Am bracing for another possible attack, LA Weekly. Could be wrong (?)

[Guest guest]

Dear Laurie, (Ochoa - Editor)

Why do I have a feeling you all are going to again present me in a horrid

light with the edits tomorrow to the LAWeekly article ? Am I right? Could be

wrong. If I am, I'm sorry for being overly cautious. But this email is just

an insurance policy to show that LAWeekly has been told of what has been

going on over the mold issue.

_LA Weekly - News - The Toxic Mold Rush: California Mom Helps Fuel an

Obsession - Heimpel - The Essential Online Resour._

(http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/the-toxic-mold-rush-california-mom-helps-fuel\

-an-obsession/19301/)

ec: Bob Burton, PRWatch

Merrill Goozner, Center for Science in the Public Interest

Bill , Environmental Working Group

Sandy Schubert, Environmental Working Group

Meredith McCarthy, Union of Concerned Scientist

Lacey, New Times

Sass, National Resourses Defense Council

Armstrong, The Wall Street Journal

Jim Okerblum, The San Diego Union Tribune

Ames , The Charlotte Observer

Robin Appleberry, Congressional Oversight and Government Reform

Bowen, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension ( )

Ben How, Federal Government Accountability Office

Betina Porier, General Council, Senator Barbara Boxer

Bero, UCSF Tobacco Legacy Library

Lincoln Bandlow, Spillane, Shaeffer, Aronoff and Bandlow, LLP

Raphael Cung, Spillane, Shaeffer, Aronoff and Bandlow, LLP

Mulvey son

Melinda Ballard

Carl Grimes

Rene Haynes

Judy O'Reilly

Varios attorneys:

Kahn

Cheryl Bossio

Langerman

Guy Van

Dodd Fishers

Jeff LaFave

Court Purdy

Witzer

Duffy

Crick

Vance

This is what you need to know of what is REALLY going on here and why they

want me to shut up:

In 2002, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

(worker's comp trade association). Brought in 3 people to author their

position

statement on mold:

1.Kelman, PhD- no background in mycotoxin research, MUCH background in

setting public policy while using inhalation studies. Some of it, for the

tobacco

industry. Kelman will tell you he has been a member of ACOEM since 1998.

However his testimony in the Kilian case 2004, Arizona, indicates he had only

been a member since 2002 and that ACOEM opened up the membership to Phd's,

specifically so he and Hardin could join. Kelman jumped into the mold game in

2000 when he authored a review paper with a Dr. Gots. Gots also has a

long history in Big Tobacco. You can find his name about 180 times (I think)

in the UCSF tobacco legacy library. He was also the subject of an NBC Dateline

expose' for wrongful denial of insurance claims by State Farm. From the mid

70's to the late 90's,Kelman was a " white coat " involved in inhalation

research for Big Tobacco, Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs. From PRWatch:One of

the

forerunners of TASSC at Philip was a 1988 " Proposal for the Whitecoat

Project, " named after the white laboratory coats that scientists sometimes

wear. The project had four goals: " Resist and roll back smoking restrictions.

Restore smoker confidence. Reverse scientific and popular misconception that

ETS is harmful. Restore social acceptability of smoking. " To achieve these

goals, the plan was to first " generate a body of scientific and technical

knowledge " through research " undertaken by whitecoats, contract laboratories

and

commercial organizations " ; then " disseminate and exploit such knowledge through

specific communication programs. " Covington & Burling, PM's law firm, would

function as the executive arm of the Whitecoat Project, acting as a " legal

buffer . . . the interface with the operating units (whitecoats, laboratories,

etc.). " Just one example of Kelman's White Coat history for Big Tobacco

_http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ati84d00/pdf_

(http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ati84d00/pdf) :

2. Hardin, PhD. Hardin had just retired as Assistant Deputy Director

NIOSH and was starting a new career as an expert defense witness in mold

litigation. He had been doing some work with Kelman's company. He, too, had no

background in mycotoxin research. Says he started reading up on it in the

summer of 2001..a mere 6 or 7 months before ACOEM brought him in to author the

ACOEM mold statement. Hardin had a long history of setting public policy. Was

an overseer to the CDC reversal regarding the pulmonary hemorrhaging in

infants from mold, aka " the Cleveland Babies " . He also says one of the reasons

he

agreed to do the ACOEM paper was because you can't get business sitting on

your front porch in South Carolina. The Hudson case, Dec 2006.

3. Saxon, immunologist from UCLA. Saxon had been a prolific expert

defense witness since 1999. Very well connected man, not just in the US but

across the globe. Has had some major input into AIDS funding.

Based on Hardin and Kelman's math extrapolations from a single study

involving rats, they concluded it was highly unlikely at best that humans could

ever

inhale enough mycotoxins to cause human illness in an indoor environment.

Problem is: the look at one mold. They hypothesized how many mycotoxins in

that mold. They only look at one route of exposure (inhalation) And they did

not take into account dose rate considerations or interspecies differences.

The study they chose to apply their extrapolations to, was done by Harriet

Burge..another old tobacco scientist and Dr. Carol Rao of the CDC. The study

ends with the sentence: We provide evidence that there is a dose-related

association between an acute exposure

to toxin-containing S. chartarum spores and measurable pulmonary responses.

