RE: LET'S TALK MOLD EXPOSURES AND POLITICS - Doug Haney

[Guest guest]

_________________________________________________________________

The i’m Talkaton. Can 30-days of conversation change the world?

http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_ChangeWorld

[Guest guest]

Hey Doug,

I am always up for that! But nothing came thru in your post.

Sharon K.

**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for

fuel-efficient used cars.

(http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)

[Guest guest]

ALL: GIVING IT ONE MORE TRY WITH FORMAT MODIFICATIONS.

Let’s Talk Mold Exposures and Politics

By R. Haney (Author: “Toxic Mold! Toxic Enemy!”)

The Sacramento Bee recently printed a comment by Sandy McNeel, the California

Department of Public Health that states, “Science hasn’t established a direct

link between mold and specific illnesses.” This top-level so-called “scientist”

clearly is behind the times by at least a decade and has no excuse for her

deliberate lack of knowledge on the subject. Medical Mycology science, as well

as other more complex fields of research dedicated to the bio and molecular

sciences have unequivocally demonstrated both genetic mutations and cellular

toxicity that are emphatically connected to human cancers, neurological

disorders, and other serious debilitating diseases. Before proving this

particular scientist’s educational defects, it is important to realize that she

is not alone. There has been a concerted effort in both private industry and

government to literally quash the “Mold Is Gold” era of public health. What the

public has not yet caught onto is that unlike diseases caused by bacteria and

viruses, diseases caused by microfungi (i.e., molds and yeasts) are not

reportable by doctors, hospitals, and medical centers to monitoring agencies of

the state and federal government. Therefore, for instance, as long as molds and

yeasts are not accountable to anyone in the medical field can regard such

diseases as “idiopathic.” That is, “diseases of unknown origin, cause, and or,

cure in nature.” There are very logical and unscrupulous reasons for doing this,

and for keeping the American public ignorant of the facts; sorted reasoning

called, “money and greed.”

Before proving that obstacles of money, greed, and conflicts of interest are

motivators for sabotaging current scientific knowledge, it must be established

beyond a reasonable doubt, that “science” has in fact established that

(especially in relation to respiratory exposures) certain species of live-celled

microfungi can and do cause serious diseases in the human body. What is most

incredible is that this scientific proof is not hard to find at all. The

107-yearold Merck Medical Manual (17th Ed., 1999) a resource instrument for

health professionals states the following: “Opportunistic infections caused by

Aspergillus sp and inhaled as mold conidia, leading to hyphal growth and

invasion of blood vessels, hemorrhagic necrosis, infarction, and potential

dissemination to other sites in susceptible patients… Aspergillus sp are among

the most common environmental molds, found frequently in decaying vegetation

(compost heaps), on insulating materials (in walls or ceilings around steel

girders), in air conditioning or heating events, in operating pavilions and

patient rooms….”

A list of fungal diseases on Page 1222, Chapter 158, Section 13, of the Merck

Manual, demonstrates clearly that 8 of the 11 fungal diseases presented are

primarily related to inhalation of various pathogenic molds. And what are some

of the fungal diseases identified in this document? The manual lists diseases

such as Aspergillosis (as most common), Blastomycosis, Candidiasis (invasive),

Coccidioidomycosis, Cryptococcosis, Histoplasmosis, Mucormycosis, etc., all of

which are potentially devastating to human health. The Merck Manual also states

directly to physicians that: “In immunocompetent patients, systemic mycoses

typically have a chronic course. Months or even years may elapse before medical

attention is sought or a diagnosis is made. Symptoms are rarely intense in such

chronic mycoses, but fever, chills, night sweats, anorexia, weight loss,

malaise, and depression may occur.”1 (The Merck Manual, 1999) Evidently, for

California scientists employed by the government reading the medical reference

manuals of the medical profession is not a forte, nor a requirement of the job.

Two aspects of microfungi are clearly evident in human fungal diseases

attributed to them. First, is the activity of mold colonization or physical

microfungi growth within vulnerable areas of the human body, and second, more

importantly, whether these colonies or growths are producing mycotoxins that are

poisonous to human cells over time. According to , J., and Klich, M.,

Department of Cell and Molecular Biology at Tulane University, “Mycotoxins are

secondary metabolites produced by micro fungi that are capable of causing

disease and death in humans and other animals.”2 (, J., Klitch, M., July

2003) Now, if that is not serious medical science, what is?

The most baffling foolery of those who oppose the thought that microfungi have

little or no scientific correlation to serious human disease is perhaps that the

medical field receives little, if any, formal medical training in the

environmental sciences throughout one’s medical career. It is quite interesting

that medical science will readily address a live-celled microorganism bacteria

as a pathogen, a genetic single or double strand of virus as a pathogenic

mutant, but yet constantly address a live-celled microorganism mold or yeast

simply as an “allergen.” People are “allergic” to mold allergens! What the

medical field fails to realize/recognize is that Botany research clearly

demonstrates that pathogenic microfungi are live eukaryotic cells (much smaller,

but structurally and chemically very similar to animal and human cells), unlike

prokaryotic pathogenic bacteria. All of these microbes are “live cells,” and as

people tend to think of “molds” as simply “allergens” or “plant-life” irritants

that come and go seasonally, they are not. As Professor Wong explains to

his students at the University of Hawaii, Department of Botany, in a class

lecture titled, Fungi as Human Pathogens: “The successful treatment of fungal

diseases is more difficult than those caused by bacteria. Because bacteria are

prokaryotes, the makeup of their cells are very different than our own

eukaryotic cells and pharmaceutical products, such as antibiotics, can

successfully destroy bacteria without harming our cells, tissues and organs.

However, because fungi are eukaryotes, finding a treatment that will kill the

fungus and not harm our own cells is more difficult.3”

Noted environmental researcher Harriet Ammann, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., a Sr.

Toxicologist with the State of Washington, and esteemed member of the Institute

of Medicine’s, National Academy of Scientists the explains in her article about

cytotoxic micro fungi and their secondary mycotoxins, “Is Indoor Mold

Contamination a Threat to Health4” about the health dangers of prolonged indoor

exposures: “Mycotoxins… are not essential to maintaining the life of the

microfungi cell in a primary way (at least in a friendly world), such as

obtaining energy or synthesizing structural components, informational molecules

or enzymes. They are products whose function seems to be to give microfungi a

competitive advantage over other microfungi species and bacteria. Mycotoxins

are nearly all cytotoxic, disrupting various cellular structures such as

membranes, and interfering with vital cellular processes such as protein, RNA

and DNA synthesis. Of course they are also toxic to the cells of higher plants

and animals, including humans. Mycotoxins vary in specificity and potency for

their target cells, cell structures or cell processes by species and strain of

the microfungi that produces them. Higher organisms are not specifically

targeted by mycotoxins, but seem to be caught in the crossfire of the

biochemical warfare among microfungi species and microfungi and bacteria vying

for the same ecological niche.”

The major consequence of not understanding this concept is that government

health officials and clever defense attorneys will continue to tell us that

pathogenic micro fungi exposed to home, school, and office environments is not

unhealthy for people with healthy immune systems. Aren’t these the very same

microbes found in hospital environments? It is interesting to note what

laboratory protocol medical students and students destined for future laboratory

work are being instructed on prior to working with micro fungi in university

laboratory settings. In her text, Introduction to Diagnostic Microbiology

(1997), Associate Professor and Director of Medial Laboratory Programs,

Dannessa Delost, M.S., M.T. (ASCP) of the Department of Allied Health, College

of Health and Human Services Youngstown State University5 writes, concerning the

health and safety of her students:

“Conidia and spores may remain dormant in the air or environment or may be

transported through the air to other locations. The spores of pathogenic molds

can be inhaled and enter the respiratory tract. This is a common rout of

infection, and because of this, it is imperative to practice good laboratory

safety when working in mycology. All work, including the preparation of slides,

plating and transferring cultures, and nay biochemical work, must be performed

in a biological safety cabinet. Because airborne conidia and spores are readily

released from a fungal culture, one should never smell a fungal culture.

Screw-cap test tubes should be used in place of test tubes with a cotton, metal,

or plastic lid. In addition, Petri plates must be sealed tightly with either an

oxygen-impermeable tape or Parafilm. As always, gloves should be worn and any

breaks or cuts in the skin covered to prevent the transmission of fungal

infection.”

The confusion over the health effects of long-term exposures to micro fungi

might more easily be dispelled in understanding the difference between molds and

yeasts that a person breathes in daily, and those species that can and do

influence human diseases. Pathogenic (or disease-causing) fungal species are

actively involved in releasing mycotoxins (meaning fungus-produced poisons) that

are close enough to animal and human cell chemistry to intoxicate these cells. A

good example of this activity is observed when a person drinks alcohol; a

fungal-yeast produced consumable mycotoxin. Alcohol is a naturally produced

product that within minutes after consumption changes neural activity, and

generates an adverse accumulative chemical effect on virtually every cell in the

human body as the person’s drinking progresses. If enough alcohol is consumed

over a short period of time “alcohol poisoning” could result causing a comatose

condition in the drinker, or even lead to death. Smoking or chewing of tobacco

is also a great example. According to a research study on tobacco released by E.

L. Maghraby and M. A. Abdel-Slater of the Botany Department, Faculty of Science

at Sohag University in Egypt, titled, Mycoflora and natural occurrence of

Mycotoxins in Tobacco from Cigarettes in Egypt6, the following facts relating to

tobacco state: “Forty-two species and 4 varieties belonging to 21 genera [of

fungal species] were collected from 40 tobacco samples…” The research continues

to report that among the many mold species were: Aspergillus, Penicillium,

Fusarium, Chaetomium, and Stachybotrys (the so called “Black Mold”) which has

been the mainstay of mold reports and civil litigation reported by assorted

national and local news media. What is very important as a result of this study

is the fact that: “Four samples (out of 40) had toxicity and four compounds of

mycotoxins were detected namely; aflatoxin B1, aflatoxin B2, zearalenone, and

T-2 toxin,” all of which are known to be associated with lung cancer, liver

cancer, birth defects, and other serious diseases.

Now, let’s review the definitions of what separate live cellular activity from

allergens.

Bacteria: Single-celled microorganisms which can exist either as independent

(free-living) organisms or as parasites (dependent upon another organism for

life). The term bacteria was devised in the 19th century by the German botanist

Ferdinand Cohn (1828-98) who based it on the Greek bakterion meaning a small rod

or staff. In 1853, Cohn categorized bacteria as one of three types of

microorganisms -- bacteria (short rods), bacilli (longer rods), and spirilla

(spiral forms). The term bacteria, was preceded in the 17th century by the

microscopic animalcules described by Antony van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723).

Mold: A very large group of microscopic fungi that live on plant or animal

matter. Most are filamentous organisms and produce spores that can be air-,

water-, or insect-borne.

Microorganisms: Live cell organisms (forms of life) requiring magnification to

see and resolve their structures. " Microorganism " is a general term that becomes

more understandable if it is divided into its principal types—bacteria, yeasts,

molds, protozoa, algae, and rickettsia—predominantly unicellular microbes.

Viruses are also included, although they cannot live or reproduce on their own.

They are particles, not cells; they consist of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or

ribonucleic acid (RNA), but not both. Viruses invade living cells—bacteria,

algae, fungi, protozoa, plants, and animals (including humans)—and use their

hosts' metabolic and genetic machinery to produce thousands of new virus

particles. Some viruses can transform normal cells to cancer cells. Rickettsias

and chlamydiae are very small cells that can grow and multiply only inside other

living cells. Although bacteria, actinomycetes, yeasts, and molds are cells that

must be magnified in order to see them, when cultured on solid media that allow

their growth and multiplication, they form visible colonies consisting of

millions of cells. Many people think of microorganisms mainly in terms of

" germs " causing diseases, but some " germs " are beneficial to humans and the

environment. Disease causing (pathogenic) microorganisms need to be controlled,

and in many cases, beneficial microorganisms are also controlled in plant and

food production. For thousands of years, people had no concept or knowledge of

organisms invisible to the naked eye. In fact, it is only within the last

several hundred years that magnification systems (lenses, magnifiers,

microscopes) were developed that enabled scientists to observe microorganisms.

In 1673 Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, a linen merchant in Delft in the Netherlands,

was the first to observe and study microorganisms, using single lenses that

magnified objects fifty to three hundred times. The role played by

microorganisms was not clarified until the 1830s, when Theodor Schwann in

Germany demonstrated that yeasts were responsible for alcohol production in beer

and wine fermentations.

In 1854, Louis Pasteur in France found that spoilage of wines was due to

microorganisms (bacteria) that convert sugars to lactic acid, rather than the

alcohol produced by yeasts. He developed the process of " pasteurization, " in

which the temperature of food materials is raised to about 140 to 158°F (60 to

70°C), thereby killing many spoilage organisms. Pasteur also discovered that

certain bacteria are responsible for the souring of milk. Today, milk is

generally pasteurized to reduce its content of microorganisms, to extend its

keeping quality, and to protect against pathogenic microorganisms that may be

present. Pasteur also discovered that each type of fermentation, as defined by

the end products, is caused by specific microorganisms and requires certain

conditions of acidity or alkalinity. He discovered further that some

microorganisms, the aerobes, require oxygen and others, the anaerobes, grow only

in the absence of oxygen. The latter probably developed in the earliest days of

the earth when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. Microorganisms are

present in high populations in soil, and in varying numbers in the air we

breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat; they are on our skin and in

our noses, throats, mouths, intestinal tracts, and other bodily cavities. They

are everywhere in our environment.

Allergen: A substance that is foreign to the body and can cause an allergic

reaction in certain people. For examples, pollen, dander, mold. (Source:

MedicineNet.com at http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2194)

Now let’s observe separate live animal and mold/yeast (eukaryote) cell

structures as opposed to bacteria (prokaryote) structure. The virus is not a

live cellular structure, but strings of DNA/RNA that require a live human,

animal, mold, bacteria, tree, or plant cell to latch onto in order to formulate

life.

In the “Tree of Life,” note where live bacteria cells are recorded as opposed to

live mold/yeast cells. Many of animal cell traits are similar to those found in

and of microfungi cells. Bacteria could not be more distant from animal cells

whereas live fungi are right below animal cell development. It is no wonder why

mold and yeast cells are difficult to detect in blood and tissue, they have the

ability to mimic human cells and remain undetected in disease processes while

bacteria are readily detectable by human immune system chemistry.

Note how close in chemical structure animal-produced cholesterol is in

correlation with microfungi-produced ergosterol. This demonstrates clearly how

nearly identical cellular chemistry is between and interactively in animal and

microfungi live cells.

With this said, let’s observe a direct process of microfungi

decomposing activity while a person is still alive. The following medical case

image directly relates the serious damaging rampage of certain Aspergillus

species in the Cerebral Cortex as observed in a formerly critically ill patient,

now deceased.

(Source: http://brighamrad.harvard.edu/Cases/bwh/hcache/334/full.html)

The question is, could this same health problem exist in a patient

who is considered immune competent, or otherwise considered physically healthy?

For that answer on your computer visit the following website address:

(http://www.ajnr.org/cgi/reprint/26/4/835.pdf)

Immune competent patients in hospital facilities where construction is in

progress, or where air ventilation systems are defective have been known

distribute pathogenic molds such as the Aspergillus fumigatus species that can

and do cause an immune competent patient to become seriously ill. This is called

a “nosocomial” (i.e., hospital caused) or related illness, and it happens quite

frequently, more so than previously thought less than a decade ago. Can

exposures of microfungi in the lungs lead to serious neurological (brain)

diseases and disorders? Most medical professionals will tell you that this

occurs primarily in patients that are diagnosed as critically ill already, but

without any requirements for state or federal mandated reporting of fungal

diseases it is anyone’s guess how great of a serious health threat this is. One

thing is absolutely sure with this photograph, and it is that this is clear

evidence that molds can and do, cause neurological diseases through exposures.

How else would a patient’s brain end up as in this picture without having been

exposed to microfungi in some specific manner? We do know that alcohol

consumption can lead to neurological and many other deadly disorders.

So, why would someone want to keep the general public misinformed as to the

prospects of serious diseases and microfungi? Let’s direct our attention to one

such company that has generated a great deal of interest to this regard, and

surprisingly who the research they generated was directed to, and for what

reasons.

A January 9, 2007, a front page Wall Street Journal article titled “Court of

Opinion: Amid Suits Over Mold, Experts Wear Two Hats” authored by

Armstrong rekindled a longstanding battle over the American College of

Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) society’s solicitation of a

document titled “Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the

Indoor Environment” authored by a former highly-ranked government health

official. People who have been suffering from what they say are health issues

caused by indoor mold exposures, and several of the medical doctors who treat

them are upset, indicating that this document, now used as the ACOEM’s “Position

Paper” is “seriously flawed.” Charges of manipulation of scientific research,

favoritism, and conflicts of interest, were just a few of the comments that

began to heat up many Internet “chat boards” such as “ToxLaw.com” and ’s,

“Sickbuildings”.

The noose was tightening for the ACOEM should any of the things these public

health watchdog were actively discussing prove true. It would literally spell

disaster for this society’s predominate association of Workman’s Compensation

Certified Medical Examiners boasting a membership of more than 5,000 physicians,

if the public were to lose faith in the quality of medical authority this

society claims to exemplify. An example of what is at stake is offered in an

article titled, “Texas Picks ODG over ACOEM”, authored by Jim Sams, Senior

Editor of an Internet news service provider, “WorkCompCentral.” This article

states that, “The state of Texas on September 1, 2006, selected the Work Loss

Data Institute’s (WLDI), “Official Disability Guidelines” over the guidelines

submitted by the ACOEM.” Work Loss Data Institute president, Phil Denniston

stated publicly that he believes, “Officials saw that the Work Loss Data

Institute—a private company—has the only set of guidelines that are adopted by

the federal government’s medical guideline clearing house.” Executive Director

of the ACOEM, Barry Eisenberg, immediately took issue with this. In a written

statement issued after Texas posted its proposed rule, Eisenberg states, “We

would hope that Texas would at a minimum allow physicians to use a set of

treatment guidelines developed by the medical profession rather than mandating

the exclusive use of guidelines developed for commercial purposes.” The

“WorkCompCentral” article continues, “But in California, proposed rules that

would make ACOEM the exclusive source of treatment guidelines were widely

criticized by medical specialists during an August 23 public hearing. They said

the ACOEM does not address chronic conditions and has many other gaps that cause

unnecessary disputes between physicians and insurance carriers.”

Quoting Steve Cattolica, Government Affairs Director for the California Society

of Industrial Medicine and Surgery, the article stated that, “…he hopes Texas’

decision will alert California DWC officials that they should look beyond

ACOEM.” California did not, and the history that followed accepted the ACOEM’s

guidelines. With huge potential revenue at the heart of this competitive

slugfest, a major violation of ethics or improprieties could be catastrophic.

In response to the Wall Street Journal article, on January 13, 2007, Tee L.

