Court of Opinion Amid Suits Over Mold WSJ Article

[Guest guest]

Hi Everyone,

Here is the article from the Wall Street Journal Jan. 9, 2007

Cases (including mine) are being thrown out even before anyone, expert

witnesses for the plaintiffs included, are allowed to even describe what

they have found!!

No scientific evidence supporting plaintiff's pleas are even being allowed

admission.

Stensrud

Court of Opinion

Amid Suits Over Mold,

Experts Wear Two Hats

Authors of Science Paper

Often Cited by Defense

Also Help in Litigation

By DAVID ARMSTRONG

January 9, 2007; Page A1

Soon after moving into a New York City apartment, Colin and Pamela Fraser

say, they began to suffer headaches, rashes, respiratory infections and

fatigue. They attributed it to mold.

But their lawsuit against the cooperative that owns the building hit a

roadblock when the court wouldn't let their medical expert testify that mold

caused their problems. This is " unsupported by the scientific literature, "

the state trial judge said.

She relied in part on a position paper from the American College of

Occupational and Environmental Medicine, or ACOEM. Citing a substance some

molds produce called mycotoxins, the paper said " scientific evidence does

not support the proposition that human health has been adversely affected by

inhaled mycotoxins in the home, school, or office environment. "

The paper has become a key defense tool wielded by builders, landlords and

insurers in litigation. It has also been used to assuage fears of parents

following discovery of mold in schools. One point that rarely emerges in

these cases: The paper was written by people who regularly are paid experts

for the defense side in mold litigation.

The ACOEM doesn't disclose this, nor did its paper. The professional society's

president, Tee Guidotti, says no disclosure is needed because the paper

represents the consensus of its membership and is a statement from the

society, not the individual authors.

The dual roles show how conflicts of interest can color debate on emerging

health issues and influence litigation related to it. Mold has been a

contentious matter since a Texas jury in 2001 awarded $32.1 million to a

family whose home was mold-infested. That award, later reduced, and a couple

of mold suits filed by famous people like Ed McMahon and Brockovich

helped trigger a surge in mold litigation. Insurers and builders worried it

would become a liability disaster for them on the scale of asbestos.

The number of suits hasn't been as big as anticipated. One reason appears to

be the insurers' success in getting many states to exclude mold coverage

from homeowner's-insurance policies. But also helping turn the tide, lawyers

and doctors say, is the ACOEM report. Building groups and the U.S. Chamber

of Commerce have cited it to rebut the notion that mold in the home can be

toxic.

Craner, a Nevada doctor who has testified for scores of people who

claimed ill effects from mold, says the paper " has been used in every single

mold case. The lawyer asks, 'Isn't it true the American College of

Occupational and Environmental Medicine concluded that there is no

scientific evidence that mold causes any serious health effects?' "

The result, Dr. Craner maintains, is that " a lot people with legitimate

environmental health problems are losing their homes and their jobs because

of legal decisions based on this so-called 'evidence-based' statement. "

Dr. Craner says a majority of his work is on the plaintiff side and he is

paid when he testifies, but he says he currently is an expert for the

defense in a case where he concluded the plaintiffs' health issues weren't

related to mold.

Two other medical societies have also published statements on mold written,

in part, by legal-defense experts. The societies didn't disclose this when

they released the papers, although one later published a correction saying

two authors served as expert witnesses in mold litigation.

READ MORE

.. Read the full text of Dr. Borak's September 2002 email to the leaders of

the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine about his

struggles in drafting their position paper on mold.

.. Read the official position statements of the American College of

Occupational and Environmental Medicine and of the American Academy of

Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, as posted on their Web sites.

Mold reproduces through tiny spores. These can float into homes through

windows and vent systems or be carried in on clothes or shoes. Indoors, mold

grows when moisture is present.

There's debate about how much this matters. Plaintiffs attribute ills

ranging from asthma to cognitive problems to inhalation of mold. The

Institute of Medicine, a largely federally funded nonprofit, reviewed the

research in 2004 and said " studies have demonstrated adverse

effects-including immunotoxic, neurologic, respiratory and dermal

responses-after exposure to specific toxins, bacteria, molds or their

products. " But it added that the dose required to cause adverse health

effects hasn't been determined. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, for its part, says on its Web site that mold can cause wheezing

and eye or skin irritation, but a link to more serious conditions " has not

been proven. "

'Highly Unlikely'

The ACOEM paper goes further. It says not only is there no evidence indoor

mold causes serious health effects, but even if mold produced toxic

substances, it's " highly unlikely at best " that anyone could inhale enough

to cause a problem. The paper reaches this conclusion by extrapolating from

animal studies in which rodents' throats were injected with molds.

The paper's authors say their conclusions are validated by the Institute of

Medicine's paper. But the author of the Institute paper's mold toxicity

chapter, Harriett Ammann, disagrees, and criticizes the ACOEM paper's

methodology: " They took hypothetical exposure and hypothetical toxicity and

jumped to the conclusion there is nothing there. "

Dr. Ammann, a recently retired toxicologist for Washington state's health

department, recently helped the plaintiff side in a mold case. She says this

was the only time she has done so for pay. In the Fraser lawsuit in New

York, after the judge barred testimony that mold caused health problems, Dr.

Ammann, on her own and without pay, provided an affidavit filed with the

appellate court saying the judge misinterpreted the research.

The ACOEM, a society of more than 5,000 specialists who investigate indoor

health hazards and treat patients with related illnesses, first moved to

develop a position paper on mold in early 2002. Dean Grove, then the medical

society's president, asked the head of its council on scientific affairs,

Yale medical professor Borak, to set the process in motion.

He turned to a retired deputy director of the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health-part of the CDC-to spearhead the project. Dr.

Borak says he wanted someone with " no established background record of

litigation related to mold. "

For the Defense

The person he chose, Hardin, says he hadn't worked on any mold lawsuit

at that point, though he was a consultant on other matters for GlobalTox

Inc., a firm that regularly worked for the defense in mold cases. And Dr.

Hardin says he consulted for the defense in a mold case while he was helping

write the ACOEM paper.

In a Feb. 27, 2002, email, Dr. Borak told Dr. Hardin: " That position paper

would be prepared by you and your GlobalTox colleagues. " Dr. Borak says he

believes he didn't know at the time that GlobalTox did mold defense work.

A GlobalTox colleague who aided Dr. Hardin was Bruce Kelman, now president

of the firm, which recently changed its name to Veritox Inc. Drs. Kelman and

Hardin, now principals at the firm and entitled to a share of its profits,

were two of the ACOEM paper's three authors. They are paid $375 to $500 an

hour for work on mold cases, court records say.

EXPERT WITNESSES

.. The Situation: Mold defendants rely on medical-society position papers

that reject a link to serious ills, but papers were written by scientists

who often work for defense side in mold cases.

.. The Debate: Whether courts get accurate or skewed view of possible health

effects of indoor mold.

.. What's at Stake: Outcome of widespread litigation over mold.