The consequences of low-level chronic exposure remain to be investigated, as

does the relevance of the rodent data to human exposure. _Reduction of

Pulmonary Toxicity of Stachybotrys chartarum Spores by Methanol Extraction of

Mycotoxins -- Rao et al. 66 (7): 2._ (http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/66/7/2817)

With the acceptance of this as a position paper the concept was off and

running that it had been scientifically proven mold was not toxic and all these

people claiming they were sick, were liars out scam insurers and employers.

Position papers by medical associations are extremely important to further a

concept as they carry more weight than research papers. They are projected to

be the opinion of thousands of physicians. Again, from PRWatch, " In one memo

to Philip CEO A. Miles, vice president Craig L. Fuller noted

that he was " working with many third party allies to develop position papers,

op-eds and letters to the editor detailing how tobacco is already one of the

most heavily regulated products in the marketplace, and derailing arguments

against proposed bans on tobacco advertising "

On to the marketing of the new concept:

In 2003, The Manhattan Institute paid Veritox (then GlobalTox) to spin the

finding even further. The US Chamber of Commerce promoted it in a fanfare

presentation on July 17, 2003. The new concept of this lay translation now

being promoted was " “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€

The paper cites false authorship. While it is made to look like an

immunologist from UCLA also wrote this paper, Saxon, he DID NOT. Only three

principals

of VeriTox did. Kelman, Hardin, and Robbins. Robbins used to work for Gots

before joining Kelman. Doesn't look too good to have only a company that

does litigation defense work writing the policy paper for the US Chamber that

was supposedly based on legit science. But Saxon wasn't paid for it. The

billing hours have no record of him being involved. And he says under oath he

did

not even know his name was on it.

11 Now, in the ACOEM paper in 2002, as of 2002,

12 you were serving as a defense witness in mold cases from

13 time to time?

14 A. True.

15 Q. And when that paper was published by ACOEM,

16 there is no conflict-of-interest advisory regarding you

17 in that paper, is there?

18 A. I think it had been filed, but they didn't

19 publish it. I think it says something to the effect

20 they're on file. We provided them for sure.

21 Q. But it's not within the printed version of the

22 paper?

23 A. No, they didn't do it.

24 Q. Did you do anything to change that

25 circumstance?

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS OF NEVADA - 702/382-8778

2300 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 770, Las Vegas, NV 89102

175

1 A. No. I mean -- no, I did not. I made them

2 aware of it, and then when they publish it, I mean, they

3 published it.

4 Q. When the lay version of the ACOEM paper was

5 printed by the Institute For Legal Reform, the ACOEM

6 again did not have any conflict-of-interest waiver on

7 your part, did it?

8 A. I have no idea. I've never seen that version.

9 I'll call it the nonscientific piece that has my name on

10 it.

11 Q. From your view, did you make any efforts,

12 despite anyone calling you or anything else, to make

13 sure that a conflict-of-interest waiver was included

14 with the lay version put out by the Institute For Legal

15 Reform?

16 A. No, because I didn't even know my name was on

17 it.

18 Q. The ACOEM paper was also given an iteration in

19 the Manhattan Institute document. You were aware of

20 that?

21 A. I think I'm getting confused. I'm sorry. I

22 thought we were just talking about the same. What was

23 the one you were just talking about?

24 Q. The lay version was by the Institute For Legal

25 Reform, and then the Manhattan Institute reprinted it.

ASSOCIATED REPORTERS OF NEVADA - 702/382-8778

2300 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 770, Las Vegas, NV 89102

176

1 A. I didn't know that. I thought they were the

2 same thing. I haven't seen it, but I didn't realize

3 there were two versions.

From there, other position papers were estabilished. The American Academy of

Allergy Asthma and Immunology and the Amercian College of Medical

Toxicology. But, when one looks in detail, ALL of these position papers are

authored

by Veritox and or Saxon. They don't fit with ANY OTHER position or

research papers, including the World Health Org, the American Industrial

Hygiene

Association, The Health Canada, The American Academy of Pediatrics. So

what. As position papers of esteemed medical associations, they carry much

weight in court.

So, what you have is an old tobacco scientist and company making

unscientific findings based on data from one inhalation study. Then the US

Chamber of

Commerce and a think-tank marketing it. The entire purpose of this endeavor

what to save stakeholders of moldy building from financial liabililty from the

illnesses caused by exposure to microbial contaminants in indoor

environments. Why increase for these illnesses? Because of the change in

construction

standards and building materials that easily wick water in the late 80's.

Our buildings now act like giant petri dishes when they get wet.

And that's why Dr. Kelman was " altering his under oath statements " when

forced to discuss the relationship of the ACOEM paper and the US Chamber paper

in

front of a jury. He was trying to distance them, while having to

acknowledge they were connected. The jury got it. They awarded the Haynes

family

nearly half a million dollars.

Testimony in question:

_http://moldwarriors.com/SK/TestimonyBruceKelmanHaynesCase0305.pdf_

(http://moldwarriors.com/SK/TestimonyBruceKelmanHaynesCase0305.pdf)

Doubt is their product. Only the missed a sale with me!!! Please share

this email with the legal counsel for LAWeekly. My apologies if I am wrong

about your future intent with this matter.

Sincerely,

Sharon Kramer

A video of the current accepted science, which is a far cry from proven " not

plausible "

_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3VnYqangDs_

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3VnYqangDs)

A video of my position on the matter:

_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isKvVN8MXC8_

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isKvVN8MXC8)

**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for

FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)