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

[Guest guest]

Post # 3

Post: PLACER CO. CPS " Mold " Civil Rights Litigation " - Doug Haney

Posted by _ R. Haney_

(http://counsel.net/cgi-bin/chatscripts/mailform.cgi?uid=Vgmydsk_Zsfwq52 & dmn=zgl\

esad.uge & name=+R.+Haney & subject=PLACER+C

O.+CPS+qtqtMoldqtqt+Civil+Rights+Litigationqtqt+-+Doug+Haney) on 7/08/05

LATEST ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NEWS- DOUG HANEY

Doug Haney

EnviroHealth Research & Consulting, Inc.

E-mail: _Haney52@...

Website: http://www.Myhealthrights.com

Litigation Update: Mold Talk Lands Psychologist in Mental

Hosptial

A Placer County, California litigation case I assisted in

authoring ( " Complaint for Violation of the Federal Civil

Rights Act, and State Law Tort Claims " Case #205-CV00771

FCD DAD) with my good friend, Herman Franck, Esq. (SB#

123476) of Sacramento is being reviewed at the Federal

Court Building in Sacramento. This is a case involving Ms.

Kirsten Fisher, the mother of two girls, and a woman with

years of experience as a professional counselor (holding a

BA in Psychology from Sacramento State University, and two

terms short of her Masters Degree), whose CHILDREN WERE

TAKEN AWAY FROM HER BY PLACER COUNTY SOCIAL WORKERS FOR

COMPLAINING TO HER FAMILY DOCTOR ABOUT HER DAUGHTER’S

EXPOSURES TO WHAT SHE BELIEVED, WERE PATHOGENIC MOLDS.

To summarize, on or about March 23, 2004 Ms. Fisher visited

my office on another matter concerning micro fungi

exposures. In reviewing the documents she presented during

our meeting, Ms. Fisher alleged that when she took her

children to her family doctor, Mark Knoble, M.D., that

instead of thoroughly examining her daughters for their

presumed mold exposures, he contacted Placer County Child

and Adult Crisis & Emergency Services (ACCESS) about her

apparent behavior in obsessing about mold exposures. Within

a day or two Ms. Fisher’s children were ordered into county

custody, and Ms. Fisher was forcibly admitted into the

Heritage Oaks (Psychiatric) Hospital located in Sacramento

by police. Upon leaving the hospital after a battery of

psychiatric tests that confirmed only “generalized anxiety

disorderâ€, Ms. Fisher was to spend the next 2 ½ months

apart from her children enduring supervised visitation with

her children and harsh monitoring controls set up by

Children Protective Services. Ms. Fisher showed me a

document, which I still have in my position titled, “Placer

County Systems of Care: Unified Services Plan†which

states, “Mother will not obsess about “mold†issues that

risk the minors safety.†Further stating, “Mother will

report to landlord immediately any sign of mold,â€

and “Mother will discontinue any topics of “mold issuesâ€

with the minors,†and “Mother will refrain from any

discussions of “mold†to other adults in front of the

minors.†All of this, in writing, a total violation of Ms.

Fisher’s and her children’s federal Constitutional Rights.

After hearing this, I became upset and was given

permission to call Ms. Fisher’s social worker who, would

not speak with me without consent of Ms. Fisher. So, I

handed the telephone to Ms. Fisher for said consent. While

Ms. Fisher spoke with her social worker, I directly heard

the social worker state to Ms. Fisher, “If you decide to

pursue this you know what it will mean!†in a very loud

voice. This brought Ms. Fisher to tears of course, and the

rest is history.

This case is being brought to the Federal Court not just as

a case against Placer County, but for the fact that it

clearly represents how lightly medical doctors and public

officials are taking a very serious condition relating to

human health and safety and turning it on victims.

We are making great strides and I will continue to bring

you information about cases I am selecting which will, I

hope, eventually bring “Mold Litigation†away from the

Justice System and front and center into the Proper and

Effective Medical Treatment arena. I do not subscribe to

the vast number of cases in the court system, but I

understand fully what has to be accomplished until people

who choose to ignore the health implications move

past “ignoranceâ€. Micro fungi can and do KILL humans! They

are first and foremost ancient (nearly two billion year

old) “decomposers†designed by nature to “DECAYâ€

and “KILLâ€â€¦ especially- humans! Don’t give me this

absolute “CRAP†that inhaling molds does not cause severe

illness in anything other than an immune compromised

person!!! That is absolute “CRAPâ€!

