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

[Guest guest]

Doug,

That is absolutely some beautiful writing. Everything you say, I know to be

correct!!! I pulled out some of my favorite excerpts. Good job!

Sharon K.

.... 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.

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

“primaryâ€

reason that a “consensus†philosophy over a “scientific evidenceâ€

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.

If a Superior Court judge was wise enough to see through the “unacceptableâ€

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 cureâ€) 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

medicineâ€

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

“officiallyâ€

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.

â€

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.

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.

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

fuel-efficient used cars.

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