The paper's third author was Saxon, then chief of clinical immunology

and allergy at the medical school of the University of California, Los

Angeles. He, too, has served as a defense expert in numerous mold suits. Dr.

Saxon says he is paid $510 an hour for his help. If called to testify in

court, his rate rises to $720 an hour, according to a deposition he gave.

Until he retired from UCLA in September, money he earned as a legal-defense

expert was paid to the university, and he says UCLA then gave him a little

less than half of it. Dr. Saxon estimates he generates $250,000 to $500,000

a year from expert defense work, which includes non-mold cases.

The ACOEM knew about mold defense work by the authors of its paper. Dr.

Hardin informed the society in a Sept. 23, 2002, document under his

letterhead. Labeled " confidential " and " share only with the ACOEM board of

directors, " it told of his work as a defense expert on one mold case.

The letter said the other two authors, Drs. Saxon and Kelman, " have been

retained by both the defense and plaintiff bar in litigation relating to

indoor mold. " Both say they work mostly for the defense in mold cases.

Internal ACOEM documents indicate that as the paper was being written in

August 2002, there was concern within the society that the paper was too

friendly to defense interests. Its authors were asked to modify the first

draft's tone " because of the concern about possible misinterpretation of

'buzz words' and phrases such as 'belief system,' 'adherents may claim,'

'supposed hypersensitivity,' and 'alleged disorder,' " according to a June

2002 email to Dr. Hardin from the society's communications director. (The

email was obtained by a plaintiff's attorney in a mold case, Kahn.)

Dr. Borak, the head of the society's council on scientific affairs,

suggested sending a draft for review to one particular mold authority,

Hodgson, director of the occupational safety and health program at

the U.S. Veterans Health Administration. Dr. Hardin objected. He said it

would be " inappropriate to add ad hoc reviewers who are highly visible

advocates for a point of view the draft position paper analyzes and finds

lacking. " The draft ultimately wasn't sent.

'A Defense Argument'

In September 2002, Dr. Borak emailed colleagues that " I am having quite a

challenge in finding an acceptable path for the proposed position paper on

mold. " He said several reviewers " find the current version, much revised, to

still be a defense argument. "

The society released a paper two months later, and its authors, as well as

ACOEM officials, say it accurately reflects the science on indoor mold

exposure. The authors' " views, if prejudicial, were removed, " Dr. Borak

says. " It went through a dramatic change of top-heavy peer reviews. " He says

objections come mainly from " activist litigants " who find it " annoying. "

Drs. Hardin and Kelman say the paper has been controversial because it

challenged " a belief system " that mold can be toxic indoors. " A belief

system is built up and there is anger when the science doesn't support that

belief system, " Dr. Kelman says.

The Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, paid Veritox $40,000 to

prepare a lay version of the paper. That version said " 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. " Its authors were the three writers of the longer paper

plus a fourth, who also is a principal at Veritox.

Lawyers defending mold suits also cite a position paper from the American

Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. This paper says it concurs with

the ACOEM that it is highly unlikely enough mycotoxins could be inhaled to

lead to toxic health effects.

Among the academy paper's five authors is Dr. Saxon. Another, Abba Terr, a

San Francisco immunologist, has worked as a defense expert in mold cases.

The academy published the paper in its Journal of Allergy and Clinical

Immunology last February, not citing the mold-defense work of either man.

The publication later ran a correction disclosing their litigation work.

The academy's president says officials were aware Dr. Saxon was an expert

witness. " We should have published their [disclosure] statements with the

paper, " says the official, Platts-Mills. He says the lapse resulted

from a variety of factors, including confusion about whose responsibility

the disclosure was.

Unhappy Author

A third author of the academy's paper, Jay Portnoy, chief of allergy, asthma

and immunology at the Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Mo., says he

" felt that there was an agenda " -the effort " seemed very biased toward

denying the possibility of there being harmful effects from mold on human

health. " He says he considered removing his name from the paper, but it was

published before he could decide.

Dr. Portnoy says a section he contributed was rewritten by Dr. Saxon to be

" a lot more negative. " He says the paper wrongly says mold isn't proven to

cause allergic rhinitis, with symptoms like wheezing, sore throat and

sneezing. Dr. Saxon denies the authors had a bias but says they applied a

high standard for proving mold causes a particular effect. He says he didn't

skew the content of Dr. Portnoy's section but rewrote it because it was " too

diffuse. " Dr. Terr in San Francisco didn't return a call seeking comment.

In New York, the Frasers are appealing the refusal of the trial judge, state

Supreme Court Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich, to let their expert testify

that indoor mold caused their health complaints. The Frasers had moved into

the East Side Manhattan apartment in 1996. Their 2002 suit said they

repeatedly complained to the co-op's board of dampness and leaks as their

health deteriorated.

Their appeal attacks the credibility of mold position papers drafted by

scientists who work for defendants. " What you have here is defense experts

authoring papers under an official guise, " says their attorney,

Eilender. Justice Kornreich declined to comment.

Write to Armstrong at david.armstrong@...

[Guest guest]

Make sure you get a good strong protest in that mentions all of this in your

case before it ends (make sure your lawyer understands the politics

involved) and you will probably be able to get an appeal.

On 1/11/07, stenjess <stenjess@...> wrote:

>

> Hi Everyone,

>

> Here is the article from the Wall Street Journal Jan. 9, 2007

> Cases (including mine) are being thrown out even before anyone, expert

> witnesses for the plaintiffs included, are allowed to even describe what

> they have found!!

> No scientific evidence supporting plaintiff's pleas are even being allowed

>

> admission.

>

> Stensrud

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

you know, front page articles like this usually result in follow up

news articles in other newspapers and on the news on tv. SO WHERE ARE

THEY? --- In , " stenjess " <stenjess@...>

wrote:

>

> Hi Everyone,

>

> Here is the article from the Wall Street Journal Jan. 9, 2007

> Cases (including mine) are being thrown out even before anyone,

expert

> witnesses for the plaintiffs included, are allowed to even describe

what

> they have found!!

> No scientific evidence supporting plaintiff's pleas are even being

allowed

> admission.

>

> Stensrud

>

>

> Court of Opinion

> Amid Suits Over Mold,

> Experts Wear Two Hats

> Authors of Science Paper

> Often Cited by Defense

> Also Help in Litigation

> By DAVID ARMSTRONG

> January 9, 2007; Page A1

> Soon after moving into a New York City apartment, Colin and Pamela

Fraser

> say, they began to suffer headaches, rashes, respiratory infections

and

> fatigue. They attributed it to mold.

> But their lawsuit against the cooperative that owns the building

hit a

> roadblock when the court wouldn't let their medical expert testify

that mold

> caused their problems. This is " unsupported by the scientific

literature, "

> the state trial judge said.