Don’t tell me what I as a trained scientific observer have

personally witnessed in the past six years. Remember, I

also used to be a skeptic about such exposures too! In some

instances along the “learning curve†I might have made

mistakes and have expressed things I now understand

differently, but what I explain now written by scientists

others is factually-based and “peer reviewed†in major

scientific journals. And I currently have been making very

few mistakes. So, after consulting as an expert in

environmental health in two death cases involving

pathogenic micro fungi exposures: Black 54,

Houston, TX (2002) and a 16-month old baby, Seniff (2003),

I am fed up with “CRAP†and want to “WAKE SOCIETY UP TO THE

FACT†that regardless of what people from GlobalTox, Inc.,

or Ron Gots, M.D., or Saxton, M.D., and others who

testify otherwise might have opinions on, exposures to

pathogenic micro fungi can and do have the ability to kill

a human being first by weakening human cellular functions

and then by gradually destroying human cells. MS. FISHER,

HAD A PERFECT RIGHT TO BE VERY CONCERNED AS SHOULD WE ALL!

Post # 4

Re: Okay, My Declaration is now a Legal, Public Doc

Posted by _Sharon_

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

e=Sharon & subject=Re:+Okay,+My+Declaration+is+now+a+Legal,

+Public+Doc) on 7/08/05

Doug,

That is a horrible story about what happened to the mother who

complained about mold exposure. I wish I could say that is the

worst one I have ever heard. It's not.

Here are some other portions of my Declaration:

54. As noted in the prior exhibit, some members of the ACOEM

perform medical examinations of mold victims on behalf of

insurers. E-mails demonstrate that many were anxious for the

release of the ACOEM Statement. Attached as Exhibit 35 is a true

and correct copy of an email authored by Swift (Swift) and

sent on October 4, 2002. Swift asked the question of Borak, " I'm

giving a talk to a group of insurance related clients. Is it

quotable and if so, how should I reference it? "

55. The ACOEM Statement was leaked to the medical community on

approximately October 27, 2002. This date is the same date the

paper was accepted by the ACOEM Board of Directors to be the

position statement of the esteemed ACOEM. This leak went out

through the Duke University, occ-env-med-L, which is the

environmental medical community's internet chatboard. It was only

on the chatboard for a minute period of time before the host of the

board was asked by Dregger of the ACOEM to retract the post. Even

with just minute posting time, it still caused quite a stir and

scurrying on the part of the inner circle of the ACOEM. The reason

being, the ACOEM Statement was still in Rough Draft form on October

27, 2002, the date of it's acceptance by the Board Members of the

ACOEM. Attached collectively as Exhibit 36 are true and correct

copies of the the following emails, demonstative of the scurrying

and confusion the situation caused: Email, Dr Sudakin, dated

Novemeber 8, 2002: Sudakin is apologizing for posting the rough

draft on the Duke chatboard. Email, Hardin, November 7, 2002:

Hardin is apologizing to Dreger for being " a nag along the way, but

was getting nervous that the ACOEM Board might get cold feet and

back away. I'm much relieved to find it posted. Thank you

again. " Email, Dr. Hodgson, dated November 5, 2002: Dr. Hodgson

is questioning whether the authors' paper was based on " not just

what we believe... " Email. Dr. Harbut, dated November 4, 2002:

Harbut is asking " Do you know if the authors have any potential

conflict of interest, such as having been retained as expert

witnesses by any attorneys? " Email, Hardin, dated November 5,

2002, stating " My reaction to this request is to say that he who

demands to see a conflict of interest statement should offer his

first. " Email, Bernacki, President of the ACOEM at that time and

dated November 8, 2002, stating " Because of that interest, this

evidence-based paper underwent strenuous and extensive peer-review,

and a " Conflict of Interest " statement was obtained from the

authors of the paper.

56. Attached collectively as Exhibit 37 are true and correct

copies of three emails from Hardin, Saxon and Kelman respectively

and dated November 5, 2002. This was one full week after the

Board's acceptance of the Rough Draft ACOEM Statement, and well

after the completion of the supposedly unbiased and extensive peer

review process. What these emails indicate is that, not the ACOEM

Board of Directors, not one-hundred-one critical peer reviewers,

but the known defense experts authors of the original paper

themselves: Hardin, Kelman and Saxon, were the one who had final

edit over the ACOEM Statement. In Hardin's November 5th email he

stated, " I've proofed the draft on the web page and have the

following edits: " This statement was then followed by twelve edits

made by Hardin on November 5, 2002. Saxon's November 5th email

stated, " I have proofed the paper and have one alteration. "

Kelman's November 5th, 2002 email stated, " I have no further edits

beyond those of my co-authors. In light of current developments, I

urge you to post the corrected version tomorrow (Wed) if you

possibly can. The level of noise and misquotation is reaching a

deafening level out here on the West Coast! "

This situation is absolutely disgusting. I am truly appauled.

Sharon Kramer