Re: Mold Dan Fisher of Forbes Magazine US Chamber ACOEM

More | Report Post

I posted a reply to Dan's article on mold. This REALLY needs
to come to light what Ole Dan actually knows of the politics
behind what he is promoting as science over the mold issue:

http://blogs.forbes.com/danielfisher/2011/02/26/mold-helps-
reduce-asthma-but-will-lawyers-notice/

sharonkramer
So now let me get this straight. Dan Fisher is trying to
promote that science holds it would be good for city kids if
their parents and landlords all hosed their houses and
apartments down with water; let it sit til mold extensively
grows; and then put the little children in the moldy
buildings to be able to breathe in lots of mold because it is
good for their health? (wonder if that includes schools?)

I think 12 year old Ebony Gage would probably disagree with
Dan…that’s if she could disagree. She can’t. She has severe
brain damage after an asthma attack brought on by her moldy
urban housing.

See Video:
http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/pha-settles-
mold-lawsuit-for-$9.5m

According to the NEJM article studying why farm children have
less asthma, that Fisher quotes in purported scientific
support for loading urban dwellings up with mold,

“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 needs to take more than a first glance at science
papers he quotes before he writes more nonsense that is so
harmful to public health, should anyone take his writings to
heart as being written by an informed, professional
journalist. Dan has a Loooong history of twisting this issue
in a manner favorable to the interests of the insurance
industry.

This article should be titled, “Mold Reduces Asthma in Farm
Children, But Will Lawyers Notice How Ridiculous Dan Fisher’s
Writings Have Become?”

Reply to this »
Flag for abuse
6:45 pm on 02/27/11 sharonkramer
OK. This REALLY needs to come out. What Dan Fisher REALLY
knows of the mold issue and how he is promoting the science
of the insurance industry and the US Chamber with this newest
goofy article.

4.30.10 Truth Out Letter To Andrew Saxon, MD of UCLA who is a
co-author of the American College of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine (ACOEM)mold statement & the American
Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) Mold
Statement; AND falsely listed as a co-author of the US
Chamber of Commerce’s mold statement. Dan has a copy of this.

http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/truth-out-
sharon-kramer-letter-to-andrew-saxon-mold-issue/

Just a few key quotes with linked documents:

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.

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.

Why do you think Jay Portnoy’s name and University of
Missouri’s were added and left on the substantive AAAAI mold
medico-legal policy paper of 2006 as a contributing co-author
with you and the other three; when he specifically told AAAAI
he did not write any of it and stated he wanted his name
removed; deeming the paper “negative on the science”?

Center for Science in the Public Interest (“CSPI”) has voiced
concerns of the matter and its impact on the mold issue and
public health when expert witnesses for the defense do not
disclose their financial interests while seeing their
writings published as substantive medical policy papers
portrayed in medical journals as representative of the
opinions of thousands of physicians; and thereby serving the
interest of the insurance industry and the authors themselves
when generating income by expert witnessing before the courts.

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.

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.

On 2/27/11, Sharon Kramer wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>