GlobalTox suit against Sharon Kramer: A tipping point on the issue

[Guest guest]

Group -

It needs to be acknowledged that the current situation with

GlobalTox's suit aginst Sharon Kramer represents a major event in the

evolution of the issue of mold illnesses and the public health.

The overall complexity of the politics and the underlying

pseudoscience being promoted by the opposition here is deliberate.

That GlobalTox and Bruce Kelman have been threatened enough to file a

punitive, intentionally intimidating SLAPP suit against Sharon should

be enough to swing an intense spotlight on the actions of these men,

and illuminate the overall issue of the epidemic of mold-related

illnesses in the United States. Those of us supporting Sharon in her

actions are working furiously behind the scenes to keep this issue

front and center in the media adn with our legislators -- our

connections in Washington DC are tracking now this and it's legal

implications intently.

No one on this board needs to be convinced that mold illnesses are

real -- when general coverage of this story reaches the media,

everyone here needs to respond with letters to editors and every other

means to show the reality of our issue.

This is THE opportunity for us, and the cadence we can now march to is

being beaten on a drum by Sharon. We are going to win this fight --

the current focus of the media and our legislators on falsified

science within the NIH that is driving public health policy is going

to blow this charade apart. GlobalTox and the rest of their

supporting cadre are going to come under intense public scrutiny in

the near future.

This is the single most important subject thread on this board -- keep

your attention focused on this.

Lee

> Hey,

>

> Yep, we did make some progress last summer. Many people who

communicate on

> this board contributed countless hours to making that trip to DC

happen. Has

> much changed since then? Not really, other than the public is a

little more

> aware. Why? Because there are some power intities that don't want

you and your

> children treated. It would cost them money to acknolwedge you are

sick.

> How are they controlling it? Here's how:

>

> " The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,

Adverse

> Human Health Effects from Mold in an Indoor Environment, Evidence

Based

> Statement is:

>

> 1. a document of scant scientific foundation;

>

> 2.authored by expert defense witnesses;

>

> 3.legitimized by the inner circle of an influential medical

> association, whose members often times evaluate mold victims

> on behalf of insurers and employers;

>

> 4.and promoted by

> stakeholder industries for the purpose of financial gain at

> the expense of the lives of others.

>

> I know all those post I wrote are bit difficult to follow. It's

hard to

> explain just how perverse this situation is.

>

> This is what you need to understand: The reason your doctor does

not know

> how to treat you is because if they acknowledge how sick we are,

then the

> financial losses in our courtrooms will greatly increase. Don't

train the

> doctors and the victims can't prove they are sick in court.

>

> GlobalTox sued me for saying Kelman " altered his under oath

statements " .

> Which he did. This is what they really want me to shut up about:

>

> There is an ending paragraph in the press release which I authored

that

> states, " In 2003, with the involvement of the US Chamber of

Commerce and

> ex-developer, U.S. Congressman (R-CA), the GlobalTox

paper was

> disseminated to the real estate, mortgage and building industries'

> association. A

> version of the Manhattan Institute commissioned piece may also be

found as

> a

> position statement on the website of the United States medical

> policy-writing body, the American College of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine " .

>

> If this is not a true statement, then why didn't they sue me for this?

>

> It is this ending paragraph that the principals of GlobalTox would

prefer

> not be highly publicized.

>

> This, along with the fact that the ACOEM Statement is based on a

premise

> current scientific evidence does not support; and

>

> the acceptance of the ACOEM Statement was forced through by an

improperly

> biased and bypassed peer review process.

>

> Obviously, I have no intention of shuting up. Children's lives are

being

> unnecessarily ruined so others can save precious money.

>

> Sharon

>

>

>

>

>

>