

go so much to the standard that must be proved as to the qualifications a

professional witness has to have in order to be allowed to testify as an

expert. Getting in this expert testimony is what is made very difficult by the

ACOEM “study”. And it is nearly impossible to win a case without an expert

witness when the other side has one.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

See AOL's top

rated recipes and easy

ways to stay in shape for winter.