Re: Re: Want to show you some close associates from the LA We...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/7/2008 5:53:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

ldelp84227@... writes:

God Sharon, I admire your powerful writing and knowledge. I am so proud

of you.

Thank you, . Have seen your writings, too. Right back at you.

Here is what it boils down to:

There is a strain of position papers that are NOVEL from ALL other science

over the matter. This little strain professes to prove that it has been

scientifically established our illnesses are not plausible to occur from INHALED

mycotoxins. They are then projected to mean our illnesses are not plausible

to occur from mold in WDB's period. When one looks at the strain of well

placed but shear GARBAGE position papers, they are all either authored by

VeriTox

or Saxon.

ACOEM 2002 VeriTox and Saxon

US Chamber 2003 VeriTox (Saxon is listed -says he had nothing to do with one)

AAAAI 2006 Saxon

ACMT 2006 Sudakin of Veritox

That's it. These are the position papers of orgs that have wreaked so much

havoc in the lives of many.

DR. SUDAKIN, you are member of this board. Instead of just lurking, would

you care to comment???

Would you care to explain to your fellow sickbuilding members WHY you could

not cite ANYONE but your own employer for your " not plausible " mantra within

the ACMT position paper????

Don't you think it looks bad that I write this information, we all know you

read it, yet you do not respond???

Sharon

**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?

Read reviews on AOL Autos.

(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017

)

[Guest guest]

Oh yea. Thanks for reminding me of that one:

3 BY MR. BANDLOW:

4 Q Is it junk science that toxic mold can

11:54:56 5 kill people? That's not junk science; right?

6 A In sufficient quantities, of course, and

7 we've clearly said that.

8 Q Then why in the Manhattan Institute report

9 didn't your sentence say toxic mold in small

11:55:22 10 quantities is not a secret killer? Why did you

11 have the broad statement that " the notion that

12 toxic mold is an insidious secret killer is junk

13 science unsupported by actual scientific study " ?

14 A Well, it is. What I wrote was absolutely

11:55:42 15 correct.

16 Q Wasn't Ron Gotts investigated by Dateline?

17 A I would have to ask Dr. Gotts.

18 Q You don't have any knowledge of that?

19 A I'm unaware of -- no.

11:56:00 20 Q And you wrote a paper with Dr. Gotts,

21 didn't you?

22 A I did. Dr. Gotts is also a respected

23 toxicologist.

24 Q Does Dr. Ammann agree with the science set

11:56:18 25 forth in the ACOEM report?

300

1 A I think you'll have to ask Dr. Ammann.

2 Q Aren't you aware that she disagrees with

3 particularly the use of the rat studies?

4 A You'll have to show me what you're

11:56:32 5 referring to.

6 Q Doesn't she disagree with the notion you

7 can extrapolate from those rat studies a lack of

8 effect on humans?

9 A She may. That's -- the extrapolation was

11:56:56 10 not only from the rat studies, so I'm not sure --

11 if you ask me if you could go directly from animal

12 studies to affects in humans, I would also say, no,

13 you have to take into account the body of

14 literature and the body of science that exists.

11:57:14 15 Q When the ACOEM was put out, was there a

16 disclosure of the fact that you often testify for

17 the defense in mold cases?

18 MR. SCHEUER: Objection; this was gone

19 into in the prior session of Dr. Kelman's

11:57:28 20 deposition. This is beyond the scope of what was

21 & permitted today, but I'll permit the witness to

22 answer again.

23 BY MR. BANDLOW:

24 Q Was it?

11:57:36 25 A I'm sorry, it's really hard to remember

301

1 the question after the objections.

2 Q Was it disclosed in the ACOEM statement

3 that you often provide testimony for the defense in

4 mold litigation?

11:57:56 5 A When the ACOEM publication -- no, it was

6 not. That was not something we have any control

7 over.

8 Q You could have inserted that as a

9 footnote, couldn't you?

11:58:06 10 A No. That's not anything we have control

11 over. At the point that the ACOEM position

12 statement was published, it was published as a

13 position statement of the college. We just

14 furnished a draft. We've been over this over and

11:58:22 15 over again.

16 So the draft that went in was then --

17 we're not considered authors. The college is at

18 the time it comes out, and a conflict of interest

19 statement was filed.

11:58:38 20 Q What about the J-O-E-M statement, was

21 there a conflict statement in that?

22 MS. KRAMER: Journal of Occupational

23 Environmental Medicine.

24 MR. SCHEUER: What statement are you

11:58:50 25 referring to?

302

1 BY MR. BANDLOW:

2 Q Journal of Occupational Environmental

3 Medicine, there was a version of the ACOEM

4 statement printed by that organization; correct?

11:58:58 5 A Well, that's the journal that the American

6 College of Occupational Medicine publishes their

7 position statements in.

8 Q And it was printed under your names;

9 correct, the authors' names: you, Dr. Hardin,

11:59:24 10 et cetera?

11 A I'd have to look at it. I don't think so.

12 We were acknowledged. It's also customary to

13 acknowledge the individuals that have donated their

14 time to put position statements together.

11:59:44 15 Q Do you know Mulvey son?

16 A No.

17 Q You never heard that name before?

18 A Not before Ms. Kramer produced her

19 materials, at least not that I recall.

12:00:02 20 Q Do you recall producing in connection with

21 this litigation a presentation made by Mulvey

22 son in July 2007 before the Joint Committee on

23 Public Health in Massachusetts?

24 A No. It could have been produced. I don't

12:00:24 25 recall producing it.

303

1 Q Have you look at that document.

2 MR. BANDLOW: I'll mark that as

3 Exhibit 1002 when he's done.

4 THE WITNESS: Okay. Um --

12:00:38 5 MR. SCHEUER: There's no question pending.

6 (Defendants' Exhibit 1002 was marked for

7 identification by the Certified Shorthand Reporter;

8 a copy of which is attached hereto.)

9 BY MR. BANDLOW:

12:00:42 10 Q Have you ever seen that document before?

11 A If I did, I'm not sure this is -- we

12 produced this?

13 MS. KRAMER: Yes.

14 MR. BANDLOW: Produced in that form with

12:00:52 15 that highlighting.

16 MR. SCHEUER: Excuse me, you're saying the

17 highlighting was produced by us?

18 MR. BANDLOW: Yes.

19 THE WITNESS: I don't remember that.

12:01:12 20 MR. SCHEUER: I dispute what you say.

21 MR. BANDLOW: It was contained in that

22 link you provided to me to the Veritox file.

23 MR. SCHEUER: The electronic link?

24 MR. BANDLOW: Yes, it looked exactly like

12:01:28 25 that.

In a message dated 8/7/2008 8:46:01 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

wiedb@... writes:

_http://web.archive.http://web.archihttp://web.ahttp://wehttp_

(http://web.archive.org/web/20010414084457/ictm.com/main.html) - 12/2/01

INDOOR AIR AND HEALTH: CLEAR-CUT, EQUIVOCAL, AND UNLIKELY

by E. Gots, M.D., Ph.D.

" ...For the most part, hazardous exposures arise from direct contact

with or inhalation of the agents [mold] or their spores. "

---------------------------------------------

In _@ic_ (mailto: ) ,

snk1955@... wrote:

>

> Quote from LAWeekly article:

>

> " Phoenix-based toxicologist Wax, president of the American

College of

> Medical Toxicology, backs up Kelman and Veritox. “Their opinions

are grounded

> in good science. They are not going out on a ledge saying something

without

> support.â€Â

>

> From a paper Wax published showing where Dr. Wax, Pres of

ACMT, works:

>

> " From the Department of Medical Toxicology, Good Samaritan Regional

Medical

> Center, Phoenix, Arizona.

> Received for publication Jan 16, 2002; accepted Feb 11, 2002. Reprint

> requests to (P.M.W.) Department of Medical Toxicology, Good

Samaritan Regional

> Medical Center, 925 McDowell Rd, 2nd Fl, Phoenix, AZ

> 85006. E-mail: _paul.wax@.. 85006. E-mail: _pau 85006. E

>

>

> Who does Dr. Wax work with?

>

> Wallace, MD, FACMT

> Director of Samaritan Occupational and Environmental Toxicology

Services

>

> _Faculty_ (_http://medtoxfellowhttp://mehttp://medtoxfelhttp://me_

(http://medtoxfellowship.com/faculty/wallace/index.htm) )

>

>

>

> Where else does Dr. Wallace work?

>

> VeriTox Biographical Sketches

> L. Wallace, MD, FACMT

>

> L. Wallace, MD, FACMT is Director of Medical Toxicology at

VERITOX®. He

> is board-certified in Medical Toxicology and is a certified Medical

Review

> Officer.

> Who authored the ACMT position on mold and what are it's key

findings based

> upon?

> ACMT position statement on mold:_ACMT Net_

> (_http://www.acmt.http://www.achttp://www & <WBR>_ & zine=zine_

(http://www.acmt.net/cgi/page.cgi?aid=12 & _id=52 & zine=show) )

Prepared by the ACMT Practice Committee. Primary

> authors: Sudakin and Tom Kurt

> Who is Sudakin? See below disclosure for ACMT. He is an

employee of

> VeriTox

>

>

> What did ACMT (that is government funded) use as reference for their

> statement of " not plausible " ?

> Subj: Re: ACMT Position Statement on mold-related illness

> Date: 2/29/2008 12:06:10 P.M. Pacific Standard Time

> From: SNK 1955

> XXXXX_@..._ (mailto:XXXXX@ XXXX

> CC: SNK 1955

>

> Friday, February 29, 2008 AOL: SNK 1955

> Dear Dr. Brent,

> Thank you for your reply. Please call me Sharon. As I am certain

you are

> probably aware, the mold issue can be a rather contentious one. I

hope you will

> forgive me, but I am always very blunt and direct with my

> communications as I find this to be the best way to effectively relay

> information in the fewest words possible.

> There is a problem with your ACMT mold statement in that a key

aspect, used

> by the defense in mold litigation is not the current accepted

scientific

> understanding of the matter. Your paper is being cited by the

defense in mold

> litigation in an effort to defeat a mold toxin injury claims. Both

of your

> authors, Dr. Sudakin and Dr. Kurt are prolific expert witnesses for

the defense in

> such litigation. There are a few areas I could go into detail, but I

believe

> I can explain the problem to you while just addressing one sentence.

> __http://www.acmt.http://www.achttp://www & <WBR>_ & zine=zine=_

(http://www.acmt.net/cgi/page.cgi?aid=12 & _id=52 & zine=show_)

> (_http://www.acmt.http://www.achttp://www & <WBR>_ & zine=zine_

(http://www.acmt.net/cgi/page.cgi?aid=12 & _id=52 & zine=show) )

> " With respect to mycotoxins in indoor air, exposure modeling studies

have

> concluded that even in moldy

> environments, the maximum inhalation dose of mycotoxins is

generally orders

> of magnitude lower than

> demonstrated thresholds for adverse health effects.(3,7, de

[implied, in

> humans] In reality, the modeling studies your authors of this

paper, Dr.

> Sudakin and Dr. Kurt, cite have concluded nothing of

relevance in

> understanding human heath effects from exposure to mycotoxins that

are found

> within water damaged buildings. Toxins within water damaged

buildings offer a

> very complex environment. It is not now, nor has it ever been accepted

> scientific methodology to conclude the implausibility of human

illness from exposures

> in such environment by solely using toxicological studies that

examine animal

> and

> cellular models. To only examine one route of exposure to one

mycotoxin at a

> time does not reflect a real world human situation. People are exposed

> simultaneously to multiple myco and other toxins via all routes of

> exposure - inhalation, dermal, ingestion in water damaged buildings.

> To quote a knowledgable friend with regard to only addressing inhaled

> mycotoxins when denying human

> poisoning from the microbial contaminants found in water damaged

buildings,

> " is like focusing on a spark plug to study engine failure when

everything

> from alloys of components, to compression, to fuel is wrong. "

> As is noted in the Institute of Medicine, Damp Indoor Spaces and

Health

> Report,

> __http://www.nap.http://www.nhttp://www.http://wwhttp_

(http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11011#toc_)

> (_http://www.nap.http://www.nhttp://www.http://wwhtt_ (http://www.nap.edu

/catalog.php?record_id=11011#toc) )

> 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€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€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 noobserved-

> 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€Â

> In addition, just two months prior to the inception of this ACMT

position

> statement (June 2006), the IOM

> Report was used in a court case in California to have the modeling

theory

> the authors cite as reference in

> support of the sentence discussed, to be disallowed to be presented

before

> the courts on the exact same

> point. The judge called it a " huge leap " to go from a modeling

theory to

> conclude the implausibility of human

> illness from the matter at hand. I would be inclined to believe

that author

> Sudakin was well aware of this

> fact, as it was his employer, VeriTox, whose modeling theory was

disallowed

> and a principal of the same

> company that was testifying as the defense expert, Coreen Robbins

(April

> 2006). The ACMT paper appears

> to be in retaliation and meant to diffuse the usage of the IOM

report when

> your authors are functioning as

> expert witnesses for the defense in mold litigation - as they both

often do.

> As ACMT is partially government funded to advance the understanding of

> poisoning and two of your board

> members are government employees of the EPA and FDA, I am hoping

the matter

> at hand is simply an

> oversight. But, the matter could be viewed as an abuse of taxpayer

dollars

> -an esteemed medical

> association to whom we have outsourced much say in environmental

medicine,

> promoting a litigation

> defense argument not founded upon sound scientific princlples. (my

apologies

> - I told you I was direct)

> The three references cited in support of the statement, " With

respect to

> mycotoxins in indoor air, exposure

> modeling studies have concluded that even in moldy environments,

the maximum

> inhalation dose of

> mycotoxins is generally orders of magnitude lower than demonstrated

> thresholds for adverse health effects.

> (3,7,8) " [implied, in humans] are:

> (3) American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

Evidence

> Based Statement: Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds

in the

> Indoor Environment. 2002.

> __http://www.acoem.http://www.acoehttp://www.ahttp:_

(http://www.acoem.org/guidelines/article.asp?ID=52) Authored_

> (_http://www.acoem.http://www.acoehttp://www.ahttp:_

(http://www.acoem.org/guidelines/article.asp?ID=52) Authored) by Dr.

Sudakin's employer and

> discussed on the front page of the Wall Street Journal (Jan 2007) for

> it's conflicts of interest and science questioned by many -

including a

> co-author of the IOM Report.

> __http://moldwarriorshttp://moldwarrihttp://molhttp_

(http://moldwarriors.com/SK/WSJOnlineJan92007.pdf_)

> (_http://moldwarriorshttp://moldwarrihttp://molhtt_

(http://moldwarriors.com/SK/WSJOnlineJan92007.pdf) )

> (7) Kelman BJ, Robbins CA, Swenson LJ, Hardin BD. Risk from inhaled

> mycotoxins in indoor office and

> residential environments. Int J Toxicol 2004 January;23(1) resid

> Authored by Dr. Sudakin's employer and disallowed before the courts

in April

> 2006 with the IOM Report being the primary document used to

discredit. (will

> attach documentation) The modeling theory of VeriTox has been parroted

> several times, but has never been reproduced to conclude the

implausibility of

> human illness from exposure within water damaged buildings. It is a

novel,

> non-sequitur.

> (8) Islam Z, Harkema JR, Pestka JJ. Satratoxin G from the black mold

> Stachybotrys chartarum evokes olfactory sensory neuron loss and

inflammation in the

> murine nose and brain. Environmental Health Perspectives. [online

Feb 27,

> 2006] Available at __http://dx.doi.http://dx.dohttp://dx_

(http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8854_)

> (_http://dx.doi.http://dx.dohttp://d_ (http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8854)

) . makes the exact opposite

conclusion, stating it has NOT been

> " concluded " mycotoxins within an indoor environment cannot cause

human illness.

> (sorry for the double negative).

> This paper specifically calls out the differences between Sudakin's

employer,

> VeriTox principals Hardin et al, and the IOM Report.

" Incidences of

> indoor S. chartarum contamination often generate costly litigation and

> remediation, are extensively reported by the media, and have evoked

intense public

> and scientific controversy (Hardin et al. 2003). The IOM panel

suggested that

> although in vitro and in vivo research on S. chartarum and its

mycotoxins

> suggests that adverse effects in humans are indeed " biologically

plausible, "

> their association with building related illnesses requires rigorous

validation

> from the perspectives of mechanisms, dose response, and exposure

assessment

> (IOM 2004). "

> While it is scientifically correct to state more research is needed,

such as

> the IOM does, it is not scientifically correct to profess to prove a

negative

> based on incomplete data, such as your ACMT paper does. That is the

primary

> difference between the two papers in regard to human illness from

mycotoxin

> exposure within a water damaged building.

> ACMT reference (8) also specifically states that these authors'

paper is to

> be used for the furtherance of

> understanding satratoxin effects on olfactory and brain injury in

humans

> exposed in water damaged

> buildings. This in no way supports the proposition that these authors

> believe modeling theories have concluded the implausibility of an

unachievable

> threshold level of mycotoxins within an indoor environment before

symptoms

> indicative of poisoning occur in humans. These authors clearly

state that dose

> response in

> humans and therefore relevant threshold levels are yet to be

determined.

> " Taken together, our observations that the OE and OB are targets of

SG and ISF

> should be a critical consideration in future studies of

damp-building-damp-bui

> illnesses and the potential etiologic role of S. chartarum. The

profile of

> induced cytokines and MIP-2 is likely to contribute to OSN

apoptosis as well as

> accompanying rhinitis and mild focal encephalitis observed in the

present

> study. In the future, it will be necessary to ascertain the

dose-response

> effects and latency of recovery in nasal tissue after chronic

exposure to

> satratoxins alone, as well as the contributions of spore matrix, or

coexposures to

> other indoor air contaminants such as endotoxin. "

> I am in San Diego. I understand your upcoming meeting is in San

Diego in

> March. I also understand there will be a meeting of the ACMT Board

members. If I

> could, I would like to come speak before your board about

> retracting this paper from being a position statement

representative of the

> members of ACMT. It is harmful to

> those who are being made ill from mold exposure within an indoor

environment

> and are exhibiting symptoms

> indicative of poisoning. And it is contributing to the promotion of

> misinformation over an already complex and

> confusing issue.

> Thank you for your consideration of the matter. Should you require

more

> documentation or have questions,

> please do not hesitate to ask.

> Sharon Kramer

> Attachments: -Frye Ruling, Harold Case, Brief and Supplemental

Brief.

> Disclosure: I am currently in litigation with the principals of

VeriTox, Inc

> and their President, Bruce Kelman.

> They have sued me for libel for five words " altered his under oath

> statements " . Nothing more. The matter is

> currently in the courts. You can read of the case, my writings and the

> testimony in question at:

> __http://moldwarriorshttp://moldwarhttp_

(http://moldwarriors.com/SK/index.htm_)

(_http://moldwarriorshttp://moldwarhtt_

(http://moldwarriors.com/SK/index.htm) )

> Below is an overview of the California -Frye ruling as

published by

> Mold Columns:

> Mold Columns

> Publishing

> May 25, 2006

> ....Defendants called Saxon, M.D., of UCLA Medical School;

and Coreen

> A. Robbins, MHS, Ph.D., CIH

> of Veritox in Redmond, Wash.

