I don't hear any discussion regarding the info Sharon posted this week

[Guest guest]

I don't understand why there hasn't been any discussion regarding the

info Sharon posted on Significant ruling impacts mold victims or

whatever it was called. I think this is a major step in the right

direction. These criminals that were writing for major publications

for years and this is where judges, doctors, and the press get their

info. These men have been getting paid also as defense witnesses in

mold cases. I am encouraged and I think everyone should let everyone

possible know about this info. This is just a small part of the

judgement. Sharon has worked hard on this and I think it is worth

discussing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Summary

Many people have been ill with serious mold/mycotoxin induced

illnesses.

They have been unable to obtain proper medical treatment prior to the

time

these

illnesses have become progressively and irreversibly debilitating.

Many

physicians and citizens have been falsely told that mold does not

cause serious

illness, leaving the medical community and public uneducated and

unaware of

the true danger.

The medical misinformation promoted for the benefit of the defense in

mold

litigation has stifled and confused the already young field of

science. It has

fueled contention. The promotion of the concept " not plausible,

improbable,

junk science " within the medical community and the general public has

been a

primary cause for the lack of early detection and timely medical

treatment.

This in turn, has cost stakeholders with financial interest in the

moldy

buildings, unnecessary billions. The misinformation, that has

retarded proper

medical understanding, has also caused a tremendous increase in

financial

responsibility for stakeholders. Increased health damages sustained

equals

increased resultant stakeholder liability. .

Mold itself, has not been the crux of the problem. The denial of

illness in

an attempt to limit liability has directly caused greater illness -

and

thereby has caused greater liability. The situation has been

wastefully self

perpetuating. The defense argument of “not plausible, improbable

and junk

scienceâ€

has proven to be its own worst enemy.

Dr Borak, overseer for the " peer review process " of the

ACOEM Mold

Statement, summed the matter up best in an email he wrote in 2002:

Email September 8, 2002

From: Borak, Chair of the Scientific Committee, ACOEM

Dean Grove, Past President, ACOEM

CC: Bernacki, ACOEM President 2002; Barry Eisenberg,

Executive Director ACOEM; Tim Key, ACOEM President 2003.

" Dean et al:

I am having quite a challenge in finding an acceptable path for the

proposed position paper on mold. Even though a great deal of work has

gone in, it seems difficult to satisfy a sufficient spectrum of the

College,

or

at least those concerned enough to voice their views.

I have received several sets of comments that find the current

version,

much revised, to still be a defense argument. On the other hand,

Hardin and his colleagues are not willing to further dilute the

paper. The

have done a lot, and I am concerned that we will soon have to either

endorse or let go. I do not want to go to the BOD and then be

rejected.

That would be an important violation of . I have assured him

that if

we do not use it he can freely make whatever other uses he might want

to

make. If we " officially " reject it, then we turn is efforts into

garbage.

..... "

Garbage it was, based on the Veritox 2000 ‘review’ and provided

credibility

by the imprimatur of ACOEM. Once the credibility was established by

the

ACOEM, the garbage was then spread to other purported state of the

art, mold

review papers.

The unscientific concept that one could take a single review of rodent

studies with math applied and determine all human illness from

inhaling

mycotoxins

indoors could never happen, took on a life of its own and grew. It

became

understood that one could never become seriously ill from inhaling

mold

indoors.

No one seemed to remember exactly how this concept came to be. They

just

knew it to be true because they had read it in many

authoritative " state of the

art " mold review papers.

The lives, health and financial well being of thousands have been

forever

damaged because of it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And that is the Landmark Significance of the Ruling on April 14,

2006, Sacramento, California, regarding " Risk from inhaled mycotoxins

in indoor

office and residential environments. Int J Toxicol 2004; 23: 3-

10.Robbins CA,

Swenson LJ, Hardin BD. (Veritox, 2004). The courts have found Veritox

2004 is

not plausible, improbable and Junk Science.

Needless to say, I am thrilled. Maybe NOW we can get this issue out

of the

courts and into doctors’ offices where it belongs. Maybe NOW we can

all stop

wasting time, lives and money!

[Guest guest]

Hi :

Well, a lot of us have bumped into these problems

and are tackling them half-step by half-step

attempting to make progress. And it's extremely

difficult - frankly, it's old news to any of us

who have been schlogging through legal red tape

either on the regulation side or court side.

Worth discussing, but deflating as a global

topic. We're each doing out part to knock a

chunk out of it bit by bit.

I'll give you my for instance: My neighbor died

after his exposure to mold and after developing a

seizure disorder, fungal skin sores, asthma, and

a variety of GI and neurological symptoms. He

was found to have antibodies to some of the molds

we found in an environmental report we tenants

had done when the owner refused to do anything

about inches-long mold growing on clothes in the

closet of my neighbor and his mother - there was

a sewer pipe leak under the building that was not

repaired adequately and caused a good deal of the

mold. Other problems with downspouts and parapet

caps contributed to heavy rains soaking the

building as well. The owners tried to use the

mold as leverage to force them to move out, and

for health's sake, they did and I did as well (my

apartment had no visible mold, but plenty

airborne).

His death was three months to the day after they

moved. His mother came home from her night job

to find him dead and quite cold in bed, his face

covered with foam as it had been after some of

his seizures, but this time the foam was bloody.

He had said two things in the past 24 hours that

were rather ominous - the night before the night

he died he asked his mother to swear with him

that if anything happened to either one of them

from the health affects of the mold that the

surviving one would pursue it as far as they

could. And the morning of the day he died he

said he'd felt he'd been having seizures and was

very weak and went back to bed.

His mother had to insist on an autopsy to have

the Coroner's office take a look at him. They

knew his mother was concerned that mold had

something to do with the death and they wrote 'No

evidence of mold' on the autopsy report. It

looked to us as if they were trying to cut us off

at the pass about looking into a legal filing on

the death. We asked what tests they had done to

make this assertion, and they never responded to

that portion of the letter (although they did add

the reference to the foam and blood that had been

missing from the report - presumably, it had

either been lost when his body was wrapped in his

bedding when it was taken to the funeral home, or

the funeral home wiped it off - but because it

was referenced in the police report from the

first person who responded, that was added to the

autopsy report).

We then spent about 6 months searching for

someone who could do forensic tissue testing to

see if there was any 'evidence of mold.' The

ONLY person we found - after writing to somewhere

between 300-400 people, in mycobiology labs, and

membership lists of mycologists, forensic

pathologists and veternary groups that work with

animal poisoning from molds, all over the US,

Canada and the EU- the ONLY person we found, we

were skeptical about using because he'd been

slammed in our local LA Times for being highly

inaccurate (which seems to have been planted

material, but unfortunately ended up in an

article that was part of a series that won the

paper a Pultizer Prize).

We got confirmation from trustworthy people that

he was trustworthy, and went ahead with testing -

he's been FABULOUS and has gone way above and

beyond for us.

What he found was an enormous quantity of the

mycotoxin Trichothecene in his lung tissue.

People get sick at 2 parts per billion and can be

terribly ill at 10. My neighbor had 128.9 ppb in

his lung tissue.

Which we submitted to the Coroner's office for

them to consider. They did the most important

thing for us, which is to note the finding in the

autopsy record which makes it official. HOWEVER,

they had a pulmonologist look at the findings and

he decided there was 'no evidence of fungal

infection.'

It took me a good while to learn the different

ways molds can hurt a person, but I had it

figured out before I stumbled upon tis

group...there was an article posted about a week

ago that talked about infection and irritation

and allergy and POISON from mycotoxins. The

Coroner got a lung specialist to indicate there

was no infection when we had provided evidence of

poisoning. So we've written them back AGAIN to

ask why they didn't have a medical mycologist

review the findings, and we've just gotten the

postcard back saying they signed for the

certified mail. It's been about 15 months since

the autopsy report was first filed, and 19 months

since he died. We have 5 months left in our

statute if we want to file a case.

The first atty we worked with when he died left

the case when the autopsy report was released -

said there was no way he could win it with that

report. We've been through a half dozen other

firms since, all of whom think we've got a good

case (since we've already documented a good

portion of the hard stuff), but they are not

willing to take on the expense of this kind of

trial because pain and suffering damages are

capped in California and he left no heirs, so

there would be very limited economic damages.

I assume you're with me so far... we have a guy

who DIED because of his exposure to mold for

which WE ALREADY HAVE PROOF, and it still this

travesty is not literally WORTH it for a

contingency lawer to take on to champion. Some

of the folks on this board know that as a

nonlawyer I'm going to represent my neighbor and

his mother because we can't find anyone to do it

for us and we're tired of begging and pleading,

and I know this case better than anyone as I've

coordinated all our efforts so far.

We'll see how far I get... I believe we have

proof of a kind that the court will accept - very

often tests get challenged as being nonstandard

or not yet accepted, but the test they used to

find his toxin is an ELISA test which is what

they use to find HIV. The lab that did the work

is certified. A journal article is presently

being submitted for peer review on my neighbor's

death. Theorhetically, we have the ingredients

we need to get past the stumbling blocks that

have tripped others. We'll see. And we have

both clarity of vision about what happened AND

passion that couldn't come from outside

representation.

The panel on Capitol Hill Sharon mentioned? She

is too humble to explain that she spent many,

many months putting it together and making sure

knowledgable doctors showed up as did many more

Congressional aides than were anticipated. AND,

what she also didn't say was that the aides

generally walk in and out of these sessions, but

this one was exceptional because those who came

STAYED and asked questions at the end.

So, it's not like this stuff isn't being

discussed... it is. We're all monitoring each

other's progress working where we can make our

own difference. If you have an idea, pipe up,

and others will help as they can.

Best,

Haley

--- ldelp84227 <ldelp84227@...> wrote:

> I don't understand why there hasn't been any

> discussion regarding the

> info Sharon posted on Significant ruling

> impacts mold victims or

> whatever it was called. I think this is a

> major step in the right

> direction. These criminals that were writing

> for major publications

> for years and this is where judges, doctors,

> and the press get their

> info. These men have been getting paid also as

> defense witnesses in

> mold cases. I am encouraged and I think

> everyone should let everyone

> possible know about this info. This is just a

> small part of the

> judgement. Sharon has worked hard on this and

> I think it is worth

> discussing.

>

>

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Summary

> Many people have been ill with serious

> mold/mycotoxin induced

> illnesses.

> They have been unable to obtain proper medical

> treatment prior to the

> time

> these

> illnesses have become progressively and

> irreversibly debilitating.

> Many

> physicians and citizens have been falsely told

> that mold does not

> cause serious

> illness, leaving the medical community and

> public uneducated and

> unaware of

> the true danger.

> The medical misinformation promoted for the

> benefit of the defense in

> mold

> litigation has stifled and confused the already

> young field of

> science. It has

> fueled contention. The promotion of the concept

> " not plausible,

> improbable,

> junk science " within the medical community and

> the general public has

> been a

> primary cause for the lack of early detection

> and timely medical

> treatment.

> This in turn, has cost stakeholders with

> financial interest in the

> moldy

> buildings, unnecessary billions. The

> misinformation, that has

> retarded proper

> medical understanding, has also caused a

> tremendous increase in

> financial

> responsibility for stakeholders. Increased

> health damages sustained

> equals

> increased resultant stakeholder liability. .

>

> Mold itself, has not been the crux of the

> problem. The denial of

> illness in

> an attempt to limit liability has directly

> caused greater illness -

> and

> thereby has caused greater liability. The

> situation has been

> wastefully self

> perpetuating. The defense argument of “not

> plausible, improbable

> and junk

> science�

> has proven to be its own worst enemy.

