Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

More | Report Post

Deborah,

Your understanding is correct regarding who authored what and who is claiming who authored
what. One of the main points though is that both men authored the ACOEM paper together and
one of the two ACOEM authors is lying under oath about who authored the Chamber paper.

John Codie,

No. My daughter's code blue in 1998 had nothing to do with a leak in my home in 2001. No,
my daughter did not claim near death from mycotoxins, ever. No,neither did I.

AND...NO, I had no reason to harbor any malice for Kelman for a testimony that the
undisputed evidence shows he never even gave. Thank you for so much for bringing this very
important aspect to greater public light.

On 1/07/10, Deborah wrote:
> John,
>
> Why are you so preoccupied with what Sharon or I do or don't do? Why are you making
> pop/pseudo diagnoses after watching an episode of Dr. Oz? After he pushed H1N1
> vaccines, I dismissed him as just another mouthpiece; you are, however, entitled to your
> own opinion.
>
> Kelman promotes himself as an expert and is paid for "expert" testimony based on a paper
> (s) he co-authored, one of them with a prominent, real expert who disputes having co-
> authored a "translation" of a paper he did write. Since Kelman has had much court
> experience and been sworn in a number of times, we may suppose that he knows full well
> what swearing to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth really means much less
> giving expert testimony. This isn't an argument of semantics, i.e., "depends on what
> your definition of "is" is", this is about valid scientific information, or in this
> case, invalid scientific information being passed off as valid.
>
> And, this has had a chilling effect that reverberates throughout clinical practice of
> medicine. The ramifications of this are equally chilling considering how many people
> have serious real estate investments.
>
> I believe, I know, it is a big deal. You don't. Okay. Move on then.
>
> On 1/07/10, johncodie wrote:
>> Deborah:
>>
>> 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.
>>>