Re: Re: Go To CONGRESS.ORG Mold and Katrina: Who is Watchin...

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Bobbie. If we all keep the pressure on, things will change. It is

in the wind. What they have been doing to keep our illnesses quiet in order

to win lawsuits is a thing of such ugliness that I have never witnessed

before in my entire life.

FYI, This is from the Mold-help.org website. It's talks of

and how they spun junk science regarding the health effects of second hand

smoke. One of the biggest companies out there that deny our illnesses as real,

jumped into the mold game around 2000, is GlobalTox. Now VeriTox. Kelman,

their president, worked on behalf of in the 90's regarding

health effects of second hand smoke.

From the Mold-help website.

To meddle with science standards

> Posted by Tim L.

> Wednesday, 12 October 2005

> 10/12/05

>

> San Francisco, CA - Devious defense “experts†and ruthless

> lawyers around the country often term plaintiffs who suffer

> from pathogenic mold as opportunists and the evidence,

> although quite well researched, “junk science.â€

>

> Sounding almost like a broken record, these dubious

> characters who are posting this “junk science†hogwash

> campaign on their websites and in courtrooms as if it were

> a new trend but the public doesn't seem to be buying in to

> it anymore. Sometimes, even inept journalists echo these

> words as they try to play the role of

> scientific “intellect†in hopes of salvaging an exhausted

> occupation. But as you will see, just as incompetent

> builders have learned in this industry, cutting corners

> never pays off in the end.

>

> In the past, this somewhat brainwashed society, but with

> the recent hurricanes and floods, and the fact that so many

> people have been denied insurance benefits when they file a

> claim, the public has become less ignorant. The catch

> phrase, “junk science,†has lost its effectiveness and the

> insurance and building bullies (among the other usual

> suspects) are coming up with new tactics to stack the deck

> of a falling house of cards.

>

> This has been quite obvious down in New Orleans as many so

> called experts contradict modern medical science and claim

> that mold is not hazardous. But the “junk scienceâ€

> campaign was the launching pad that started the ignorance

> in the first place.

>

> If defense “experts†hadn’t used this term in high profile

> environmental cases the public would know the truth. The

> term “junk science†has a catchy title, and even sounds

> familiar. That’s because it has been used before.

>

>

>

> The history of the term “junk scienceâ€

>

>

>

> Philip Tobacco Company launched a hidden campaign in

> the 1990s to change the standards of scientific proof

> needed to demonstrate that secondhand smoke was dangerous,

> according to an analysis of internal tobacco industry

> documents by researchers at the University of California,

> San Francisco (UCSF).

>

> The tobacco industry strategy involved calling for " sound

> science, " while rejecting so-called " junk science " on

> secondhand smoke that actually threatened the industry's

> business interests. Essentially, Philip appropriated

> the " sound science " concept to shape the standards of

> epidemiology and to prevent increased smoking restrictions,

> the authors state.

>

> " has gone beyond 'creating doubt'

> and 'controversy' about the scientific evidence to

> attempting to change the scientific standards of proof, "

> they write. The standards they promoted through a variety

> of industry groups would have made proving the hazards of

> secondhand smoke virtually impossible, according to the

> study.

>

> Working through lawyers and public relations firms, Philip

> sought to organize other industries to participate

> in the " sound science " movement, masking its own

> involvement. If you have been reading this website, there

> is plenty of evidence of a very familiar scenario involving

> fungal exposure. It sounds just like a broken record.

>

> It also hired public relations and marketing firms to help

> form The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC),

> developed to look like a grassroots organization of

> scientists and policymakers. hoped TASSC

> would seem like an independent body rejecting evidence that

> secondhand smoke caused significant lung cancer and heart

> disease risk, according to the analysis of the documents.

> This sounds very familiar to fungal exposure in many

> repects, but of course, many would like you to think this

> is all " junk science. "

>

> In Europe, where secondhand smoke restrictions had not yet

> been fully put in place (in every country), Philip

> promoted a set of standards originally proposed by the

> Chemical Manufacturers Association called " Good

> Epidemiology Practices. " By modifying the proposal and

> developing new opportunities to introduce it, Philip

> sought to establish an arbitrary threshold for identifying

> health risk from secondhand smoke -- a threshold higher

> than what scientists had found for secondhand smoke.

>

> The proposal would have revoked conclusions that an

> environmental toxin such as secondhand smoke was a public

> health problem. This effort was particularly focused on

> undermining a large European epidemiologic study of passive

> smoking and lung cancer being conducted by the

> International Agency for Research on Cancer at the time,

> the researchers found.

>

> Between 1994 and 2000, seemingly independent seminars

> involving other industries and issues on the so-

> called " Good Epidemiology Practices " (GEP) were conducted

> in the United States, United Kingdom, European Union and

> China. Philip was connected to all of these events,

> the documents show. The same marketing campaign has been

> done with fungal exposure.

>

> Next time you hear anyone use mold and “junk science†in

> the same sentence, think about who began the original “junk

> science†campaign and you then you may realize how deadly

> fungal exposure really is, that is if there really are any

> skeptics out there anymore.

>