Junk Science

Advocacy and support for victims of mold-related illness

Home | Support | Contact

Junk Science

"Considering the strong opposition to the methodology and lack of concensus involved with the production of the ACOEM Position Paper, and the apperance of conflict of interest with the writers, it is not unreasonable to assume the possiblity of financial motive."

Congressionally funded Junk Science driving toxic Mold litigation

The following FDRC investigative report illustrates the depth of the political opposition to acknowledgement of fungal overexposures causing human illness. Here, it is evident that the involvement of a US Congressman, a major US medical society, and the US Chamber of Commerce in supporting the drafting and distribution of junk scientific research appears to have been done with political motive. The additional evidence of conflict of interests regarding a retired Assistant US Surgeon General, and several professional toxicologists who engage in expert legal testimonies brings to light the overall magnitude of the deception that is putting the public health at extreme risk.

Note to media: Supporting documentation in the form of .pdf and mediaplayer files listed at the end of this paper are available through contacting the FDRC press office

PREMISE:

This document is intended to illustrate the relationship between interested parties involved in the current public health dispute surrounding "Toxic Mold". It has become apparent that the enormous potential liabilities for industry are driving organized efforts to defuse both litigation and public concern. However, the overwhelming evidence of human illness related to overexposure to certain specie of fungi that are endemic to domestic indoor environments is now becoming inescapable.

The following documentation of deliberate attempts of disinformation on the subject from those in positions of legislative influence constitutes evidence of breach of professional ethics at the very least. In the opinion of this writer, however, this comprises grounds for investigation, dismissal of public servants involved, and the filing of criminal charges in relation to possible violations of RICO laws.
.

NARRATIVE AND DOCUMENTATION:

In 1999, a landmark legal case concerning toxic mold in Dripping Springs, TX raised public awareness of the dangers of pathogenic fungi, or as the media has dubbed it, "Toxic Mold". The resultant award for the plaintiff of $32 million for damages caused severe backlash in the insurance industry, and other associated industries that had potential liabilities. One result of this was the universal exclusion of mold-related damages in homeowners insurance industrywide.

The building trades have also become involved in mitigating liability, as certain widely used materials -- notably compostions of drywall and subflooring -- have been implicated as being much more suceptible to fungal growth than previously used materials such as cedar lath and lime plaster. Evidence of concern within the lumber industy is evidenced in the following link, refer to the "Mold" reference at 3/4 page:

http://www.themla.com/News081602.htm

The mention here of an internal government task force, the "Congressional Mold Workgroup" (CMW), shows that the issue has not escaped the attention of senior government officials. Congressman Gary Miller (R-CA), founder of the CMW, is a former land developer with ties to the California building trades. The following link shows Congressman Miller's relationship to the CMW:

http://www.abc.org/wmspage.cfm?parm1=2354

In addition to Millers efforts with the CMW, he has enlisted the support of the US Chamber of Commerce (USCC) in promoting the agendas of the CMW. Refer to the following link:

http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/2003/july/03-126.htm

The USCC has engaged in promoting policy summits and thinktanks intended to disengage industry from liabilities surrounding mold claims. The attached lengthy streaming video link from the USCC clearly shows the agendas of the organization. In this video, Congressman Miller can be observed making assumptive statements on medical science, and generally making the position of the CMW and that of the USCC clear. In addition, several other speakers, including Lisa Rickard (an attorney formerly working with Dow chemical corp), make statements attesting to the USCC's efforts to forward their own Public Relations messaging on the issue, efforts that are being made to manufacture and introduce materials with antifungal treatments (as currently used in "pressure treated" lumber for below grade applications), and the relationship of the group to the Manhattan Institute, a conservative policy thinktank with considerable legislative influence.

RealPlayer video link # 030717.rm

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/clp.htm

As media reports of mold related illnesses continued to grow, the office of Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich) became involved. One of Conyers staff had a child who had become ill following fungal overexposure, causing Congressman Conyers to recognize the significance of the disorder in relation to populations living in substandard housing. This prompted Conyers to draft HR 1269, now known as the "Melina Bill", after the staffer's daughter. Refer to the following link.

http://www.house.gov/conyers/mold.htm

The subject of "Toxic Mold" had not escaped the attention of the medical scientific community. In 2002, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM), issued a "Position Statement" intended to clarify that organization's views on the issue. It should be noted that the ACOEM is a paid membership scientific society, with dues of $250 per year being the only requisite for physicians to gain entry, and to be allowed to forward public opinions in the published journal of the College without relevant credentials to subject matter.

A scientist with no relationship to the ACOEM at the time, retired Assistant Surgeon General Bryan J. Hardin, PhD, along with two other ACOEM members, Immmunologist Andrew Saxon, MD, and Toxicologist Bruce Kelman, PhD, drafted the ACEOM Position Statement. This paper takes the stance that, based on their assesment of available science, not only are serious health effects from human exposure to molds not documented, but also that, based on exposure models, illnesses arising from inhalent overexposure to pathogenic fungi are impossible in standard domestic environments.

Members of the ACOEM voiced objections that the paper was drafted and released without appropriate input from members of the college. The drafting of a position paper that is presented as being reflective of the views of a scientific body by only three researchers, none of whom have practical clinical experience with the subject, was called into question. The question of conficts of interest was also raised within the ACEOM membership, with certain members, notably Ron Gots, MD, PhD being apparently especially vocal about the lack of necessity in disclosing conflicts of interest in regards to services as expert witness for legal defense. Mr. Gots is a well known expert defense witness in the field, and has reportedly charged fees of $50,000 per appearance in court. Mr. Gots also serves in a scientific advisory capacity with the Atlantic Legal Foundation, a conservative legal group with a history of defending the agendas of large commercial interests. Internal email discussion of the ACEOM on the subject of the Position Paper on Mold were subject to subpoena in following litigation where the Position Paper was employed. These documents are now in the public domain.

