Re: Wall Street Journal "False Witness"
Posted by WrinkleyOldLady on 1/04/07
Sharon, you go girl! I missed the original article but your
rebuttal is terrific. Did they print it? I hope so. It is
one thing to sit on the fence about whether one accepts the
mold-health connection due to conflicting info. But it is
quite another to state that there is no connection. That is
just plain disinformation, and I hope thousands of people
made sick by mold blasted them for it.
On 12/03/06, Sharon Kramer wrote:
> "according to the American College of Occupational and
> Environmental Medicine, current scientific evidence does
> not support the proposition that molds or the mycotoxins
> produced by molds, whether inhaled in home, school, or
> office environments, adversely affect human health"
>
> Wall Street Journal
> False Witness
> By LESTER BRICKMAN
> December 2, 2006; Page A9
>
> Last year, in a shot heard round the mass tort world, U.S.
> District Court Judge Janis Jack, presiding over 10,000
> claims of silicosis -- a lung disease caused by exposure
to
> silica (sand) dusts, issued a report documenting
> widespread, fraudulent medical diagnoses. The fraud was
> discovered when Judge Jack permitted the defendants to
> extensively question the doctors who had diagnosed the
> alleged injuries. While this sounds like standard
operating
> procedure, most judges would not have permitted such
> discovery. Indeed, the fraud would never have come to
light
> but for a courageous judge willing to, in effect, put the
> tort system on trial.
>
> Judge Jack largely corroborated my own published findings
> of fraudulent production of medical evidence in asbestos
> litigation....
>
> Independent medical doctors find that upwards of 90&37; of
the
> findings of disease are in error. The doctors refuse to
> produce subpoenaed records of all of their X-ray readings
> or diagnoses done for the lawyers because that could
> be "smoking gun" evidence of fraud....
>
> Substantially the same fraudulent practices have been used
> in other mass tort litigations. "Fen-phen" is one
example...
>
> A prominent Duke cardiologist and a panel of medical
> experts reviewed 968 sets of echocardiograms that had
> passed an audit procedure instituted when it became
> apparent that thousands of bogus claims were being paid
> millions of dollars....
>
> Silicone is another example. Screenings by lawyers in
> silicone breast implant litigation ginned up tens of
> thousands of claims of connective tissue and rheumatoid
> diseases that were supported by the specious diagnoses of
a
> few dozen doctors who were mostly referred by the lawyers.
> Cursory examinations -- sometimes in lawyers' offices
> doubling as examining rooms...However, the National
Academy
> of Sciences' Institute of Medicine concluded that "there
is
> no evidence that silicone breast implants contribute to an
> increase in autoimmune (connective tissue) diseases . . .
> and [there is] no link between implants and connective
> disease or rheumatic conditions."...
>
>
> Mold litigation is still another example of a mass tort
> infected by fraudulent medical and scientific evidence.
> Mold is a ubiquitous fungus to which everyone is exposed;
> according to the American College of Occupational and
> Environmental Medicine, current scientific evidence does
> not support the proposition that molds or the mycotoxins
> produced by molds, whether inhaled in home, school, or
> office environments, adversely affect human health. The
> scientific evidence notwithstanding, mold litigation, a
> multibillion dollar industry, proceeds because a small
> number of experts paid fees of as much as $10,000 a day
> have regularly testified that mold causes a terrifying
> array of diseases from lung cancer to cirrhosis of the
> liver.
>
> While there are ongoing federal investigations of silica
> and asbestos litigation in New York and of fen-phen
> litigation in Philadelphia, federal prosecutors have not
> indicted the doctors and scientific experts. To prove
fraud
> in those cases will require the testimony of other doctors
> and scientific experts; and it may be that prosecutors are
> concerned that "reasonable doubt" is virtually inherent in
> a process that relies on a "battle of the experts" for
> evidence of fraud. Meanwhile, doctors and scientific
> experts are obviously well aware of their effective
> immunity from prosecution. They do not need a "get out of
> jail free" card because they already have a "never go to
> jail" card.....
>
> But more is necessary to curb fraud. State and federal
> legislation is needed to empower prosecutors to pierce
> doctors' and scientific experts' effective immunity from
> criminal prosecution. Drafting legislation to distinguish
> between legitimately disputed diagnoses or theories of
> causation and manufacturing medical or scientific evidence
> for money is a daunting task. But it is one that we must
> undertake to preserve the integrity of the civil justice
> system.
>
> Mr. Brickman is professor of law at the Cardozo School of
> Law of Yeshiva University.
>
>
> December 1, 2006
>
> To The Editors of the Wall Street Journal and Mr. Lester
> Brinkman,
>
> My name is Mrs. Sharon Kramer. I advocate for those made
> ill from mold exposure who are not able to obtain viable
> medical treatment because of much misinformation being
> disseminated over the matter.
>
> The article entitled "False Witness" and authored by Mr.
> Lester Brinkman has a misstatement of fact that is
> potentially harmful to many, should it not be corrected.
It
> is misinformation that could cause the public to be lulled
> into a false and dangerous sense of security regarding
> indoor mold exposure.
>
> Mr. Brinkman wrote: "according to the American College of
> Occupational and Environmental Medicine, current
scientific
> evidence does not support the proposition that molds or
the
> mycotoxins produced by molds, whether inhaled in home,
> school, or office environments, adversely affect human
> health."
>
> The American College of Occupational and Environmental
> Medicine makes no such claims that indoor mold exposureis
> harmless to human health. The area of debate within the
> matter, is if an indoor exposure to mycotoxins may produce
> toxic effects.
>
> The actual quotes from the American College of
Occupational
> and Environmental Medicine, Mold Statement in regard to
> mycotoxins are,
>
> 1. "Particular attention is given to the possible health
> effects of mycotoxins, which give rise to much of the
> concern and controversy surrounding indoor molds"
>
> 2. . "Levels of exposure in the indoor environment, dose-
> response data in animals, and dose-rate considerations
> suggest that delivery by the inhalation route of a toxic
> dose of mycotoxins in the indoor environment is highly
> unlikely at best, even for the hypothetically most
> vulnerable subpopulations."
>
> 3. "Current scientific evidence does not support the
> proposition that human health has been adversely affected
> by inhaled mycotoxins in home, school, or office
> environments."
>
> With regard to ill health effects known from the molds
> themselves, the American College of Occupational and
> Environmental Medicine states:
>
> 1. A growing body of literature associates a variety of
> diagnosable respiratory illnesses (asthma, wheezing,
cough,
> phlegm, etc.), particularly in children, with residence in
> damp or water-damaged homes (see reviews 3-5).
>
> 2. "Allergic and other hypersensitivity responses to
indoor
> molds may be immunoglobulin E (IgE) or immunoglobulin G
> (IgG) mediated, and both types of response are associated
> with exposure to indoor molds."
>
> 3. Individuals with allergic airway disease should take
> steps to minimize their exposure to molds and other
> airborne allergens, eg, animal dander, dust mites,
pollens.
> For these individuals, it is prudent to take feasible
steps
> that reduce exposure to aeroallergens and to remediate
> sources of indoor mold amplification
>
> 4. If evaluation of the occupational environment fails to
> disclose the source of antigens, exposures in the home,
> school, or office should be investigated. Once identified,
> the source of the mold or other inhaled foreign antigens
> should be remediated.
>
> The following is the link to the American College of
> Occupational and Environmental Medicine document.
>
> Evidence Based Statement | Adverse Human Health Effects
> Associated with Molds in the Indoor Environment
>
> As one can clearly see, Mr. Brinkman's statement
> of "according to the American College of Occupational and
> Environmental Medicine, current scientific evidence does
> not support the proposition that molds or the mycotoxins
> produced by molds, whether inhaled in home, school, or
> office environments, adversely affect human health." is a
> false statement in need of correction.
>
> I do agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Brinkman's evaluation
> of "But more is necessary to curb fraud. State and federal
> legislation is needed to empower prosecutors to pierce
> doctors' and scientific experts' effective immunity from
> criminal prosecution. Drafting legislation to distinguish
> between legitimately disputed diagnoses or theories of
> causation and manufacturing medical or scientific evidence
> for money is a daunting task. But it is one that we must
> undertake to preserve the integrity of the civil justice
> system.".
>
> And I find that it would have been appropriate in an
> article entitled "False Witness" that takes the position
> there is much fraud on the plaintiff side in environmental
> litigation, Mr. Brinkman and the Wall Street Journal
should
> have disclosed to the readers, Mr. Brinkman's long history
> and close affiliation with the defense side of toxic tort
> litigation. It should have been disclosed to the reader of
> the author's close affiliation with the Manhattan
> Institute. The Manhattan Institute has played a
> significant part in much of the misinformation being
> propagated over the mold issue.
>
> Below are links that illustrate Mr. Brinkman's long
history
> with the defense side of toxic tort litigation.
>
> From the UCSF Tobacco Legacy Library regarding Mr.
> Brichman, RJ Reynolds Documents
> http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?
> tid=mcl46a00&fmt=pdf&ref=results
>
> "FYI - The Manhattan Institute had a call from 60
> Minutes.....the producer might want to call an academic,
> and he provided Lester Brichman's name."
>
>
> "In response to Dan's question I said "no" neither we nor
> the litigation project (which technically doesn't exist!)
> should not reach out to 60 Minutes or we'd wind up in the
> story or kill it. I'm not even going to tell the cos. for
> fear PM [sic Phillip Morris] will try to do
> something "clever".
>
> "Former Helms staffer will be joining the Institute in
July
> as sr. vp of federal grant
>
>
> From the Manhattan Institute website:
>
>
http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/life/summer2005/pdf/faculty_briefs
> .pdf
>
> "President Bush with Prof. Lester Brickman (at left)
for “A
> Conversation on Asbestos Litigation Reform.”
>
> "Lester Brickman received the 2004 Legal Reform Research
> Award from the US Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal
> Reform."
>
>
> From the PointofLaw website:
>
> PointofLaw.com is a website sponsored by the Center for
> Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute and Liability
> Project at the American Enterprise Institute. Focusing on
> America's civil justice system, the site includes original
> discussions featuring some of the nation's top legal
> scholars, an ongoing forum on liability issues, a
> bibliography of important books and articles, and links to
> topical legal news stories. Contributors:Lester Brickman
is
> a professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of
Law
> at Yeshiva University. His areas of expertise include
> administrative alternatives to mass tort litigation,
> asbestos litigation, and contingency fee reform. Professor
> Brickman has written extensively on these and other
topics,
> he has testified at congressional hearings, and he is
> widely quoted in the press.
>
> Attached is a document illustrating the US Chamber and
> Manhattan Institute involvement in the mold issue.
>
> Additional example of the known dangers of mold exposure,
> the Center for Disease Control on the subject:
> www.otispregnancy.org/pdf/mold.pdf
>
>
> I thank the Wall Street Journal and Mr. Brinkman, in
> advance for correcting the false statement of "according
> to the American College of Occupational and Environmental
> Medicine, current scientific evidence does not support the
> proposition that molds or the mycotoxins produced by
molds,
> whether inhaled in home, school, or office environments,
> adversely affect human health." in the article ironically
> entitled "False Witness".
>
> Sincerely,
> Mrs. Sharon Kramer
>
|
1996 - 2007. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.