Posted by Sharon Kramer on 2/27/11

More | Report Post

Mold Helps Reduce Asthma, But Will Lawyers Notice..how
incredibly stupid this writing really is?

According to Fisher, it would seem that we should all go
hose our houses down with water, let it sit til mold grows,
and then put our children in there for the sake of
improving their health.

This is what the actual conclusion of the NEJM paper Fisher
cites in purportedly support his "scientific" position says:

"Conclusions Children living on farms were exposed to a
wider range of microbes than were children in the reference
group, and this exposure explains a substantial fraction of
the inverse relation between asthma and growing up on a
farm."

He is trying to argue that more mold in urban dwellings is
good for the children. But if that is the case, then why
are these children who are breathing lots of mold in
substandard housing not has healthy as the farm children?

The NEJM article acknowledges children in urban settings
have more asthma. It also states,

"At first glance, these findings may challenge previous
observations suggesting that molds may account for the
increased risk of asthma ascribed to dampness. However,
molds are very heterogeneous, and different genera or
species within very large taxa, such as penicillium
species, may exert diverse effects."

Fisher never got beyond the first glance. According to the
writings of Fisher, one would conclude that - directly
contridicting to the NEJM article which acknowledges they
studied two molds that seem to help farm children avoid
asthma later in life - that his stupid writing is a reason
for plaintiff attorneys to run for cover. Seems to me it is
more of a good reason for them to get a good chuckle on a
Sunday morning.

Fisher:
"This might be inconvenient for plaintiff lawyers who have
made a lucrative practice of suing urban landlords for lung
diseases they blame on mold and bacteria, which they in
turn blame on shoddy maintenance practices....Mold suits
have been especially effective in inner-city areas where
it’s easy to find a jury willing to blame the landlord for
a child’s illness....The myth is busted."

My conclusion: Subscriptions must be down at Forbes
Magazine OR Dan has a copy of ACOEM's new mold guidelines,
pre publication, and is doing a little pre-sale work.

Wish he would send it to me like he did the AAAAI mold
statement, pre-publication, so we could get to work on
exposing the anticipated frauds in the paper. In 2006,
Fisher played a MAJOR Role is stopping the AAAAI paper from
being used as a weapon against the sick in court.

From my TRUTH OUT paper, of which, Dan has a copy!!:
http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/truth-out-
sharon-kramer-letter-to-andrew-saxon-mold-issue/

18) The AAAAI mold policy statement is a
medico-legal publication that is used to market the concept
to the courts that it is the consensus opinion of thousands
of immunologists who treat mold injured patients on a
regular basis. Yet, listed as co-author – Jay Portnoy, who
is the Section Chief, Allergy, Asthma, Immunology,
Professor of Pediatrics, University of Missouri-Kansas City
School of Medicine – deems the AAAAI paper as
the “scientific approach on this topic has been extremely
negative” with his name and University of Missouri
credentials attached as authoring without his knowledge.
Thus adding false credibility that the AAAAI publication is
representative of the consensus of the five stated authors,
and the scientific consensus of the thousands of allergist
and immunologist members of the AAAAI; consistent with the
occupational physicians of ACOEM.

19) However, Jay did not even know he was
named as co-authoring this paper for AAAAI until I told him
in a February 2006 email. An acquaintance of mine from
Forbes Magazine, Dan Fisher, who frequently writes of
litigation from commerce’s position, somehow had access to
the AAAAI policy statement before its publication in the
JACI and sent it to me. I sent it to Jay. Jay then
requested his name be removed. Apparently, the AAAAI
replied “No”, as Jay is still named as co-authoring this
substantive medico-legal policy paper that does not support
his scientific opinion and in reality, he did not co-
author. He says you rewrote his findings regarding irritant
reactions from mold exposure and from there he had nothing
to do with it.

20) Much like the USA went to war based on the
frenzied hype and false marketing to decision makers that
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; all three of these
closely related medico-legal policy setters, ACOEM’s,
AAAAI’s & US Chamber’s, all naming you as co-authoring and
thus all carrying the University of California’s
imprimatur, are used in marketing the false scientific
concept to the courts and into US health policy that Bruce
and Brian could legitimately apply math extrapolations to
data they took from a single intratracially instilled
mechanistic study by Dr. Carol Rao; mix several
hypotheticals into the equation; and then mass market via
medical associations, teaching hospitals and the US
Chamber; what is a nonsequitor of science that flies in the
face of the basic tenets of toxicology and common sense.
Ie, Based on this one set of calculations, the toxic
components of mold that are found in water damaged
buildings are scientifically established to pose no threat
to human health. Thus, sick little children in the USA, who
claim moldy (and insured) buildings are making them
seriously ill with chronic immune system inflammations
brought on by microbial toxins, are Evil Doers out to scam
insurers – and so are their weeping mothers. (Best summed
up by a Sacramento, California judge, Huge Leap)

6) The AAAAI oddly did not retract or edit
their 2006 mold medico-legal policy paper, even after
receiving numerous complaints from physicians and
scientists (including Dr. Harriet Ammann, the author of
Toxicity Section for the IOM Report (2004) with which the
AAAAI mold statement falsely professes to be in sync) ; and
even after Jay informed them he did not really author any
aspect of the final product of their policy paper – in
2006. The AAAAI did change their journal authors’ required
disclosure policy to include income generated from
professionally witnessing, directly because of this fiasco
over the mold issue – which lives on through the US Chamber
of Commerce and the NAA. – “panel of scientists” “years of
intense study have failed to produce any causal
connection” “nonscientific piece that has my name on
it” “something assessible to judges” “negative on the
science” “huge leap” of the AAAAI, ACOEM, and US Chamber of
Commerce’s “Scientific View” of the health effects of mold
and 2009, NAA legal document in Arizona.

7) The under oath conflicting testimonies of
you and Bruce of who really authored what for the US
Chamber of Commerce over the mold issue further diminishes
the scientific credibility of both ACOEM’s and AAAAI’s mold
position statements that are both co-authored by you — by
the entanglement of medical association position statement
authors and prolific expert defense witnesses – who
basically seem to point the finger at each other about who
really authored a scientifically void, medico-legal
marketing piece for US Chamber of Commerce over the mold
issue with the express intent to influence the courts – and
no one claiming authorship of the Chamber paper on their
CV’s.

8) The Big Lie in health marketing perpetrated
by both ACOEM and AAAAI is Plainly Stated in Lay
Terminology by the US Chamber paper, Ie, that it is
scientifically proven the toxic components of mold does no
harm when one is exposed in a water damaged building and
anyone who says it does should be considered by their
doctors and the courts to be mentally ill liars out to scam
their insurer, employer or landlord– with your imprimatur
and thus the University of California’s on all three of
these medico-legal policy papers: ACOEM’s, AAAAI’s & the US
Chamber’s.

Mold Helps Reduce Asthma, But Will Lawyers Notice?

Black Mold Claims Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST