Re: [Flood Relief Aid List] ACOEM Statement on Adverse HumanHealth Effects As...

[Guest guest]

Dr. Guidotti,

With all due respect you have not " explained it at length " . The ACOEM mold

statement is NOT consistent with other medical papers on the matter, including

the Institute of Medicine, Damp Indoor Spaces and Health Report (IOM

Report).

If there is nothing to this, then why did the story make front page news of

the Wall Street Journal? The answer is because the reporter diligently

researched the story for over six months. The Wall Street Journal article is

exactly correct in it's reporting of the questionable genesis of the ACOEM Mold

Statement. ACOEM knowingly promoted a litigation defense argument for the

financial benefit of some and at the expense of the sick.

The ACOEM makes a key finding that is not based upon any accepted scientific

methodology. The method used by ACOEM to make this key finding is

specifically pointed out within the IOM Report as not accepted scientific

methodology.

No other paper before or after the ACOEM mold statement professes to be able

to establish that humans could not be exposed to enough mycotoxins within a

damp indoor environment to elicit symptoms of ill health. Only ACOEM and

other papers that cite ACOEM support this unscientifically established finding.

Can you tell me which of the 83 references for this purported review piece

make the finding of implausibility of human illness from indoor mycotoxin

exposure " even in the most vulnerable of subpopulations? " .

No you cannot. None of the 83 references listed support this finding.

Can you name any scientific research paper that supports the following

calculations within the ACOEM Mold Statement?

" Airborne S. chartarum spore concentrations that would deliver a comparable

dose of spores can be estimated by assuming that all inhaled spores are

retained and using standard default values for human subpopulations of

particular

interest78 – very small infants,† school-age children,†† and

adults.†††

The no-effect dose in rats (3 x 106 spores/kg) corresponds to continuous

24-hour exposure to 2.1 x 106 spores/m3 for infants, 6.6 x 106 spores/m3 for a

school-age child, or 15.3 x 106 spores/m3 for an adult. "

No. You cannot. There are none.

It is not now, nor has ever been accepted science to extrapolate from high

dose, acute rodent data and directly correlate to indicate human mycotoxin

exposure. NO ONE but the ACOEM has professed to be able to accomplish this

feat of mathematical magic.

Isn't it true that Dr. Hardin and Dr. Kelman, who the ACOEM specifically

brought into the organization to author the mold statement, simply applied math

calculations to the data from one rodent study to make the above calculations

and subsequent finding of the implausibility of human illness from the

matter?

While other papers indicate more research is need and that not all is known,

the ACOEM Mold Statement professes to prove a negative...that serious

illness from mold/mycotoxin exposure is not plausible. (Or according to the

authors

when on the witness stand, " could not be " ). The body of evidence is growing

daily that humans are experiencing serious illness from indoor mold/mycotoxin

exposure. It is a non-sequitur conclusion, not founded upon science, yet

used extensively within the courtroom to deny financial liability for

stakeholders of moldie buildings.

When shared with commerce, the authors of the ACOEM mold statement say it

translates in lay terminology to mean, " “Thus the notion that ‘toxic

mold’ is

an insidious secret ‘killer’ as so many media reports and trial lawyers

would claim is ‘Junk Science’ unsupported by actual scientific study.â€

Is this really a statement the members of ACOEM may be proud of?

The amount of devastation through the known misinfomation, being promoted as

science, by an esteemed medical association such as ACOEM has caused

immeasurable misery to the lives of many. Not only are the sick unable to

obtain

viable medical treatment because their physicians are being misinformed; but

many of these people should not have become sick in the first place. Your

misinformation is causing the unaware to be unnecessarily exposed to a

substance

that can indeed cause serious illness. Your misinformation then allows them

to become sicker because it keeps their physicians ignorant as to what to do

when faced with a mold patient.

But the point of the paper was to keep the physicians uninformed. It is more

difficult for the sick to prove their illnesses, should they find themselves

in litigation with a stakeholder of a moldie building. It is an old trick

right out of the Big Tobacco science manual.

And you, Dr. Guidotti, are correct when you write, " The primary issue, in

fact, is the validity of the statement " . That is the primary issue and it is

not a valid scientific paper.

What ever happened to " Physician, first do no harm " ?

My apologies for the directness of this email. I do not know how else to say

it. ACOEM is exposed on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, and

still you attempt to profess innocence.

..

online.wsj.com/article/SB116831654647871083.html?mod=hpp_us_pageone

Sincerely,

Sharon Kramer

Very simple, as we have explained repeatedly and at length.

First, there was one lead author who was given the assignment (the task

was initiated by ACOEM, not the author) and responsibility for putting

together the draft and that person did not have a conflict of interest.

Second, the statement is not the opinion of one person, which is what is

implied when there is a disclosure; it went through a rigorous process

of review and many constructive modifications before the final

statement.

The primary issue, in fact, is the validity of the statement. Going

round and round on this will not change the weight of evidence, which

does not favor the " toxic mold " hypothesis.

Tee L. Guidotti

President, ACOEM

[Guest guest]

Sharon great work, these people have caused such pain and suffering.

I would not want to be them because the truth will not change, and

the people that have done harm will be punished in the end.

>

>

>

> Dr. Guidotti,

>

> With all due respect you have not " explained it at length " . The

ACOEM mold

> statement is NOT consistent with other medical papers on the

matter, including

> the Institute of Medicine, Damp Indoor Spaces and Health Report

(IOM

> Report).

>

> If there is nothing to this, then why did the story make front page

news of

> the Wall Street Journal? The answer is because the reporter

diligently

> researched the story for over six months. The Wall Street Journal

article is

> exactly correct in it's reporting of the questionable genesis of

the ACOEM Mold

> Statement. ACOEM knowingly promoted a litigation defense argument

for the

> financial benefit of some and at the expense of the sick.

>

> The ACOEM makes a key finding that is not based upon any accepted

scientific

> methodology. The method used by ACOEM to make this key finding is

> specifically pointed out within the IOM Report as not accepted

scientific methodology.

>

> No other paper before or after the ACOEM mold statement professes

to be able

> to establish that humans could not be exposed to enough mycotoxins

within a

> damp indoor environment to elicit symptoms of ill health. Only

ACOEM and

> other papers that cite ACOEM support this unscientifically

established finding.

>

> Can you tell me which of the 83 references for this purported

review piece

> make the finding of implausibility of human illness from indoor

mycotoxin

> exposure " even in the most vulnerable of subpopulations? " .

>

> No you cannot. None of the 83 references listed support this

finding.

>

> Can you name any scientific research paper that supports the

following

> calculations within the ACOEM Mold Statement?

>

> " Airborne S. chartarum spore concentrations that would deliver a

comparable

> dose of spores can be estimated by assuming that all inhaled

spores are

> retained and using standard default values for human subpopulations

of particular

> interest78 †" very small infants,† school-age children,††

and adults.†††

> The no-effect dose in rats (3 x 106 spores/kg) corresponds to

continuous

> 24-hour exposure to 2.1 x 106 spores/m3 for infants, 6.6 x 106

spores/m3 for a

> school-age child, or 15.3 x 106 spores/m3 for an adult. "

>

> No. You cannot. There are none.

>

> It is not now, nor has ever been accepted science to extrapolate

from high

> dose, acute rodent data and directly correlate to indicate human

mycotoxin

> exposure. NO ONE but the ACOEM has professed to be able to

accomplish this

> feat of mathematical magic.

>

> Isn't it true that Dr. Hardin and Dr. Kelman, who the ACOEM

specifically

> brought into the organization to author the mold statement, simply

applied math

> calculations to the data from one rodent study to make the above

calculations

> and subsequent finding of the implausibility of human illness from

the

> matter?

>

> While other papers indicate more research is need and that not all

is known,

> the ACOEM Mold Statement professes to prove a negative...that

serious

> illness from mold/mycotoxin exposure is not plausible. (Or

according to the authors

> when on the witness stand, " could not be " ). The body of evidence

is growing

> daily that humans are experiencing serious illness from indoor

mold/mycotoxin

> exposure. It is a non-sequitur conclusion, not founded upon

science, yet

> used extensively within the courtroom to deny financial liability

for

> stakeholders of moldie buildings.