> She relied in part on a position paper from the American College of

> Occupational and Environmental Medicine, or ACOEM. Citing a

substance some

> molds produce called mycotoxins, the paper said " scientific

evidence does

> not support the proposition that human health has been adversely

affected by

> inhaled mycotoxins in the home, school, or office environment. "

> The paper has become a key defense tool wielded by builders,

landlords and

> insurers in litigation. It has also been used to assuage fears of

parents

> following discovery of mold in schools. One point that rarely

emerges in

> these cases: The paper was written by people who regularly are paid

experts

> for the defense side in mold litigation.

> The ACOEM doesn't disclose this, nor did its paper. The

professional society's

> president, Tee Guidotti, says no disclosure is needed because the

paper

> represents the consensus of its membership and is a statement from

the

> society, not the individual authors.

> The dual roles show how conflicts of interest can color debate on

emerging

> health issues and influence litigation related to it. Mold has been

a

> contentious matter since a Texas jury in 2001 awarded $32.1 million

to a

> family whose home was mold-infested. That award, later reduced, and

a couple

> of mold suits filed by famous people like Ed McMahon and

Brockovich

> helped trigger a surge in mold litigation. Insurers and builders

worried it

> would become a liability disaster for them on the scale of asbestos.

> The number of suits hasn't been as big as anticipated. One reason

appears to

> be the insurers' success in getting many states to exclude mold

coverage

> from homeowner's-insurance policies. But also helping turn the

tide, lawyers

> and doctors say, is the ACOEM report. Building groups and the U.S.

Chamber

> of Commerce have cited it to rebut the notion that mold in the home

can be

> toxic.

> Craner, a Nevada doctor who has testified for scores of

people who

> claimed ill effects from mold, says the paper " has been used in

every single

> mold case. The lawyer asks, 'Isn't it true the American College of

> Occupational and Environmental Medicine concluded that there is no

> scientific evidence that mold causes any serious health effects?' "

> The result, Dr. Craner maintains, is that " a lot people with

legitimate

> environmental health problems are losing their homes and their jobs

because

> of legal decisions based on this so-called 'evidence-based'

statement. "

> Dr. Craner says a majority of his work is on the plaintiff side and

he is

> paid when he testifies, but he says he currently is an expert for

the

> defense in a case where he concluded the plaintiffs' health issues

weren't

> related to mold.

> Two other medical societies have also published statements on mold

written,

> in part, by legal-defense experts. The societies didn't disclose

this when

> they released the papers, although one later published a correction

saying

> two authors served as expert witnesses in mold litigation.

> READ MORE

> . Read the full text of Dr. Borak's September 2002 email to the

leaders of

> the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

about his

> struggles in drafting their position paper on mold.

>

> . Read the official position statements of the American College of

> Occupational and Environmental Medicine and of the American Academy

of

> Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, as posted on their Web sites.

> Mold reproduces through tiny spores. These can float into homes

through

> windows and vent systems or be carried in on clothes or shoes.

Indoors, mold

> grows when moisture is present.

> There's debate about how much this matters. Plaintiffs attribute

ills

> ranging from asthma to cognitive problems to inhalation of mold.

The

> Institute of Medicine, a largely federally funded nonprofit,

reviewed the

> research in 2004 and said " studies have demonstrated adverse

> effects-including immunotoxic, neurologic, respiratory and dermal

> responses-after exposure to specific toxins, bacteria, molds or

their

> products. " But it added that the dose required to cause adverse

health

> effects hasn't been determined. The U.S. Centers for Disease

Control and

> Prevention, for its part, says on its Web site that mold can cause

wheezing

> and eye or skin irritation, but a link to more serious

conditions " has not

> been proven. "

> 'Highly Unlikely'

> The ACOEM paper goes further. It says not only is there no evidence

indoor

> mold causes serious health effects, but even if mold produced toxic

> substances, it's " highly unlikely at best " that anyone could inhale

enough

> to cause a problem. The paper reaches this conclusion by

extrapolating from

> animal studies in which rodents' throats were injected with molds.

> The paper's authors say their conclusions are validated by the

Institute of

> Medicine's paper. But the author of the Institute paper's mold

toxicity

> chapter, Harriett Ammann, disagrees, and criticizes the ACOEM

paper's

> methodology: " They took hypothetical exposure and hypothetical

toxicity and

> jumped to the conclusion there is nothing there. "

> Dr. Ammann, a recently retired toxicologist for Washington state's

health

> department, recently helped the plaintiff side in a mold case. She

says this

> was the only time she has done so for pay. In the Fraser lawsuit in

New

> York, after the judge barred testimony that mold caused health

problems, Dr.

> Ammann, on her own and without pay, provided an affidavit filed

with the

> appellate court saying the judge misinterpreted the research.

> The ACOEM, a society of more than 5,000 specialists who investigate

indoor

> health hazards and treat patients with related illnesses, first

moved to

> develop a position paper on mold in early 2002. Dean Grove, then

the medical

> society's president, asked the head of its council on scientific

affairs,

> Yale medical professor Borak, to set the process in motion.

> He turned to a retired deputy director of the National Institute

for

> Occupational Safety and Health-part of the CDC-to spearhead the

project. Dr.

> Borak says he wanted someone with " no established background record

of

> litigation related to mold. "

> For the Defense

> The person he chose, Hardin, says he hadn't worked on any

mold lawsuit

> at that point, though he was a consultant on other matters for

GlobalTox

> Inc., a firm that regularly worked for the defense in mold cases.

And Dr.

> Hardin says he consulted for the defense in a mold case while he

was helping

> write the ACOEM paper.

> In a Feb. 27, 2002, email, Dr. Borak told Dr. Hardin: " That

position paper

> would be prepared by you and your GlobalTox colleagues. " Dr. Borak

says he

> believes he didn't know at the time that GlobalTox did mold defense

work.

> A GlobalTox colleague who aided Dr. Hardin was Bruce Kelman, now

president

> of the firm, which recently changed its name to Veritox Inc. Drs.

Kelman and

> Hardin, now principals at the firm and entitled to a share of its

profits,

> were two of the ACOEM paper's three authors. They are paid $375 to

$500 an

> hour for work on mold cases, court records say.

> EXPERT WITNESSES

> . The Situation: Mold defendants rely on medical-society position

papers

> that reject a link to serious ills, but papers were written by

scientists

> who often work for defense side in mold cases.

>

> . The Debate: Whether courts get accurate or skewed view of

possible health

> effects of indoor mold.

>

> . What's at Stake: Outcome of widespread litigation over mold.

> The paper's third author was Saxon, then chief of clinical

immunology

> and allergy at the medical school of the University of California,

Los

> Angeles. He, too, has served as a defense expert in numerous mold

suits. Dr.

> Saxon says he is paid $510 an hour for his help. If called to

testify in

> court, his rate rises to $720 an hour, according to a deposition he

gave.

> Until he retired from UCLA in September, money he earned as a legal-

defense

> expert was paid to the university, and he says UCLA then gave him a

little

> less than half of it. Dr. Saxon estimates he generates $250,000 to

$500,000

> a year from expert defense work, which includes non-mold cases.

