Media’s fears of losing control evident by relying on biased journalists to dist

[Guest guest]

Media's fears of losing control evident by relying on biased

journalists to distort facts

Contributed by T. White

The Best toxic mold site on the web

http://mold-help.org/content/view/584/

Friday, 06 May 2005

5/5/05

T. White

Contriibuting Editor on Deceptive Opinions; Biased Journalists

Exposed!

Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a

newspaper - Jefferson

I am a former media journalist and I deeply understand the ethics

and reasoning of ethical journalism. I was burnt out on the

profession after sixteen years; not due to my lust for the

profession, but rather the way that the profession has lost its

art.

After reading this website, I decided to tell my story here to an

audience who has already probably seen the destruction of the media

about a national epidemic that has been covered up and revamped,

almost like an old politician. Just as the pharmaceutical industry

is beginning to worry about a vast percentage of their well-insured

client base, seemingly disappointed with their traditional

physician's endless protocol of benign prescriptions seeking

alternative therapy as their unresolved illnesses worsen, the media

is beginning to resent and fear the public's alternative source for

news, information and unbiased opinions.

As the millennium is well under way, new marketing strategies are

showing up in all industries. This has become increasingly apparent

in the media. The mass media realm, which was once well regarded as

the most reliable source for the unbiased news, has slowly but

surely lost its code of ethics. Whether you read the front page of

the New York Times about an opinion on Tony Blair's campaign

victory, or watch Katy Couric and Matt Lauer banter back and forth

regarding their irrelevant opinions on summer fashion, it appears

the luster of a former prestigious occupation has begun to dwindle

due to rather obvious and unwanted biased reporting tactics.

Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never

voted for President. One hopes it is the same half - Gore Vidal

Cyril Connolly once said that literature is the art of writing

something that will be read twice; journalism what will be read

once. Perhaps due to availability to access factual data has never

been more warranted. Recently Forbes magazine announced a Reuter's

article which announced a very interesting event that, in part, has

led me to send in this article in hopes that you will print it. It

appears that a panel of " experts " has recently convened to discuss

the impact of blogs in journalism and the media. The event was held

April 5 at of all places, The Reuters Building in New York City.

The following were the basic topics that were discussed:

Are bloggers journalists?

Should they be afforded the same rights as journalists?

With blogs central to the recent resignations of top journalists, is

anyone holding the bloggers to account?

Do blogs have a vital role in the national debate?

Are they seeking the truth and exposing poor journalism?

A newspaper consists of just the same number of words, whether

there be any news in it or not - Henry Fielding

My first train of thought was are the s, Art Bells, Pat

Buchanans and Savages have begun to shed some reality on

mainstream media; what was once regarded as a very elite, limited

group of people who were actually thought of as professional and

ethical? Or could it be even more egocentric or malevolent than

that?

Just as the pharmaceutical industry is beginning to worry about a

vast percentage of their American consumer base seeking alternative

therapy as their unresolved symptoms and illnesses worsen, the media

is beginning to resent the public's alternative source for news and

information. In many aspects, this pattern goes evilly hand in hand.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who

reads nothing but newspapers - Jefferson

Let's revert back to 1988. Drudge, a pioneer in what came

to be called weblogging became a threat to many mainstream

journalists when he scored the scoop on the Bill Clinton-

Lewinsky affair.

Drudge's site had 80,000 visitors daily even before his big

revelation, but after Drudge ran the explosive story; his site was

suddenly getting hundreds of thousands, then millions of hits daily.

The Drudge Report has been a force in Washington politics ever since.

Trying to be a first-rate reporter on the average American newspaper

is like trying to play Bach's 'St. 's Passion' on a ukulele. -

Bagdikian's Observation

Could it be that some of these mediocre, biased journalists are

beginning to worry about the loss of their loyal viewers?

Once an author starts pouring in their own opinions into a news

article and defending the issues that they like, it becomes a

commentary and should be treated as one. Unfortunately, this isn't

usually the typical scenario. Most " old school " readers of this

shady bigotry often interpret this one sided story as fact. Yet one

should never underestimate the intelligence of the American public

as many propagandists are being discovered for what they are, biased

journalists who have no interest in details, only telling a

fictional account of the news to create " their version of a story "

and hide the real facts.

People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news –

A.J. Liebling

Everyone knows the power of the media, despite their recent loss of

credibility with bloggers, right wing extremists, and a well

educated public still arrogantly believe they can never be

questioned ethically as theirs is the " word of God. " Beliieve it or

not, many media propagandists live in fear of being discovered, and

have never been more strongly fearful as they boldly solicit biased

commentaries are disseminated as fact. The most common types of

cover-ups/biased and propaganda journalism appear to ensue from the

root of all evil, even indirectly. This includes stories about

medicine, politics, insurance, technology, law, and wars. A biased

or propaganda story is not always the work of a vindictive or

unversed journalist, either. What must also be considered is the

fact that the major sponsors of media are generally auto & food

manufacturing, insurance, and pharmaceutical companies. Advertisers

have a lot of control of the media just by the simple fact that they

sponsor propaganda. Government organizations are by no means

innocent in this controversial propaganda program. They have their

own interests at heart, which generally center around two little

words, " change and money. " Government officials have already

demonstrated through history that they will do just about anything

to maintain their organizations just they way they have been run for

several hundred years, no matter how this may harm the public.

Once a newspaper touches a story, the facts are lost forever, even

to the protagonists - Norman Mailer

A recent example of biased journalism that sparked my concern was an

article posted in Forbes Magazine written by a rather insecure

journalist whose dreams of acceptance and thoughts of good deeds

made him the laughing stock of the media world. Don't get me wrong;

the journalist in question is a professional who takes his job at

times a bit too seriously. His name is Fisher. He is a

retired journalist from MSN Money Central who has lost some of his

professional spirit due to semi-retirement and a lack luster

lifestyle with no recognition. He has done free-lancing assignments

for some so called, " self-respected " publications in hopes of making

his mark. The feeling of mediocrity was never good enough for him.

In my opinion, his apparent excitement in his semi-retired state

made him a witness to a minor ish train crash, while his only

waking thought was to write a very controversial story to garner

some much needed publicity that might add to his receding ego, as

well as his hairline. This year, 2005, was the year that

Fisher officially lowered his journalistic standards to justify his

faltering career, as a senior editor for the highly questionable

Forbes Magazine.

When the judgment's weak, the prejudice is strong. – Kane O'Hara

The date in history when Dan Fisher alledgedly sold out his career

to " biased journalism. " I now worry who may be involved in this

conspiracy to suppress pertinent medical data that could actually

save lives.

I believe in April, 2005 was the date when a mediocre journalist

feeliing the stress of mid-life crisis decided to vindicate his

freedom and bare himself free from the constraints of ethical

journalism to forego his better sense and sell out as a biased

journalist.

His neglected ego and lack of recognition finally got the better of

a rather eloquent journalist. By reading his sad story, perhaps you

will get a better idea of the damaged egos, lack of respect, and low

self-esteem issues that many average journalists succumb to as they

enter this peculiar paradox in their lifetimes when they sell

themselves out to biased journalism. He told a biased story to

garner career status at a time when it was lagging. No one can deny

that he held out as long as he could by his well-endoctrined ethics.

But what is the difference between literature and

journalism? ...Journalism is unreadable and literature is not read.

That is all.- Wilde

Headline/byline: Fisher, 04.11.05 I opine in his attempt to

not be forever elapsed. . . Actual story in non-italicized font.

My analysis/interpretation is italicized. T. White

The science may be sketchy, but medical " experts " like Ordog

keep litigation alive and kicking. (Verbally attacking a physician?)

His biased story and some of my claims against his unprofessional

journalism-

Ordog was trained in emergency medicine. He spent the first 17

years of his career patching up knife and gunshot wounds at

Luther King/Drew Medical Center in the tough Compton neighborhood of

Los Angeles. Then he found a more lucrative specialty. For $9,800 up

front (plus $975 an hour) Dr. Ordog appears as an expert witness in

lawsuits to testify that mold can cause a terrifying array of

diseases, from lung cancer to cirrhosis of the liver. Mold " is a

major, devastating part of my patients' lives, " says Ordog, a portly

British Columbia native who says he's treated thousands of people

for mold exposure at his clinic in a strip mall in the Los Angeles

suburb of Santa Clarita. " It destroys their health, their homes and

all of their possessions. "

Mr. Fisher failed to tell the other side of the story about the one-

sided, high-profiting defense witnesses who charge double, triple,

and even five times the monetary amount that these physicians

charge, and these experts don't ignore the Hippocratic Oath. Mr.

Fisher could have done such a fabulous job targeting the

unethical " specialists " who profit from the insurance,

pharmaceutical, and chemical companies. It makes me wonder if he

sold himself out or just wanted to garner negative and

unprofessional publicity. Besides, the evidence is not " sketchy; "

much of it is supressed and the rest is writtten by the

defense 'experts'! In my opinion, he was paid to be biased or

possibly Forbes bribed him. Either way, he has been discovered and

has lost his credibility. Remember, as I stated, in my opinion he

was always a pretty dreary journalist.

Continuation of Headline/byline: Fisher, 04.11.05

The American College of Occupational & Environmental Medicine and

the federal Institute of Medicine say there's no evidence for such

claims. The vice president of Ordog's own professional association,

the American College of Medical Toxicology, agrees. " Mold exposure

does not cause significant disease, " says Wax, a practicing

toxicologist in Phoenix who isn't involved in litigation.

I feel this statement is actually false and extremely biased. The

American College of Occupational & Environmental Medicine paid

Globaltox, a company who profits as defense witnesses in mold and

breast silicone lawsuits for a study to claim these untruths. The

planning of that paper was the brainchild of Congressman

(RP), a land developer who obtained funding from the insurance and

building industry to " pay " for the funding of this paper. When the

original paper was published, many distinguished members of the

ACOEM objected to this submission, claiming that it looked too much

like " propaganda " for the defense industry. Globaltox, then changed

approximately eight words of this inaccurate paper and sold it to

the Manhattan Institute for $40,000. The Institute of Medicine

report was incomplete and only studied non-infectious diseases.

Fisher cited the only two controversial studies to obviously gain

some publicity as a respected journalist. Neither reports were

credible and both came from questionable and conflicting resources.

Continuation of Headline/byline: Fisher, 04.11.05

That hasn't stopped Ordog from serving as an expert witness in, by

his estimate, hundreds of lawsuits by people alleging they were

injured by mold and mycotoxins. The Insurance Information Institute

estimates that $3 billion in mold claims were paid out in 2002, the

most recent year for which detailed statistics are available. Most

states have responded by passing laws allowing insurance companies

to exclude mold from coverage, so plaintiff lawyers now target

landlords, condominium associations and school districts

instead. " I've got seven or eight cases set for trial between now

and June, " says Slaughter, a defense lawyer in Ventura,

Calif.

Four years after a groundbreaking $32 million verdict in Texas, mold

litigation has fallen into a familiar pattern. Like previous suits

over silicone breast implants, electromagnetic radiation and the

anti-nausea drug Bendectin, it is being kept alive by a handful of

experts who are willing to contradict mainstream scientists to say

that mold can make otherwise healthy people sick.

Fisher again tries to gain publicity from the wrong resources. If

he had done his much needed homework and worked ethically, Fisher

would have divulged the fact that the so called " expert witnesses "

for the defense (i.e., insurance companies, building development

companies, worker's comp, realtors, etc.) charge twice, sometimes

three times the cost of a plaintiff expert witness. Bruce Kelman, a

co-owner of Globaltox, among many other defense experts, made a

former living defending companies like Monsanto, Dow Chemical, etc.

Yes, these are the " experts " who defend the cigarette companies, but

Fisher fails to mention that, too.

Continuation of Headline/byline: Fisher, 04.11.05

There's no question that mold can cause asthma, sinusitis and other

breathing problems. But that's not what experts like Ordog are

saying. They're diagnosing more serious conditions--such as cancer,

immune-system disorders and memory loss--that have been linked to

specific mycotoxins. And if they find any traces of them in a

plaintiff's home, workplace or school--bingo. But there are no

reliable tests to show that a person has been exposed to a specific

mold or mycotoxin, much less how long that exposure lasted or how

much of a substance he absorbed. " I certainly believe these poisons

make people sick, but I can't make that connection, " says

Straus, a researcher at Texas Tech University's medical school whose

testimony has helped plaintiffs win three mold lawsuits.

Some medical experts are old hands at tort claims. Texas mold expert

previously testified in silicone breast implant

cases. Nachman Brautbar of Los Angeles has worked on everything from

breast implants and welding fumes to the chromium contamination in

the Brockovich case (his Web site features a testimonial from

the film's namesake).

Once again, Fisher failed to mention that the average mold victim

pays approximately $50,000 out of pocket expenses for legal fees,

$10,000 in expert witness fees, $50,000 (conservatively) up front

medical expenses, and at least $25,000 in out of pocket living

expenses on a mere " chance " of seeking justice. Fisher also fails,

once again, to tell the other side; the defense experts are all from

the chemical, tobacco, and breast implant expert testimony

background, and they charge several times over what the plaintiff's

experts charge to tell the truth.

Continuation of Headline/byline: Fisher, 04.11.05

Only 30 mold lawsuits alleging personal injury have gone to a

verdict in the U.S., by the estimate of Los Angeles attorney

Henning, and the defense won more than half. But with an expert

supporting their claims, plaintiffs can often extract a lucrative

settlement simply by surviving defense motions to dismiss.

Fisher again fails to tell the sordid stories of the thousands of

people who have lost their lives, homes, and worldly goods to

toxigenic mold. That most families who must endure this nightmare

are so traumatized by " the system " that they will generally settle

for anything to seek justice in a biased, desensitized world. This

is the " real " reason why most people settle out of court for pennies

on the dollar of their precious lives before this biological

nightmare.

Continuation of Headline/byline: Fisher, 04.11.05

Ordog's testimony helped a California couple win a $2.4 million

settlement in 2003 over the death of their infant son from pulmonary

hemorrhage linked to Stachybotrys chartarum, or " black mold. " The

CDC in 2000 repudiated reports linking Stachybotrys to infant

pulmonary hemorrhage, but the defendants weren't willing to risk

putting a case involving a dead child in front of a jury.

If the truth were to be told, sixteen poverty stricken African

American infants died in Cleveland from pulmonary hemorrhage from

stachybotrys exposure. If the represented families had been middle

or upper class Caucasian, there would have much more " political "

publicity and a more formal and conclusive investigation would have

been done. I believe the CDC thought of this as more of a nuisance

than a public liability. That is the reason they withdrew their

analysis. They banked on the ignorance of the victims' families.

Continuation of Headline/byline: Fisher, 04.11.05

A defense lawyer once calculated Ordog's annual take from expert

witness fees and his busy toxicology clinic at more than $3 million.

Ordog laughs at that figure-- " I wish " is all he'll say--but he has

acknowledged earning more than $10,000 a day for testimony and

travel time. Such figures are grating to defense attorneys, who say

Ordog shouldn't even be allowed to testify. The state of California

sought to revoke his license in 2003, alleging that in several cases

he misdiagnosed patients as having toxic poisoning. Ordog says no

hearings have been held and that his license was renewed last year.

Fisher, in his desperate attempt to condemn the hero, has made Dr.

Ordog out like a thief. I don't have to know this expert to detect

biased journalism. This doctor is obviously a pioneer in modern day

medicine. America needs more physicians like this who try to find a

cure rather than a treatment. American physicians are trained at

our highly respected institutes by DRUG COMPANIES! They are taught

to diagnose symptoms and treat them with drugs! The American public

is beginning to understand that our doctors are trained to sell us

drugs manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry; and that is about

all! What could have possibly coerced or induced Fisher to tell

such a biased story on an American Reality? The fact that this

fictional story was published in Forbes Magazine might shed some

reality as to why this biased issue was presented in such an

unprofessional manner.