>

> When shared with commerce, the authors of the ACOEM mold statement

say it

> translates in lay terminology to mean, " “Thus the notion that

‘toxic mold’ is

> an insidious secret ‘killer’ as so many media reports and

trial lawyers

> would claim is ‘Junk Science’ unsupported by actual

scientific study.â€

>

> Is this really a statement the members of ACOEM may be proud of?

>

> The amount of devastation through the known misinfomation, being

promoted as

> science, by an esteemed medical association such as ACOEM has caused

> immeasurable misery to the lives of many. Not only are the sick

unable to obtain

> viable medical treatment because their physicians are being

misinformed; but

> many of these people should not have become sick in the first

place. Your

> misinformation is causing the unaware to be unnecessarily exposed

to a substance

> that can indeed cause serious illness. Your misinformation then

allows them

> to become sicker because it keeps their physicians ignorant as to

what to do

> when faced with a mold patient.

>

> But the point of the paper was to keep the physicians uninformed.

It is more

> difficult for the sick to prove their illnesses, should they find

themselves

> in litigation with a stakeholder of a moldie building. It is an

old trick

> right out of the Big Tobacco science manual.

>

> And you, Dr. Guidotti, are correct when you write, " The primary

issue, in

> fact, is the validity of the statement " . That is the primary issue

and it is

> not a valid scientific paper.

>

> What ever happened to " Physician, first do no harm " ?

>

> My apologies for the directness of this email. I do not know how

else to say

> it. ACOEM is exposed on the front page of the Wall Street

Journal, and

> still you attempt to profess innocence.

> .

> online.wsj.com/article/SB116831654647871083.html?mod=hpp_us_pageone

>

> Sincerely,

> Sharon Kramer

>

>

>

>

>

> Very simple, as we have explained repeatedly and at length.

>

> First, there was one lead author who was given the assignment (the

task

> was initiated by ACOEM, not the author) and responsibility for

putting

> together the draft and that person did not have a conflict of

interest.

> Second, the statement is not the opinion of one person, which is

what is

> implied when there is a disclosure; it went through a rigorous

process

> of review and many constructive modifications before the final

> statement.

>

> The primary issue, in fact, is the validity of the statement. Going

> round and round on this will not change the weight of evidence,

which

> does not favor the " toxic mold " hypothesis.

>

> Tee L. Guidotti

> President, ACOEM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sharon, dido. Fabulous letter that you had written to Dr. Guidotti. They must

know how it truly is, and I thank you for standing up to these guys. Darlene

ldelp84227 <ldelp84227@...> wrote: Sharon

great work, these people have caused such pain and suffering.

I would not want to be them because the truth will not change, and

the people that have done harm will be punished in the end.

>

>

>

> Dr. Guidotti,

>

> With all due respect you have not " explained it at length " . The

ACOEM mold

> statement is NOT consistent with other medical papers on the

matter, including

> the Institute of Medicine, Damp Indoor Spaces and Health Report

(IOM

> Report).

>

> If there is nothing to this, then why did the story make front page

news of

> the Wall Street Journal? The answer is because the reporter

diligently

> researched the story for over six months. The Wall Street Journal

article is

> exactly correct in it's reporting of the questionable genesis of

the ACOEM Mold

> Statement. ACOEM knowingly promoted a litigation defense argument

for the

> financial benefit of some and at the expense of the sick.

>

> The ACOEM makes a key finding that is not based upon any accepted

scientific

> methodology. The method used by ACOEM to make this key finding is

> specifically pointed out within the IOM Report as not accepted

scientific methodology.

>

> No other paper before or after the ACOEM mold statement professes

to be able

> to establish that humans could not be exposed to enough mycotoxins

within a

> damp indoor environment to elicit symptoms of ill health. Only

ACOEM and

> other papers that cite ACOEM support this unscientifically

established finding.

>

> Can you tell me which of the 83 references for this purported

review piece

> make the finding of implausibility of human illness from indoor

mycotoxin

> exposure " even in the most vulnerable of subpopulations? " .

>

> No you cannot. None of the 83 references listed support this

finding.

>

> Can you name any scientific research paper that supports the

following

> calculations within the ACOEM Mold Statement?

>

> " Airborne S. chartarum spore concentrations that would deliver a

comparable

> dose of spores can be estimated by assuming that all inhaled

spores are

> retained and using standard default values for human subpopulations

of particular

> interest78 †" very small infants,†school-age children,†â€

and adults.††â€

> The no-effect dose in rats (3 x 106 spores/kg) corresponds to

continuous

> 24-hour exposure to 2.1 x 106 spores/m3 for infants, 6.6 x 106

spores/m3 for a

> school-age child, or 15.3 x 106 spores/m3 for an adult. "

>

> No. You cannot. There are none.

>

> It is not now, nor has ever been accepted science to extrapolate

from high

> dose, acute rodent data and directly correlate to indicate human

mycotoxin

> exposure. NO ONE but the ACOEM has professed to be able to

accomplish this

> feat of mathematical magic.

>

> Isn't it true that Dr. Hardin and Dr. Kelman, who the ACOEM

specifically

> brought into the organization to author the mold statement, simply

applied math

> calculations to the data from one rodent study to make the above

calculations

> and subsequent finding of the implausibility of human illness from

the

> matter?

>

> While other papers indicate more research is need and that not all

is known,

> the ACOEM Mold Statement professes to prove a negative...that

serious

> illness from mold/mycotoxin exposure is not plausible. (Or

according to the authors

> when on the witness stand, " could not be " ). The body of evidence

is growing

> daily that humans are experiencing serious illness from indoor

mold/mycotoxin

> exposure. It is a non-sequitur conclusion, not founded upon

science, yet

> used extensively within the courtroom to deny financial liability

for

> stakeholders of moldie buildings.

>

> When shared with commerce, the authors of the ACOEM mold statement

say it

> translates in lay terminology to mean, " “Thus the notion that

‘toxic mold’ is

> an insidious secret ‘killer’ as so many media reports and

trial lawyers

> would claim is ‘Junk Science’ unsupported by actual

scientific study.â€

>

> Is this really a statement the members of ACOEM may be proud of?

>

> The amount of devastation through the known misinfomation, being

promoted as

> science, by an esteemed medical association such as ACOEM has caused

> immeasurable misery to the lives of many. Not only are the sick

unable to obtain

> viable medical treatment because their physicians are being

misinformed; but

> many of these people should not have become sick in the first

place. Your

> misinformation is causing the unaware to be unnecessarily exposed

to a substance

> that can indeed cause serious illness. Your misinformation then

allows them

> to become sicker because it keeps their physicians ignorant as to

what to do

> when faced with a mold patient.

>

> But the point of the paper was to keep the physicians uninformed.

It is more

> difficult for the sick to prove their illnesses, should they find

themselves

> in litigation with a stakeholder of a moldie building. It is an

old trick

> right out of the Big Tobacco science manual.

>

> And you, Dr. Guidotti, are correct when you write, " The primary

issue, in

> fact, is the validity of the statement " . That is the primary issue

and it is

> not a valid scientific paper.

>

> What ever happened to " Physician, first do no harm " ?

>

> My apologies for the directness of this email. I do not know how

else to say

> it. ACOEM is exposed on the front page of the Wall Street

Journal, and

> still you attempt to profess innocence.

> .

> online.wsj.com/article/SB116831654647871083.html?mod=hpp_us_pageone

>

> Sincerely,

> Sharon Kramer

>

>

>

>

>

> Very simple, as we have explained repeatedly and at length.

>

> First, there was one lead author who was given the assignment (the

task

> was initiated by ACOEM, not the author) and responsibility for

putting

> together the draft and that person did not have a conflict of

interest.

> Second, the statement is not the opinion of one person, which is

what is

> implied when there is a disclosure; it went through a rigorous

process

> of review and many constructive modifications before the final

> statement.

>

> The primary issue, in fact, is the validity of the statement. Going

> round and round on this will not change the weight of evidence,

which

> does not favor the " toxic mold " hypothesis.

>

> Tee L. Guidotti

> President, ACOEM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sharon: Good for you. we appreciate all you are doing to help the

truth be known. The intimidation tactics won't work anymore - they

are going to come down and you are so much a part of that. your

dedication and determination is to be admired. We love ya' iris &

tlee

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Answers. Try it

now.

>

>