>

> Dr Borak, overseer for the " peer

> review process " of the

> ACOEM Mold

> Statement, summed the matter up best in an

> email he wrote in 2002:

>

> Email September 8, 2002

> From: Borak, Chair of the Scientific

> Committee, ACOEM

> Dean Grove, Past President, ACOEM

> CC: Bernacki, ACOEM President 2002;

> Barry Eisenberg,

> Executive Director ACOEM; Tim Key, ACOEM

> President 2003.

>

> " Dean et al:

>

> I am having quite a challenge in finding an

> acceptable path for the

> proposed position paper on mold. Even though a

> great deal of work has

> gone in, it seems difficult to satisfy a

> sufficient spectrum of the

> College,

> or

> at least those concerned enough to voice their

> views.

>

> I have received several sets of comments that

> find the current

> version,

> much revised, to still be a defense argument.

> On the other hand,

> Hardin and his colleagues are not willing to

> further dilute the

> paper. The

> have done a lot, and I am concerned that we

> will soon have to either

> endorse or let go. I do not want to go to the

> BOD and then be

> rejected.

> That would be an important violation of .

> I have assured him

> that if

> we do not use it he can freely make whatever

> other uses he might want

> to

> make. If we " officially " reject it, then we

> turn is efforts into

> garbage.

> .... "

>

> Garbage it was, based on the Veritox 2000

> ‘review’ and provided

> credibility

> by the imprimatur of ACOEM. Once the

> credibility was established by

> the

> ACOEM, the garbage was then spread to other

> purported state of the

> art, mold

> review papers.

> The unscientific concept that one could take a

> single review of rodent

> studies with math applied and determine all

> human illness from

> inhaling

> mycotoxins

> indoors could never happen, took on a life of

> its own and grew. It

> became

> understood that one could never become

> seriously ill from inhaling

> mold

> indoors.

> No one seemed to remember exactly how this

> concept came to be. They

> just

> knew it to be true because they had read it in

> many

> authoritative " state of the

> art " mold review papers.

> The lives, health and financial well being of

> thousands have been

> forever

> damaged because of it.

>

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> And that is the Landmark Significance of the

> Ruling on April 14,

> 2006, Sacramento, California, regarding " Risk

> from inhaled mycotoxins

> in indoor

> office and residential environments. Int J

> Toxicol 2004; 23: 3-

> 10.Robbins CA,

> Swenson LJ, Hardin BD. (Veritox, 2004). The

> courts have found Veritox

> 2004 is

> not plausible, improbable and Junk Science.

>

> Needless to say, I am thrilled. Maybe NOW we

> can get this issue out

> of the

> courts and into doctors’ offices where it

> belongs. Maybe NOW we can

> all stop

> wasting time, lives and money!

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Haley,

I love you already and I hardly know you. This goes for Sharon, KC, " Who " and

many others that I have become to admire in my very short time on this list.

I am truely humbled myself for the work you all have done and continue to do.

Dave

Haley <myhaze@...> wrote:

Hi :

Well, a lot of us have bumped into these problems

and are tackling them half-step by half-step

attempting to make progress. And it's extremely

difficult - frankly, it's old news to any of us

who have been schlogging through legal red tape

either on the regulation side or court side.

Worth discussing, but deflating as a global

topic. We're each doing out part to knock a

chunk out of it bit by bit.

I'll give you my for instance: My neighbor died

after his exposure to mold and after developing a

seizure disorder, fungal skin sores, asthma, and

a variety of GI and neurological symptoms. He

was found to have antibodies to some of the molds

we found in an environmental report we tenants

had done when the owner refused to do anything

about inches-long mold growing on clothes in the

closet of my neighbor and his mother - there was

a sewer pipe leak under the building that was not

repaired adequately and caused a good deal of the

mold. Other problems with downspouts and parapet

caps contributed to heavy rains soaking the

building as well. The owners tried to use the

mold as leverage to force them to move out, and

for health's sake, they did and I did as well (my

apartment had no visible mold, but plenty

airborne).

His death was three months to the day after they

moved. His mother came home from her night job

to find him dead and quite cold in bed, his face

covered with foam as it had been after some of

his seizures, but this time the foam was bloody.

He had said two things in the past 24 hours that

were rather ominous - the night before the night

he died he asked his mother to swear with him

that if anything happened to either one of them

from the health affects of the mold that the

surviving one would pursue it as far as they

could. And the morning of the day he died he

said he'd felt he'd been having seizures and was

very weak and went back to bed.

His mother had to insist on an autopsy to have

the Coroner's office take a look at him. They

knew his mother was concerned that mold had

something to do with the death and they wrote 'No

evidence of mold' on the autopsy report. It

looked to us as if they were trying to cut us off

at the pass about looking into a legal filing on

the death. We asked what tests they had done to

make this assertion, and they never responded to

that portion of the letter (although they did add

the reference to the foam and blood that had been

missing from the report - presumably, it had

either been lost when his body was wrapped in his

bedding when it was taken to the funeral home, or

the funeral home wiped it off - but because it

was referenced in the police report from the

first person who responded, that was added to the

autopsy report).

We then spent about 6 months searching for

someone who could do forensic tissue testing to

see if there was any 'evidence of mold.' The

ONLY person we found - after writing to somewhere

between 300-400 people, in mycobiology labs, and

membership lists of mycologists, forensic

pathologists and veternary groups that work with

animal poisoning from molds, all over the US,

Canada and the EU- the ONLY person we found, we

were skeptical about using because he'd been

slammed in our local LA Times for being highly

inaccurate (which seems to have been planted

material, but unfortunately ended up in an

article that was part of a series that won the

paper a Pultizer Prize).