Continuation of Headline/byline: Fisher, 04.11.05

But his say-so has been challenged. A California judge once said

Ordog " lacks credibility completely " after he testified that he was

chief toxicologist at Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital in Santa

Clarita, which has no such department; that he'd

published " hundreds " of scholarly articles, when a search of the

PubMed database turns up fewer than 70, almost all of them dealing

with gunshot wounds and trauma; and that former President Bill

Clinton called him personally to run a special mold commission for

the Environmental Protection Agency, even though an EPA spokesman

says the agency's authority doesn't include indoor air quality.

Ordog " is completely abusing the system, " says Robie, a

defense lawyer with Robie & Matthai in Los Angeles who has cross-

examined Ordog several times. " He is possibly the most dishonest man

I have ever met. "

Fisher didn't tell both sides, once again. Most defense lawyers

will say anything for the right price. Dr. Ordog is just a simple

man who believes in healing people with an affliction that is trying

to be covered-up. I hope that you understand the world of an old

journalist who has learned some new ways, whether they be proper or

not! Fisher would have done a much more controversial,

professional and ethical job if he had told both sides of this

horrendous mold story. The average person knows the truth behind

the lies and this entire one-sided story of fiction just questions,

if not negates, the intelligence of the American people

Continuation of Headline/byline: Fisher, 04.11.05.

In an interview at a luxurious Santa Clarita restaurant Ordog says

he's the victim of a smear campaign. The state's complaint to revoke

his license, he says, was " payback from Alcoa " after his testimony

helped secure a multimillion-dollar verdict against it. (The

November 2000 judgment was against Alcoa Paving Co., a now-defunct

firm unrelated to the aluminum maker.) Ordog also says the " evidence

is overwhelming for our position, " citing 28,000 articles supporting

the idea that mycotoxins can cause disease. A PubMed search finds

28,540 articles containing the word " mycotoxin, " but experts say

there are no reliable studies showing that mold can cause anything

more than asthma and similar breathing difficulties (see box, p.

101).

How does this go on? Junk science was supposedly banished from the

courtroom in the 1993 Supreme Court decision Daubert v. Merrell Dow

Pharmaceuticals, involving since-debunked claims that Bendectin

causes birth defects. Under Daubert, judges must exclude witnesses

who rely on implausible theories or poor methodology. But Daubert

applies only in federal courts.

In fact, in my own research for this rebuttal, I was able to find

over 500 medical articles from all over the world defining the

permanent neurological, pathological and immunological damage that

fungal exposure can be attributed to. There is a lot of pressure

from the insurance, building, mortgage lending, real estate, and

pharmaceutical industry to make this biological nightmare go away.

The special interest groups would love to market this " junk science "

mantra. The only problem is that the media has sensationalized this

problem into an " Out of sight, out of mind " logo. The media is

exacerbating this problem as the facts speak for themselves. juries

don't award large settlements for nothing. Fisher set the tone that

these alternative physicians may be questionable. I wonder who

baited Fisher to set up this biased smear campaign? Does this not

question the intelligence of the American People? What is wrong

with this compilation of static information?

Continuation of Headline/byline: Fisher, 04.11.05

Many state courts use the looser standard of " general acceptance, "

which can be met by convening a group of like-minded experts and

publishing their papers in a sympathetic journal. Those papers fail

to use double-blind methods to strip out possible researcher bias,

and most rely on self-reported mold exposure by patients, many of

whom are involved in mold lawsuits. Bolstered by articles in such

journals as Archives of Environmental Health and the Scientific

World Journal, plaintiff experts can mount an expensive fight

against defense lawyers who are trying to get them dismissed.

Because Ordog's opinions cover a wide range of medical disciplines

from toxicology to cancer, " You end up hiring docs in all areas of

medicine to disqualify him, " says O'Neill, a Los Angeles

defense lawyer.

" In my opinion, it's time that the American public educate

themselves in a non-opinionated, steadfast way.

