Posted by Sharon Kramer on 8/10/10
Where on earth do you get this stuff? For such a skeptic, you
are quite a conspiracy theory nut!
None of the authors of that paper - which is put out by
Policyholders Of America - is promoting false science. It is
all well documented by scientific reference.
CIRS from WDB is an illness that the Department of Labor
awarded disability to an air traffic controller well over a
year ago. It is all properly disclosed who does what in this
What you don't seem to understand is that in order to show
conflict of interest, you have to be able to show:
a. that someone published misleading scientific information
b. that they did it for financial motivation.
That is not the case with this paper.
As far as ACHEMMIC, I too left the org. I did this about a
month ago. It was hampering my ability to speak out directly
of the politics behind the deceit of the US Chamber et al.
which definately qualifies under criteria a & b above for
conflicts of interest causing the promotion of false science.
Regardless of leaving ACHEMMIC, I am a staunch supporter of the
validity and integrity in science behind the POA paper. I
think that Deborah and others who have left ACHEMMIC are, too,
as far as I know.
On 8/10/10, JohnCodie wrote:
> On 8/08/10, Deborah Daniels wrote:
>> To Whom It May Concern:
>> I was affiliated with the aforementioned group using my
>> married name of Davitt. I have recently resigned from this
>> group to which I contributed virtually nothing.
>> I wish to take the time to point out that there is a member
>> on the board, one Lee Daniels, listed as a public health
>> advocate, who is not a relative of mine or in any way
>> connected to my family. I have no personal knowledge of
>> this person or his/her activism in IAQ issues.
>> Deborah Daniels Davitt
> I pulled up the membership list and found alot of wolfs in
> sheep skins. Many ready and able to take up your cause for
> a special fee. They got together to write their own
> position paper; while claiming the US Navy has their own
> mold remediation guidelines. Just more sheepskin to cover
> the money blood hungry of wanting to obtain federal funding
> for mold studies. The US Navy builds their primary
> resicence out either steel, or fiber glass; wood products
> providing fuel for harmful toxic fumes are not desired. The
> most proficient manual for toxic removal is the acidic
> cleaning of the toliets. So why would this group take a
> Katrina handout provided to rescue workers for Katrina
> clearly giving outdated references to the New York City
> Guidelines and try to turn it into a Federal Mold Guideline
> Document? So it would legitimize their position? I
> champion and applaud your decision. I only wish Sharon
> would likewise disassociate. The group is no more than a
> Tea party soliciting for funds so support their gravy
> train. What is a bandwagon without the hay, just a buch of
> boobs, on public display. jc
Posts on this thread, including this one