# 9 WHAT THE ACOEM DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW!!!!!!

[Guest guest]

Post # 15

Re: Found this in the Insurance Journal

Posted by _Sharon_

(http://counsel.net/cgi-bin/chatscripts/mailform.cgi?uid=kfc1955 & dmn=sgd.uge & nam\

e=Sharon & subject=Re:+Found+this+in+the+Insurance+Journal)

on 7/10/05

Kari Kilian vs. Equity Residential Trust, et al., CIV 02-1272-

PHX-FJM, United States District Court of the District of Arizona

Testimony of Bruce J. Kelman (K) June 22, 2004. Attorney for

Ms. Kilian is Mr. Langerman (L)

Pg 904, line 12

L: So the answer is, according to the National Academy of

Science report, Stachybotrys produces immunosuppressive

mycotoxins, correct?

K: Well, actually, the answer to that is of course.

L: You mentioned that after the American College of

Occupational and Environmental Medicine published the position

paper, that you were approached by the Manhattan Institute to

rework or reword your research, correct?

K: I would characterize it--I mean, they literally asked for a

lay translation of that article.

L: But--Which you eventually did, correct?

K: Yes.

L: Most of it is almost word for word the same, correct?

K: I--The translation is the same as the original article?

L: Well, translation is an interesting word. They're both in

English, correct?

K: Yes.

L: So shall we call it the Manhattan Institute version versus

the ACOEM version rather than a translation? The words are

substantially similar, correct?

K: Well, the meaning certainly is.

L: And the words are substantially similar, correct?

K: We tried to not include the technical terms, in, unless we

absolutely had to, in the Manhattan Institute, so I wouldn't

characterize it as substantially the same.

L: In fact, some of the language from the Manhattan Institute

version was the more argumentative language that was rejected

during the peer review process at ACOEM, correct?

K: No.

L: Are you sure of that, sir?

K: Yes.

L: So if we held the drafts from the ACOEM up to the Manhattan

Institute, we wouldn't find any sentences that had been removed

from ACOEM that now appear in the Manhattan Institute version?

K: There may have been some. If there were, there certainly

weren't very many.

L: And that new version that you did for the Manhattan

Institute, your company, GlobalTox, got paid $40,000, correct?

K: Yes, the company was paid $40,000 for it.

From my Declaration in the lawsuit that Bruce Kelman and

GlobalTox filed against me for writing in a press release that

Kelman " altered his under oath statements " .

43. Attached as Exhibit 28 is a true and correct copy of an

email authored by Dr. Borak (Borak), Chair of the Council of

Scientific Affairs of the ACOEM and dated June 26, 2002. This

email is demonstrative of much of the contention and politics

that went into the acceptance of this paper. Borak quoted one

doctor in this email as saying " Strongly agree with the need to

change tone and would start at the first paragraph, which reads

like a defense report for litigation. "

24.....Prior to this incident, I had never been involved in a

lawsuit.

25. Trying to educate myself and better understand the various

aspects of the mold issue, I began to do research. What I

found were families, teachers, and office workers from all over

the U.S., whose lives were being devastated. Yet, they were

not able to find any regulatory or medical assistance. No one

seemed to understand how to properly handle the mold itself. The

government agencies were not addressing the issue. The

physicians were not trained in treating the illnesses. Most

did not even acknowledge mold exposure from an indoor

environment could cause serious illness.

26. As a result, people who were very sick and forced from

their homes, schools and offices, were not able to find viable

medical treatment. Instead, they were having their sanity and

integrity questioned for stating they were sick from mold.

This, while their lives were being turned upside down and they

feared for their future and that of their children...

27. In the summer of 2003, there was a meeting at my real

estate office. Based on information provided by the

Association of Realtors, the company manager said there was a

new study out that found mold in homes does not cause illness.

The source of this information was a paper called " Moldy

Claims: The Junk Science of " Toxic Mold " . It was also authored

by Kelman and Hardin and ended with the phrase. " 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. "

28. " Moldy Claims: The Junk Science of 'Toxic Mold " , was a

result of the Manhattan Institute's payment of $40,000 to

GlobalTox. Kelman refers to the document as a " translation "

or " layman's version " of the ACOEM Statement. Attached

collectively hereto as Exhibit 14 are true and correct copies

of documents from the US Chamber of Commerce and building

industry websites. They, along with the National Association

of Realtor (NAR) websites are demonstrative, that in the summer

of 2003, the Manhattan Institute Version was dissemianted to

Realtors and other stakeholder industries.

29. The effort to mass dissemiate the GlobalTox defense

position was done with the assistance of the US Chamber of

Commerce and the Manhattan Institute. The well organized and

well funded effort to distribute the Manhattan Institute

Version was endorsed by ex-developer, US Congressman

, (R-CA), who at that time, also sat on the US

Congressional Science Committee....

30. Not only were people being physically damaged by the ACOEM

Statement itself, by my fellow Realtors were being left open

for possible liability from the misrepresentation of mold

related illnesses as it was stated in the Manhattan Institute

Version. This meant the families they represented were being

left open to harm.

35. It became blatantly obvious that there was resistance to

having physicians trianed and the public informed about the

health risks of indoor mold exposure. The logic being, if the

physicians and the public were not informed, then the financial

liablitiy of those who had negligently managed to expose others

to an environmental risk would be greatly reduced. If one

could not prove they were ill from mold exposure, then they also

could not collect for the health damages they had suffered as a

result of a negligent exposure.

36. The contention in our courtrooms and the fear of financial

liablity over the mold issue was stifling the medical

understanding of the matter. People who had never even seen

the inside of a courtroom were affected and not able to find

proper medical help because of the contention......

31. The stifling of medical understanding of mold related

illnesses for the purpose of winning court cases and limiting

liability was actually causing the mass ignorance and

skepticism that were responsible for the lawsuits in the first

place. In the Kilian case, Kelman stated that the meaning of

the ACOEM Statement and the Manhattan Institute Version are the

same. Attached as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of

page 905 (P.905:4-7) from the Kilian case transcript verifying

this.

" MOLDY CLAIMS, TRIAL LAWYERS, MEDIA AND JUNK SCIENCE " IS QUITE A DIFFERENT

SCENARIO THAN A SIMPLE LAY TRANSLATION OF A SCIENTIFIC PAPER THAT KELMAN

TESTIFIES TO UNDER OATH.

Sharon Kramer