If not, you may some day end up, as a retired journalist trying to

claim some fame by desensitizing national health epidemic

Fisher professes in his one sided-fable, as a litigious loser, who I

opine, depends on " junk science " to demonstrate their case of losing

their health, homes, and livelihoods to something that virtually

doesn't exist, in the minds of the special interest groups and

sellers who failed to disclose housing defects. "

Let's let the facts speak for themselves. This website demonstrates

the truth of this crisis.

Below are some comments made by Fisher to one of many writers

who opposed and questioned his biased reporting, as he adamantly

defends his excuses -

REPLY FROM ANONYMOUS READER:

I was a mold skeptic. I spent years being tired of hearing all the

mold stories on TV. That was until I lived it personally.

In March of this year, I and my family won a personal injury mold

case in ------------Clackamas County, Oregon. We have been through

hell in the last three years struggling with health issues and

fighting this legal battle against pockets far deeper than ours. The

bias in your article is appalling. Did you check to see how much

Emil Bardana or Bruce Kelman charge to testify AGAINST mold victims

like me? I guarantee my expert, Dr. Marinkovich, charged a

fraction. Have you checked to see who pays for the " research " you

cite? Did you find out which of your " experts " are treating

physicians and which are speaking of something about which they have

NO firsthand knowledge?

A jury of intelligent, sincere people listened to both sides of the

story and agreed with US. The defense had their chance to discredit

us and our experts and were obviously unable to do so. I speak with

mold victims nearly every day who are barely keeping afloat, both

physically and financially. How dare you use the word " hysterical. "

These are not people hoping for a windfall. These are people hoping

against hope they will have a place to live safely with their

children.

In all sincerity, who do you see as the more likely victim,

insurance companies and contractors, or the people who are sick and

fighting against nearly impossible odds to regain their lives?

Mold is not gold. Being a defense expert in a mold case IS.

Signature withheld

DANIEL FISHER'S UN-EDITED RESPONSE:

Dear : Thanks for writing, and for reading Forbes. In defense

of my article, I'd like to make few points.

-- I consulted many experts, including some who have nothing to do

with mold litigation. I could find no support for the idea that

inhaled mold is causing immunological disorders, cancer, or the

other serious diseases ascribed to it. If you are aware of a peer-

reviewed study, where the researchers were blinded to prevent bias,

showing higher levels of these serious diseases because of mold

exposure, I would like to see it. One big problem is defining

exposure. There are no FDA-approved tests for mycotoxins although

experts I spoke with said it would be easy enough to do the animal

modeling to develop one. I don't know why the mold plaintiff experts

have not done so.

-- If being paid to testify in court biases an expert, then the same

standard must apply to plaintiff experts. Neither side has a better

claim to the truth. In that situation my instinct is to go with the

bulk of scientific literature, and that indicates scant support for

the courtroom testimony behind most mold clams.

-- My article does not suggest that mold is benign; it can cause

life-threatening conditions including asthma, and many

immunocompromised patients in hospitals die of mold-related

infections. The point of the article is that plaintiff experts who

testify that inhaled mold was the most likely cause of a patient's

lung cancer or cirrhosis or neuroencephalopathy (most commonly

associated with heroin abuse, in fact) have little scientific

suppport for those claims.

I am sorry your family suffered illness. But insurance companies and

others are perfectly within their rights to dispute courtroom

experts who blame it all on mold. I am encouraging the editors to

run your letter.

Fisher

Senior Editor

Forbes magazine

203 458 2722

FOLLOW-UP TO DANIEL FISHER'S LETTER

Mr. Fisher,

Thanks for your response. I don't expect to change your mind on this

issue, but since you took the time to respond, I will again, as well.

There are blind, peer-reviewed studies at www.mold-help.org.

Specifically, see the recently published research of Drs. Gray,

Kilburn and Crago. Some are very recent.

The scientists and experts you consulted are relying on the " dose

response " theory which do not take into account the broken down

particles from molds spores which can measure thousands of times

more than the spores. Their theory is fatally flawed and, frankly,

unscientific, because it is based on the false premise that all

persons have the same immune system and that they all react in the

very same way to certain toxins or environmental irritants. The

theory assumes that different immune systems will react the same to

a specific number of mold spores. Defense attorneys prefer the dose

response theory precisely because it fails to take into

consideration these individual differences. Defense attorneys want

juries to judge plaintiffs by the healthiest possible standard.

Therefore, there will be no national standards for appropriate

levels of mold, and there shouldn't be. Some people eat peanuts

everyday. Others it kills. We should certainly be entitled to

refrain from " eating peanuts " in our own homes.

Your experts also don't understand the difference between a Type 1

allergy and a Type 3 allergy. Most people--including allergists and

most toxicologists--don't. The kind of immune response we're talking

about, which effects the body's entire ability to combat disease, is

a Type 3 allergy. Similarly, people don't technically die of AIDS.

They die of cancer or infection, or some other assault that the

immune system is unable to defeat. Mold inhibits the immune system

similarly. Symptoms are in the areas where the victim is most

vulnerable. Dr. Marinkovich, a former professor at Stanford Medical

School, explains this difference eloquently.

I think jurors would raise an eyebrow if a hospital gave someone

AIDS through a transfusion, the patient subsequently contracted

cancer, and the hospital argued the victim was at fault because

there is a history of cancer in the family or they didn't drink

enough green tea. If a person is blaming a pre-existing condition on

mold exposure, the defense can present that. When someone is

conducting his or her life before a significant mold exposure and is

unable to do so afterward, they are also " perfectly within their

rights " to present these issue to a jury. I'm not sure your view of

juries is very respectful. If your instinct is to judge that the

standard of evidence in a trial has to stand up to the same scrutiny

as the certainty required by " scientific evidence, " you are entitled

able to vote accordingly... as a jury member. I'm not sure it's

responsible as a journalist.

You state " if being paid to testify in court biases an expert, then

the same standard must apply to plaintiff experts. " I couldn't agree

more. I believe you are the one that made money the issue in your

article when you stated that an unnamed " defense lawyer " (there's a

reliable source for you...) calculated Ordog's annual take at $3

million and that he was " patching up knife and gunshot wounds...

until he found a more lucrative specialty. " You also made reference

to his interview at a " luxurious Santa Clarita restaurant. " You were

creating an impression. I simply countered by saying that if you

want to make money an incentive for lying here, check out the

defense witnesses. Few mold attorneys around here will work

contingent. These plaintiff witnesses you portray as money grubbing

are being paid by the people who just lost their health and their

homes. I know WE did. It wasn't much because we didn't have much to

pay.

If builders would just build properly, or if " insurance companies

and others " would make good faith efforts to rectify mold problems,

TRUST ME... sick and tired mold victims would not voluntarily

undertake the expense, stress, abuse and trauma of going to court.

If we ever actually COLLECT our award, it will still never, never

outweigh what we've lost.

Signature withheld

P.S. I don't know Ordog, I have no idea whether he's ethical or not,

but I can't personally make an assumption that he is not based on

your article.

DANIEL FISHER'S UN-EDITED RESPONSE:

Thanks. You won't change my mind, nor I yours. But I took a great

deal of time researching the available evidence and have a good

understanding of the topics below. Furthermore, the experts I

interviewed have an excellent understanding of these topics. I hear

a consistent story from the people who follow the plaintiff experts

on mold, that the other side " doesn't understand " the science. That

is an unsupported assertion, more of a personal attack than a

statement of fact. Justbecause immunology is complex doesn't mean it

can be stretched to encompass an entire universe of symptoms,

although some of the doctors I researched (none of them board-

certified immunologists, by the way) are wont to do that. I've also

read the articles of Gray et al and they generally involve self-

reporting of a condition they define as " mold exposure " with no

further explanation of what that is and how it differs from

the " controls " who, living on earth like the rest of us, have

probably been equally exposed to mold over their lives. None of

these papers explains how to separate out these two populations by

objective testing, and the ones I examined did not state whether the

researchers were blinded as to which population the subjects

belonged to before they performed their tests. These are basic flaws

in methodology that any skeptical observer would require to be fixed

before relying on such research.

