Toxicology, AIHA and GlobalTox

[Guest guest]

FYI, This is a course one can view on the AIHA website.

Dr. Hardin is a principal in GlobalTox. CIH Robbins also

works for GlobalTox. GlobalTox makes much income from doing

defense,insurance company support in mold litigation.

Dr. Hardin is a co-author of the ACOEM Evidence Based

Statement regarding indoor molds. (As is Dr. Kelman,

another principal in GlobalTox). This is the same paper

that was based on a study by Dr.Rao of high dose exposure

over a 24 hour period in mice.It was then applied by these

authors to indicate that this study has relevance to long

term low dose human exposure in an indoor environment. The

NIH does not find this correlation to be of relevance:

Taken from Chapter 4 of the Institute of Medicine Damp Indoor Spaces Report,

May 25, 2004

" Except for a few studies on cancer, toxicologic studies of mycotoxins are

acute or short-term studies that use high exposure concentrations to reveal

immediate effects in small populations of animals. Chronic studies that use

lower exposure concentrations and approximate human exposure more closely have

not been done.... "

GlobalTox was then paid $40,000 by the Manhattan Institute,

with the involvement of the US Chamber of Commerce, to make

minor changes to the ACOEM Position Statement. An edited

version of this " study " ended up on the National

Association of Realtors website. Last sentence: " Thus, the

notion that " toxic mold " is an insidious, secret " killer, "

as so many media reports and trial lawyers would claim

is " junk science " unsupported by actual scientific study. "

Why would these ethical Phd's be willing to make changes to

their " most peer reviewed " paper at the request of

commerce? If commerce were truly looking for science, why

would they be willing to pay these Phd's $40,000 for edits,

when they could have simply taken it off the ACOEM website

for free? Why are entities that are nationally known to

generate much income from insurance company defense

litigation support in mold cases, being allowed to further

the misconception that a 24 hour study of mice is relevant

to human living environments, when the NIH does not support

this position? Isn't it a dangerous conflict of interest

to have those who profit from defending a position in

court, also being allowed to write the position paper? Why

would these entities be allowed to offer education to

industrial hygenists by the American Industrial Hygene

Association?

Toxicological and

Occupational Medicine

Perspective on Molds and

Mycotoxins: Update and

Implications for IH

Presented By:

Denham Coreen A. Robbins, PhD, CIH

Sudakin

Hardin

Ed Light

Course Description

Toxicity from mold in indoor environments has been an issue

in the industrial hygiene arena and media limelight for

several years. This TeleWeb will discuss and summarize

recent developments and publications concerning the

toxicity of molds and the industrial hygiene approach to

mold. The history of the issue in the context of why many

industrial hygienists have come to treat mold as a

hazardous material will be examined. The important points

of the toxicity and health effects discussion from the

recent position paper by the American College of

Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) and the

Institute of Medicine (IOM) will be presented. Implications

for industrial hygiene practice as a result of the ACOEM

paper will be presented, along with practical suggestions

for addressing mold issues. The settings where human

exposure and toxicity from molds may occur and recent

research about biomarkers for mycotoxin exposures will be

presented. The legal approach to claims of mold toxicity

will be discussed, and the future of the “toxic mold†issue

will be explored.

To view the end result of the nationally marketed concept on the part of

those who profit from the position mold is not a danger, go to the KATU

Portland

website. Put in " mold " and view the two webcasts of teachers who have been

made gravely ill by indoor mold, yet subjected to questionable practices by a

renowed (infamous?), worker's comp doctor.