Guidotti, M.D., MPH, current President of the ACOEM issued the following

statement, “What is lost in the WSJ article is the technical accuracy of the

statement. The contentious issue at hand is not damp spaces or the association

of mold and mold spores with allergic, infectious, or irritating conditions. It

is whether the metabolic products of mold known as mycotoxins, absorbed through

biological particle inhalation in indoor air, is responsible for systemic human

disease under conditions encountered in normal life, an unproven theory called

“toxic mold” in the vernacular. The weight of evidence to date, despite years of

investigation, does not support that it is and seems unlikely to shift with new

findings.”

Unfortunately, Dr. Guidotti failed to comprehend the objective of the WSJ

article. It had little to do with scientific findings, and a great deal to do

with the perceived impression that the ACOEM in effect is using perceivably

contrived and distorted facts of “rat study” science as the ACOEM’s official

position on “mold exposures and illness.” The ACOEM official position on molds

and health is potentially full of alleged ethics violations, conflicts of

interest, and selective manipulation of science on a grand scale! It threatened

to destroy the integrity of the ACOEM and gravely harm many victims of such

exposures living and working in unhealthy mold infested and contaminated homes,

schools, and office buildings. For the president of the ACOEM to blatantly offer

that the science is not available to support current medical knowledge, is to

claim absolute ignorance of the facts. The facts are that apparently the medical

community has chosen to ignore the facts that hospital environments have been

failing to effectively diagnose and or treat and all but ignore for nearly 100

years of available scientific study.

On December 7, 2006 the California Division of Worker’s Compensation (DWC)

published several intended modifications for incorporation into the state’s

“Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) regulations. California

ultimately did elect to use the American College of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine’s (ACOEM’s) “Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines:

Evaluation and Management of Common Health Problems and Functional Recover in

Workers”, 2nd Ed., as its guideline for evaluating work-related illnesses and

injuries. What the ACOEM Board of Directors also elected to do prior to the

California endorsement of their guidelines is on October 27, 2002, commission

and accept a paper entitled “Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds

in the Indoor Environment” as the society’s “official position” on indoor mold

exposures and human health. This gives one great pause in wondering if the

California DWP didn’t level a “snow-job” on the unsuspecting California worker,

either by profound ignorance or simply through unscrupulous collusion! The fact

is that the supportive science data used as references for this supposedly

“peer-reviewed” document were intimately examined as one would expect from a

prestigious medical body claiming itself as a “College” academic entity. There

is little evidence for that matter, to indicate that this document was ever

adequately reviewed by the ACOEM “rank-and-file” as a whole. To ascertain why

this practice is wholly unacceptable, one needs only to understand the scope of

influence that exists between the ACOEM and government, and within the medical

community.

There are two extremely important proposed changes to California’s MTUS

regulations under §9992.20, the “Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule”, that

pose to significantly impact California workers facing the unfortunate prospects

of an illness or injury suffered while at work. The first statement that was

added changed: “(d) “Evidence—based” means based, at a minimum, on a systematic

review of literature published in medical journals included in MEDLINE.” From, a

now deleted statement: “(g) “Hierarchy of evidence” establishes the relative

weight that shall be given to scientifically based evidence.” At first glance

these two changes do not mean much. However, under further examination they

speak volumes as to “what stinks,” in the state of California! And that is

precisely what is happening! Simply stated, if “scientific evidence” is

eliminated in favor of a “systematic review” of literature published in assorted

medical journals, California’s workers might not be examined based on “facts of

medical science.” In some clinical situations this could spell disaster in

misdiagnoses, delayed critical medical treatment decisions, and the timely

distribution of appropriate workman’s compensation benefits. It is said, that

the proposed changes will resolve the conflict between the interpretation of

Labor Code 5307.27, mandating that any treatment guideline be “evidence based,

peer-reviewed, nationally recognized standards of care,” and the ACOEM

philosophy of majority-rules “consensus based” standards.

The ACOEM’s “consensus based” peer-reviewed study for example in determining

illnesses related to a single “rat study” associated with work-related mold

exposures could prove costly to American workers. To support this contention and

demonstrate more clearly how the ACOEM’s “consensus” on mold-related health

issues was attained, one needs only to follow how the authors of the “Adverse

Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the Indoor Environment” ACOEM

Position Paper were able to literally bypass scientific “peer-review” by the

ACOEM membership in producing a “consensus-approved” document.

To comprehensively understand why the ACOEM medical body might want or need a

report effectively denouncing mold exposures as a viable health problem in the

worker, we must revisit a 1994 medical research study conducted by the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at the Children’s and Baby’s Rainbow

Hospital in Cleveland, Ohio. In 1993, Dorr Dearborn, a pediatrics medical doctor

at Rainbow Hospital began to encounter an unusual outbreak of pulmonary

hemorrhage in several infants, all of which were less than six months of age.

The CDC dispatched two of its senior researchers, Ruth Etzel, M.D., PhD, and

Barbara Bowman, PhD to investigate. Researchers tied a dangerous mold identified

as Stachybotrys chartarum growing in the homes to the sick infants. This

incident increased public awareness of home/building molds to the degree that

the Learning Channel produced a documentary of the study. National news networks

began to report this story and soon this fungus began to surface as an

environmental health problem throughout the nation. By 1999, more than 11,000

litigation cases had been filed, and scores of people were flocking to attorneys

claiming to have been injured by indoor mold exposures.

In the “lessons-learned” category, Americans observed quickly in New Orleans

after hurricane Katrina all but destroyed the city, that the true purpose of

government agencies might not be designed so much as to protect humans and

preserve life as they are to protect and defend the American economy in times of

trouble. Perhaps this was the motive behind the CDC’s release of a Morbidity and

Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) on March 10, 2000 stating that, “A review within

CDC and by outside experts of an investigation of acute pulmonary

hemorrhage/hemosiderosis in infants has identified shortcomings in the

implementation and reporting of the investigation described in MMWR and detailed

in other scientific publications authored, in part, by CDC personnel. The

reviews led CDC to conclude that a possible association between acute pulmonary

hemorrhage/hemosiderosis in infants and exposure to molds, specifically

Stachybotrys chartarum, commonly referred to by its synonym Stachybotrys atra,

was not proven. This report describes the specific findings of these internal

and external reviews.”

This MMWR report sparked an immediate rebuttal from the original research team

including doctors Dearborn and Etzel, stating “…the internal and external review

reports summarized a great deal of thoughtful discussions by these two groups.

However, neither review group included any member of the initial study team and

neither review group visited Cleveland to see the buildings or talk to the

families, community groups, Cuyahoga County Health Officials and building

inspectors, nor the physicians at the Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital.” Dr.

Etzel was upset enough with this rebuttal that she left the CDC expressing her

displeasure in a July 26, 2000 interview with Mark Moran, MPH, then with WebMD,

“Tom Sinks, PhD, a CDC epidemiologist, says that when the agency responds to an

urgent request for an investigation, its mission is to rapidly assess a

situation, not to do long-term research. " We do not have the luxury in these

situations to do the most exquisite type of research, " he tells WebMD. " Our

purpose is not to start something we can't finish. "

Sinks says the CDC recognizes the link between mold and human health, and urges

people to take preventive action when there is water damage in the home. But

regarding a connection between stachybotrys and hemosiderosis, the evidence is

too weak to justify policymaking, he says.

That conclusion generated controversy about the way the CDC handled the case.

Ruth Etzel, MD, an epidemiologist formerly with the CDC who headed the original

study, says the agency's review of the work is " dead wrong " and that the CDC has

sought to bury the connection between mold and disease.

" Normally, when a new idea is presented, you do more work and test it further in

other places, " says Etzel, who says she left the CDC as a result of the

controversy and is now director of the division of epidemiology and risk

assessment at the food safety and inspection service of the USDA. " What happened

here was that instead of moving forward, a decision was made to put a stop to

our work. "

She says the current scientific consensus on the dangerous health effects of

mold stems largely from the Cleveland study. " Previously, most physicians

thought of mold as quite innocuous, " she tells WebMD. " We were able to focus on

mold in a way that the medical world had never done before. "

Since that report was published, several medical doctors who have been treating

patients for symptoms related to indoor molds have faced the scrutiny of state

Medical Boards with board efforts to revoke their medical license. One

California physician actually lost his medical license in 1998 as a result of

unfounded accusations that he had been illegally treating his patients

inconsistent with “standard medical practice” for non-existent fungal diseases.

In February 2005 this doctor’s medical license was reinstated and he was fully

exonerated. However this was too late, his medical practice was literally

ruined; his credibility was publicly crushed and he was outwardly humiliated;

and the accumulation of legal fees cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars.

How does this happen, one might ask? It is fairly easy actually. The state

Medical Board or the CMS receives an anonymous complaint, and under complete

confidentiality without disclosure of the person(s) who lodged a complaint. The

investigation is conducted because a complaint has been lodged. While the person

or corporation complained about is publicly scrutinized and humiliated as guilty

without trial, the person who lodged the complaint, whether meritorious or not,

throughout the investigation, hearing, or trial is never disclosed to the

defendant. Now sarcastically speaking, that is truly American justice at work!

If we were to quiz every medical doctor or scientist who has ever studied

certain species of live-celled gram-negative and positive bacteria or various

viruses to any degree as to whether studies behind the health issues related to

these microbes are considered “junk science”, the answer would certainly be, “Of

course not! There is solid scientific evidence to support their pathogenicity as

fact.” Yet, we have pathogenic micro fungi (live cellular pathogens), clearly

observed as environmentally, physically, and subtly much more diverse and

destructive than many other microbes, and suddenly because there is so much more

economically and politically at stake, the research involving the health issues

behind indoor exposures in a court of law are made out by the defense experts as

“junk science!”

Our involvement in the study of the “brave new frontier” of Molecular Science

has been active for nearly 35 years, and with the current genetic studies of

various micro fungi are being realized medically as much more frightening to

deal with. Unlike bacteria, micro fungi are much more diverse as pathogens and

are “primary” decomposers. These microbes are far superior to bacteria and

viruses in their physical composition and how they perform metabolically to

conform to, and destroy, any prey in their quest to survive in a hostile world.

We allege that if there is any “junk science” relative to the study of micro

fungi and their physiologic connection with animal and human illness, it belongs

to the illogical antics by defense experts. Which brings us back to the focus of

this article as it relates to California’s proposed MTUS acceptance of the ACOEM

Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines in the evaluation and management ill

or injured workers.

Recalling Dr. Ruth Etzel’s parting shot that, “The CDC has sought to bury the

connection between mold and disease…” is extremely important! Why? Because Dr.

Etzel’s statement offers a direct link to one of the primary “defense experts”

of VeriTox, Inc., Hardin, PhD, who along with Bruce Kelman, PhD, in

conjunction with Saxon, M.D., of the UCLA Medical Center authored the

ACOEM’s Position Paper. Dr. Saxon’s connection with government is that he

receives grants from federal entities such as the National Institutes of Health,

which the CDC falls under.

According to information on the VeriTox, Inc. website (a company with litigation

experts known for their defense antics in providing expert testimony for the

purpose of dissuading juries from accepting the idea that exposures to indoor

molds infestations and contaminants lead to serious human health problems), one

of its principals and an author of said paper Hardin, PhD, FATS, " …was

commissioned into the US Public Health Service and began his public health

career with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in

1972, where he served in research, policy, and management roles, culminating as

Deputy Director of NIOSH and Assistant Surgeon General in the Public Health

Service.” To say that Dr. Hardin does not have intimate connections at high

levels of government including the CDC, would be a grave misstatement. To

believe for an instant that many of the medical doctors most influential in the

ACOEM position paper do not also have similar political connections, would also

fail a scrutiny test.

How was this position endorsed if the voting membership of the medical college

that is not a true college were not given a proper chance to review the research

behind it? That is in itself an interesting story, and is the “primary” reason

that a “consensus” philosophy over a “scientific evidence” philosophy as

promoted by the California Worker’s Compensation Institute, would not be

feasible in evaluating the health and injury guidelines of ACOEM, guiding

Qualified Medical Examiners (QMEs) as currently managed. Another manner in

which to address this is how can California trust an ACOEM society of medical

doctors to set guidelines for one of the most important entrustments between

employee and employer, if the California DWC approves “unscientific” and

“shabby” medical science for implementation as part of its guidelines covering

various work-related illnesses and injuries nationwide? The California Workman’s

Compensation system would greatly injure the California worker should this

unwise indiscretion occur. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and

Immunology (AAAAI) recently received major complaints from alert members who are

keenly aware of the misgivings of the VeriTox, Inc., authored report as it was

proposed for the AAAAI Position Paper in response to indoor mold exposures and

health.

To provide credibility for this Guest Editorial article, on May 1, 2006 in

Harold v. California Casualty Insurance Company in Sacramento Superior Court,

Case No. 02AS04291, Judge P. Kenny, in ruling on the “/Frye”

admissibility of scientific merit and admissibility of testimony by Coreen A.

Robbins, PhD, MHS, CIH, on in behalf of VeriTox, Inc., as one of its defense

experts and corporate principals, an inadmissibility ruling was rendered.

The purpose for a New York state-based, -Frye hearing is to allow the judge

acting as a “gatekeeper” for the integrity of the court and or trial process, to

preclude any “non-science” or “junk science” based testimony or evidence from

being introduced into the trial proceedings as evidence. In the “Harold” case,

the objective of Judge Kenny’s “-Frye” hearing was to rule as to the

admissibility of a “single rat clinical study” addressing the “dose-response”

relating the findings of this study to indoor mold hazards and human illness.

Judge Kenny decided not to allow Dr. Robbin’s testimony based on his review of

the following documents:

1) “Risk from Inhaled Mycotoxins in Indoor Office and Residential Environments”

International Journal of Toxicology 2004; 23: 3-10. Authors: C.A. Robbins, L.J.

Swenson, and B.D. Hardin.

2) “Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the Indoor

Environment” Journal of ACOEM 2003. ACOEM “Mold Position Statement” Authors:

B.J. Kelman, B.D. Hardin, and A.J. Saxon.

3) “The Medical Effects of Mold Exposure” American Academy of Allergy, Asthma

and Immunology (AAAAI) “Mold Position Paper”. Authors: R.K. Bush, J. Portnoy, A.

Terr, A.J. Saxon and R.A. Wood

Judge Kenney ruled to preclude any reference or testimony relative to these

published documents during the “Harold” trial by reasoning in his words, that:

“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. [Coreen] Robbins [a Principal of VeriTox, Inc.] 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 further commented that:

1) “…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”

Also, “…I am not sure such models for mycotoxin exposure would pass a -Frye

test for admissibility.”

2) “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 [referencing, Dr. Coreen Robbins] that would allow it to be sort of

presented as such.”

3) “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.” Further,

“Here I am not hearing any of those things. I’m hearing essentially this jump

from literature review to a postulated model to a no harm result.”

If a Superior Court judge was wise enough to see through the “unacceptable”

scientific merit of a single “rat study,” why then didn’t the officers of the

ACOEM, a supposed “College” of a “Society” composed of over 5,000 highly-trained

medical doctors? The answer lies in politics and not medicine. A great deal is

at stake both medically speaking, and in the realm of pure economics.

There are few products supported by bacteria or viruses. However, there are

literally thousands of products that either include fungal-produced mycotoxins

used for flavor, scent, or other characteristics and attributes that are

unhealthy to humans over time. There are molds and mycotoxins that are not

healthy for human consumption but cannot be extracted or controlled by current

scientific methods. If the American public actually grasped the enormity of this

fact, and that of mold species implications in “idiopathic” (or, of “unknown

cause or unknown cure”) diseases, the research and effective counter-treatments

costs alone, would be prohibitive. The human populations most adversely affected

by mold exposures are infants under the age of two and people over the age of

fifty. It is not a secret that the success of Health Maintenance Organizations

(HMO), and similar health plans depends on “preventive medicine” as opposed to

“treatment and/or therapeutic medicine.” As long as diseases related to mold

exposures do not have to be recognized or recorded medically, there is virtually

little or no liability; not in medicine… not in food processing… not in real

estate… not in much of anything commercially!

In accepting the “Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the

Indoor Environment” report as the authority for the ACOEM position on indoor

mold exposures authored by B.J. Kelman, B.D. Hardin, principals of VeriTox,

Inc., in conjunction with Dr. A.J. Saxon, of the UCLA Medical Center, one has

only to peer through the veil of ACOEM membership solicitation to understand its

objective for producing an anti-mold exposure aversely affecting human illness,

position statement.” The ACOEM is involved in assisting government in

establishing “National Policy.” For one to belong to this vast organization is

prestigious enough, but to be brought into this “society” of medical doctors for

the specific purpose of authoring a medical “Position Statement” is huge! For

once accepted as gospel, this unorthodox document would have far-reaching and

extremely strong political and fiscal implications at its core. A former

Assistant Surgeon General with NIOSH/CDC, Hardin, PhD, then a Principal of

GlobalTox, Inc. (renamed as VeriTox, Inc.) was asked by ACOEM administration to

draft a Position Statement for consideration by the college. Knowing that any

author of an ACOEM Position Paper should accordingly be a member of the ACOEM,

in February 2002 Dr. Hardin was provided with a free membership in the ACOEM. It

is alleged that this perk served as an “advanced thank you” for writing the

ACOEM Position Statement. Prior to Dr. Hardin’s acceptance for membership into

the ACOEM, this organization was open to “physicians only” after his induction,

this so-called “College” is now open to practically anyone with who is able to

pay its membership dues.

A memo written to member Dean Grove, with copies also sent to J.

Bernacki, M.D, MPH, Barry S. Eisenberg, ACOEM Executive Director, and ACOEM

President J. Key, M.D., MPH, FACOEM, by Borak, M.D., FACOEM,

Chairman of the ACOEM Committee on Scientific Affairs stressing the significance

of the Position Paper stated, “Dean et al: I am having quite a challenge in

finding an acceptable path for the proposed position paper on mold. Even though

a great deal of work has gone in, it seems difficult to satisfy a sufficient

spectrum of the College, or at least those concerned enough to voice their

views.

“I have received several sets of comments that find the current version, much

revised, to still be a defense argument. On the other hand, Hardin and

his colleagues are not willing to further dilute the paper. They have done a

lot, and I ma concerned that we will soon have to either endorse or let go. I

do not want this to go to the BOD and then be rejected. That would be an

important violation of —I have assured him that if we do not use it he can

freely make whatever other use he might want to make. If we “officially” reject

it, then we turn his efforts into garbage.

“As this was an effort that you, Dean, asked me to initiate I thought that you

might have a good idea about what might be done.

“The problem is the same as when this began. Mold is a litigation mine field.

Everybody involved in the topic has a strong view and there is little middle

ground. If we have a statement that deals only with science, we will be accused

of ignoring the “Public Health” issues. If we embrace the Public Health, then we

will be regarded as not scientific.

“I have not previously been involved in an ACOEM issue that raised provoked

emotions among member peer reviewers. My own feeling is that it may not be

worth the disruptive effects that might result from forcing the issue. Also, I

think that the authors are not willing to let this just sit for awhile. They

have done a lot of work and want to see it in print.

“For your interests, I have attached the latest version.

”

This memo tends to observe that a few of the decision-makers within the ranks of

the ACOEM were concerned primarily with Dr. Hardin and the position

paper’s other authors, and not with the quality of medical care of working

public.

