March 2011 ACOEM Exposed, by Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker

[Guest guest]

_http://www.survivingmold.com/news/2011/03/acoem-2011-critique-dr-ritchie-sh

oemaker/#comments_

(http://www.survivingmold.com/news/2011/03/acoem-2011-critique-dr-ritchie-shoema\

ker/#comments)

One Response to ACOEM 2011 Critique…Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker

1.

Sharon Kramer says:

March 12, 2011 at 10:58 pm

Excellent critique of ACOEM’s moldy logic, Dr. Shoemaker. This critique

will be a valuable tool that will help save many lives by exposing the

deception in ACOEM’s concept of science and medicine for the public good.

To leave those extrapolations by Bruce Kelman and Hardin of VeriTox,

Inc., in this version (that is used to promote the false concept that

science hold the toxins in WDB pose no health threat) is aiding with insurer

fraud. And I know ACOEM knows this, because I have explained it and evidenced

it for them in detail with the legal documents.

Specifically, those calculations are the cornerstone for a paper that

Hardin and Kelman also authored for the US Chamber of Commerce, with payment

coming from the Manhattan Institute think-tank. The paper is called “A

Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold†2003.

Hardin and Kelman are PhDs. The Chamber’s “Scientific View†cites false

authorship of being co-written by a physician, Saxon. But only Hardin

and Kelman billed hours and were paid for the Chamber paper; and Saxon has

stated under oath that he had not even read it, three years after it

publication.

The:

a.) billing records for the Chamber paper,

b.) Saxon’s under oath statements saying he

did not know he was a named author, and

c.)Kelman stating under oath that he and

Hardin got Saxon’s permission to put his

name of the Chamber paper, may be read

at:

_http://freepdfhosting.com/1e539c7db7.pdf_

(http://freepdfhosting.com/1e539c7db7.pdf)

In other words, one of the three authors of the 2002 ACOEM Mold Statement,

that are given credit as the foundation of the 2011 Revision (Hardin,

Kelman, Saxon) – is not telling the truth under oath about who wrote the paid

for hire work of the US Chamber. No one claims it on their CVs.

According to Kelman’s under oath statements, the US Chamber paper was

specifically written for judges.Saxon calls it “a nonscientific piece with my

name on itâ€.

2.

Submitted via Amicus by a PAC in 2009, it is currently being used as a

legal document to support Kelman’s expert opinion in a litigation in Arizona

involving two infant deaths. I am pretty sure that is insurer fraud to submit

phoney science papers with known fake authorship into a legal proceeding

in support of the paid for hire expert witness/true author’s opinion.

In the Arizona case, attorneys are holding it out as the gospel of science

written by a “panel of scientistsâ€. NOPE! Just Hardin and Kelman, who are

also responsible for those fraudulent math calculations in the old and new

ACOEM Mold Statements.

One may read the PAC amicus (citing to the Chamber paper with falsified

authorship) in relevant part at: _http://freepdfhosting.com/f6bdd9bc03.pdf_

(http://freepdfhosting.com/f6bdd9bc03.pdf)

In the LaDou et.al., paper Dr. Shoemaker linked above, “ACOEM A

Professional Organization In Service to Industryâ€, one may read more of the US

Chamber

’s paid for hire judicial marketing piece being closely tied to the “

science†of Hardin, Kelman and ACOEM at pg 420.

People should also know that a few states such as CA & NY, pay ACOEM to

write the policies that workers’ comp physicians must follow when deteriming

treatments and insurance benefits (or lack there of) for injured workers.

Again, excellent writing, Dr. Shoemaker!!

In a message dated 3/12/2011 2:30:25 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

snk1955@... writes:

Visit the ACOEM Exposed section by Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker on

_www.survivingmold.com_

(_http://cts.vresp.com/c/?SurvivingMoldLLC/5622b7a94d/5ba71cf20e/cc617241c4_

(http://cts.vresp.com/c/?SurvivingMoldLLC/5622b7a94d/5ba71cf20e/cc617241c4) ) !