Re: IMPORTANT - Advocacy Groups Call for Senate Investigation

[Guest guest]

The Congress.org writing is more detailed than the PRWeb.

http://capwiz.com/congressorg/sbx/f/?aid=9299721 & r=1

Please read and contact your Congressmen, Senators.

Just say that you want a Senate Investigation

Fax is best. . Attach the Congress.org alert to a short cover letter.

Thecanaries has one written.

BE BRIEF if you call. TOO CHATTY and we lose them.

Thanks,

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

Ditto to what Jeanine said and I'll save you the rest, you know how

I feel and probably many others on this group. All your hard work

and long hours shows, your accomplishments over the last year or

two. You didn't do this for yourself, you did it for all of us. I

can't thank you enough.

My deepest gratitude,

KC

--- In , " tigerpaw2c " <tigerpaw2c@...>

wrote:

>

> PRWeb

> http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/1/prweb500703.htm

>

> Toxic Mold -- Wall Street Journal Uncovers Medical Association's

> Alleged Conflicts of Interest -- Advocacy Groups Call for Senate

> Investigation

>

> Advocacy groups say they applied mathematical calculations to make

> the leap that human illness could not plausibly occur if one is

> exposed indoors. The leaders of ACOEM put their imprimatur on the

> statement. The insurance industry and its surrogates have since

> brandished it like the biblical jawbone of an ass. Advocacy Groups

> see this as an abuse of political clout and power that has harmed

US

> Citizens.

>

> Washington, DC (PRWEB) January 29, 2007 -- After years of working

> together to enlighten the public of the serious illnesses caused

by

> mold, advocacy groups are thankful to the Wall Street Journal for

> bringing the matter to greater light. Upon completing a six month

> investigation, veteran Wall Street Journal reporter,

> Armstrong, wrote of the leaders of the American College of

> Occupational and Environmental Medicine, ACOEM, permitting a

> litigation defense corporation, Veritox Inc (aka GlobalTox Inc) to

> author the association's policy paper regarding mold induced

> illnesses. The two Veritox authors were not prior members of the

> physician trade association. They are not physicians.

>

> Highly unlikely at best, even among the most vulnerable of

> subpopulations

> The Wall Street Journal article, Page One, January 9, 2007. " Amid

> Mold Suits, Experts Wear Two Hats " may be read at:

> online.wsj.com/article_print/SB116831654647871083.html -or-

> www.ciphi.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?

> p=6500 & sid=000cd0970ddb9be8716b84ba3baf8f9c

>

> The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

mold

> policy paper is at the heart of the contention over the Toxic Mold

> Issue. The paper claims to prove humans could not plausibly be

> exposed to enough mold toxins within a damp indoor environment to

> cause symptoms of ill health. " Highly unlikely at best, even among

> the most vulnerable of subpopulations " is what the non-physician

> authors wrote.

>

> As referenced by the WSJ, to make this key finding, the authors

> borrowed data from one rodent study in which mold was forced into

> the trachea of rats. They then applied calculations to make the

leap

> that human illness could not plausibly occur if one is exposed

> indoors. The leaders of ACOEM put their imprimatur on the

statement.

> The insurance industry and its surrogates have since brandished it

> like the biblical jawbone of an ass. The finding carries much

weight

> within the courts as it is portrayed to be the opinion of

thousands

> of environmental physicians.

>

> But the EPA and the Institute of Medicine, Damp Indoor Spaces

> Committee, have both identified the technique used by ACOEM to

make

> the key conclusion, as non-acceptable methodology for determining

> existence or absence of human illness from indoor mold toxin

> exposure. The finding represents an affront to anyone with

> rudimentary logic skills. It is a complete non sequitur, where the

> premise does not support the conclusion.

>

> Since the ACOEM mold paper's publication in November of 2002, it

has

> saved worker's compensation insurers, property insurers, general

> liability insurers and building stakeholders, hundreds and

hundreds

> of millions of dollars. Insurance industry surrogates - the paid

> witnesses - including some ACOEM members themselves - and the

> lawyers, have earned millions in fees. Of more importance, the

sick

> receive no medical treatment and no compensation for devastated

> lives and financial ruin.

>

> ACOEM is a medical trade association made up of approximately 7000

> physicians. The organization writes evidence based protocol for

the

> treatment of injured workers under the platform of Workers Comp

> Reform. Several of their evidence based conclusions are currently

> being used to determine what illnesses and injuries will and will

> not be treated and/or covered under workers compensation insurance

> guidelines.

>

> In California, under State Senate Bill 889, ACOEM evidence based

> guidelines are also known as Medical Treatment Utilization

> Schedules, MTUS, and are the law that physicians must follow when

> determining treatment for their patients. ACOEM affiliated

clinics,

> American Occupational and Environmental Clinics, are government

> funded through the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry

> and a branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

the

> National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health. (NIOSH).

>

> The article points out several members of ACOEM serve as experts

for

> the defense in mold litigation. They promote the legitimacy of the

> mold policy paper while billing as much as $700 per hour. The US

> Chamber of Commerce has promoted the document throughout industry

by

> trumpeting it as scientific proof that serious mold induced

> illnesses are merely a result of " trial lawyers " , " media reports "

> and " Junk Science " .

>

> When interviewed for the WSJ article, Dr. Borak, overseer

> of the mold policy peer review process, indicated he was unaware

the

> authors had conflicted interests. Yet, within the subpoenaed

> documents referenced within the WSJ article, was an email authored

> by him in Sept, 2002, Dr. Borak acknowledged he was aware the

paper

> would have " currency in other ways and other places " for the

> authors. The email also referenced concern that the ACOEM mold

paper

> was a " defense argument " that would be turned into " garbage " if

> rejected by the Board of Directors.

>

> Although reported to exist, the mold policy paper authors'

conflict

> disclosure statements were never made available to the members of

> ACOEM, even when requested. Within the subpoenaed emails

referenced

> within the WSJ article, was one written in 2003. An ACOEM member

> wrote, " Related to this topic, some weeks ago many of us on the

list

> were anticipating the conflict of interest statements from the

JOEM

> [Journal of ACOEM in regard to the authors of the 'Mold Statement'

> adopted by the ACOEM. It seems they got lost in the mail. This

> question arises if this is just an oversight, or if such a

> disclosure of conflicts is purposeful, as many of us who are

members

> of ACOEM who actually see patients with mold exposure were

excluded

> from the discussion. "

>

> Needless to say, consumer, worker, health and environmental

advocacy

> groups are calling for a senate investigation and will be on the

> Hill this week requesting the investigation.

>

> Sharon Kramer

> Mycotic Disease Awareness

> 760-822-8026

>

> ###

>

[Guest guest]

If anyone is interested in using the letter to congress Sharon mentioned, that

is already written, please send me an email so I can send it you as a Word doc.

If you need it pasted into an email, let me know. It's ready to go if you like

it, just add your congress person's name & contact info and send.

Please be sure to put ' - letter' or something similar in the

subject line to alert me because I get a lot of spam emails that are deleted

wholesale!

Sue

thecanaries@...