One of the three documents submitted for evidence to Judge Kenny observed as

based upon inadequate scientific study was titled, “The Medical Effects of Mold

Exposure” authored by J. Portnoy, A. Terr, A.J. Saxon and R.A. Wood. What is not

publicly discussed by administrative members of the AAAAI about this document

(the association’s adopted position on mold exposures) called the “Bush” paper,

is that it generated a massive response from people with intimate knowledge

about the realities of mold exposures and illness. After a series of complaints

demanding its retraction as published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical

Immunology (JACI), one of its authors, Dr. Portnoy, pulled his name from

“co-authorship” in protest against the abuse of academic process by the

remaining authors. Dr. Saxon, one of the primary authors of the ACOEM

position paper was intimately involved in the AAAAI document.

In a rebuttal statement to the initial AAAAI position statement titled “Rigor,

Transparency Disclosure Needed in Mold Illness Position Paper” published in the

September 2006 issue of the JACI, co-authored by noted physician Ritchie

Shoemaker, M.D., Harriett Amman, Ph.D., DABT (a distinguished member of the

National Academy of Sciences), Lipsey, PhD, and W. Montz, Jr.,

PhD, CIHQP, the integrity of scientific research was discussed. The rebuttal

states, “Over 100 MDs and PhDs from the mold community, demands proper

disclosure of conflict of interest and thoroughness from papers written by

defense-hired physicians. Both the ACOEM “opinion” and the AAAAI statement show

no such rigor, transparency, and disclosure. One should wonder how such junk

science, as labeled in a California ruling (Harold v. California Casualty No.

02AS04291), based on bizarre leaps from one study of acute, high-dose exposure

to unknown mycotoxins in rats to and even more bizarre conclusion about absence

of human illness associated with chronic, low-dose exposure to water-damaged

buildings, cited repeatedly by a small cadre of non-treating physicians {two of

the three authors of the ACOEM position paper are PhDs and are not physicians}

for possible financial gain, could ever be considered by anyone as acceptable.”

In summary, until the ACOEM strives to rely on factual medical science how can

anything this supposed “college” sets as guidelines in evaluating medicine be

relied upon to any degree in California? What the ACOEM guidelines might perhaps

suggest to California workers is that the California Workman’s Compensation

system is not truly concerned for the health, safety, and personal welfare of

the worker inasmuch as it is in ensuring that the economic status of California

continues to prosper irregardless of what is factual or not within the realm of

medical science.

The California worker pays some of the highest taxes in the nation for its

legislators. The question here is, with the lack of government scrutiny in

accepting ACOEM guidelines as demonstrated in this article, what are taxpayers

actually paying for? Until the ACOEM regain an acceptable status of reliable

public trust and credibility, California is encouraged to eliminate its use of

the guidelines set-forth by the ACOEM. There is far more to this story than one

could possibly cover in a condensed article. However, with what has been

offered, the challenge is for California government to reinvestigate this matter

much more thoroughly, and deal with the findings to the full satisfaction of the

public at large.

References:

Merck Manual, The. 17th Ed. (1999) “Systemic Fungal Diseases” (Systemic

Mycoses). Chapter 158, Page 1210.

, J. W., Klich M. (July 2003). Mycotoxins. Clinical Microbiology Reviews,

Vol. 16. No. 30893-8512/03. American Society for Microbiology (p. 497-516)

Retrieved October 26, 2004 at http://www.cmr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/16/3/497

Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary (1988). Page 783.

land Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, Community Health Administration

(1999). Guidelines for Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Pulmonary

Aspergillosis. Retrieved August 9, 2005 at

http://edcp.org/guidelines/aspers2.html

Delost, D. M. (1997). Introduction to Medical Mycology. Introduction to

Diagnostic Microbiology: A Text and Workbook. Mosby, St. Louis, MO. 358

Ammann, H.M. (February 2001, Updated September 2003). Is Indoor-Mold a

Threat to Human Health. Washington State Department of Health, Office of

Environmental Assessments. Retrieved March 14, 2004 from

http://www.allergyconsumerreview.com/mold-and-mildew-allergy.html

National Academy of Sciences (May 25, 2004). News Release: “Indoor Mold,

Building Dampness Linked to Respiratory Problems and Require Better Prevention;

Evidence Does Not Support Links to Wider Array of Illnesses”. Retrieved on

August 10, 2005, from

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309091934?OpenDocument

MedicineNet.com at http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13954

MedicineNet.com at http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4416

Moran, M. (July 26, 2000). Environmental Health Watch: Healthy House. WebMD

Medical News. Retrieved on April 16, 2003 from

http://www.ehw.org/Healthy_House/HH_Toxic_Mold.htm

ACOEM (October 27, 2002). Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in

the Indoor Environment. ACOEM Evidence-based Statement. American College of

Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Retrieved on August 10, 2005, from

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

Cockrill, B. A., Hales, C. A. (February 1999). Allergic Bronchopulmonary

Aspergillosis. Annual Review of Medicine, Vol. 50: 303-316 (Volume publication

date February 1999) (doi:10.1146/annurev.med.50.1.303), Pulmonary and Critical

Care Unit, Partner's Asthma Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard

Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02114. Retrieved on August 10, 2005 from

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.med.50.1.303?journal\

Code=med

, G.M., Perfect, J.R. (October 31, 2003). Fungal Sinusitis. Uptodate Patient

Information. Retrieved on August 10, 2005, from

http://patients.uptodate.com/topic.asp?file=fung_inf/5646

Lacey, J., Dutkiewicz J., (March 1994). Bioaerosols and Occupational Lung

Disease. Institute of Arable Crops Research, Rothamsted Experimental Station.

Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol. 25. No. 8, Page 1371

Jarvis, B. (1995). Mycotoxins in the Air: Keep Your Buildings Dry or the

Bogeyman Will Get You. International Conference: Fungi and Bacteria in Indoor

Environments, Health Effects, Detection and Remediation. Eckardt Johanning, Chin

S. Yang, editors. Saratoga Springs, NY

Ecohealth Environmental Change and Our Society: Glossary. Retrieved July 28,

2005 at http://www.ecohealth101.org/glossary.html

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth

EditionCopyright © 2000 Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Retrieved on July 28, 2005 at

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BiobookglossE. html

Retrieved on July 28, 2005 at

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BiobookglossPQ. html

Retrieved on July 28, 2005 at

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/butterfly/glossary/indexed.shtml

Margulis, L., Sagan, D. (1996). Microbial Microcosm. Retrieved July 28, 2005 at

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC34/Margulis.htm

Fox S.W. (May 12, 1997). My Scientific Discussion of Evolution for the Pope and

His Scientists. Retrieved July 28, 2005 at

file://C:\DOCUME~1\DOUGLA~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\9BY8TCYV.htm

Note: This format of the original document with images was modified to fit the

Sickbuildings formatting for posts.

http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Ref\

resh_messenger_video_072008

[Guest guest]

Doug,

You are welcome. Sandy McNeel also played a role in Dr. Vojdani's attack by

the California Dept of Health. As did VeriTox expert defense witness,

Sudakin. I have the under oath testimony of Sudakin showing that the Ca

Dept of Health faxed information to him in a case where he was testifying as an

expert witness the day of his testimony regarding their intention of going

after Dr. Vojdani's lab, Immunosciences. Oddly, the date Sudakin got the

information was before Dr. Vojdani had it or the charges had been officially

filed.

Let's not even go into what happened to Dr. Ordog and the involvement of

VeriTox's Sudakin in that one. I have emails showing Sudakin was in

communication with Fisher of Forbes Magazine who wrote the hit piece on

Dr. Ordog.

As far as going after people that speak the truth. They have been trying to

shut me up for 3 years over the exact same information you write in your

paper.

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

Needless to say, no matter how much it costs me to defend myself, I AM NOT

SHUTTING UP!!

And, last but not least, ACOEM knows what they have done over the mold

issue, is nothing short of racketeering:

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@...)

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:

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

In a message dated 7/6/2008 11:33:39 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

_Haney52@... writes:

Sharon:

Thank you very much. Coming from you especially, it makes all of the efforts

worth eveything I had to do to write it. When I first submitted it to

publish, one of the attorneys I am working for wanted to fire me over it. I

informed this person that this is the kind of work I do and I will continue to

do.

At present, I do not know what my status is with that litigation matter, but

this person was angry that Sandy McNeel and the work she is doing for the

California Department of Public Health was brought up. Since I have been ill

for

awhile, I haven't been too concerned about any of that.

It is interesting, in that I have indicated that if my article is not

correct, sue me. To date, I'm still waiting and anxious to " get it on " in

court! My

grandfather was a judge in Michigan. I learned a great deal from him about

honesty and integrity. It is unfortunate that the world of politics and

industry could not have borrowed from him.

I want to thank you for your courage and some of the items we have discussed

in the past. Without your assistance extremely important areas of this

article might never have been included. Now that it has resurfaced onto

" Sickbuildings " I hope all will take the time to read it.

I also told you that I would let you be the first to know about a particular

doctor I would be announcing for victims of mold exposures. My meeting with

this person is Friday. I will gladly keep my promise if all goes well.

God Bless and take care.

Doug Haney

**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for

fuel-efficient used cars.

(http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)

[Guest guest]

Explanation: I posted a question 'how to do this - lets talk

politics?'. That is because Doug's post had a link to it about

a " talkathon " , so I was assuming Doug was proposing we participate in

a " talkathon " about 'politics and mold'.

The link says if you participate in the talkathon, which is sponsored

by Microsoft, money is donated to certain causes so I thought he was

proposing we did that.

This is just to explain that I do know how to talk politics without

help!!

>

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> The i'm Talkaton. Can 30-days of conversation change the world?

> http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_ChangeWorld

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sharon:

Thank you very much. Coming from you especially, it makes all of the efforts

worth eveything I had to do to write it. When I first submitted it to publish,

one of the attorneys I am working for wanted to fire me over it. I informed this

person that this is the kind of work I do and I will continue to do. At present,

I do not know what my status is with that litigation matter, but this person was

angry that Sandy McNeel and the work she is doing for the California Department

of Public Health was brought up. Since I have been ill for awhile, I haven't

been too concerned about any of that.

It is interesting, in that I have indicated that if my article is not correct,

sue me. To date, I'm still waiting and anxious to " get it on " in court! My

grandfather was a judge in Michigan. I learned a great deal from him about

honesty and integrity. It is unfortunate that the world of politics and industry

could not have borrowed from him.

I want to thank you for your courage and some of the items we have discussed in

the past. Without your assistance extremely important areas of this article

might never have been included. Now that it has resurfaced onto " Sickbuildings "

I hope all will take the time to read it.

I also told you that I would let you be the first to know about a particular

doctor I would be announcing for victims of mold exposures. My meeting with this

person is Friday. I will gladly keep my promise if all goes well.

God Bless and take care.

Doug Haney

[Guest guest]

Doug.

WOW! that was great read and very easy to follow and understand. Can

I have permission from you to forward it to my daughter she is not a

member of this group....

Thank you

Lee

>

> ALL: GIVING IT ONE MORE TRY WITH FORMAT MODIFICATIONS.

> Let's Talk Mold Exposures and Politics

> By R. Haney (Author: " Toxic Mold! Toxic Enemy! " )

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Doug. Much appreciated.

Sharon K

In a message dated 7/6/2008 6:01:33 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

_Haney52@... writes:

ALL: I am terribly remiss in not acknowledging my dear and greatly trusted

friend, Dr. Lipsey in my previous article. It is essential that he

also be recognized in addition to my dear friend Sharon Kramer. Dr. Lipsey IS

the primary factor and testimony that " broke the back " of the " rat study " for

the judge in the Sacramento " Harold Case. " Without his testimony this case

would not have been nearly as successful as it was.

My reminder from Dr. Lipsey:

" You are an excellent scientific writer. The only addition to the article

you wrote on the SickBuilding website, should have been that I was the only

person who testified in the Harold case at the Frye hearing, at the request of

attorney Kahn with the permission of the judge....... " You are an

excellent scientific writer. The only addition to the article you wrote on the

SickBuilding website, should have been that I was the only person who testified

in

the Harold case at the Frye hearing, at t " You are an excellent scientific

writer. The only addition to the article you wrote on the SickBuilding website,

should have been that I was the only person who testified in the Harold case

at the Frye hearing, at the request of attorney Kahn with the

permission of the judge.......<WBR>....highly irregular as I was NOT named as

an

expert in the case until half way thru the trial. I am the one that testified

to

the judge at the Frye Hearing and produced dozens of scientific and medical

articles....<WBR>.....that the ACOEM 2

Dr. Lipsey, I thought your memo to me was critically important and I

apologize for not including your part in that vital litigation that came out of

Sacramento in the Harold Case. You have been at this for a very long time and

are

deeply appreciated.

All: Please do not feel that I am giving praise to Dr. Lipsey and Sharon

only, as there are people who are vital contributors to mold exposure victims

and health such as Dr. Jack Thrasher, Dr. Dennis Hooper, Dr. , and Dr.

Hauser, Dr. Duffy, Dr. Gray, Dr. Pinto, Dr. Ammann, Dr. Etzel, Dr. Dearborn,

Dr. Shoemaker, Dr. Vojdani, my military " fellow corpsman " veteran and friend

Doug Kaufmann, many others unmentioned whom have been on the frontlines as

well. We all can be very thankful that these people are dedicated to all of

humanity. I can never say enough about my great friends Dr. Aristo Vojdani, Dr.

Sinaiko, Dr. A. Marinkovich (deceased), and Mark Tatum

(Deceased), as they have sacrificed beyond any scope of measurement deserving

of

merit and/or our gratitude. These people have lost businesses and life, while

withstanding the winds of change that this world has thrown at us in our quest

for truth and decency.

May God Bless them and the best to each of you.

Doug Haney

**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for

fuel-efficient used cars.

(http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)

[Guest guest]

ALL: I am terribly remiss in not acknowledging my dear and greatly trusted

friend, Dr. Lipsey in my previous article. It is essential that he also

be recognized in addition to my dear friend Sharon Kramer. Dr. Lipsey IS the

primary factor and testimony that " broke the back " of the " rat study " for the

judge in the Sacramento " Harold Case. " Without his testimony this case would not

have been nearly as successful as it was.

My reminder from Dr. Lipsey:

" You are an excellent scientific writer. The only addition to the article you

wrote on the SickBuilding website, should have been that I was the only person

who testified in the Harold case at the Frye hearing, at the request of attorney

Kahn with the permission of the judge...........highly irregular as I was

NOT named as an expert in the case until half way thru the trial. I am the

one that testified to the judge at the Frye Hearing and produced dozens of

scientific and medical articles.........that the ACOEM 2004 report was " JUNK

SCIENCE " ,. The judge agreed. He even cited many of the articles I gave him.

Sharon has mentioned the Frye hearing a dozen times, and never mentioned that I

was there and that I testified at the Frye hearing. You are an outstanding

science writer. Anyway, great article, and I will circulate it to all the

major mold attorneys I work with nationwide. Any word from XXXXX about you?

I told him how fantastic you were and that you were invaluable to the case. He

is having serious money issues. "

Dr. Lipsey, I thought your memo to me was critically important and I apologize

for not including your part in that vital litigation that came out of Sacramento

in the Harold Case. You have been at this for a very long time and are deeply

appreciated.

All: Please do not feel that I am giving praise to Dr. Lipsey and Sharon only,

as there are people who are vital contributors to mold exposure victims and

health such as Dr. Jack Thrasher, Dr. Dennis Hooper, Dr. , and Dr.

Hauser, Dr. Duffy, Dr. Gray, Dr. Pinto, Dr. Ammann, Dr. Etzel, Dr. Dearborn, Dr.

Shoemaker, Dr. Vojdani, my military " fellow corpsman " veteran and friend Doug

Kaufmann, many others unmentioned whom have been on the frontlines as well. We

all can be very thankful that these people are dedicated to all of humanity. I

can never say enough about my great friends Dr. Aristo Vojdani, Dr.

Sinaiko, Dr. A. Marinkovich (deceased), and Mark Tatum (Deceased), as

they have sacrificed beyond any scope of measurement deserving of merit and/or

our gratitude. These people have lost businesses and life, while withstanding

the winds of change that this world has thrown at us in our quest for truth and

decency.

May God Bless them and the best to each of you.

Doug Haney

@...: _Haney52@...: Sun, 6

Jul 2008 10:08:11 -0700Subject: RE: [] LET'S TALK MOLD EXPOSURES

AND POLITICS - Doug Haney

Sharon: Thank you very much. Coming from you especially, it makes all of the

efforts worth eveything I had to do to write it. When I first submitted it to

publish, one of the attorneys I am working for wanted to fire me over it. I

informed this person that this is the kind of work I do and I will continue to

do. At present, I do not know what my status is with that litigation matter, but

this person was angry that Sandy McNeel and the work she is doing for the

California Department of Public Health was brought up. Since I have been ill for

awhile, I haven't been too concerned about any of that. It is interesting, in

that I have indicated that if my article is not correct, sue me. To date, I'm

still waiting and anxious to " get it on " in court! My grandfather was a judge in

Michigan. I learned a great deal from him about honesty and integrity. It is

unfortunate that the world of politics and industry could not have borrowed from

him. I want to thank you for your courage and some of the items we have

discussed in the past. Without your assistance extremely important areas of this

article might never have been included. Now that it has resurfaced onto

" Sickbuildings " I hope all will take the time to read it. I also told you that I

would let you be the first to know about a particular doctor I would be

announcing for victims of mold exposures. My meeting with this person is Friday.

I will gladly keep my promise if all goes well. God Bless and take care.Doug

Haney

_________________________________________________________________

Need to know now? Get instant answers with Windows Live Messenger.

http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_mes\

senger_072008

[Guest guest]

Lee, you and anyone else who wishes to forward to anyone the " Let's Talk Mold

Exposures and Politics " article (as long as it is not modified and special

credits are given to Sharon Kramer for her longstanding dedicated work, and Dr.

Lipsey for his litigation efforts). Thank you for asking and I hope this

brings assistance to many.

God Bless and take care.

Doug Haney

Environmental-Health Projects: Research & Consulting

Email: _Haney52@...

@...: lugins71@...: Sun, 6 Jul

2008 17:29:39 +0000Subject: [] Re: LET'S TALK MOLD EXPOSURES AND

POLITICS - Doug Haney

Doug.WOW! that was great read and very easy to follow and understand. Can I have

permission from you to forward it to my daughter she is not a member of this

group....Thank you Lee>> ALL: GIVING IT ONE MORE TRY WITH FORMAT

MODIFICATIONS. > Let's Talk Mold Exposures and Politics> By R. Haney

(Author: " Toxic Mold! Toxic Enemy! " )> > >

_________________________________________________________________

It’s a talkathon – but it’s not just talk.

http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_JustTalk

[Guest guest]

Sharon: I am deeply indebted to you, KC, Sharon Carstens. I am simply a

Bio-Health Research Psychologist; a researcher and writer. You are the people

who deserve the Medal of Honor; I humbly submit that I am simply the field

reporter. My work is in finding and re-writing the script of the story in a way

that it can be readily understood, and I pray, bring about welcome change for

those who are afflicted with pain and sometimes despair.

I will reiterate the truth. Had you not been willing to place your personal

integrity on the line and find the facts behind the document I have placed into

the " public eye, " I would not have had anything other than the scientific

research to substantiate that molds and yeasts are at the helm of some very

serious illnesses; and, practically nothing to substantiate the unhealthy human

activity taking place between industry and government to prevent the public from

realizing how critical " general " knowledge about micro fungi (microbial molds

and yeasts) is. Without your knowledge and gathering of background data and

emails concerning the ACOEM, AAAAI, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, many individuals

and other suspect activity, we would be nowhere near where we are today. We are

on the move, and perhaps for a number of years it has been like riding on a

turtle's back, but we are gaining strength and today the general public and news

media are not as apt to push the accuracy of our facts aside. It is people such

as you that are the " backbone " of this movement, not because you want to be

recognized for saving the world; instead, because you actually are concerned

about the health and safety of your fellow man. You, KC, and Sharon Carstens

are incredibly special people and I for one, am very proud to be counted in your

friendship.

For a few months now I have been working on a very complex, but far-reaching

project that I have identified as the " Iron Triangle. " Some of it has been very

secret, and I have been instructed to keep it that way. But, I can tell you that

it is reaching new heights that are about to surface on two of the three fronts,

and once there I will be able to report it. However, for the present, please

keep the faith and quite possibly major successes will be achieved that will be

helpful to all. It takes all of us to do this job, and our successes and

failures are only experiences as to what we will leave behind for others to

build upon until everyone realizes that micro fungi are stronger than bacteria;

that viruses are non-living strings of DNA and RNA that adversely affect

animals, plants, and humans as well as bacteria and micro fungi, and; that

ultimately, no one is exempt from decomposing wrath of micro fungi before or

after their demise. Not immune competent and certainly not those people with

compromised immune systems. It is not the micro fungi that are the problem

though; as they do not have any brain cells to work with. No, it is those brainy

health practitioners and health officials that would rather ignore the gathering

of scientific knowledge in favor of corruption, personal greed, and political

power who are the weakest of mind and soul. Thank God there are true Americans;

all of which are patriots willing to take the battle to the top of the mountain

just as they did over 232 years ago.

My " war " is personal; that is my mission... " Changing Ignorance " in the 21st

Century. I feel that we have come to far in America to digress back into

Neanderthals and disobedient tyrants who choose to protect the national economy

and political flow, rather than care about human " Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of

Happiness. " Today, proudly, my weapon is not a sword or a gun, but a mind, soul,

and pen. I don't wish my enemy to die; I pray that my enemy becomes part of the

solution as a " true " fellow American who cares deeply about the American people;

their health and their safety as paramount above all else under God. Utopia

thoughts? I am sure. But when I am delivered from the Earth, I hope and pray to

have left a seed.

Thank you again Sharon Kramer for your work, and the same goes for KC and Sharon

Carstens. If there ever the most accurate definition of LOVE were to apply, it

is in the dedication of all those I have mentioned herein and before.

God Bless and take care.

Doug Haney

[Guest guest]

Doug,

Thank you for your kind words. We have all worked hard together to bring a

deceit within private medical associations to greater public and government

light. I know there are about 2500 members on this board. I don't think most

even realize just what a role the Carstens have played in this. For 11

years, they have served as information central. Gathering info and sharing it

with those of us who then use it/cross reference it to understand the

underlying problem and the magnitude of the mold issue. 11 years, they have

read all

of our emails, science papers and news articles from around the country so

that they can then share those of value.

Our medical and legal experts have done much research, too. And have done

much to move the issue forward. Not to discount their contributions one iota,

but they have been financially compensated along the way - some more than

others. Not KC and Sharon. They have given freely with nothing gained

personally and nothing received in return for their labors. And it is not just

KC &

Sharon. Mulvey son has spent innumerable hours discussing the

issue with those that can make a difference. Her case was over long ago. She

could have walked away, like many before her. And then there is Melinda

Ballard. The woman has talked to virtually every mold victims, every attorney,

every doctor free of charge while sharing information. I could go on..

Brinchman, Lee , JoEllen , Seats, Rene Haynes, Janet

Ammad, Doug Haney...the list could go on and many are members of this board

who research and contribute like Jeanine or Quackadillian. Together, we are

making a difference so that no others have to walk in our shoes.

We have turned a major corner. AIHA has broken ranks with the ACOEM

industry defensors and has put it in writing that our illnesses are indeed real

and

are plausibly caused by mold. This is huge for one of the private orgs, to

go against the grain of industry and help us. IAQA has also been our friends.

It is sad, disgusting and ironic that only the physician orgs are the last to

break ranks with industry in an effort to help the sick.

I would STRONGLY recommend anyone who has been made ill from mold and is

having difficulty getting assistance from your physicians, builders, etc.

because they are adhering to the ACOEM party line, buy this book from the AIHA.

It

dispels the myth that our illnesses are not plausible to be caused from

mold. Dr. Harriet Ammann co-authored the first chapter. Editors ,

Weekes

and Preziant have long been champions for the sick and injured from mold.

The days of VeriTox giving webinars to AIHA members that teach the ACOEM party

line...are now long gone!!!!

_http://iweb.aiha.org/iweb/Purchase/ProductDetail.aspx?Product_code=IMOM08-679

_

(http://iweb.aiha.org/iweb/Purchase/ProductDetail.aspx?Product_code=IMOM08-679)

We owe our friends within AIHA a great thank you for their integrity of

standing up against the defensors within their ranks and speaking the truth on

our behalf. I would anticipate that the allergists of AAAAI will soon follow

the lead of AIHA. ACOEM as a group...I think they are a lost cause. They are

industry whores. Apparently always have been and always will be.

Sharon K.

[Guest guest]

Thank you both, Doug & Sharon for so many kind words and thoughts.

The gratitude and appreciation towards you and everyone else on this

board that has helped move this forward goes way beyond words.

This is difficult because many of you are aware of Sharon's

condition and the changes that have taken place. I apologize to some

of our new members for the lack of response from me in your time of

need. I've had to focus lately more on what is occuring here, I

don't mean to be selfish. So many things have fallen by the wayside.

Many of you have or had experienced the anger, the roller coaster of

emotions, the lack of acknowledgement and sheer frustations

concerning this, when it should never have been. The worst part, if

we had been educated none of this would ever have happened or gone

to the extent that it has. If we were taught to be more aware of

microbes that can invade our living and work environment due to

water damaged buildings or just high humidity, we never would have

had to worry about the medical health effects. As Doug has always

said prevention, education and early intervention is the key to

prevent these nightmares. What is so difficult to understand about

that?

One of the most positive aspects concerning this are all the people

I have met over the years that I never would have met any other way.

I am just sorry that it had to be under these conditions. There are

many that have been mentioned and their contributions to this board

and behind the scenes are immeasurable. There are many

unsung " heros " surrounding this issue. There were several that were

not mentioned that were there for me and the rest of us, and they

are Carl Grimes and Jeff May, Dr.Hooper and Dr.Thrasher. All the

barbs, Darlene, Barth, just to name a few, the list can go

on and on. I tip my hat to each and everyone of you for your

unwavering work, dedication to others and your continued support and

friendship to me and mine.

There is so much I would like to say, but the words just aren't

coming to me right now. But I don't want to leave anyone out and if

I had it was strictly unintentional.

We are the lucky ones to have the internet access, the information,

the support, no matter how difficult it may be I just can't imagine

the numbers of those who have no idea that we are here and what may

be causing their condition. As many have pointed out in much of the

scientific research mycotic diseases are much more prevelant than

bacterial and viral. Yes, I do agree with some of our critics when

they say mold/fungi is everywhere. We have all learned IT IS, so why

haven't they!

As I have said before, I don't consider myself any different that

any one of you, you would have done the same thing with

Sickbuildings if you had the opportunity. I am just a messenger,

hoping that many will realize these are not rare cases and it isn't

specific to one location, it is nationwide, it is worldwide.

Our medical insitutions should be aware by now we are not going to

back down until changes are made and we are treated properly.

Bottomline, that is all any of us have ever asked for. The

litigation is caused by their own stupidity.

KC

>

>

> Doug,

>

> Thank you for your kind words. We have all worked hard together

to bring a

> deceit within private medical associations to greater public and

government

> light. I know there are about 2500 members on this board. I

don't think most

> even realize just what a role the Carstens have played in this.

For 11

> years, they have served as information central. Gathering info

and sharing it

> with those of us who then use it/cross reference it to understand

the

> underlying problem and the magnitude of the mold issue. 11 years,

they have read all

> of our emails, science papers and news articles from around the

country so

> that they can then share those of value.

>

> Our medical and legal experts have done much research, too. And

have done

> much to move the issue forward. Not to discount their

contributions one iota,

> but they have been financially compensated along the way - some

more than

> others. Not KC and Sharon. They have given freely with nothing

gained

> personally and nothing received in return for their labors. And

it is not just KC &

> Sharon. Mulvey son has spent innumerable hours

discussing the

> issue with those that can make a difference. Her case was over

long ago. She

> could have walked away, like many before her. And then there is

Melinda

> Ballard. The woman has talked to virtually every mold victims,

every attorney,

> every doctor free of charge while sharing information. I could

go on..

> Brinchman, Lee , JoEllen , Seats, Rene

Haynes, Janet

> Ammad, Doug Haney...the list could go on and many are members of

this board

> who research and contribute like Jeanine or Quackadillian.

Together, we are

> making a difference so that no others have to walk in our shoes.

>

> We have turned a major corner. AIHA has broken ranks with the

ACOEM

> industry defensors and has put it in writing that our illnesses

are indeed real and

> are plausibly caused by mold. This is huge for one of the

private orgs, to

> go against the grain of industry and help us. IAQA has also been

our friends.

> It is sad, disgusting and ironic that only the physician orgs are

the last to

> break ranks with industry in an effort to help the sick.

>

> I would STRONGLY recommend anyone who has been made ill from mold

and is

> having difficulty getting assistance from your physicians,

builders, etc.

> because they are adhering to the ACOEM party line, buy this book

from the AIHA. It

> dispels the myth that our illnesses are not plausible to be

caused from

> mold. Dr. Harriet Ammann co-authored the first chapter. Editors

, Weekes

> and Preziant have long been champions for the sick and injured

from mold.

> The days of VeriTox giving webinars to AIHA members that teach

the ACOEM party

> line...are now long gone!!!!

>

>

> _http://iweb.aiha.org/iweb/Purchase/ProductDetail.aspx?

Product_code=IMOM08-679

> _

> (http://iweb.aiha.org/iweb/Purchase/ProductDetail.aspx?

Product_code=IMOM08-679)

>

>

> We owe our friends within AIHA a great thank you for their

integrity of

> standing up against the defensors within their ranks and speaking

the truth on

> our behalf. I would anticipate that the allergists of AAAAI will

soon follow

> the lead of AIHA. ACOEM as a group...I think they are a lost

cause. They are

> industry whores. Apparently always have been and always will be.

>

> Sharon K.

>

[Guest guest]

KC & Sharon, Sharon Kramer, Doug and group,

First, it's been a privilege to participate in this group. I want to

express my personal thanks to all of you, including the individual

members of this group that freely share their experiences. Also to

those that dare to ask questions and keep asking until they

eventually hear something that makes sense and is useful.

I'd like to follow-up with Sharon's comment about the AIHA book,

" Recognition, Evaluation and Control of Indoor Mold. "

It's expensive at $160, so many of you can't afford it. But

hopefully a few of you can and will share some of what it says like

Sharon did. I found the following quotes a refreshing change from

the usual " defensor " attitude, as Sharon K refers to it.

The book is the latest compilation by top experts of the research

and positions on dampness and mold. Particularly noteworthy is

this statement against limiting issues to only mold, especially only

to spores, (page 13), which means it will be more difficult for the

defense to reject claims based on negative results from simplistic

mold and mycotoxin sampling:

Indoor exposures are a complex mixture of molds,

bacteria, fragments of both types of organisms; their

multiple toxic products; and biologically derived small

particles, gases and other air pollutants. Effects,

depending on the susceptibility of the exposed occupants

and their degree of exposure, can be combinations of

allergic response, inflammation and its consequences,

and other toxiic responses. This complex exposure and

effect picture is not addressed by risk assessment

focused on spores or individual toxins.

More directly from page 6, with " filth " previously described as

what is there, what settles from the air, and the waste products

generated from the life cycles of living, reproducing, and dying

mold and bacteria in dampness:

The implications of this research are that prevention of

unwanted moisture, and removal of filth caused by

moisture, is necessary to prevent disease.

Despite the difficulty implied by the above, page 6:

Formal intervention studies exist and support three

statements.

1. Moisture is the primary environmental condition

associated with disease.

2. Intervention is possible to resolve moisture problems

and subsequent biological contamination.

3. Intervention can resolve disease but requires careful

manipulation of the environment.

Two statements from the Preface are particularly telling:

A relationship between damp indoor environments and

poor occupant health has been documented for centuries

(page xi)

...mold in the built environment was an established

problem for public health. In the past two decades

population-based cross-sectional, and, more recently,

prospective studies have confirmed this association.

(page xi)

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Thank you both, Doug & Sharon for so many kind words and thoughts.

> The gratitude and appreciation towards you and everyone else on this

> board that has helped move this forward goes way beyond words.

>

> This is difficult because many of you are aware of Sharon's

> condition and the changes that have taken place. I apologize to some

> of our new members for the lack of response from me in your time of

> need. I've had to focus lately more on what is occuring here, I

> don't mean to be selfish. So many things have fallen by the wayside.

>

> Many of you have or had experienced the anger, the roller coaster of

> emotions, the lack of acknowledgement and sheer frustations

> concerning this, when it should never have been. The worst part, if

> we had been educated none of this would ever have happened or gone

> to the extent that it has. If we were taught to be more aware of

> microbes that can invade our living and work environment due to

> water damaged buildings or just high humidity, we never would have

> had to worry about the medical health effects. As Doug has always

> said prevention, education and early intervention is the key to

> prevent these nightmares. What is so difficult to understand about

> that?

>

> One of the most positive aspects concerning this are all the people

> I have met over the years that I never would have met any other way.

> I am just sorry that it had to be under these conditions. There are

> many that have been mentioned and their contributions to this board

> and behind the scenes are immeasurable. There are many

> unsung " heros " surrounding this issue. There were several that were

> not mentioned that were there for me and the rest of us, and they

> are Carl Grimes and Jeff May, Dr.Hooper and Dr.Thrasher. All the

> barbs, Darlene, Barth, just to name a few, the list can go

> on and on. I tip my hat to each and everyone of you for your

> unwavering work, dedication to others and your continued support and

> friendship to me and mine.

>

> There is so much I would like to say, but the words just aren't

> coming to me right now. But I don't want to leave anyone out and if

> I had it was strictly unintentional.

>

> We are the lucky ones to have the internet access, the information,

> the support, no matter how difficult it may be I just can't imagine

> the numbers of those who have no idea that we are here and what may

> be causing their condition. As many have pointed out in much of the

> scientific research mycotic diseases are much more prevelant than

> bacterial and viral. Yes, I do agree with some of our critics when

> they say mold/fungi is everywhere. We have all learned IT IS, so why

> haven't they!

>

> As I have said before, I don't consider myself any different that

> any one of you, you would have done the same thing with

> Sickbuildings if you had the opportunity. I am just a messenger,

> hoping that many will realize these are not rare cases and it isn't

> specific to one location, it is nationwide, it is worldwide.

>

> Our medical insitutions should be aware by now we are not going to

> back down until changes are made and we are treated properly.

> Bottomline, that is all any of us have ever asked for. The

> litigation is caused by their own stupidity.

>

> KC

>

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > Doug,

> >

> > Thank you for your kind words. We have all worked hard together

> to bring a

> > deceit within private medical associations to greater public and

> government

> > light. I know there are about 2500 members on this board. I

> don't think most

> > even realize just what a role the Carstens have played in this.

> For 11

> > years, they have served as information central. Gathering info

> and sharing it

> > with those of us who then use it/cross reference it to understand

> the

> > underlying problem and the magnitude of the mold issue. 11 years,

> they have read all

> > of our emails, science papers and news articles from around the

> country so

> > that they can then share those of value.

> >

> > Our medical and legal experts have done much research, too. And

> have done

> > much to move the issue forward. Not to discount their

> contributions one iota,

> > but they have been financially compensated along the way - some

> more than

> > others. Not KC and Sharon. They have given freely with nothing

> gained

> > personally and nothing received in return for their labors. And

> it is not just KC &

> > Sharon. Mulvey son has spent innumerable hours

> discussing the

> > issue with those that can make a difference. Her case was over

> long ago. She

> > could have walked away, like many before her. And then there is

> Melinda

> > Ballard. The woman has talked to virtually every mold victims,

> every attorney,

> > every doctor free of charge while sharing information. I could

> go on..

> > Brinchman, Lee , JoEllen , Seats, Rene

> Haynes, Janet

> > Ammad, Doug Haney...the list could go on and many are members of

> this board

> > who research and contribute like Jeanine or Quackadillian.

> Together, we are

> > making a difference so that no others have to walk in our shoes.

> >

> > We have turned a major corner. AIHA has broken ranks with the

> ACOEM

> > industry defensors and has put it in writing that our illnesses

> are indeed real and

> > are plausibly caused by mold. This is huge for one of the

> private orgs, to

> > go against the grain of industry and help us. IAQA has also been

> our friends.

> > It is sad, disgusting and ironic that only the physician orgs are

> the last to

> > break ranks with industry in an effort to help the sick.

> >

> > I would STRONGLY recommend anyone who has been made ill from mold

> and is

> > having difficulty getting assistance from your physicians,

> builders, etc.

> > because they are adhering to the ACOEM party line, buy this book

> from the AIHA. It

> > dispels the myth that our illnesses are not plausible to be

> caused from

> > mold. Dr. Harriet Ammann co-authored the first chapter. Editors

> , Weekes

> > and Preziant have long been champions for the sick and injured

> from mold.

> > The days of VeriTox giving webinars to AIHA members that teach

> the ACOEM party

> > line...are now long gone!!!!

> >

> >

> > _http://iweb.aiha.org/iweb/Purchase/ProductDetail.aspx?

> Product_code=IMOM08-679

> > _

> > (http://iweb.aiha.org/iweb/Purchase/ProductDetail.aspx?

> Product_code=IMOM08-679)

> >

> >

> > We owe our friends within AIHA a great thank you for their

> integrity of

> > standing up against the defensors within their ranks and speaking

> the truth on

> > our behalf. I would anticipate that the allergists of AAAAI will

> soon follow

> > the lead of AIHA. ACOEM as a group...I think they are a lost

> cause. They are

> > industry whores. Apparently always have been and always will be.

> >

> > Sharon K.

> >

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you all for being here. my thoughts are with us all. keep up

the great work. the time is way over due for this illness to be

reconized and dealt with.

--- In , " tigerpaw2c " <tigerpaw2c@...>

wrote:

>

> Thank you both, Doug & Sharon for so many kind words and thoughts.

> The gratitude and appreciation towards you and everyone else on

this

> board that has helped move this forward goes way beyond words.

>