> The ACOEM knew about mold defense work by the authors of its paper.

Dr.

> Hardin informed the society in a Sept. 23, 2002, document under his

> letterhead. Labeled " confidential " and " share only with the ACOEM

board of

> directors, " it told of his work as a defense expert on one mold

case.

> The letter said the other two authors, Drs. Saxon and Kelman, " have

been

> retained by both the defense and plaintiff bar in litigation

relating to

> indoor mold. " Both say they work mostly for the defense in mold

cases.

> Internal ACOEM documents indicate that as the paper was being

written in

> August 2002, there was concern within the society that the paper

was too

> friendly to defense interests. Its authors were asked to modify the

first

> draft's tone " because of the concern about possible

misinterpretation of

> 'buzz words' and phrases such as 'belief system,' 'adherents may

claim,'

> 'supposed hypersensitivity,' and 'alleged disorder,' " according to

a June

> 2002 email to Dr. Hardin from the society's communications

director. (The

> email was obtained by a plaintiff's attorney in a mold case,

Kahn.)

> Dr. Borak, the head of the society's council on scientific affairs,

> suggested sending a draft for review to one particular mold

authority,

> Hodgson, director of the occupational safety and health

program at

> the U.S. Veterans Health Administration. Dr. Hardin objected. He

said it

> would be " inappropriate to add ad hoc reviewers who are highly

visible

> advocates for a point of view the draft position paper analyzes and

finds

> lacking. " The draft ultimately wasn't sent.

> 'A Defense Argument'

> In September 2002, Dr. Borak emailed colleagues that " I am having

quite a

> challenge in finding an acceptable path for the proposed position

paper on

> mold. " He said several reviewers " find the current version, much

revised, to

> still be a defense argument. "

> The society released a paper two months later, and its authors, as

well as

> ACOEM officials, say it accurately reflects the science on indoor

mold

> exposure. The authors' " views, if prejudicial, were removed, " Dr.

Borak

> says. " It went through a dramatic change of top-heavy peer

reviews. " He says

> objections come mainly from " activist litigants " who find

it " annoying. "

> Drs. Hardin and Kelman say the paper has been controversial because

it

> challenged " a belief system " that mold can be toxic indoors. " A

belief

> system is built up and there is anger when the science doesn't

support that

> belief system, " Dr. Kelman says.

> The Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, paid Veritox

$40,000 to

> prepare a lay version of the paper. That version said " 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. " Its authors were the three writers of the longer

paper

> plus a fourth, who also is a principal at Veritox.

> Lawyers defending mold suits also cite a position paper from the

American

> Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. This paper says it

concurs with

> the ACOEM that it is highly unlikely enough mycotoxins could be

inhaled to

> lead to toxic health effects.

> Among the academy paper's five authors is Dr. Saxon. Another, Abba

Terr, a

> San Francisco immunologist, has worked as a defense expert in mold

cases.

> The academy published the paper in its Journal of Allergy and

Clinical

> Immunology last February, not citing the mold-defense work of

either man.

> The publication later ran a correction disclosing their litigation

work.

> The academy's president says officials were aware Dr. Saxon was an

expert

> witness. " We should have published their [disclosure] statements

with the

> paper, " says the official, Platts-Mills. He says the lapse

resulted

> from a variety of factors, including confusion about whose

responsibility

> the disclosure was.

> Unhappy Author

> A third author of the academy's paper, Jay Portnoy, chief of

allergy, asthma

> and immunology at the Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City,

Mo., says he

> " felt that there was an agenda " -the effort " seemed very biased

toward

> denying the possibility of there being harmful effects from mold on

human

> health. " He says he considered removing his name from the paper,

but it was

> published before he could decide.

> Dr. Portnoy says a section he contributed was rewritten by Dr.

Saxon to be

> " a lot more negative. " He says the paper wrongly says mold isn't

proven to

> cause allergic rhinitis, with symptoms like wheezing, sore throat

and

> sneezing. Dr. Saxon denies the authors had a bias but says they

applied a

> high standard for proving mold causes a particular effect. He says

he didn't

> skew the content of Dr. Portnoy's section but rewrote it because it

was " too

> diffuse. " Dr. Terr in San Francisco didn't return a call seeking

comment.

> In New York, the Frasers are appealing the refusal of the trial

judge, state

> Supreme Court Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich, to let their expert

testify

> that indoor mold caused their health complaints. The Frasers had

moved into

> the East Side Manhattan apartment in 1996. Their 2002 suit said

they

> repeatedly complained to the co-op's board of dampness and leaks as

their

> health deteriorated.

> Their appeal attacks the credibility of mold position papers

drafted by

> scientists who work for defendants. " What you have here is defense

experts

> authoring papers under an official guise, " says their attorney,

> Eilender. Justice Kornreich declined to comment.

> Write to Armstrong at david.armstrong@...

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jeanine,

I can't say about TV news, but this article has shown up in several

different papers throughout the country since it came out along with

many differnt websites and blogs.

> >

> > Hi Everyone,

> >

> > Here is the article from the Wall Street Journal Jan. 9, 2007

> > Cases (including mine) are being thrown out even before anyone,

> expert

> > witnesses for the plaintiffs included, are allowed to even

describe

> what

> > they have found!!

> > No scientific evidence supporting plaintiff's pleas are even

being

> allowed

> > admission.

> >

> > Stensrud

> >

> >

> > Court of Opinion

> > Amid Suits Over Mold,

> > Experts Wear Two Hats

> > Authors of Science Paper

> > Often Cited by Defense

> > Also Help in Litigation

> > By DAVID ARMSTRONG

> > January 9, 2007; Page A1

> > Soon after moving into a New York City apartment, Colin and

Pamela

> Fraser

> > say, they began to suffer headaches, rashes, respiratory

infections

> and

> > fatigue. They attributed it to mold.

> > But their lawsuit against the cooperative that owns the building

> hit a

> > roadblock when the court wouldn't let their medical expert

testify

> that mold

> > caused their problems. This is " unsupported by the scientific

> literature, "

> > the state trial judge said.

> > She relied in part on a position paper from the American College

of

> > Occupational and Environmental Medicine, or ACOEM. Citing a

> substance some

> > molds produce called mycotoxins, the paper said " scientific

> evidence does

> > not support the proposition that human health has been adversely

> affected by

> > inhaled mycotoxins in the home, school, or office environment. "

> > The paper has become a key defense tool wielded by builders,

> landlords and

> > insurers in litigation. It has also been used to assuage fears

of

> parents

> > following discovery of mold in schools. One point that rarely

> emerges in

> > these cases: The paper was written by people who regularly are

paid

> experts

> > for the defense side in mold litigation.

> > The ACOEM doesn't disclose this, nor did its paper. The

> professional society's

> > president, Tee Guidotti, says no disclosure is needed because

the

> paper

> > represents the consensus of its membership and is a statement

from

> the

> > society, not the individual authors.