We got confirmation from trustworthy people that

he was trustworthy, and went ahead with testing -

he's been FABULOUS and has gone way above and

beyond for us.

What he found was an enormous quantity of the

mycotoxin Trichothecene in his lung tissue.

People get sick at 2 parts per billion and can be

terribly ill at 10. My neighbor had 128.9 ppb in

his lung tissue.

Which we submitted to the Coroner's office for

them to consider. They did the most important

thing for us, which is to note the finding in the

autopsy record which makes it official. HOWEVER,

they had a pulmonologist look at the findings and

he decided there was 'no evidence of fungal

infection.'

It took me a good while to learn the different

ways molds can hurt a person, but I had it

figured out before I stumbled upon tis

group...there was an article posted about a week

ago that talked about infection and irritation

and allergy and POISON from mycotoxins. The

Coroner got a lung specialist to indicate there

was no infection when we had provided evidence of

poisoning. So we've written them back AGAIN to

ask why they didn't have a medical mycologist

review the findings, and we've just gotten the

postcard back saying they signed for the

certified mail. It's been about 15 months since

the autopsy report was first filed, and 19 months

since he died. We have 5 months left in our

statute if we want to file a case.

The first atty we worked with when he died left

the case when the autopsy report was released -

said there was no way he could win it with that

report. We've been through a half dozen other

firms since, all of whom think we've got a good

case (since we've already documented a good

portion of the hard stuff), but they are not

willing to take on the expense of this kind of

trial because pain and suffering damages are

capped in California and he left no heirs, so

there would be very limited economic damages.

I assume you're with me so far... we have a guy

who DIED because of his exposure to mold for

which WE ALREADY HAVE PROOF, and it still this

travesty is not literally WORTH it for a

contingency lawer to take on to champion. Some

of the folks on this board know that as a

nonlawyer I'm going to represent my neighbor and

his mother because we can't find anyone to do it

for us and we're tired of begging and pleading,

and I know this case better than anyone as I've

coordinated all our efforts so far.

We'll see how far I get... I believe we have

proof of a kind that the court will accept - very

often tests get challenged as being nonstandard

or not yet accepted, but the test they used to

find his toxin is an ELISA test which is what

they use to find HIV. The lab that did the work

is certified. A journal article is presently

being submitted for peer review on my neighbor's

death. Theorhetically, we have the ingredients

we need to get past the stumbling blocks that

have tripped others. We'll see. And we have

both clarity of vision about what happened AND

passion that couldn't come from outside

representation.

The panel on Capitol Hill Sharon mentioned? She

is too humble to explain that she spent many,

many months putting it together and making sure

knowledgable doctors showed up as did many more

Congressional aides than were anticipated. AND,

what she also didn't say was that the aides

generally walk in and out of these sessions, but

this one was exceptional because those who came

STAYED and asked questions at the end.

So, it's not like this stuff isn't being

discussed... it is. We're all monitoring each

other's progress working where we can make our

own difference. If you have an idea, pipe up,

and others will help as they can.

Best,

Haley

--- ldelp84227 <ldelp84227@...> wrote:

> I don't understand why there hasn't been any

> discussion regarding the

> info Sharon posted on Significant ruling

> impacts mold victims or

> whatever it was called. I think this is a

> major step in the right

> direction. These criminals that were writing

> for major publications

> for years and this is where judges, doctors,

> and the press get their

> info. These men have been getting paid also as

> defense witnesses in

> mold cases. I am encouraged and I think

> everyone should let everyone

> possible know about this info. This is just a

> small part of the

> judgement. Sharon has worked hard on this and

> I think it is worth

> discussing.

>

>

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Summary

> Many people have been ill with serious

> mold/mycotoxin induced

> illnesses.

> They have been unable to obtain proper medical

> treatment prior to the

> time

> these

> illnesses have become progressively and

> irreversibly debilitating.

> Many

> physicians and citizens have been falsely told

> that mold does not

> cause serious

> illness, leaving the medical community and

> public uneducated and

> unaware of

> the true danger.

> The medical misinformation promoted for the

> benefit of the defense in

> mold

> litigation has stifled and confused the already

> young field of

> science. It has

> fueled contention. The promotion of the concept

> " not plausible,

> improbable,

> junk science " within the medical community and

> the general public has

> been a

> primary cause for the lack of early detection

> and timely medical

> treatment.

> This in turn, has cost stakeholders with

> financial interest in the

> moldy

> buildings, unnecessary billions. The

> misinformation, that has

> retarded proper

> medical understanding, has also caused a

> tremendous increase in

> financial

> responsibility for stakeholders. Increased

> health damages sustained

> equals

> increased resultant stakeholder liability. .

>

> Mold itself, has not been the crux of the

> problem. The denial of

> illness in

> an attempt to limit liability has directly

> caused greater illness -

> and

> thereby has caused greater liability. The

> situation has been

> wastefully self

> perpetuating. The defense argument of “not

> plausible, improbable

> and junk

> science�

> has proven to be its own worst enemy.

>

> Dr Borak, overseer for the " peer

> review process " of the

> ACOEM Mold

> Statement, summed the matter up best in an

> email he wrote in 2002:

>

> Email September 8, 2002

> From: Borak, Chair of the Scientific

> Committee, ACOEM

> Dean Grove, Past President, ACOEM

> CC: Bernacki, ACOEM President 2002;

> Barry Eisenberg,

> Executive Director ACOEM; Tim Key, ACOEM

> President 2003.

>

> " Dean et al:

>

> I am having quite a challenge in finding an

> acceptable path for the

> proposed position paper on mold. Even though a

> great deal of work has

> gone in, it seems difficult to satisfy a

> sufficient spectrum of the

> College,

> or

> at least those concerned enough to voice their

> views.

>

> I have received several sets of comments that

> find the current

> version,

> much revised, to still be a defense argument.

> On the other hand,

> Hardin and his colleagues are not willing to

> further dilute the

> paper. The

> have done a lot, and I am concerned that we

> will soon have to either

> endorse or let go. I do not want to go to the

> BOD and then be

> rejected.

> That would be an important violation of .

> I have assured him

> that if

> we do not use it he can freely make whatever

> other uses he might want

> to

> make. If we " officially " reject it, then we

> turn is efforts into

> garbage.

> .... "

>

> Garbage it was, based on the Veritox 2000

> ‘review’ and provided

> credibility

> by the imprimatur of ACOEM. Once the

> credibility was established by

> the

> ACOEM, the garbage was then spread to other

> purported state of the

> art, mold

> review papers.

> The unscientific concept that one could take a

> single review of rodent

> studies with math applied and determine all

> human illness from

> inhaling

> mycotoxins

> indoors could never happen, took on a life of

> its own and grew. It

> became

> understood that one could never become

> seriously ill from inhaling

> mold

> indoors.

> No one seemed to remember exactly how this

> concept came to be. They

> just

> knew it to be true because they had read it in

> many

> authoritative " state of the

> art " mold review papers.

> The lives, health and financial well being of

> thousands have been

> forever

> damaged because of it.

>

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> And that is the Landmark Significance of the

> Ruling on April 14,

> 2006, Sacramento, California, regarding " Risk

> from inhaled mycotoxins

> in indoor

> office and residential environments. Int J

> Toxicol 2004; 23: 3-

> 10.Robbins CA,

> Swenson LJ, Hardin BD. (Veritox, 2004). The

> courts have found Veritox

> 2004 is

> not plausible, improbable and Junk Science.

>

> Needless to say, I am thrilled. Maybe NOW we

> can get this issue out

> of the

> courts and into doctors’ offices where it

> belongs. Maybe NOW we can

> all stop

> wasting time, lives and money!

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

---------------------------------

Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

[Guest guest]

I am praying you are able to stay healthy. this is a travesty. I am in tears.

Haley <myhaze@...> wrote: Hi :

Well, a lot of us have bumped into these problems

and are tackling them half-step by half-step

attempting to make progress. And it's extremely

difficult - frankly, it's old news to any of us

who have been schlogging through legal red tape

either on the regulation side or court side.

Worth discussing, but deflating as a global

topic. We're each doing out part to knock a

chunk out of it bit by bit.

I'll give you my for instance: My neighbor died

after his exposure to mold and after developing a

seizure disorder, fungal skin sores, asthma, and

a variety of GI and neurological symptoms. He

was found to have antibodies to some of the molds

we found in an environmental report we tenants

had done when the owner refused to do anything

about inches-long mold growing on clothes in the

closet of my neighbor and his mother - there was

a sewer pipe leak under the building that was not

repaired adequately and caused a good deal of the

mold. Other problems with downspouts and parapet

caps contributed to heavy rains soaking the

building as well. The owners tried to use the

mold as leverage to force them to move out, and

for health's sake, they did and I did as well (my

apartment had no visible mold, but plenty

airborne).

His death was three months to the day after they

moved. His mother came home from her night job

to find him dead and quite cold in bed, his face

covered with foam as it had been after some of

his seizures, but this time the foam was bloody.

He had said two things in the past 24 hours that

were rather ominous - the night before the night

he died he asked his mother to swear with him

that if anything happened to either one of them

from the health affects of the mold that the

surviving one would pursue it as far as they

could. And the morning of the day he died he

said he'd felt he'd been having seizures and was

very weak and went back to bed.

His mother had to insist on an autopsy to have

the Coroner's office take a look at him. They

knew his mother was concerned that mold had

something to do with the death and they wrote 'No

evidence of mold' on the autopsy report. It

looked to us as if they were trying to cut us off

at the pass about looking into a legal filing on

the death. We asked what tests they had done to

make this assertion, and they never responded to

that portion of the letter (although they did add

the reference to the foam and blood that had been

missing from the report - presumably, it had

either been lost when his body was wrapped in his

bedding when it was taken to the funeral home, or

the funeral home wiped it off - but because it

was referenced in the police report from the

first person who responded, that was added to the

autopsy report).

We then spent about 6 months searching for

someone who could do forensic tissue testing to

see if there was any 'evidence of mold.' The

ONLY person we found - after writing to somewhere

between 300-400 people, in mycobiology labs, and

membership lists of mycologists, forensic

pathologists and veternary groups that work with

animal poisoning from molds, all over the US,

Canada and the EU- the ONLY person we found, we

were skeptical about using because he'd been

slammed in our local LA Times for being highly

inaccurate (which seems to have been planted

material, but unfortunately ended up in an

article that was part of a series that won the

paper a Pultizer Prize).

We got confirmation from trustworthy people that

he was trustworthy, and went ahead with testing -

he's been FABULOUS and has gone way above and

beyond for us.

What he found was an enormous quantity of the

mycotoxin Trichothecene in his lung tissue.

People get sick at 2 parts per billion and can be

terribly ill at 10. My neighbor had 128.9 ppb in

his lung tissue.

Which we submitted to the Coroner's office for

them to consider. They did the most important

thing for us, which is to note the finding in the

autopsy record which makes it official. HOWEVER,

they had a pulmonologist look at the findings and

he decided there was 'no evidence of fungal

infection.'

It took me a good while to learn the different

ways molds can hurt a person, but I had it

figured out before I stumbled upon tis

group...there was an article posted about a week

ago that talked about infection and irritation

and allergy and POISON from mycotoxins. The

Coroner got a lung specialist to indicate there

was no infection when we had provided evidence of

poisoning. So we've written them back AGAIN to

ask why they didn't have a medical mycologist

review the findings, and we've just gotten the

postcard back saying they signed for the

certified mail. It's been about 15 months since

the autopsy report was first filed, and 19 months

since he died. We have 5 months left in our

statute if we want to file a case.