One more thing I should make clear. You say it is not responsible

for journalists to point out the difference between civil proof --

more likely than not -- and scientific proof. You have it exactly

backwards. While it is within the rights of juries to award damages

based upon civil proof, it is the responsibility of journalists to

look beyond that. Especially when paid experts swear, under oath,

that a specific cause led to a specific condition. Were those

experts expressing an opinion based upon scientific proof, or 95%

certainty? Or were they using the legal definition of proof, which

is 51%? If the latter, that's not science, and they are expressing

opinions in court that they could not defend in a scientific

journal. It's up to journalists to point out the difference, not

ignore it. That's our role.

FOLLOW-UP TO DANIEL FISHER'S LETTER

The science (you saw) may not be saying that mold causes A, B and

C . . . YET. But it is also not saying that it ISN'T. In five to

ten years, the level of scientific proof you require will be there.

I'd stake my life on it. There are powerful people and companies

with a lot to lose who don't want that to occur. When the wealthy

and powerful run roughshod over children and their health, I have to

speak up.

I believe you that you researched this thoroughly, but that doesn't

show in your article. I'm skeptical about WHERE you researched when

your article is full of defense attorney statements and quotes. I'm

not a journalist, but to me your article appears to have made the

conclusions then presented the facts to support them. I didn't see

any plaintiff attorney quotes.

I live with this issue EVERY DAY. I'm not hysterical (a little

angry, I won't deny). My two and four year old boys were not

hysterical. My husband is an airline pilot, for god's sake. He

crashes around in thunderstorms in a metal tube with jet engines

attached to it. He's NOT hysterical. The last thing we wanted to do

is leave our brand new house and spend the next three years and

every penny mounting a terrible-odds court case in a rural Oregon

county.

So here's the crux of my concern... WHAT IF YOU'RE WRONG.

Your experts gambled my children's health on their beliefs. My

children LOST.

I'm a mom. I'd do anything to prevent another child from suffering

the way I've seen mine suffer, and that includes having this

exchange with you. I go back to my original letter. FOLLOW THE

MONEY. You'll find more of it in the pockets of the defense.

Signature withheld

" IN MY OPINION, DANIEL FISHER FAILED TO RESPOND BECAUSE HE KNOWS HIS

BOUNDARIES, AS WELL AS HIS ETHICS. HE

BOTCHED HIS COMMENTARY AND PRESENTED IT AS FACT.

FISHER ALSO FAILED TO TELL A MULTI-FACTED SIDED STORY AND

COMPROMISED HIS ETHICS. DANIEL FISHER HAS FAILED NOT ONLY HIMSELF,

BUT THE INNOCENT PEOPLE OF THIS WORLD.

FOOLISH JOURNALISM GARNERS FOOLISH KARMA, AND UNFORTUNATELY SOME

BELOW AVERAGE JOURNALISTS HAVE SACRIFICED THEIR ETHICS FOR GREED. "

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.

Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-

evident - . Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)

This artiicle is solely the opinion of Whiite and does not

necessarily reflect the opinions of Mold Help.

[Guest guest]

He forgot:

" If you don't read the newspapers you are uninformed.

If you DO read the newspapers, you are misinformed "

-Attributed to Mark Twain

Interesting about Dr Marinkovich.

He flat out REFUSED to help me with Stachy only half a dozen years ago.

I found two people in his reception room who were getting zero advice.

One had been back for multiple visits and didn't even recognize the

word when I explained the characteristics of mycotoxin exposure to her.

I asked if Dr Marinkovich had given her any advice on avoidance and

she replied " No, we're just conducting more allergy tests "

" For what? " I asked, " This is no allergy " and told her my

experimental toxin test story. She was livid, and judging by the

look on her face, she must have had a lot to say to Dr Marinkovich

after I left.

Glad to see Dr Marinkovich is finally getting up to speed on

mycotoxins though it is interesting to watch doctors who fought with

me are now the leading experts.

Similar disinterest response with Ordog and Bradstreet. I got in

touch with their patients and told them my story and they asked if

Ordog and Bradstreet could contact me.

They never did.

Oh well. Like so many others.

I gave them a chance and they showed no interest.

, how would you feel if you had been to one of these doctors

and found out that they turned down this information years ago?

-