THE BIG LIE ABOUT MOLD POISONING ACOEM

[Guest guest]

, Ginny, and All,

Thanks for bringing it to attention just how important and supportive the

Boston City Council has been of our efforts to move the mold issue forward. We

need more city councils that act as they have. With regard to the American

College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) and why Dr.

Johanning would take the time to present a power point on the matter, I think

it is

important that our new members understand that THIS is where the heart of the

deceit lays that keeps the physicians of America misinformed. THIS is why

they not only do not know how to treat your illnesses, but do treat you with

great distain for claiming mold has injured you.

Prior to the year 2000, the doctors understood that they did not know

everything about the matter...but they were learning. But in the year 2000,

the

defense in mold litigation began to systematically orchestrate the marketing to

the medical community that serious mold illnesses are not plausible. In

2002, ACOEM cinched the deal by falsely claiming they were able to

scientifically determine your illness is not plausible to be caused by the

microbial

poisons found in water damaged buildings.

I think it is important that the members of understand this:

While it is perfectly acceptable science to say we don't

know everything about these illnesses, it is a BIG LIE to

say it is scientifically established these illnesses are

not plausible to occur from exposure to microbial toxins

found in water damaged buildings.

So how did a BIG LIE become public policy that has kept the

doctors misinformed in an effort to save proximate causers

from financial liability?

In 2002, the American College of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) specifically brought into

their organization, an newly retired Assistant Surgeon

General of the CDC's National Institute of Occupational

Safety and Health (NIOSH) to write their mold position

statement. He had NO RESEARCH BACKGROUND in mold toxicity,

but had years of experience at setting public policy. He

brought in his business associate toxicologist and an

immunologist from UCLA. Both of these men had already been

generating income as expert defense witnesses in mold

litigation.

By using ONLY toxicologic study that examine a single

cellular model to falsely set a threshold level of

purported unatainable levels for an indoor environment,

they concluded a single type of inhaled mycotoxin within a

WDB could never reach a level to cause illness. This

conclusion was made while ignoring the amount of time

people are exposed, ignoring there is more than one

mycotoxin being inhaled, touched and digested and ignoring

there are numerous types of microbial toxins - not just

myco - found in WDB's. So, among other aspects

scientifically incorrect, they intentionally used limited

data to form a conclusion of implausibility for aspects not

even addressed.

They then took an acute exposure, mold study of rodents,

supposed how much of this single type of mycotoxin a mold

spore could have, and corrolated it out to a hypothetical

human exposure. They did this while ignoring that there

are multiple toxins - not just myco - that people are

exposed to in water damaged buildings, ignoring that molds

can produce more than one mycotoxin at a time, ignoring

time consideration and chronic low dose exposures. And last

but not least, completely ignoring a founding principle in

the study of toxicology:

While rodent study can be helpful in understanding human illness,

RODENTS ARE NOT HUMANS.

TOXICOLOGIC STUDIES THAT EXAMINE ANIMAL AND CELLULAR MODELS

CANNOT BE USED BY THEMSELVES TO DETERMINE HUMAN HEALTH.

Never the less, using only a flawed and myopic hypothesis,

based solely on toxicologic " study " , the authors of the

ACOEM Mold Statement concluded:

" Levels of exposure in the indoor environment, dose-

response data in animals, and dose-rate considerations

suggest that delivery by the inhalation route of a toxic

dose of mycotoxins in the indoor environment is highly

unlikely at best, even for the hypothetically most

vulnerable subpopulations. "

In reality, the calculations of the ACOEM Mold Statement

authors scientifically conclude NOTHING as it relates to

the plausibility of human poisoning from the various

poisons found in water damaged buildings. It is pure smoke

and mirrors.

From there, ACOEM accepted it as their " scientific "

position on the matter portraying it to be the

understanding of thousands of knowledgeable physicians.

Hard to believe this could occur. Even the overseer of the

peer review process is a toxicologist, who had several

complaints from member of ACOEM about the unscientific BIG

LIE. So what. They were not interested in science. They

were interested in serving their industry masters and to

aid them by stopping the financial liability for mold

induced illnesses.

After that, the US Chamber of Commerce spun the BIG LIE

even further in their mold statement done by the same ACOEM

authors to conclude, “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.†They then used both of these

documents together to " lobby " against the sick and

to " educate judges " . (Those are not my words as to the

intended purpose of the Chamber paper. They are the under

oath words of the ACOEM authors.)

The false science has made it's way into public policy thru

various government documents at OSHA, CDC, NIOSH, EPA, etc.

Some of the physicians of the Association of Occupational

and Environmental Clinics (AOEC) use the ACOEM false

concept of " not plausible..inhaled mycotoxin " BIG LIE to

educate physicians while giving CME credits. They also use

the Lees Haley Fake Bad Scale, which is skewed toward

a finding of malingering. So it is a two prong process.

ACOEM = not plausible. Lees Haley = malingering. Voila!

Claim of illness and resultant liability denied.

And....they are doing this with our tax dollars. AOEC is

partially government funded. It's racketeering based on

false science and while using our own tax dollars against

us.

They will try to tell you that their teachings are

consistant with the Institute of Medicine, Damp Indoor

Spaces Committee. But this is another BIG LIE. What they

are teaching with our tax dollars is the EXACT OPPOSITE of

what the IOM Committee stated with regard to scientifically

establishing plausibility or not of human poisoning from

the microbial poisons found in WDB's.

IOM Committee:

IOM Executive Summary:

“Toxicologic studies, which examine such responses using

animal and cellular models, cannot be used by themselves to

draw conclusions about human health effects.â€

IOM Chapter 4 Mycotoxins

Summary:

“Except for a few studies on cancer, toxicologic studies of

mycotoxins are acute or short-term studies that use high

exposure concentrations to reveal immediate effects in

small populations of animals. Chronic studies that use

lower exposure concentrations and approximate human

exposure more closely have not been done except for a small

number of cancer studies.â€

IOM Chapter 4 Mycotoxins

Summary

Considerations in Evaluation of Evidence

“Most of the information reviewed in this chapter is

derived from studies in vitro(that is studies in an

artificial environment, such as a test tube or a culture

medium) or animal studies. In vitro studies, as explained

below, are not suitable for human risk assessment. Risk can

be extrapolated from animal studies to human health effects

only if chronic animal exposures have produced sufficient

information to establish no-observed-adverse-effect levels

(NOAELs) and lowest-observed-adverse-effect levels

(LOAELs). Extrapolation of risk exposure from animal

experiments must always take into account species

differences between animals and humans, sensitivities of

vulnerable human populations, and gaps in animal data.â€

And this BIG LIE on the part of ACOEM et.al is why those

who have been poisoned by microbial poisons in WDB's can't

get medical treatment for their illnesses. This is the BIG

LIE that keeps the doctors intentionally misinformed based

on known false science and for the purpose of limiting

financial liability for stakeholder - insurers and

employers - of moldy buildings.

I have been researching the conflicts of interest in medicine over the mold

issue for four years. If anyone wants me to explain this in more detail, I

would be glad to do so.

Sharon Kramer

In a message dated 4/12/2008 11:13:17 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

MLMJ75@... writes:

Hello everyone,

I worked on the Boston City Council hearing in December of 2004. One of the

reasons for the hearing was to update the Boston City Council and those who

attended on what happened during Mycotic Awareness Week in DC in September

of

'04 and to garner support for Congressman Conyers' HR 1268, The US Toxic

Mold

Safety and Protection Act, also known as the Melina Bill.

It was an amazing hearing with people traveling from California

(representatives from Schoolmoldhelp.(representatives from

Schoolmoldhelp.<WBR>org), Georg

moderator, KC!) , Maine (our own Janet), North Carolina (Dr. Simone Sommer

and her son Josh), a few people from DC, including Segal from

Congressman

Conyer's office and a representative from Sheetmetal Workers Union

International)International)<WBR>, Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island and

other states t

exposure and illnesses, problems in getting diagnosed and treated for our

illnesses as well as other topics related to mold. We had representatives

from

the Boston Teachers Union, including Ginny Lane who arranged for the use of

the building), doctors, lawyers, private industry representatives and those

sickened by mold in their places of work, schools and homes.

The hearing was chaired by Boston City Councillor Chuck (an amazing

man who has worked very hard on this issue for years) and Boston City

Councillor Maura Hennigan (now Clerk of Suffolk Superior Court for Criminal

Business)

who filed the order for the hearing. A document the size of a phone book

was distributed and entered into the record which contained countless

testimonies from people across this country who had been harmed by mold

exposure.

Having been involved in all the hearings the Boston City Council has

conducted over the years on the issue of mold exposure and illness, I have

to say

from my own personal experience as well as reading about and talking to

people

around the world whose health has been harmed by mold exposure, time and

time again, the frustration by those sickened centered around their doctors

not

recognizing, diagnosing and treating mold illnesses and it wasn't any

different at the hearing: RECOGNIZING, DIAGNOSING AND TREATING.

At the 12.9.04 Boston City Council hearing, this particular problem was

addressed by Dr. Johanning, specifically as it pertained to the detrimental

effects the ACOEM Mold Guideline was having on the truth about mold

illnesses.

Others raised it in a less direct way but the bottom line was the same: Why

can't our doctors help us? How can so many of us be sick yet our doctors

don't seem to understand? How can so many of us be sick but the medical

infrastructure doesn't seem to have a clue? I am sorry to say but it is all

about

money, just like lead paint, asbestos and cigarettes. People out there are

protecting stakeholders to the detriment of the health of children in

schools,

workers in the workplace and residents in their homes.

At subsequent hearings before the Massachusetts Legislature'At subse

Committee on Public Health, the ACOEM paper was discussed and documents were

presented to the committee backing up the " prudent man's " interpretation of

the

validity of these guidelines and the harmful ramifications on all us who

have been

made ill by mold exposure. And as you all must know by now, the Wall Street

Journal (who had the same information) investigated the allegations and

backed up common sense and exposed the conflicts of interest with some

doctors

who chose to take care of clients rather than patients.

We also are grateful to Senator Kennedy to submitted a request to the GAO

for an audit on this very serious health issue. We also await a hearing

before

congress. Money has to get out of medicine on this and so many other health

threats. Whatever happened to " First, do no harm. " ?

Ginny, you are absolutely right. Other states must take up the charge and

address this issue on their own local and state levels. But rest assured,

our

elected officials on the federal level know about this and the apparent

conflicts of interest. With all the hard work of many, we WILL get to the

truth.

Mulvey son

**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money &

Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolcmp00300000002850)