Guest guest Posted April 18, 2008 Report Share Posted April 18, 2008 There is good reason they would like me to be silenced. I am sure they would like to silence a few others, too. Hopefully, they are learning that bullying does not work. Below is a request to the Congressional Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Mulvey son and I flew to DC and hand delivered this request last fall. There are MANY large groups/organizations that are supporting us all. There are MANY groups/organizations who understand what you all have been suffering and why. We are being told that our time is coming very soon. Sometimes, I feel like I am playing a high stakes poker game, where I accidentally declared " I'm all in " . LOL Sharon September 27, 2007 The Hon. Henry A. Waxman Chair, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives 2157 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman Waxman: We are writing to call your attention to the widespread and ongoing promulgation of medical misinformation regarding the seriousness of mold induced illnesses. The misinformation is being promoted by private, yet federally funded medical associations and the government agencies with whom they partner. The Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NIOSH, ASTDR and OSHA have outsourced the study of mold induced illnesses to those private medical associations with close ties to insurance and other stakeholder industries. As a result the interests of industry have taken precedence over the lives and safety of the American public. A recent study by Berkeley Labs and the EPA confirms the large public health and economic impact of indoor dampness and mold. (attached) They estimate that the number of asthma cases alone that are attributable to mold exposure in homes is 4.6 million people at an annual cost of $3.5 billion. These numbers do not reflect even more serious non-respiratory illness brought on by the toxins produced by molds. Nor do the numbers reflect the systemic infections that are affecting countless school children, office workers, residents and those already susceptible and hospitalized for other illnesses. Strong evidence indicates that since the early 2000’s it has been governmental policy to ignore the severity of these illnesses while simultaneously redesigning the buildings and construction materials responsible for the increase in serious mold induced illnesses. At the Surgeon General’s Workshop on Indoor Air Quality, January 2005, it was determined the cycle to correct the sick building would take approximately 20 years. It was also determined that the focus would be on curing the sick buildings and not the sick people. (attached) Through government agencies and government funding outsourced to conflicted medical associations, physicians are being providedmisinformation downplaying the severity of illness while the building clean up runs its cycle. The public is not being warned of the dangers. In January of 2007, the Wall Street Journal ran a front-page article (attached) that was headlined: “Court of Opinion: Amid Suits Over Mold, Experts Wear Two Hats.†The result of a six-month investigation, the article outlined how the private medical association, American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, (ACOEM) played a significant role in denying the severity of mold induced illnesses. As occupational physicians, some ACOEM members are employed by large corporations to evaluate injured workers on behalf of insurers and employers. Others are employed by risk management corporations. The inherent conflict of interest – an organization charged with setting national protocol to improve occupational and environmental health care while many of their members work for employers who may have a financial stake in limiting care and denying the causation of environmental illness – was detailed by in The Wall Street Journal article. In 2002, a physician and a PhD who frequently testify in mold lawsuits as expert witnesses for the defense were specifically brought into ACOEM to author the organization’s position statement on mold. The third author brought in, Hardin, PhD, had recently retired as Deputy Director of NIOSH, Assistant Surgeon General. He was starting a second career representing employers and insurers in mold litigation. None were prior members of ACOEM nor did they have expertise in mycotoxin research. Dr. Hardin’s membership was provided gratis. Contrary to symptoms continually being reported across the United States, the resulting position statement by the three authors ignores the evidence of symptoms indicative of poisoning (toxicity) to conclude it is “highly unlikely at best even in the most vulnerable of subpopulations†that people experience these symptoms from exposure to microbial contaminants found within water damaged buildings. To form this conclusion, the authors made their own calculations from second-hand data based on a single rodent study. The calculations and their conclusion have never been duplicated. No peer-reviewed papers, including those referenced in the ACOEM mold statement, share their conclusion. The Wall Street Journal quoted Dr. Harriet Ammann, Senior Toxicologist for the Washington State Department of Health as saying “They [the ACOEM authors] took hypothetical exposure and hypothetical toxicity and jumped to the conclusion there is nothing there. " With the imprimatur of ACOEM, this unsupported dismissal of mold-induced illness has been used extensively and authoritatively in mold litigation throughout the nation to deny financial liability for insurers,employers and others when illness brought on by exposures to moldy buildings occur. It has also caused the physicians of America to wrongfully perceive that mold does not cause serious illness. In 2003, a corporation of which two ACOEM mold authors are principals, was then paid $40,000 by the conservative think-tank, Manhattan Institute, to convert the position statement into what they refer to as a “lay translationâ€. The edited version of the ACOEM Mold Statement was then shared through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce with stakeholder industries – real estate, mortgage, building and insurance. The bottom line of the “lay translationâ€: “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.†Merely one example of the influence the ACOEM mold statement has had on government understanding of mold induced illnesses is the 2006 handbook of the Occupational Health & Safety Administration: “Preventing Mold-Related Problems In The Indoor Workplace – A Guide For Building Owners, Managers and Occupants.†The OSHA handbook ignores the findings of thousands of peer-reviewed papers, including findings of the NIH Institute of Medicine, but cites the ACOEM mold statement three times. It also cites an additional paper by principals of the corporation that authored the ACOEM mold statement three times. Another co-author of those papers is an ACOEM member and prolific defense witness in mold litigation. (This ACOEM member was the subject of an NBC Dateline investigation into claims denials by State Farm Insurance, titled The Paper Chase. Attached) The OSHA handbook reinforces the ACOEM line, saying: “Mycotoxins [molds] have not been shown to cause health problems for occupants at concentrations usually seen in residential or commercial buildings.†Although much is yet to be understood about the mechanisms of mold-induced illness, to promote the concept that is has been scientifically established that toxins found within water damaged buildings do not cause health problems is simply untrue, and echoes the position taken by many ACOEM members when testifying as defense expert witnesses. An illustration of how the misinformation has been dispersed to the medical community with the assistance of government funding is the Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics (AOEC). AOEC is a nonprofit occupational physician organization affiliated with ACOEM. The two associations’ leadership are virtually interchangeable. Some members hold key positions within the National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATDSR). According to its website, _www.aoec.org_ (http://www.aoec.org) , AOEC is a non-profit organization with several of its clinics focusing on environmental illnesses. AOEC receives significant financial support through multi-year cooperative agreements with the ATDSR and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Under these agreements, AOEC is charged with developing curriculum materials for occupational and environmental health education and providing continuing education programs for primary care practitioners and others. The federal funding is to be used to aid in identifying, reporting and preventing occupational and environmental health hazards and to provide a means for occupational/environmental health clinics to share information that will better enable them to diagnose and treat occupational/environmental diseases. With regard to mold induced illnesses, AOEC preaches the teachings of its sister organization, ACOEM, when mis-educating the physicians of America. ACOEM and AOEC have clearly misused government funding to promote false science that harms Americans to the financial benefit of stakeholder industries. Through the federally funded capacity to influence occupational health care, they have allowed employers – corporations who are a source of income to the organizations’ members – to gain undue and improper influence over public and private policy with regard to mold induced illnesses. In addition, AOEC controls the funding for Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units (PEHSU) that are located at various teaching hospitals and clinics across the nation. PEHSU has been charged with advancing the understanding of environmental illness in children. This means much control in advancing the understanding of environmental illness for all US citizens has been placed in the hands of the inherently conflicted medical practice of occupational medicine. Given the organizational biases of ACOEM and AOEC, their close affiliations with industry, their close affiliations with government agencies, the funding and contracts outsourced from these government agencies; and most importantly, given their influence over the practice of environmental medicine nationwide, it is appropriate that Congress exercise oversight. We therefore request that as Chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, you conduct an investigation into the genesis, usage, proliferation and ramifications of the ACOEM mold statement. Thank you for your leadership in assuring that the scientific integrity of our nation’s health and environmental agencies remains uncompromised, and thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Mrs. Sharon Noonan Kramer Ms. Mulvey son **************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.