> > The dual roles show how conflicts of interest can color debate

on

> emerging

> > health issues and influence litigation related to it. Mold has

been

> a

> > contentious matter since a Texas jury in 2001 awarded $32.1

million

> to a

> > family whose home was mold-infested. That award, later reduced,

and

> a couple

> > of mold suits filed by famous people like Ed McMahon and

> Brockovich

> > helped trigger a surge in mold litigation. Insurers and builders

> worried it

> > would become a liability disaster for them on the scale of

asbestos.

> > The number of suits hasn't been as big as anticipated. One

reason

> appears to

> > be the insurers' success in getting many states to exclude mold

> coverage

> > from homeowner's-insurance policies. But also helping turn the

> tide, lawyers

> > and doctors say, is the ACOEM report. Building groups and the

U.S.

> Chamber

> > of Commerce have cited it to rebut the notion that mold in the

home

> can be

> > toxic.

> > Craner, a Nevada doctor who has testified for scores of

> people who

> > claimed ill effects from mold, says the paper " has been used in

> every single

> > mold case. The lawyer asks, 'Isn't it true the American College

of

> > Occupational and Environmental Medicine concluded that there is

no

> > scientific evidence that mold causes any serious health

effects?' "

> > The result, Dr. Craner maintains, is that " a lot people with

> legitimate

> > environmental health problems are losing their homes and their

jobs

> because

> > of legal decisions based on this so-called 'evidence-based'

> statement. "

> > Dr. Craner says a majority of his work is on the plaintiff side

and

> he is

> > paid when he testifies, but he says he currently is an expert

for

> the

> > defense in a case where he concluded the plaintiffs' health

issues

> weren't

> > related to mold.

> > Two other medical societies have also published statements on

mold

> written,

> > in part, by legal-defense experts. The societies didn't disclose

> this when

> > they released the papers, although one later published a

correction

> saying

> > two authors served as expert witnesses in mold litigation.

> > READ MORE

> > . Read the full text of Dr. Borak's September 2002 email to the

> leaders of

> > the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

> about his

> > struggles in drafting their position paper on mold.

> >

> > . Read the official position statements of the American College

of

> > Occupational and Environmental Medicine and of the American

Academy

> of

> > Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, as posted on their Web sites.

> > Mold reproduces through tiny spores. These can float into homes

> through

> > windows and vent systems or be carried in on clothes or shoes.

> Indoors, mold

> > grows when moisture is present.

> > There's debate about how much this matters. Plaintiffs attribute

> ills

> > ranging from asthma to cognitive problems to inhalation of mold.

> The

> > Institute of Medicine, a largely federally funded nonprofit,

> reviewed the

> > research in 2004 and said " studies have demonstrated adverse

> > effects-including immunotoxic, neurologic, respiratory and

dermal

> > responses-after exposure to specific toxins, bacteria, molds or

> their

> > products. " But it added that the dose required to cause adverse

> health

> > effects hasn't been determined. The U.S. Centers for Disease

> Control and

> > Prevention, for its part, says on its Web site that mold can

cause

> wheezing

> > and eye or skin irritation, but a link to more serious

> conditions " has not

> > been proven. "

> > 'Highly Unlikely'

> > The ACOEM paper goes further. It says not only is there no

evidence

> indoor

> > mold causes serious health effects, but even if mold produced

toxic

> > substances, it's " highly unlikely at best " that anyone could

inhale

> enough

> > to cause a problem. The paper reaches this conclusion by

> extrapolating from

> > animal studies in which rodents' throats were injected with

molds.

> > The paper's authors say their conclusions are validated by the

> Institute of

> > Medicine's paper. But the author of the Institute paper's mold

> toxicity

> > chapter, Harriett Ammann, disagrees, and criticizes the ACOEM

> paper's

> > methodology: " They took hypothetical exposure and hypothetical

> toxicity and

> > jumped to the conclusion there is nothing there. "

> > Dr. Ammann, a recently retired toxicologist for Washington

state's

> health

> > department, recently helped the plaintiff side in a mold case.

She

> says this

> > was the only time she has done so for pay. In the Fraser lawsuit

in

> New

> > York, after the judge barred testimony that mold caused health

> problems, Dr.

> > Ammann, on her own and without pay, provided an affidavit filed

> with the

> > appellate court saying the judge misinterpreted the research.

> > The ACOEM, a society of more than 5,000 specialists who

investigate

> indoor

> > health hazards and treat patients with related illnesses, first

> moved to

> > develop a position paper on mold in early 2002. Dean Grove, then

> the medical

> > society's president, asked the head of its council on scientific

> affairs,

> > Yale medical professor Borak, to set the process in

motion.

> > He turned to a retired deputy director of the National Institute

> for

> > Occupational Safety and Health-part of the CDC-to spearhead the

> project. Dr.

> > Borak says he wanted someone with " no established background

record

> of

> > litigation related to mold. "

> > For the Defense

> > The person he chose, Hardin, says he hadn't worked on any

> mold lawsuit

> > at that point, though he was a consultant on other matters for

> GlobalTox

> > Inc., a firm that regularly worked for the defense in mold

cases.

> And Dr.

> > Hardin says he consulted for the defense in a mold case while he

> was helping

> > write the ACOEM paper.

> > In a Feb. 27, 2002, email, Dr. Borak told Dr. Hardin: " That

> position paper

> > would be prepared by you and your GlobalTox colleagues. " Dr.

Borak

> says he

> > believes he didn't know at the time that GlobalTox did mold

defense

> work.

> > A GlobalTox colleague who aided Dr. Hardin was Bruce Kelman, now

> president

> > of the firm, which recently changed its name to Veritox Inc.

Drs.

> Kelman and

> > Hardin, now principals at the firm and entitled to a share of

its

> profits,

> > were two of the ACOEM paper's three authors. They are paid $375

to

> $500 an

> > hour for work on mold cases, court records say.

> > EXPERT WITNESSES

> > . The Situation: Mold defendants rely on medical-society

position

> papers

> > that reject a link to serious ills, but papers were written by

> scientists

> > who often work for defense side in mold cases.

> >

> > . The Debate: Whether courts get accurate or skewed view of

> possible health

> > effects of indoor mold.

> >

> > . What's at Stake: Outcome of widespread litigation over mold.

> > The paper's third author was Saxon, then chief of

clinical

> immunology

> > and allergy at the medical school of the University of

California,

> Los

> > Angeles. He, too, has served as a defense expert in numerous

mold

> suits. Dr.

> > Saxon says he is paid $510 an hour for his help. If called to

> testify in

> > court, his rate rises to $720 an hour, according to a deposition

he

> gave.

> > Until he retired from UCLA in September, money he earned as a

legal-

> defense

> > expert was paid to the university, and he says UCLA then gave

him a

> little

> > less than half of it. Dr. Saxon estimates he generates $250,000

to

> $500,000

> > a year from expert defense work, which includes non-mold cases.

> > The ACOEM knew about mold defense work by the authors of its

paper.

> Dr.

> > Hardin informed the society in a Sept. 23, 2002, document under

his

> > letterhead. Labeled " confidential " and " share only with the

ACOEM

> board of

> > directors, " it told of his work as a defense expert on one mold

> case.

> > The letter said the other two authors, Drs. Saxon and

Kelman, " have

> been

> > retained by both the defense and plaintiff bar in litigation

> relating to

> > indoor mold. " Both say they work mostly for the defense in mold

> cases.

> > Internal ACOEM documents indicate that as the paper was being

> written in

> > August 2002, there was concern within the society that the paper

> was too

> > friendly to defense interests. Its authors were asked to modify

the

> first

> > draft's tone " because of the concern about possible

> misinterpretation of

> > 'buzz words' and phrases such as 'belief system,' 'adherents may

> claim,'

> > 'supposed hypersensitivity,' and 'alleged disorder,' " according

to

> a June

> > 2002 email to Dr. Hardin from the society's communications

> director. (The

> > email was obtained by a plaintiff's attorney in a mold case,

> Kahn.)

> > Dr. Borak, the head of the society's council on scientific

affairs,

> > suggested sending a draft for review to one particular mold

> authority,

> > Hodgson, director of the occupational safety and health

> program at

> > the U.S. Veterans Health Administration. Dr. Hardin objected. He

> said it

> > would be " inappropriate to add ad hoc reviewers who are highly

> visible

> > advocates for a point of view the draft position paper analyzes

and

> finds

> > lacking. " The draft ultimately wasn't sent.

> > 'A Defense Argument'

> > In September 2002, Dr. Borak emailed colleagues that " I am

having

> quite a

> > challenge in finding an acceptable path for the proposed

position

> paper on

> > mold. " He said several reviewers " find the current version, much

> revised, to

> > still be a defense argument. "

> > The society released a paper two months later, and its authors,

as

> well as

> > ACOEM officials, say it accurately reflects the science on

indoor

> mold

> > exposure. The authors' " views, if prejudicial, were removed, "

Dr.

> Borak

> > says. " It went through a dramatic change of top-heavy peer

> reviews. " He says

> > objections come mainly from " activist litigants " who find

> it " annoying. "

> > Drs. Hardin and Kelman say the paper has been controversial

because

> it

> > challenged " a belief system " that mold can be toxic indoors. " A

> belief

> > system is built up and there is anger when the science doesn't

> support that

> > belief system, " Dr. Kelman says.

> > The Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, paid Veritox

> $40,000 to

> > prepare a lay version of the paper. That version said " 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. " Its authors were the three writers of the

longer

> paper

> > plus a fourth, who also is a principal at Veritox.

> > Lawyers defending mold suits also cite a position paper from the

> American

> > Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. This paper says it

> concurs with

> > the ACOEM that it is highly unlikely enough mycotoxins could be

> inhaled to

> > lead to toxic health effects.

> > Among the academy paper's five authors is Dr. Saxon. Another,

Abba

> Terr, a

> > San Francisco immunologist, has worked as a defense expert in

mold

> cases.

> > The academy published the paper in its Journal of Allergy and

> Clinical

> > Immunology last February, not citing the mold-defense work of

> either man.

> > The publication later ran a correction disclosing their

litigation

> work.

> > The academy's president says officials were aware Dr. Saxon was

an

> expert

> > witness. " We should have published their [disclosure] statements

> with the

> > paper, " says the official, Platts-Mills. He says the

lapse

> resulted

> > from a variety of factors, including confusion about whose

> responsibility

> > the disclosure was.

> > Unhappy Author

> > A third author of the academy's paper, Jay Portnoy, chief of

> allergy, asthma

> > and immunology at the Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City,

> Mo., says he

> > " felt that there was an agenda " -the effort " seemed very biased

> toward

> > denying the possibility of there being harmful effects from mold

on

> human

> > health. " He says he considered removing his name from the paper,

> but it was

> > published before he could decide.

> > Dr. Portnoy says a section he contributed was rewritten by Dr.

> Saxon to be

> > " a lot more negative. " He says the paper wrongly says mold isn't

> proven to

> > cause allergic rhinitis, with symptoms like wheezing, sore

throat

> and

> > sneezing. Dr. Saxon denies the authors had a bias but says they

> applied a

> > high standard for proving mold causes a particular effect. He

says

> he didn't

> > skew the content of Dr. Portnoy's section but rewrote it because

it

> was " too

> > diffuse. " Dr. Terr in San Francisco didn't return a call seeking

> comment.

> > In New York, the Frasers are appealing the refusal of the trial

> judge, state

> > Supreme Court Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich, to let their

expert

> testify

> > that indoor mold caused their health complaints. The Frasers had

> moved into

> > the East Side Manhattan apartment in 1996. Their 2002 suit said

> they

> > repeatedly complained to the co-op's board of dampness and leaks

as

> their

> > health deteriorated.

> > Their appeal attacks the credibility of mold position papers

> drafted by

> > scientists who work for defendants. " What you have here is

defense

> experts

> > authoring papers under an official guise, " says their attorney,

>

> > Eilender. Justice Kornreich declined to comment.

> > Write to Armstrong at david.armstrong@

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

good, thats great.

> > >

> > > Hi Everyone,

> > >

> > > Here is the article from the Wall Street Journal Jan. 9, 2007

> > > Cases (including mine) are being thrown out even before anyone,

> > expert

> > > witnesses for the plaintiffs included, are allowed to even

> describe

> > what

> > > they have found!!

> > > No scientific evidence supporting plaintiff's pleas are even

> being

> > allowed

> > > admission.

> > >

> > > Stensrud

> > >

> > >

> > > Court of Opinion

> > > Amid Suits Over Mold,

> > > Experts Wear Two Hats

> > > Authors of Science Paper

> > > Often Cited by Defense

> > > Also Help in Litigation

> > > By DAVID ARMSTRONG

> > > January 9, 2007; Page A1

> > > Soon after moving into a New York City apartment, Colin and

> Pamela

> > Fraser

> > > say, they began to suffer headaches, rashes, respiratory

> infections

> > and

> > > fatigue. They attributed it to mold.

> > > But their lawsuit against the cooperative that owns the

building

> > hit a

> > > roadblock when the court wouldn't let their medical expert

> testify

> > that mold

> > > caused their problems. This is " unsupported by the scientific

> > literature, "

> > > the state trial judge said.

> > > She relied in part on a position paper from the American

College

> of

> > > Occupational and Environmental Medicine, or ACOEM. Citing a

> > substance some

> > > molds produce called mycotoxins, the paper said " scientific

> > evidence does

> > > not support the proposition that human health has been

adversely

> > affected by

> > > inhaled mycotoxins in the home, school, or office environment. "

> > > The paper has become a key defense tool wielded by builders,

> > landlords and

> > > insurers in litigation. It has also been used to assuage fears

> of

> > parents

> > > following discovery of mold in schools. One point that rarely

> > emerges in

> > > these cases: The paper was written by people who regularly are

> paid

> > experts

> > > for the defense side in mold litigation.

> > > The ACOEM doesn't disclose this, nor did its paper. The

> > professional society's

> > > president, Tee Guidotti, says no disclosure is needed because

> the

> > paper

> > > represents the consensus of its membership and is a statement

> from

> > the

> > > society, not the individual authors.

> > > The dual roles show how conflicts of interest can color debate

> on

> > emerging

> > > health issues and influence litigation related to it. Mold has

> been

> > a

> > > contentious matter since a Texas jury in 2001 awarded $32.1

> million

> > to a

> > > family whose home was mold-infested. That award, later reduced,

> and

> > a couple

> > > of mold suits filed by famous people like Ed McMahon and

> > Brockovich

> > > helped trigger a surge in mold litigation. Insurers and

builders

> > worried it

> > > would become a liability disaster for them on the scale of

> asbestos.

> > > The number of suits hasn't been as big as anticipated. One

> reason

> > appears to

> > > be the insurers' success in getting many states to exclude mold

> > coverage

> > > from homeowner's-insurance policies. But also helping turn the

> > tide, lawyers

> > > and doctors say, is the ACOEM report. Building groups and the

> U.S.

> > Chamber

> > > of Commerce have cited it to rebut the notion that mold in the

> home

> > can be

> > > toxic.

> > > Craner, a Nevada doctor who has testified for scores of

> > people who

> > > claimed ill effects from mold, says the paper " has been used in

> > every single

> > > mold case. The lawyer asks, 'Isn't it true the American College

> of

> > > Occupational and Environmental Medicine concluded that there is

> no

> > > scientific evidence that mold causes any serious health

> effects?' "

> > > The result, Dr. Craner maintains, is that " a lot people with

> > legitimate

> > > environmental health problems are losing their homes and their

> jobs

> > because

> > > of legal decisions based on this so-called 'evidence-based'

> > statement. "

> > > Dr. Craner says a majority of his work is on the plaintiff side

> and

> > he is

> > > paid when he testifies, but he says he currently is an expert

> for

> > the

> > > defense in a case where he concluded the plaintiffs' health

> issues

> > weren't

> > > related to mold.

> > > Two other medical societies have also published statements on

> mold

> > written,

> > > in part, by legal-defense experts. The societies didn't

disclose

> > this when

> > > they released the papers, although one later published a

> correction

> > saying

> > > two authors served as expert witnesses in mold litigation.

> > > READ MORE

> > > . Read the full text of Dr. Borak's September 2002 email to the

> > leaders of

> > > the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

> > about his

> > > struggles in drafting their position paper on mold.

> > >

> > > . Read the official position statements of the American College

> of

> > > Occupational and Environmental Medicine and of the American

> Academy

> > of

> > > Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, as posted on their Web sites.

> > > Mold reproduces through tiny spores. These can float into homes

> > through

> > > windows and vent systems or be carried in on clothes or shoes.

> > Indoors, mold

> > > grows when moisture is present.

> > > There's debate about how much this matters. Plaintiffs

attribute

> > ills

> > > ranging from asthma to cognitive problems to inhalation of

mold.

> > The

> > > Institute of Medicine, a largely federally funded nonprofit,

> > reviewed the

> > > research in 2004 and said " studies have demonstrated adverse

> > > effects-including immunotoxic, neurologic, respiratory and

> dermal

> > > responses-after exposure to specific toxins, bacteria, molds or

> > their

> > > products. " But it added that the dose required to cause adverse

> > health

> > > effects hasn't been determined. The U.S. Centers for Disease

> > Control and

> > > Prevention, for its part, says on its Web site that mold can

> cause

> > wheezing

> > > and eye or skin irritation, but a link to more serious

> > conditions " has not

> > > been proven. "

> > > 'Highly Unlikely'

> > > The ACOEM paper goes further. It says not only is there no

> evidence

> > indoor

> > > mold causes serious health effects, but even if mold produced

> toxic

> > > substances, it's " highly unlikely at best " that anyone could

> inhale

> > enough

> > > to cause a problem. The paper reaches this conclusion by

> > extrapolating from

> > > animal studies in which rodents' throats were injected with

> molds.

> > > The paper's authors say their conclusions are validated by the

> > Institute of

> > > Medicine's paper. But the author of the Institute paper's mold

> > toxicity

> > > chapter, Harriett Ammann, disagrees, and criticizes the ACOEM

> > paper's

> > > methodology: " They took hypothetical exposure and hypothetical

> > toxicity and

> > > jumped to the conclusion there is nothing there. "

> > > Dr. Ammann, a recently retired toxicologist for Washington

> state's

> > health

> > > department, recently helped the plaintiff side in a mold case.

> She

> > says this

> > > was the only time she has done so for pay. In the Fraser

lawsuit

> in

> > New

> > > York, after the judge barred testimony that mold caused health

> > problems, Dr.

> > > Ammann, on her own and without pay, provided an affidavit filed

> > with the

> > > appellate court saying the judge misinterpreted the research.

> > > The ACOEM, a society of more than 5,000 specialists who

> investigate

> > indoor

> > > health hazards and treat patients with related illnesses, first

> > moved to

> > > develop a position paper on mold in early 2002. Dean Grove,

then

> > the medical

> > > society's president, asked the head of its council on

scientific

> > affairs,

> > > Yale medical professor Borak, to set the process in

> motion.

> > > He turned to a retired deputy director of the National

Institute

> > for

> > > Occupational Safety and Health-part of the CDC-to spearhead the

> > project. Dr.

> > > Borak says he wanted someone with " no established background

> record

> > of

> > > litigation related to mold. "

> > > For the Defense

> > > The person he chose, Hardin, says he hadn't worked on any

> > mold lawsuit

> > > at that point, though he was a consultant on other matters for

> > GlobalTox

> > > Inc., a firm that regularly worked for the defense in mold

> cases.

> > And Dr.

> > > Hardin says he consulted for the defense in a mold case while

he

> > was helping

> > > write the ACOEM paper.

> > > In a Feb. 27, 2002, email, Dr. Borak told Dr. Hardin: " That

> > position paper

> > > would be prepared by you and your GlobalTox colleagues. " Dr.

> Borak

> > says he

> > > believes he didn't know at the time that GlobalTox did mold

> defense

> > work.

> > > A GlobalTox colleague who aided Dr. Hardin was Bruce Kelman,

now

> > president

> > > of the firm, which recently changed its name to Veritox Inc.

> Drs.

> > Kelman and

> > > Hardin, now principals at the firm and entitled to a share of

> its

> > profits,

> > > were two of the ACOEM paper's three authors. They are paid $375

> to

> > $500 an

> > > hour for work on mold cases, court records say.

> > > EXPERT WITNESSES

> > > . The Situation: Mold defendants rely on medical-society

> position

> > papers

> > > that reject a link to serious ills, but papers were written by

> > scientists

> > > who often work for defense side in mold cases.

> > >

> > > . The Debate: Whether courts get accurate or skewed view of

> > possible health

> > > effects of indoor mold.

> > >

> > > . What's at Stake: Outcome of widespread litigation over mold.

> > > The paper's third author was Saxon, then chief of

> clinical

> > immunology

> > > and allergy at the medical school of the University of

> California,

> > Los

> > > Angeles. He, too, has served as a defense expert in numerous

> mold

> > suits. Dr.

> > > Saxon says he is paid $510 an hour for his help. If called to

> > testify in

> > > court, his rate rises to $720 an hour, according to a

deposition

> he

> > gave.

> > > Until he retired from UCLA in September, money he earned as a

> legal-

> > defense

> > > expert was paid to the university, and he says UCLA then gave

> him a

> > little

> > > less than half of it. Dr. Saxon estimates he generates $250,000

> to

> > $500,000

> > > a year from expert defense work, which includes non-mold cases.

> > > The ACOEM knew about mold defense work by the authors of its

> paper.

> > Dr.

> > > Hardin informed the society in a Sept. 23, 2002, document under

> his

> > > letterhead. Labeled " confidential " and " share only with the

> ACOEM

> > board of

> > > directors, " it told of his work as a defense expert on one mold

> > case.

> > > The letter said the other two authors, Drs. Saxon and

> Kelman, " have

> > been

> > > retained by both the defense and plaintiff bar in litigation

> > relating to

> > > indoor mold. " Both say they work mostly for the defense in mold

> > cases.

> > > Internal ACOEM documents indicate that as the paper was being

> > written in

> > > August 2002, there was concern within the society that the

paper

> > was too

> > > friendly to defense interests. Its authors were asked to modify

> the

> > first

> > > draft's tone " because of the concern about possible

> > misinterpretation of

> > > 'buzz words' and phrases such as 'belief system,' 'adherents

may

> > claim,'

> > > 'supposed hypersensitivity,' and 'alleged disorder,' " according

> to

> > a June

> > > 2002 email to Dr. Hardin from the society's communications

> > director. (The

> > > email was obtained by a plaintiff's attorney in a mold case,

>

> > Kahn.)

> > > Dr. Borak, the head of the society's council on scientific

> affairs,

> > > suggested sending a draft for review to one particular mold

> > authority,

> > > Hodgson, director of the occupational safety and health

> > program at

> > > the U.S. Veterans Health Administration. Dr. Hardin objected.

He

> > said it

> > > would be " inappropriate to add ad hoc reviewers who are highly

> > visible

> > > advocates for a point of view the draft position paper analyzes

> and

> > finds

> > > lacking. " The draft ultimately wasn't sent.

> > > 'A Defense Argument'

> > > In September 2002, Dr. Borak emailed colleagues that " I am

> having

> > quite a

> > > challenge in finding an acceptable path for the proposed

> position

> > paper on

> > > mold. " He said several reviewers " find the current version,

much

> > revised, to

> > > still be a defense argument. "

> > > The society released a paper two months later, and its authors,

> as

> > well as

> > > ACOEM officials, say it accurately reflects the science on

> indoor

> > mold

> > > exposure. The authors' " views, if prejudicial, were removed, "

> Dr.

> > Borak

> > > says. " It went through a dramatic change of top-heavy peer

> > reviews. " He says

> > > objections come mainly from " activist litigants " who find

> > it " annoying. "

> > > Drs. Hardin and Kelman say the paper has been controversial

> because

> > it

> > > challenged " a belief system " that mold can be toxic indoors. " A

> > belief

> > > system is built up and there is anger when the science doesn't

> > support that

> > > belief system, " Dr. Kelman says.

> > > The Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, paid

Veritox

> > $40,000 to

> > > prepare a lay version of the paper. That version said " 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. " Its authors were the three writers of the

> longer

> > paper

> > > plus a fourth, who also is a principal at Veritox.

> > > Lawyers defending mold suits also cite a position paper from

the

> > American

> > > Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. This paper says it

> > concurs with

> > > the ACOEM that it is highly unlikely enough mycotoxins could be

> > inhaled to

> > > lead to toxic health effects.

> > > Among the academy paper's five authors is Dr. Saxon. Another,

> Abba

> > Terr, a

> > > San Francisco immunologist, has worked as a defense expert in

> mold

> > cases.

> > > The academy published the paper in its Journal of Allergy and

> > Clinical

> > > Immunology last February, not citing the mold-defense work of

> > either man.

> > > The publication later ran a correction disclosing their

> litigation

> > work.

> > > The academy's president says officials were aware Dr. Saxon was

> an

> > expert

> > > witness. " We should have published their [disclosure]

statements

> > with the

> > > paper, " says the official, Platts-Mills. He says the

> lapse

> > resulted

> > > from a variety of factors, including confusion about whose

> > responsibility

> > > the disclosure was.

> > > Unhappy Author

> > > A third author of the academy's paper, Jay Portnoy, chief of

> > allergy, asthma

> > > and immunology at the Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City,

> > Mo., says he

> > > " felt that there was an agenda " -the effort " seemed very biased

> > toward

> > > denying the possibility of there being harmful effects from

mold

> on

> > human

> > > health. " He says he considered removing his name from the

paper,

> > but it was

> > > published before he could decide.

> > > Dr. Portnoy says a section he contributed was rewritten by Dr.

> > Saxon to be

> > > " a lot more negative. " He says the paper wrongly says mold

isn't

> > proven to

> > > cause allergic rhinitis, with symptoms like wheezing, sore

> throat

> > and

> > > sneezing. Dr. Saxon denies the authors had a bias but says they

> > applied a

> > > high standard for proving mold causes a particular effect. He

> says

> > he didn't

> > > skew the content of Dr. Portnoy's section but rewrote it

because

> it

> > was " too

> > > diffuse. " Dr. Terr in San Francisco didn't return a call

seeking

> > comment.

> > > In New York, the Frasers are appealing the refusal of the trial

> > judge, state

> > > Supreme Court Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich, to let their

> expert

> > testify

> > > that indoor mold caused their health complaints. The Frasers

had

> > moved into

> > > the East Side Manhattan apartment in 1996. Their 2002 suit said

> > they

> > > repeatedly complained to the co-op's board of dampness and

leaks

> as

> > their

> > > health deteriorated.

> > > Their appeal attacks the credibility of mold position papers

> > drafted by

> > > scientists who work for defendants. " What you have here is

> defense

> > experts

> > > authoring papers under an official guise, " says their attorney,

> >

> > > Eilender. Justice Kornreich declined to comment.

> > > Write to Armstrong at david.armstrong@

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

All I can say is that I'm living(thankfully) proof that that decision is

asinine. Dr. Portnoy's comments are especially interesting. I guess the old

statement is true, " money talks, (facts) walk. I have been considering

mentioning a possible case involving a former co-worker. Why do you think

she is " former? " But I need some more facts first. Biff Byrum