Please refer to FDRC .pdf documents:

SUBPOENA.pdf

ACOEM.pdf

A number of leading physicians and researchers were contacted prior to the drafting of this critique, and have expressed their concerns with the methodologies involved with the ACOEM position paper. Please refer to the quote from Dr. Ekhart Johanning from the Boston Schools IAQ Hearings noted elsewhere on this site. (Research/ Expert Testimony).

Underscoring evidence of toxicity of certain fungi, the department of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA), makes direct commentary on the Human Health risks of mold exposure. As a side note, there also exists considerable declassified information from the Department of Defense on the effects of mold toxins and their potential use in warfare, supporting claims of human health risk. Refer to link and FDRC .pdf documents:

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/molds/recognition.html

US programs.pdf

Dr.'s Hardin and Kelman are, interestingly, also principle partners in the environmental consulting corporation, VeriTox LLC. VeriTox engages in a number activities, including risk assesment for corporations with pollution liability concerns, and providing expert witness services for litigation. Dr. Kelman has engaged in legal support for Tobacco litigation. VeriTox's client roster includes the Dow Chemical Corp. As mentioned previously, legal consult for the USCC have a history of employment with Dow Chemical. See following link:

http://www.globaltox.com/

In 2004, Dr's Saxon and Kelman served as expert defense witnesses in litigation in Phoenix AZ, in a case where a woman claimed to suffer severe neurological damages from exposure to molds in her Phoenix apartment. In testimony before Arizona District court, Dr's Saxon and Kelman made statements supporting the premise of the ACOEM position paper. The prosecuting attorney, Richard Langerman, who has specific experience with toxic tort cases, questioned both Saxon and Kelman extensively on the mathematical model that was used to extrapolate exposure doses to mold toxins. At issue was the dose-response model, where a referenced study by a Dr. Rao submitted rodents to short-term, high dose "acute" exposure of mycotoxins, where a more appropriate modeling methodology relative to a human exposure in a home would be that of a long-term, low dose -- or what is termed a "chronic"-- exposure. In regards to immunological impacts, chronic exposures are acknowledged to have more long term effects, and are the basis for much of the environmental standard for pollutants set by agancies such as the EPA. Mr. Langerman also made queries as to the nature of the ACOEM's relationship to the Manhattan Institute, which apparently had become aware of the ACOEM Position Paper, and had commissioned an edited version of the paper be drafted for their use -- presumably to present for lobbying interests -- for a fee of $40,000. The transcripts of this trial testimony are available in the following FDRC .pdf document.

Kilian901.pdf

The Manhattan Institute's version of the ACOEM position paper is referred to in the streaming video from the USCC mentioned above. A spokesperson for the USCC thanks the Manahattan Institute for providing a document that will support their ongoing public relations and lobbying efforts.

SUMMARY

The information provided above raises some serious questions concerning the nature of decisionmaking and policy formation in regards to the issue of pathogenic fungi ("Toxic Mold") and human illness. The following points should be considered for further investigation on the matter:

• Why are research scientists contributing to studies that are being used as legal and public policy precedents not excluded from engaging in activities that would constitute a conflict of interest? Acting as expert witness for defense litigation in the interest of large corporations is undoubtedly lucrative, certainly more so than in the interest of the prosection, as in the case of toxic tort.

• Considering the strong opposition to the methodology and lack of concensus involved with the production of the ACOEM Position Paper, and the appearance of conflict of interest with the writers, it is not unreasonable to assume the possiblity of financial motive.

• As a large number of outside physician researchers have taken exception to the underlying dose-response methodology of the ACOEM document, the question of how such a basic flaw in scientific reasoning could be committed by those in such senior and respected positions. Bryan J. Hardin holds the distinction of being an Assistant Surgeon General for the United States (Ret), and Dr's Saxon and Kellman are apparently adequately qualified as well. The question of whether the methodological oversight was a deliberate attempt to underwrite the business interests cited above needs to be investigated.

• If the ACEOM Paper is found to be a deliberate attempt to leverage a serious Public Health issue for private gain, then the question arises of whether those associated with subcontracting this information for use in legislative influence were aware of the oversight. The Manhattan Institute's use of a $40,000 revised version of the ACOEM paper, which was then provided to the United States Chamber of Commerce and the Congressional Mold Workgroup of Congressman Gary Miller, raises questions as to knowledge of whether the underlying science of the ACOEM paper was deliberately and methodologically flawed from the outset. The possibility that the initial drafting of the ACEOM paper was at the request of the interested outside parties bears investigation as well.

• The current push of the construction trades to provide building materials that will circumvent fungal growth indicates and awareness of the severity of the issue. However, the concerns surrounding the ACOEM paper raise questions as to whether a parallel effort is being made to deny the existance of human illness relating to fungal exposure. This points to the possbility that building lobbies and the insurance industry are making attempts at rectifying liability exposure by producing materials that will not be subject to claims in the future, but are also making attempts to confuse and stall legislative actions on the Public Health aspect of the issue. The motivating factor here could be to prevent legislation on human health liabilties until a statute of limitations on existing buildings has expired, with obvious associated legal implications.

There is overwhelming and abundant evidence, both in peer-reveiewed scientific journals and in coverage in the lay press of the devastating human health effects of overexposure to Toxic Mold. If indeed there is partisan effort to deny the existance of this Public Health emergency, then not only is this craven and immoral in the extreme, but it also represents a real threat to the long term interests of populations and economies.

FDRC supporting documents

Realplayer video link #030717
KilianTranscript.pdf
Subpoena.pdf
ACOEM.pdf
US Programs.pdf