Re: ACOEM claiming they are victims of industry????? GAG ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest guest]

Ok then... maybe not, sorry Sharon...lol

[Guest guest]

Again nothing comes as a surprise anymore. So I guess they are

admitting to being manipulated by industry and their production of

psuedo science. Now I wonder what BB is going to say, blame the

victim. Watch out for those black helicopters.... Now who's really

victimized! Us or the physicians? Are critics were never concerned

about our condition, but now that it is coming back to bite them in

the ass and they are to blame, accountability, responsibility lies

squarely on their shoulders.

I guess they will only take it serious now because so many lifes

have been lost, destroyed caused by the lack of acknowledgement not

only mold illness, but many others, it can now effect them all

financially. But let's say it like it is, how will they truly

respond to their children or grandchildren when they ask, Poppa what

did you do for a living, the answer should be, I was a hired gun for

industry, in reality murderer.

Or it could be that the good guys have finally had enough and are

finally speaking out.

KC

>

>

>

> So now ACOEM is claiming THEY are the victims of industry? GIVE

ME A BREAK!

>

_http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1349381/doctors_feel_push_to_dow

nplay_inj

> uries_group_tells_osha_of/index.html?source=r_health_

>

(http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1349381/doctors_feel_push_to_dow

nplay_injuries_group_tells_osha_o

> f/index.html?source=r_health)

> Doctors Feel Push to Downplay Injuries: Group Tells OSHA of

Pressure By

> Companies

> Posted on: Saturday, 19 April 2008, 12:00 CDT

> By Ames , The Charlotte Observer, N.C.

> Apr. 19--NEW YORK -- A leading group of occupational doctors is

taking the

> unusual step of speaking out publicly against pressure from

companies to

> downplay workplace injuries.

> To outline their concerns, the physicians have sent a letter to

federal

> workplace safety regulators and held a conference session in New

York City on

> Monday. They're also planning to testify before Congress.

> If successful, their campaign could affect the treatment of

injured workers

> and might help change how the government assesses workplace

safety.

> " Our members feel they are being methodically pressured ... to

under-treat

> and mistreat, " said Dr. McLellan, president of the

American College of

> Occupational and Environmental Medicine. " ...This is a grave

ethical concern

> for our members. It's a grave medical concern. "

> His group represents 5,000 doctors; some treat workers referred to

them by

> employers, while others work directly for companies.

> Employers are supposed to record all injuries requiring time off

work or

> medical treatment beyond first aid. It's an honor system, and the

injury logs

> are used by regulators and others to gauge plant safety. Low

injury rates allow

> companies to avoid scrutiny from workplace safety regulators and

may help

> managers earn four-figure bonuses.

> In a hotel meeting room in New York, doctors said this helps

explain why some

> employers urge them not to treat injuries in a way that would

make them

> reportable. A cut, for instance, must be recorded if the worker

gets stitches,

> one doctor told the room of more than 60 colleagues. But if the

doctor simply

> covers the cut with a bandage, it doesn't have to be reported.

> Workplace injury and illness rates -- a key factor in determining

whether

> regulators inspect a company -- have been declining nationwide in

recent years.

> But some experts suspect that's partly because employers aren't

reporting all

> on-the-job injuries.

> McLellan, an associate professor at Dartmouth Medical School in

New

> Hampshire, says he thinks employers are " vastly underreporting "

the extent of

> workplace injuries.

> " Players in the system may willfully produce records that don't

reflect

> reality, " he said in an interview.

>

>

>

> He said he grew more concerned about corporate pressures on

doctors in

> September, during a conference in the Carolinas. Since then, he

said, he has heard

> from dozens of doctors.

> That led him to contact the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health

> Administration, and he expects to discuss his concerns with top

agency officials next

> month. His group will likely propose that OSHA more vigorously

investigate the

> accuracy of company injury logs. It may also ask regulators to

rely on a

> broader array of workplace safety measures -- and to rewrite rules

so that

> companies have fewer incentives to underreport.

> McLellan also wants occupational doctors to testify before

congressional

> committees examining workplace safety.

> Ethical physicians sometimes lose business to those who bend to

the wishes of

> employers, some doctors and workers' compensation lawyers say.

> In the Carolinas and some other states, injured workers generally

must visit

> doctors approved by their employers if they want workers'

compensation to pay

> for the treatment. Companies incur higher costs for compensating

workers for

> medical care and lost wages when they're injured on the job.

> Employers tend to send workers to doctors who can help them keep

costs low

> and productivity high, according to attorneys who represent

injured workers.

> Doctors become popular with companies if they rarely order time

off work for

> injured employees, or if they seldom recommend costly treatments

or conclude

> injuries are work-related, those lawyers say.

> " If you get past the infirmary and sent to a doctor, you're

getting sent to a

> doctor that lives on the plant, " said lawyer Davila, who

until

> recently worked in Columbia, S.C.

> Atlanta lawyer Bruce Carraway has represented more than 400

injured poultry

> workers and says that in more than half of those cases,

independent physicians

> gave different assessments than the company doctors.

> Dr. phus Bloem, an orthopedic surgeon from Rocky Mount, said

he used to

> get referrals from Perdue Farms. But in the 1990s, the company

became unhappy

> that he usually recommended surgery for workers with carpal tunnel

syndrome.

> " Their top doctor once visited me and complained that I was too

expensive,

> which I took as pressure to review my approach, " Bloem said. Not

long

> afterward, the referrals stopped.

> Dr. Merrill, Perdue's chief medical officer, said the

company had

> discovered that many workers who got less invasive treatment --

such as

> splinting, exercise and ibuprofen -- fared better than those who

got surgery. " We had

> a better way to treat folks, " he said.

> But Bloem wondered whether health concerns were the only

factor. " In the

> end, " he said, " the money wins. "

> In their quest to keep injuries off logs, company officials

without medical

> training sometimes provide inappropriate treatment, doctors at the

New York

> conference said.

> Dr. Peggy Geimer, corporate medical director for a chemical

company in

> Connecticut, spoke of the " tremendous amount of pressure " on

company staff to

> provide treatment beyond their level of expertise.

> She recalled how one supervisor dealt with an injured worker who

spilled an

> acidic chemical on his arm: He applied potash, which is sometimes

used to

> clean up chemical spills -- unaware that it would only make the

burn worse.

> McLellan said he doesn't recall his group ever before taking such

a strong

> stance on the issue. As one doctor at Monday's conference put

it: " We need to

> treat the patient. Not the log. " -- Staff Writers Garloch

and Franco

> Ordonez contributed.

> -- Ames : 704-358-5060

> Many injuries unreported in poultry industry

> In a recent investigation of working conditions in the poultry

industry, the

> Observer found that many on-the-job injuries aren't being

reported.

> One N.C. poultry company, House of Raeford Farms, has repeatedly

failed to

> record injuries on government safety logs. The newspaper also

found that some

> company first-aid attendants have prevented poultry workers from

receiving

> care that would cost the company money.

> House of Raeford says it follows the law, provides good care and

strives to

> protect workers.

> A record-keeping expert for the U.S. Occupational Safety and

Health

> Administration told the Observer that his agency is allowing

employers nationwide to

> vastly underreport the number of workplace injuries. The true

rate for some

> industries, including poultry processors, is likely two to three

times higher

> than government numbers suggest, Bob Whittier said.

> -----

> April 6, 2006

> Mrs. Sharon Noonan Kramer

> 2031 Arborwood Place

> Escondido, California 92029

> 760-822-8026

> _Snk1955@..._ (mailto:Snk1955@...)

> American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

> 25 Northwest Point Blvd.

> Suite 700

> Elk Grove Village, Illinois, 60007-1030

> Mr. Barry Eisenberg, MA Executive Director

> Ms. nne Dreger, Communications Director

> Board of Directors,

> Cheryl S. Barbanel, MD, MBA, MPH, FACOEM

> Tee L. Guidotti, MD, MPH, FACOEM

> K. McLellan, MD, MPH, FACOEM

> L. Mueller, MD, MPH, FACOEM

> J. Key, MD, MPH, FACOEM

> A. Avery, MD, FACOEM

> U. Halberg, MD, MPH, MS, FACOEM

> P. Hartenbaum, MD, MPH, FACOEM

> Mark J. Upfal, MD, MPH, FACOEM

> T. Warner Hudson III, MD, FACOEM

> R. Orford, MD, MS, MPH, FACOEM

> Mark A. , MD, PHD, FACOEM

> Gregg M. Stave, MD, JD, MPH, FACOEM

> B. Faulkner, MD, MHA, FACOEM

> Pamela A. Hymel, MD, MPH, FACOEM

> F. Wintermeyer, MD, MPH, FACOEM

> Yarbrough, MD, MPH, FACOEM

> Dear Mr. Eisenberg, Ms. Dreger and Members of the ACOEM Board,

> I am requesting permission for an associate and me to come speak

before your

> Board Members at the upcoming May 6th Board Meeting in Southern

California.

> The subject we would like to discuss is the ACOEM’s retraction

as a Position

> Statement representative of 7000 physicians, the Adverse Human

Health

> Effects Associated with Molds in the Indoor Environment, Accepted

October 27,

> 2002.

> The document has been improperly used to stifle medical

understanding and as

> a legal weapon against the ill, who find themselves caught in the

web of the

> “Toxic Mold Issueâ€. The paper is not based on legitimate

scientific

> evidence. Nor are its findings significant and conclusive enough

to be provided

> the elevated stature of a Position Statement of an influential

medical

> association.

> As an example, the ACOEM Mold Statement is frequently cited in

litigation as

> an authoritative reference indicating serious human illness from

mold and

> mycotoxin exposure within an indoor environment is not plausible.

Yet, not a

> single one of the 83 references listed for this document come to

this

> conclusion.

> The amount of devastation and misery caused to thousands of

innocent

> families by this improperly written, improperly peer reviewed and

improperly Board

> endorsed paper is immeasurable. I am attaching a document, via

email to Mr.

> Eisenberg and Ms. Dreger that is indicative of much research by

numerous

> individuals, physicians and researchers regarding the ACOEM

Position Statement. I

> am certain Mr. Eisenberg and Ms. Dreger have the capability to

forward this

> letter and the attached emails to the Members of the Board.

> The attached document is entitled “ACOEM Exposed - A Case Study

in Sham Peer

> Review and Conflicts of Interest in Modern Medicine†aka †"

“The Rats That

> are Saving the Insurance Industry Billionsâ€. I extend my

apologies for the

> severity of the very pointed and direct document. But the damage

done to

> thousands by the ACOEM’s reckless endorsement of this paper has

also been very

> severe and direct. We have no interest in looking at the past. We

have much

> interest at looking at the future. This document needs to be

retracted as a

> Position Statement of the ACOEM for the betterment of the

citizens of the US.

> I may be reached at the above referenced contact information. We

look

> forward to presenting information to the Board Members in the

hopes that we may all

> work together to assure people, who have been made ill from

mold/mycotoxin

> exposure, are able to obtain proper medical treatment.

> Sincerely,

> Mrs. Sharon Noonan Kramer

> Attachment via email:

> ACOEM Exposed, Parts 3 thru 9

> Conflict of Interest Statement

> Subj: RE: Request to Present before the Board of the ACOEM, May

6th Email 1

> of 2

> Date: 4/11/2006 10:52:19 AM Pacific Standard Time

> From: _beisenberg@..._ (mailto:beisenberg@...)

> _SNK1955@..._ (mailto:SNK1955@...)

> CC: _mdreger@..._ (mailto:mdreger@...) , _barbanel@..._

> (mailto:barbanel@...) , _eohtlg@..._ (mailto:eohtlg@...) ,

> _jborak@..._ (mailto:jborak@...)

> Page 1 of 3

> Monday, April 17, 2006 America Online: SNK 1955

> Dear Ms. Kramer,

> We have received all of your materials. As I relayed to you over

the phone,

> I regret that the agenda for our May meeting (which is less than a

full day)

> has been set for some time and that we cannot accommodate your

request.

> Best regards,

> Barry S. Eisenberg

> ACOEM Executive Director

> Request to Present before the Board of the ACOEM, May

6th Email 1

> of 2

> Dear Mr. Eisenberg and Ms. Dreger,

> Attached is a letter and noted references regarding the ACOEM

Mold

> Statement. I am requesting

> permission to come and speak before your Board.

> I believe the attachments may be too large to send in a single

email. I will

> email the remainder in a

> second email. Please let me know the Board Members' response to

this request

> as soon as possible so

> we may get our presenting material in concise order.

> Sincerely,

> Sharon Noonan Kramer

> I will also cut and paste the letter here:

> Subj: Re: Request to Present before the Board of the ACOEM, May

6th Email 1

> of 2

> Date: 4/11/2006 11:26:11 AM Pacific Standard Time

> From: SNK 1955

> _beisenberg@..._ (mailto:beisenberg@...)

> CC: _mdreger@..._ (mailto:mdreger@...) , _barbanel@..._

> (mailto:barbanel@...) , _eohtlg@..._ (mailto:eohtlg@...) ,

> _jborak@..._ (mailto:jborak@...) , AESPIELS,

> _richard@..._ (mailto:richard@...) ,

> KahnLawOffice, _gkvpc@..._ (mailto:gkvpc@...) , _hmm@..._

> (mailto:hmm@...) ,

> _scottw@..._ (mailto:scottw@...) ,

> _jmiller@..._ (mailto:jmiller@...) , _Coopit2me@..._

> (mailto:Coopit2me@...) ,

> _witzer@..._ (mailto:witzer@...)

> Page 1 of 1

> Saturday, April 22, 2006 America Online: SNK 1955

> Dear Mr. Eisenberg,

> Thank you for your prompt reply. I am disappointed in your answer.

I believe

> I could make " my case " for the

> necessity of an expediant retraction of your mold position

statement in less

> than 15 minutes time.

> With the understanding of this short time period required, I am

asking

> again. May I come present before your

> Board of Directors? Have you forwarded to the board members my

request and

> accompanying documents? If

> so, I am surprised at your reply. I would be inclined to believe

the members

> of the Board of Directors of the

> American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine would

understand

> how many lives continue to

> be damaged while this inaccurate position statement is allowed to

stand by

> your nationally influential medical association.

> Will you please reconsider your response?

> Sincerely,

> Mrs. Sharon Noonan Kramer

> Subj: RE: Request to Present before the Board of the ACOEM, May

6th Email 1

> of 2

> Date: 4/17/2006 12:20:11 PM Pacific Standard Time

> From: _beisenberg@..._ (mailto:beisenberg@...)

> _SNK1955@..._ (mailto:SNK1955@...)

> CC: _mdreger@..._ (mailto:mdreger@...) , _barbanel@..._

> (mailto:barbanel@...)

> Page 1 of 1

> Saturday, April 22, 2006 America Online: SNK 1955

> Per my previous note, we are not able to comply with your request

at this

> upcoming meeting. I have forwarded all of the materials you’ve

provided to the

> committee that will be reviewing the statement in question, as

part of our

> regular review process.

> Subj: Re: Request to Present before the Board of the ACOEM, May

6th Email 1

> of 2

> Date: 4/17/2006 4:23:55 PM Pacific Standard Time

> From: SNK 1955

> _beisenberg@..._ (mailto:beisenberg@...)

> CC: _mdreger@..._ (mailto:mdreger@...) , _barbanel@..._

> (mailto:barbanel@...)

> Page 1 of 1

> Saturday, April 22, 2006 America Online: SNK 1955

> In a message dated 4/17/2006 12:20:11 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> _beisenberg@..._ (mailto:beisenberg@...) writes:

> " Per my previous note, we are not able to comply with your request

at this

> upcoming meeting. I have

> forwarded all of the materials you’ve provided to the committee

that will be

> reviewing the statement in

> question, as part of our regular review process. "

> Thank you for your reply, Mr. Eisenberg. Did you also share the

information

> with the board members to whom I had addressed the email letter

with all the

> attachments? Are you aware how many people are currently having

their workers'

> comp claims and other insurance claims denied while that document

is allowed

> to stand as a position of the ACOEM? Would you be interested to

know? Does

> the ACOEM board realize the devastation that this document, which

is not based

> on science, is causing to the lives of many?

> Sharon Kramer (http://www.redorbit.com/news/archive/#category4)

>

>

>

>

> **************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)

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Maybe they will all file a W/C claim for Work Related Stress. Should

we give them the heads up? *When you file...Grab a form to file for

an Apeal to the W/C Board

> >

> >

> >

> > So now ACOEM is claiming THEY are the victims of industry? GIVE

> ME A BREAK!

> >

>

_http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1349381/doctors_feel_push_to_dow

> nplay_inj

> > uries_group_tells_osha_of/index.html?source=r_health_

> >

>

(http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1349381/doctors_feel_push_to_dow

> nplay_injuries_group_tells_osha_o

> > f/index.html?source=r_health)

> > Doctors Feel Push to Downplay Injuries: Group Tells OSHA of

> Pressure By

> > Companies

> > Posted on: Saturday, 19 April 2008, 12:00 CDT

> > By Ames , The Charlotte Observer, N.C.

> > Apr. 19--NEW YORK -- A leading group of occupational doctors is

> taking the

> > unusual step of speaking out publicly against pressure from

> companies to

> > downplay workplace injuries.

> > To outline their concerns, the physicians have sent a letter to

> federal

> > workplace safety regulators and held a conference session in New

> York City on

> > Monday. They're also planning to testify before Congress.

> > If successful, their campaign could affect the treatment of

> injured workers

> > and might help change how the government assesses workplace

> safety.

> > " Our members feel they are being methodically pressured ... to

> under-treat

> > and mistreat, " said Dr. McLellan, president of the

> American College of

> > Occupational and Environmental Medicine. " ...This is a grave

> ethical concern

> > for our members. It's a grave medical concern. "

> > His group represents 5,000 doctors; some treat workers referred

to

> them by

> > employers, while others work directly for companies.

> > Employers are supposed to record all injuries requiring time off

> work or

> > medical treatment beyond first aid. It's an honor system, and the

> injury logs

> > are used by regulators and others to gauge plant safety. Low

> injury rates allow

> > companies to avoid scrutiny from workplace safety regulators and

> may help

> > managers earn four-figure bonuses.

> > In a hotel meeting room in New York, doctors said this helps

> explain why some

> > employers urge them not to treat injuries in a way that would

> make them

> > reportable. A cut, for instance, must be recorded if the worker

> gets stitches,

> > one doctor told the room of more than 60 colleagues. But if the

> doctor simply

> > covers the cut with a bandage, it doesn't have to be reported.

> > Workplace injury and illness rates -- a key factor in determining

> whether

> > regulators inspect a company -- have been declining nationwide in

> recent years.

> > But some experts suspect that's partly because employers aren't

> reporting all

> > on-the-job injuries.

> > McLellan, an associate professor at Dartmouth Medical School in

> New

> > Hampshire, says he thinks employers are " vastly underreporting "

> the extent of

> > workplace injuries.

> > " Players in the system may willfully produce records that don't

> reflect

> > reality, " he said in an interview.

> >

> >

> >

> > He said he grew more concerned about corporate pressures on

> doctors in

> > September, during a conference in the Carolinas. Since then, he

> said, he has heard

> > from dozens of doctors.

> > That led him to contact the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health

> > Administration, and he expects to discuss his concerns with top

> agency officials next

> > month. His group will likely propose that OSHA more vigorously

> investigate the

> > accuracy of company injury logs. It may also ask regulators to

> rely on a

> > broader array of workplace safety measures -- and to rewrite

rules

> so that

> > companies have fewer incentives to underreport.

> > McLellan also wants occupational doctors to testify before

> congressional

> > committees examining workplace safety.

> > Ethical physicians sometimes lose business to those who bend to

> the wishes of

> > employers, some doctors and workers' compensation lawyers say.

> > In the Carolinas and some other states, injured workers generally

> must visit

> > doctors approved by their employers if they want workers'

> compensation to pay

> > for the treatment. Companies incur higher costs for compensating

> workers for

> > medical care and lost wages when they're injured on the job.

> > Employers tend to send workers to doctors who can help them keep

> costs low

> > and productivity high, according to attorneys who represent

> injured workers.

> > Doctors become popular with companies if they rarely order time

> off work for

> > injured employees, or if they seldom recommend costly treatments

> or conclude

> > injuries are work-related, those lawyers say.

> > " If you get past the infirmary and sent to a doctor, you're

> getting sent to a

> > doctor that lives on the plant, " said lawyer Davila, who

> until

> > recently worked in Columbia, S.C.

> > Atlanta lawyer Bruce Carraway has represented more than 400

> injured poultry

> > workers and says that in more than half of those cases,

> independent physicians

> > gave different assessments than the company doctors.

> > Dr. phus Bloem, an orthopedic surgeon from Rocky Mount, said

> he used to

> > get referrals from Perdue Farms. But in the 1990s, the company

> became unhappy

> > that he usually recommended surgery for workers with carpal

tunnel

> syndrome.

> > " Their top doctor once visited me and complained that I was too

> expensive,

> > which I took as pressure to review my approach, " Bloem said. Not

> long

> > afterward, the referrals stopped.

> > Dr. Merrill, Perdue's chief medical officer, said the

> company had

> > discovered that many workers who got less invasive treatment --

> such as

> > splinting, exercise and ibuprofen -- fared better than those who

> got surgery. " We had

> > a better way to treat folks, " he said.

> > But Bloem wondered whether health concerns were the only

> factor. " In the

> > end, " he said, " the money wins. "

> > In their quest to keep injuries off logs, company officials

> without medical

> > training sometimes provide inappropriate treatment, doctors at

the

> New York

> > conference said.

> > Dr. Peggy Geimer, corporate medical director for a chemical

> company in

> > Connecticut, spoke of the " tremendous amount of pressure " on

> company staff to

> > provide treatment beyond their level of expertise.

> > She recalled how one supervisor dealt with an injured worker who

> spilled an

> > acidic chemical on his arm: He applied potash, which is sometimes

> used to

> > clean up chemical spills -- unaware that it would only make the

> burn worse.

> > McLellan said he doesn't recall his group ever before taking such

> a strong

> > stance on the issue. As one doctor at Monday's conference put

> it: " We need to

> > treat the patient. Not the log. " -- Staff Writers Garloch

> and Franco

> > Ordonez contributed.

> > -- Ames : 704-358-5060

> > Many injuries unreported in poultry industry

> > In a recent investigation of working conditions in the poultry

> industry, the

> > Observer found that many on-the-job injuries aren't being

> reported.

> > One N.C. poultry company, House of Raeford Farms, has repeatedly

> failed to

> > record injuries on government safety logs. The newspaper also

> found that some

> > company first-aid attendants have prevented poultry workers from

> receiving

> > care that would cost the company money.

> > House of Raeford says it follows the law, provides good care and

> strives to

> > protect workers.

> > A record-keeping expert for the U.S. Occupational Safety and

> Health

> > Administration told the Observer that his agency is allowing

> employers nationwide to

> > vastly underreport the number of workplace injuries. The true

> rate for some

> > industries, including poultry processors, is likely two to three

> times higher

> > than government numbers suggest, Bob Whittier said.

> > -----

> > April 6, 2006

> > Mrs. Sharon Noonan Kramer

> > 2031 Arborwood Place

> > Escondido, California 92029

> > 760-822-8026

> > _Snk1955@_ (mailto:Snk1955@)

> > American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

> > 25 Northwest Point Blvd.

> > Suite 700

> > Elk Grove Village, Illinois, 60007-1030

> > Mr. Barry Eisenberg, MA Executive Director

> > Ms. nne Dreger, Communications Director

> > Board of Directors,

> > Cheryl S. Barbanel, MD, MBA, MPH, FACOEM

> > Tee L. Guidotti, MD, MPH, FACOEM

> > K. McLellan, MD, MPH, FACOEM

> > L. Mueller, MD, MPH, FACOEM

> > J. Key, MD, MPH, FACOEM

> > A. Avery, MD, FACOEM

> > U. Halberg, MD, MPH, MS, FACOEM

> > P. Hartenbaum, MD, MPH, FACOEM

> > Mark J. Upfal, MD, MPH, FACOEM

> > T. Warner Hudson III, MD, FACOEM

> > R. Orford, MD, MS, MPH, FACOEM

> > Mark A. , MD, PHD, FACOEM

> > Gregg M. Stave, MD, JD, MPH, FACOEM

> > B. Faulkner, MD, MHA, FACOEM

> > Pamela A. Hymel, MD, MPH, FACOEM

> > F. Wintermeyer, MD, MPH, FACOEM

> > Yarbrough, MD, MPH, FACOEM

> > Dear Mr. Eisenberg, Ms. Dreger and Members of the ACOEM Board,

> > I am requesting permission for an associate and me to come speak

> before your

> > Board Members at the upcoming May 6th Board Meeting in Southern

> California.

> > The subject we would like to discuss is the ACOEM’s retraction

> as a Position

> > Statement representative of 7000 physicians, the Adverse Human

> Health

> > Effects Associated with Molds in the Indoor Environment, Accepted

> October 27,

> > 2002.

> > The document has been improperly used to stifle medical

> understanding and as

> > a legal weapon against the ill, who find themselves caught in the

> web of the

> > “Toxic Mold Issueâ€. The paper is not based on legitimate

> scientific

> > evidence. Nor are its findings significant and conclusive

enough

> to be provided

> > the elevated stature of a Position Statement of an influential

> medical

> > association.

> > As an example, the ACOEM Mold Statement is frequently cited in

> litigation as

> > an authoritative reference indicating serious human illness from

> mold and

> > mycotoxin exposure within an indoor environment is not

plausible.

> Yet, not a

> > single one of the 83 references listed for this document come to

> this

> > conclusion.

> > The amount of devastation and misery caused to thousands of

> innocent

> > families by this improperly written, improperly peer reviewed and

> improperly Board

> > endorsed paper is immeasurable. I am attaching a document, via

> email to Mr.

> > Eisenberg and Ms. Dreger that is indicative of much research by

> numerous

> > individuals, physicians and researchers regarding the ACOEM

> Position Statement. I

> > am certain Mr. Eisenberg and Ms. Dreger have the capability to

> forward this

> > letter and the attached emails to the Members of the Board.

> > The attached document is entitled “ACOEM Exposed - A Case Study

> in Sham Peer

> > Review and Conflicts of Interest in Modern Medicine†aka †"

> “The Rats That

> > are Saving the Insurance Industry Billionsâ€. I extend my

> apologies for the

> > severity of the very pointed and direct document. But the

damage

> done to

> > thousands by the ACOEM’s reckless endorsement of this paper has

> also been very

> > severe and direct. We have no interest in looking at the past.

We

> have much

> > interest at looking at the future. This document needs to be

> retracted as a

> > Position Statement of the ACOEM for the betterment of the

> citizens of the US.

> > I may be reached at the above referenced contact information. We

> look

> > forward to presenting information to the Board Members in the

> hopes that we may all

> > work together to assure people, who have been made ill from

> mold/mycotoxin

> > exposure, are able to obtain proper medical treatment.

> > Sincerely,

> > Mrs. Sharon Noonan Kramer

> > Attachment via email:

> > ACOEM Exposed, Parts 3 thru 9

> > Conflict of Interest Statement

> > Subj: RE: Request to Present before the Board of the ACOEM, May

> 6th Email 1

> > of 2

> > Date: 4/11/2006 10:52:19 AM Pacific Standard Time

> > From: _beisenberg@_ (mailto:beisenberg@)

> > _SNK1955@_ (mailto:SNK1955@)

> > CC: _mdreger@_ (mailto:mdreger@) , _barbanel@_

> > (mailto:barbanel@) , _eohtlg@_ (mailto:eohtlg@) ,

> > _jborak@_ (mailto:jborak@)

> > Page 1 of 3

> > Monday, April 17, 2006 America Online: SNK 1955

> > Dear Ms. Kramer,

> > We have received all of your materials. As I relayed to you over

> the phone,

> > I regret that the agenda for our May meeting (which is less than

a

> full day)

> > has been set for some time and that we cannot accommodate your

> request.

> > Best regards,

> > Barry S. Eisenberg

> > ACOEM Executive Director

> > Request to Present before the Board of the ACOEM, May

> 6th Email 1

> > of 2

> > Dear Mr. Eisenberg and Ms. Dreger,

> > Attached is a letter and noted references regarding the ACOEM

> Mold

> > Statement. I am requesting

> > permission to come and speak before your Board.