> Robbins countered plaintiffs’’ experts’ opinions on mold

hazards and the

> remediation procedures and opined that the couple could have moved

back into the

> house after Westmont’s repair work was completed.

> Judge Kenney held a -Frye hearing before trial and limited

Robbins’s

> testimony by precluding any reference to animal studies of mold

hazards.

> Reviewing Robbins’ deposition testimony, Judge Kenney concluded

that the

> basis for her testimony on

> mycotoxins and human exposure was a literature review, which he found

> insufficient.

> 'Also, when I reviewed the DHS report from April of 2005, DHS,

Department of

> Health Services was talking

> about the fact that they were unable to establish personal exposure

levels

> at this point in time based on a lack of sufficient information,

and yet Dr.

> Robbins is asking to take an even greater step and go beyond

establishing, for

> example, a personal exposure level and jump to modeling, which is

far more

> tenuous and far more unreliable even in establishing something that

is as hard

> as a personal exposure level. So those are the difficulties I’m

having with

> Dr. Robbins’ testimony,' Judge Kenney said. The judge said that

he is

> familiar with the use of animal studies and derivative models for

humans and that

> such models are commonly accepted in the scientific community, but

he said he

> is not sure such models for mycotoxin exposure would pass a

-Frye test

> for admissibility.

> 'My fundamental problem is in looking at it from a Frye

standpoint I

> just didn’t see kind of acceptance in the scientific community

with regard to

> what she had done that would allow it to be sort of presented as

such,' Judge

> Kenney said. 'Modeling has severe limitations, and one of the

difficulties I

> was having here was this reliance upon animal studies to jump to a

modeling

> conclusion generally with †" again, I’m speaking from my own

experience

> because there is nothing here in this transcript †" generally one

will use the data

> that one can receive either from animal exposure studies or other

information

> to then input in a model to make a determination with some degree of

> reliability, reliability,<WBR>' the judge continued. 'Here I’m

those things. I’m

> hearing essentially this jump from a literature review to a

postulated model

> to a no harm result "

> In a message dated 2/29/2008 7:14:35 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,

> XXXXX_@..._ (mailto:XXXXX@ XXXXX_@..._

> Dear Ms. Kramer,

> I understand that you have been calling ACMT regarding the above

position

> statement. Your calls have

> been referred to me since I am the current Chair of the Practice

Committee,

> from which the Position

> statement was derived, although I was not the committee Chair at the

time

> the mold document was

> generated I would be very happy to look into any concerns that you

have

> about our Position Statement. If you would be kind enough to send

me your

> specific concerns in writing I will investigate them and to get

> back to you.

> Best regards.

> Brent, M.D., Ph.D.

>

**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?

Read reviews on AOL Autos.

(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017

)

[Guest guest]

What amazes me is that the CROOKS in the band of TOBACCO INDUSTRY FLACKS

are still working, in any capacity...in 'SCIENCE'.. They should have

been excommunicated LONG AGO.

What kind of secret hold do they have over the powers that be that

they still get money, grants, etc.?

BLUNTLY, the people who hire them should be ARRESTED for giving

material support to TERRORISTS...

Because what they are doing IS terrorism. Its terrorism, plain and

simple, against families.. and innocent Americans.

Poisoning people with weapons of mass destruction.

It is not just " against the public interest " . Its PURE EVIL..

When you POISON people and then try to INTIMIDATE and RUIN them FOR

SPEAKING OUT AGAINST IT,

THAT IS TERRRORISM.

IF that isn't terrorism, WHAT IS?

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

REGARDLESS of what HAD ACTUALLY HAPPENED,

they simply wanted THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to GO AWAY???