The first atty we worked with when he died left

the case when the autopsy report was released -

said there was no way he could win it with that

report. We've been through a half dozen other

firms since, all of whom think we've got a good

case (since we've already documented a good

portion of the hard stuff), but they are not

willing to take on the expense of this kind of

trial because pain and suffering damages are

capped in California and he left no heirs, so

there would be very limited economic damages.

I assume you're with me so far... we have a guy

who DIED because of his exposure to mold for

which WE ALREADY HAVE PROOF, and it still this

travesty is not literally WORTH it for a

contingency lawer to take on to champion. Some

of the folks on this board know that as a

nonlawyer I'm going to represent my neighbor and

his mother because we can't find anyone to do it

for us and we're tired of begging and pleading,

and I know this case better than anyone as I've

coordinated all our efforts so far.

We'll see how far I get... I believe we have

proof of a kind that the court will accept - very

often tests get challenged as being nonstandard

or not yet accepted, but the test they used to

find his toxin is an ELISA test which is what

they use to find HIV. The lab that did the work

is certified. A journal article is presently

being submitted for peer review on my neighbor's

death. Theorhetically, we have the ingredients

we need to get past the stumbling blocks that

have tripped others. We'll see. And we have

both clarity of vision about what happened AND

passion that couldn't come from outside

representation.

The panel on Capitol Hill Sharon mentioned? She

is too humble to explain that she spent many,

many months putting it together and making sure

knowledgable doctors showed up as did many more

Congressional aides than were anticipated. AND,

what she also didn't say was that the aides

generally walk in and out of these sessions, but

this one was exceptional because those who came

STAYED and asked questions at the end.

So, it's not like this stuff isn't being

discussed... it is. We're all monitoring each

other's progress working where we can make our

own difference. If you have an idea, pipe up,

and others will help as they can.

Best,

Haley

--- ldelp84227 <ldelp84227@...> wrote:

> I don't understand why there hasn't been any

> discussion regarding the

> info Sharon posted on Significant ruling

> impacts mold victims or

> whatever it was called. I think this is a

> major step in the right

> direction. These criminals that were writing

> for major publications

> for years and this is where judges, doctors,

> and the press get their

> info. These men have been getting paid also as

> defense witnesses in

> mold cases. I am encouraged and I think

> everyone should let everyone

> possible know about this info. This is just a

> small part of the

> judgement. Sharon has worked hard on this and

> I think it is worth

> discussing.

>

>

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Summary

> Many people have been ill with serious

> mold/mycotoxin induced

> illnesses.

> They have been unable to obtain proper medical

> treatment prior to the

> time

> these

> illnesses have become progressively and

> irreversibly debilitating.

> Many

> physicians and citizens have been falsely told

> that mold does not

> cause serious

> illness, leaving the medical community and

> public uneducated and

> unaware of

> the true danger.

> The medical misinformation promoted for the

> benefit of the defense in

> mold

> litigation has stifled and confused the already

> young field of

> science. It has

> fueled contention. The promotion of the concept

> " not plausible,

> improbable,

> junk science " within the medical community and

> the general public has

> been a

> primary cause for the lack of early detection

> and timely medical

> treatment.

> This in turn, has cost stakeholders with

> financial interest in the

> moldy

> buildings, unnecessary billions. The

> misinformation, that has

> retarded proper

> medical understanding, has also caused a

> tremendous increase in

> financial

> responsibility for stakeholders. Increased

> health damages sustained

> equals

> increased resultant stakeholder liability. .

>

> Mold itself, has not been the crux of the

> problem. The denial of

> illness in

> an attempt to limit liability has directly

> caused greater illness -

> and

> thereby has caused greater liability. The

> situation has been

> wastefully self

> perpetuating. The defense argument of “not

> plausible, improbable

> and junk

> science�

> has proven to be its own worst enemy.

>

> Dr Borak, overseer for the " peer

> review process " of the

> ACOEM Mold

> Statement, summed the matter up best in an

> email he wrote in 2002:

>

> Email September 8, 2002

> From: Borak, Chair of the Scientific

> Committee, ACOEM

> Dean Grove, Past President, ACOEM

> CC: Bernacki, ACOEM President 2002;

> Barry Eisenberg,

> Executive Director ACOEM; Tim Key, ACOEM

> President 2003.

>

> " Dean et al:

>

> I am having quite a challenge in finding an

> acceptable path for the

> proposed position paper on mold. Even though a

> great deal of work has

> gone in, it seems difficult to satisfy a

> sufficient spectrum of the

> College,

> or

> at least those concerned enough to voice their

> views.

>

> I have received several sets of comments that

> find the current

> version,

> much revised, to still be a defense argument.

> On the other hand,

> Hardin and his colleagues are not willing to

> further dilute the

> paper. The

> have done a lot, and I am concerned that we

> will soon have to either

> endorse or let go. I do not want to go to the

> BOD and then be

> rejected.

> That would be an important violation of .

> I have assured him

> that if

> we do not use it he can freely make whatever

> other uses he might want

> to

> make. If we " officially " reject it, then we

> turn is efforts into

> garbage.

> .... "

>

> Garbage it was, based on the Veritox 2000

> ‘review’ and provided

> credibility

> by the imprimatur of ACOEM. Once the

> credibility was established by

> the

> ACOEM, the garbage was then spread to other

> purported state of the

> art, mold

> review papers.

> The unscientific concept that one could take a

> single review of rodent

> studies with math applied and determine all

> human illness from

> inhaling

> mycotoxins

> indoors could never happen, took on a life of

> its own and grew. It

> became

> understood that one could never become

> seriously ill from inhaling

> mold

> indoors.

> No one seemed to remember exactly how this

> concept came to be. They

> just

> knew it to be true because they had read it in

> many

> authoritative " state of the

> art " mold review papers.

> The lives, health and financial well being of

> thousands have been

> forever

> damaged because of it.

>

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> And that is the Landmark Significance of the

> Ruling on April 14,

> 2006, Sacramento, California, regarding " Risk

> from inhaled mycotoxins

> in indoor

> office and residential environments. Int J

> Toxicol 2004; 23: 3-

> 10.Robbins CA,

> Swenson LJ, Hardin BD. (Veritox, 2004). The

> courts have found Veritox

> 2004 is

> not plausible, improbable and Junk Science.

>

> Needless to say, I am thrilled. Maybe NOW we

> can get this issue out

> of the

> courts and into doctors’ offices where it

> belongs. Maybe NOW we can

> all stop

> wasting time, lives and money!

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

---------------------------------

Sports Fantasy Football ’06 - Go with the leader. Start your league

today!

[Guest guest]

the best of luck to you

haley.

>

> > I don't understand why there hasn't been any

> > discussion regarding the

> > info Sharon posted on Significant ruling

> > impacts mold victims or

> > whatever it was called. I think this is a

> > major step in the right

> > direction. These criminals that were writing

> > for major publications

> > for years and this is where judges, doctors,

> > and the press get their

> > info. These men have been getting paid also as

> > defense witnesses in

> > mold cases. I am encouraged and I think

> > everyone should let everyone

> > possible know about this info. This is just a

> > small part of the

> > judgement. Sharon has worked hard on this and

> > I think it is worth

> > discussing.

> >

> >

> >

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> > Summary

> > Many people have been ill with serious

> > mold/mycotoxin induced

> > illnesses.

> > They have been unable to obtain proper medical

> > treatment prior to the

> > time

> > these

> > illnesses have become progressively and

> > irreversibly debilitating.

> > Many

> > physicians and citizens have been falsely told

> > that mold does not

> > cause serious

> > illness, leaving the medical community and

> > public uneducated and

> > unaware of

> > the true danger.

> > The medical misinformation promoted for the

> > benefit of the defense in

> > mold

> > litigation has stifled and confused the already

> > young field of

> > science. It has

> > fueled contention. The promotion of the concept

> > " not plausible,

> > improbable,

> > junk science " within the medical community and

> > the general public has

> > been a

> > primary cause for the lack of early detection

> > and timely medical

> > treatment.

> > This in turn, has cost stakeholders with

> > financial interest in the

> > moldy

> > buildings, unnecessary billions. The

> > misinformation, that has

> > retarded proper

> > medical understanding, has also caused a

> > tremendous increase in

> > financial

> > responsibility for stakeholders. Increased

> > health damages sustained

> > equals

> > increased resultant stakeholder liability. .

> >

> > Mold itself, has not been the crux of the

> > problem. The denial of

> > illness in

> > an attempt to limit liability has directly

> > caused greater illness -

> > and

> > thereby has caused greater liability. The

> > situation has been

> > wastefully self

> > perpetuating. The defense argument of “not

> > plausible, improbable

> > and junk

> > science�

> > has proven to be its own worst enemy.

> >

> > Dr Borak, overseer for the " peer

> > review process " of the

> > ACOEM Mold

> > Statement, summed the matter up best in an

> > email he wrote in 2002:

> >

> > Email September 8, 2002

> > From: Borak, Chair of the Scientific

> > Committee, ACOEM

> > Dean Grove, Past President, ACOEM

> > CC: Bernacki, ACOEM President 2002;

> > Barry Eisenberg,

> > Executive Director ACOEM; Tim Key, ACOEM

> > President 2003.

> >

> > " Dean et al:

> >

> > I am having quite a challenge in finding an

> > acceptable path for the

> > proposed position paper on mold. Even though a

> > great deal of work has

> > gone in, it seems difficult to satisfy a

> > sufficient spectrum of the

> > College,

> > or

> > at least those concerned enough to voice their

> > views.

> >

> > I have received several sets of comments that

> > find the current

> > version,

> > much revised, to still be a defense argument.

> > On the other hand,

> > Hardin and his colleagues are not willing to

> > further dilute the

> > paper. The

> > have done a lot, and I am concerned that we

> > will soon have to either

> > endorse or let go. I do not want to go to the

> > BOD and then be

> > rejected.

> > That would be an important violation of .

> > I have assured him

> > that if

> > we do not use it he can freely make whatever

> > other uses he might want

> > to

> > make. If we " officially " reject it, then we

> > turn is efforts into

> > garbage.

> > .... "

> >

> > Garbage it was, based on the Veritox 2000

> > ‘review’ and provided

> > credibility

> > by the imprimatur of ACOEM. Once the

> > credibility was established by

> > the

> > ACOEM, the garbage was then spread to other

> > purported state of the

> > art, mold

> > review papers.

> > The unscientific concept that one could take a

> > single review of rodent

> > studies with math applied and determine all

> > human illness from

> > inhaling

> > mycotoxins

> > indoors could never happen, took on a life of

> > its own and grew. It

> > became

> > understood that one could never become

> > seriously ill from inhaling

> > mold

> > indoors.

> > No one seemed to remember exactly how this

> > concept came to be. They

> > just

> > knew it to be true because they had read it in

> > many

> > authoritative " state of the

> > art " mold review papers.

> > The lives, health and financial well being of

> > thousands have been

> > forever

> > damaged because of it.

> >

> >

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> > And that is the Landmark Significance of the

> > Ruling on April 14,

> > 2006, Sacramento, California, regarding " Risk

> > from inhaled mycotoxins

> > in indoor

> > office and residential environments. Int J

> > Toxicol 2004; 23: 3-

> > 10.Robbins CA,

> > Swenson LJ, Hardin BD. (Veritox, 2004). The

> > courts have found Veritox

> > 2004 is

> > not plausible, improbable and Junk Science.

> >

> > Needless to say, I am thrilled. Maybe NOW we

> > can get this issue out

> > of the

> > courts and into doctors’ offices where it

> > belongs. Maybe NOW we can

> > all stop

> > wasting time, lives and money!

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Our stories of the neglect are devestating as I have told mine for

nine years here. I feel for everyone. Just thought it would be good

to discuss something positive that has happened after all these

years. Anything encouraging makes me feel somewhat better after what

my family has been through-- as we all can relate.

--- In , " ldelp84227 " <ldelp84227@...>

wrote:

>

> I don't understand why there hasn't been any discussion regarding

the

> info Sharon posted on Significant ruling impacts mold victims or

> whatever it was called. I think this is a major step in the right

> direction. These criminals that were writing for major

publications

> for years and this is where judges, doctors, and the press get

their

> info. These men have been getting paid also as defense witnesses

in

> mold cases. I am encouraged and I think everyone should let

everyone

> possible know about this info. This is just a small part of the

> judgement. Sharon has worked hard on this and I think it is worth

> discussing.

>

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Summary

> Many people have been ill with serious mold/mycotoxin induced

> illnesses.

> They have been unable to obtain proper medical treatment prior to

the

> time

> these

> illnesses have become progressively and irreversibly debilitating.

> Many

> physicians and citizens have been falsely told that mold does not

> cause serious

> illness, leaving the medical community and public uneducated and

> unaware of

> the true danger.

> The medical misinformation promoted for the benefit of the defense

in

> mold

> litigation has stifled and confused the already young field of

> science. It has

> fueled contention. The promotion of the concept " not plausible,

> improbable,

> junk science " within the medical community and the general public

has

> been a

> primary cause for the lack of early detection and timely medical

> treatment.

> This in turn, has cost stakeholders with financial interest in the

> moldy

> buildings, unnecessary billions. The misinformation, that has

> retarded proper

> medical understanding, has also caused a tremendous increase in

> financial

> responsibility for stakeholders. Increased health damages sustained

> equals

> increased resultant stakeholder liability. .

>

> Mold itself, has not been the crux of the problem. The denial of

> illness in

> an attempt to limit liability has directly caused greater illness -

> and

> thereby has caused greater liability. The situation has been

> wastefully self

> perpetuating. The defense argument of “not plausible, improbable

> and junk

> scienceâ€

> has proven to be its own worst enemy.

>

> Dr Borak, overseer for the " peer review process " of the

> ACOEM Mold

> Statement, summed the matter up best in an email he wrote in 2002:

>

> Email September 8, 2002

> From: Borak, Chair of the Scientific Committee, ACOEM

> Dean Grove, Past President, ACOEM

> CC: Bernacki, ACOEM President 2002; Barry Eisenberg,

> Executive Director ACOEM; Tim Key, ACOEM President 2003.

>

> " Dean et al:

>

> I am having quite a challenge in finding an acceptable path for the

> proposed position paper on mold. Even though a great deal of work

has

> gone in, it seems difficult to satisfy a sufficient spectrum of the

> College,

> or

> at least those concerned enough to voice their views.

>

> I have received several sets of comments that find the current

> version,

> much revised, to still be a defense argument. On the other hand,

> Hardin and his colleagues are not willing to further dilute the

> paper. The

> have done a lot, and I am concerned that we will soon have to either

> endorse or let go. I do not want to go to the BOD and then be

> rejected.

> That would be an important violation of . I have assured him

> that if

> we do not use it he can freely make whatever other uses he might

want

> to

> make. If we " officially " reject it, then we turn is efforts into

> garbage.

> .... "

>

> Garbage it was, based on the Veritox 2000 ‘review’ and provided

> credibility

> by the imprimatur of ACOEM. Once the credibility was established by

> the

> ACOEM, the garbage was then spread to other purported state of the

> art, mold

> review papers.

> The unscientific concept that one could take a single review of

rodent

> studies with math applied and determine all human illness from

> inhaling

> mycotoxins

> indoors could never happen, took on a life of its own and grew. It

> became

> understood that one could never become seriously ill from inhaling

> mold

> indoors.

> No one seemed to remember exactly how this concept came to be. They

> just

> knew it to be true because they had read it in many

> authoritative " state of the

> art " mold review papers.

> The lives, health and financial well being of thousands have been

> forever

> damaged because of it.

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> And that is the Landmark Significance of the Ruling on April

14,

> 2006, Sacramento, California, regarding " Risk from inhaled

mycotoxins

> in indoor

> office and residential environments. Int J Toxicol 2004; 23: 3-

> 10.Robbins CA,

> Swenson LJ, Hardin BD. (Veritox, 2004). The courts have found

Veritox

> 2004 is

> not plausible, improbable and Junk Science.

>

> Needless to say, I am thrilled. Maybe NOW we can get this issue out

> of the

> courts and into doctors’ offices where it belongs. Maybe NOW we

can

> all stop

> wasting time, lives and money!

>

[Guest guest]

I think that there really needs to be some attention paid to the fact that

in the case of toxic mold poisoning, the realpolitik for most people who

have their health seriously impacted by toxic mold is that it is almost 100%

certain that even if they do receive compensation of some kind, it will be

next to nothing compared to the cost of the impact on their lives.

And the situation with mold is not so very different than that with many

other kinds of toxic exposures caused by profiteers.

There is basically no accountability for these people in this country. None.

Zero. For every person who gets representation and who wins an amount in

court that begins to address what has happened to them, there are probably

a thousand who can't or don't.

Ultimately, its my feeling that any person or organization who aids this

whitewash should be held partially liable, as its a real tragedy.

And the statute of limitations should not begin running until people who

have been hurt actually can begin to sue *successfully*, not simply when

they find out but can't do anything about it because all the avenues they

would use to sue are blocked by lies.