> > I believe the attachments may be too large to send in a single

> email. I will

> > email the remainder in a

> > second email. Please let me know the Board Members' response to

> this request

> > as soon as possible so

> > we may get our presenting material in concise order.

> > Sincerely,

> > Sharon Noonan Kramer

> > I will also cut and paste the letter here:

> > Subj: Re: Request to Present before the Board of the ACOEM, May

> 6th Email 1

> > of 2

> > Date: 4/11/2006 11:26:11 AM Pacific Standard Time

> > From: SNK 1955

> > _beisenberg@_ (mailto:beisenberg@)

> > CC: _mdreger@_ (mailto:mdreger@) , _barbanel@_

> > (mailto:barbanel@) , _eohtlg@_ (mailto:eohtlg@) ,

> > _jborak@_ (mailto:jborak@) , AESPIELS,

> > _richard@_ (mailto:richard@) ,

> > KahnLawOffice, _gkvpc@_ (mailto:gkvpc@) , _hmm@_

> > (mailto:hmm@) ,

> > _scottw@_ (mailto:scottw@) ,

> > _jmiller@_ (mailto:jmiller@) , _Coopit2me@_

> > (mailto:Coopit2me@) ,

> > _witzer@_ (mailto:witzer@)

> > Page 1 of 1

> > Saturday, April 22, 2006 America Online: SNK 1955

> > Dear Mr. Eisenberg,

> > Thank you for your prompt reply. I am disappointed in your

answer.

> I believe

> > I could make " my case " for the

> > necessity of an expediant retraction of your mold position

> statement in less

> > than 15 minutes time.

> > With the understanding of this short time period required, I am

> asking

> > again. May I come present before your

> > Board of Directors? Have you forwarded to the board members my

> request and

> > accompanying documents? If

> > so, I am surprised at your reply. I would be inclined to believe

> the members

> > of the Board of Directors of the

> > American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

would

> understand

> > how many lives continue to

> > be damaged while this inaccurate position statement is allowed

to

> stand by

> > your nationally influential medical association.

> > Will you please reconsider your response?

> > Sincerely,

> > Mrs. Sharon Noonan Kramer

> > Subj: RE: Request to Present before the Board of the ACOEM, May

> 6th Email 1

> > of 2

> > Date: 4/17/2006 12:20:11 PM Pacific Standard Time

> > From: _beisenberg@_ (mailto:beisenberg@)

> > _SNK1955@_ (mailto:SNK1955@)

> > CC: _mdreger@_ (mailto:mdreger@) , _barbanel@_

> > (mailto:barbanel@)

> > Page 1 of 1

> > Saturday, April 22, 2006 America Online: SNK 1955

> > Per my previous note, we are not able to comply with your request

> at this

> > upcoming meeting. I have forwarded all of the materials you’ve

> provided to the

> > committee that will be reviewing the statement in question, as

> part of our

> > regular review process.

> > Subj: Re: Request to Present before the Board of the ACOEM, May

> 6th Email 1

> > of 2

> > Date: 4/17/2006 4:23:55 PM Pacific Standard Time

> > From: SNK 1955

> > _beisenberg@_ (mailto:beisenberg@)

> > CC: _mdreger@_ (mailto:mdreger@) , _barbanel@_

> > (mailto:barbanel@)

> > Page 1 of 1

> > Saturday, April 22, 2006 America Online: SNK 1955

> > In a message dated 4/17/2006 12:20:11 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > _beisenberg@_ (mailto:beisenberg@) writes:

> > " Per my previous note, we are not able to comply with your

request

> at this

> > upcoming meeting. I have

> > forwarded all of the materials you’ve provided to the

committee

> that will be

> > reviewing the statement in

> > question, as part of our regular review process. "

> > Thank you for your reply, Mr. Eisenberg. Did you also share the

> information

> > with the board members to whom I had addressed the email letter

> with all the

> > attachments? Are you aware how many people are currently having

> their workers'

> > comp claims and other insurance claims denied while that

document

> is allowed

> > to stand as a position of the ACOEM? Would you be interested to

> know? Does

> > the ACOEM board realize the devastation that this document,

which

> is not based

> > on science, is causing to the lives of many?

> > Sharon Kramer (http://www.redorbit.com/news/archive/#category4)

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > **************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)

> >

> >

> >