Posted by Sharon Kramer on 12/03/06

More | Report Post

"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% 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

ToxBoard (Gen) Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST