Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09
Posted by johncodie on 1/07/10
I've recommended on serveral occassions that you and Ms Kramer cease being tabloid
search engine, article experts for individuals in serious need of medical, and legal
assistance. I sense this forum is more of a preoccupation for a sense of well being.
I mean no offense as I have searched for the past 12 years for the additional
knowledge to sustain my family. My sense in the case of Ms Kramer is what Dr. Oz
characterised as a care giver that doesn't take enough time out for taking care of
herself. As much as we might not be pleased with Mr Kelman, and how defensive he
might appear, it is in his line of business to be under cross examination. Ms Kramer
as Dr. Oz desribed appears to have aged prematurely in these past ten years. You can
tell in her writing of criminal activity by Kelman. Seriously her family might need
to impose some intervention for her own health.
The general public deserve the facts of which I don't think she is being forthcoming,
or is ready to admit she isn't a moldwarroir spokes person anymore.
On 1/07/10, Deborah wrote:
> So, Saxon denies authoring the Chamber paper...and Kelman says he did...hmm, who am
> I most likely to believe.. If I authored a paper that would be used as evidence,
> evidence that would likely impact people's health, physical and financial, I would
> want to examine any "translation" of the original paper, especially in my own
> language, and give permission for my name to be used on said translation...and
> possibly compensated unless my magnanimity dictated otherwise.
> To get this straight, the Chamber paper is involved in the dispute in AZ, not the
> ACOEM paper, right?
> Now why would any of this be confusing to a lay person? Early on, I found copious,
> accepted scientific papers on the dangers of mold, especially in agricultural
> literature to begin with...also in librarians' newsletters and such. I had contacts
> in the agricultural and book world and had a vague recollection of these things
> which were corroborated by said contacts and the scientific literature I found.
> It perplexes me that anyone who wrote on the subject in early 2000 wouldn't have had
> access to what I read and much, much more.
Posts on this thread, including this one