Posted by Sharon Kramer on 3/10/11

More | Report Post

http://www.workcompcentral.com/signup/news/index.php?
id=34467318de5e107dbebf8abd510d320cj

WorkCompCentral Top 03/09/11

Revised ACOEM Mold Statement Doesn’t Appease Critics:

By Patrick Reilly, Correspondent

The American College of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine has released long-awaited revisions to its
contentious position paper on the health effects of mold
exposure.....,

The paper, released Feb. 24, says indoor molds have
an “important, but minor overall role in allergic airway
disease. Except for persons with severely impaired immune
systems, indoor mold is not a source of fungal
infections.”...

The conclusion isn’t significantly different than the
statement in ACOEM’s original position statement, which
drew fire from critics who say the college is too cozy with
claims payers....

“What they put out is exactly what we expected,” Kramer
said. “It is a new and improved litigation defense
argument that is not based on currently accepted
science.”...

ACOEM’s original paper relied in part on a test in which
mice were exposed to a specific strain of mold and suffered
no significant health effects. The test was extrapolated
to reach the conclusion that exposure to mold would have no
effect in humans.

“It is insurance fraud. Nothing has changed,” [Kramer]
said. “They took data from a single rodent study. Those
calculations have been thrown out of court.” (I added the
links!)

ACOEM came under fire for its 2002 position paper after a
Wall Street Journal report revealed that the two authors,
Bruce Kelman and Bryan Hardin, were toxicologists and
defense witnesses who testified that there was no health
effect caused by exposure to mold....

McLellan said the general public also had the opportunity
to comment on the revisions.....”Public comments did go to
the Council of Scientific Advisors.”

Black Mold Claims Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST