The following is the post in its entirety

Guest Commentary by Sharon Kramer

D and JD,

Thank you. But..Woozer!  Slow Down!  I can assure I would never qualify for the status of Sainthood.  Plus, I would never want to be one who is in a position of possibly being burned at the stake!  Yikes!  LOL

From my Declaration in the lawsuit that was filed against me by Bruce Kelman and GlobalTox for stating Dr. Kelman “altered his under oath testimony” on the witness stand. (After being presented with his prior testimony from a case in Arizona.

22.  The above are well documented statements that I and many others have brought to light numerous times.  The paper attached hereto as Exhibit 11, authored by Jonathan Lee Wright and edited by myself, tracks the intertwined paths of the two edits of the GlobalTox authored defense argument.  Our research information has been widely distributed.  It has been effectively used to change public opinion.  It has been used in courts to discredit unscientific science on behalf of those who are legitimately ill after an excessive exposure to mold in an indoor environment.

23.  At least a portion of Exhibit 11 was used as a source of information in the Haynes case as is evident from the questioning of Kelman regarding Dr. Johanning, Director of the Fungal Research Group Foundation and ACOEM member.  Attached hereto collectively as Exhibit 12 are true and correct copies of Kelman’s testimony from the Haynes case, discussing Dr. Echert Johanning, (P.45:12 -P.52:6), Dr Johanning’s CV and transcript of a speech given by Johanning in Boston.

Testimony, Bruce J. Kelman (K), Haynes vs. Adair Homes, Oregon, February 18, 2005.  Mr. Vance (V) is the attorney for the Haynes’ family. Page 40, Line 6

V:  I’m sorry, Dr. Kelman. But, you’re not a medical doctor. You were straight up about that.  You said, that “I’m not a medical doctor.” Right?
K:  That’s correct.

V: You studied at the University of Illinois and you took some courses on veterinarian? Veterinarian medicine, what do they call that? Veterinary science?
K:  Well, the general category is in the veterinary science area. The research I conducted was within the veterinary school, because they’re the only ones –I did my experimentation on animals, and they’re the only ones that were qualified to handle animals.

V:  So, you didn’t achieve a degree in –as a veterinarian then?
K:  No. That wasn’t my intent of studying at the–at the time I was interested in research.

V:  Okay.  I UNDERSTAND.
K:  And, the veterinarian degree is a clinical degree.

V:  And, now what you do is you work for drug companies and you try to analyze their drugs and help them with getting those drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration, isn’t that correct?
K:  That’s one of a broad range of –of activities.  There’s a certain number of tests, certain  prescribed amount of testing that has to be done by drugs before the FDA will even consider them for release.

V:  But, among your cliental, you would include pharmaceutical companies.
K: Yes.

Pg 42, Line 11

V:  And, then you help write a report of some nature?
K:  Yes.

Pg 48, Line 2

V: Okay. 6,000. Now, membership in that group is not restricted to doctors or PHDs is it?
K:  The last I heard it was, but it’s possible if they had (inaudible) yes, the process is the committee on scientific affairs puts it together, it’s reviewed by the board of directors and those physicians that they feel will give it usually the most –the greatest criticism. And, of course, you couldn’t possible deal with 6,000 comments.

V: No. But, you could have–make it a little bit more democratic than 100 out of 6,000 members, couldn’t you?  I mean, let’s–don’t you think that’s fair to be a little more democratic than that?  Dr. (inaudible) I would draw the question–Dr. Eckheart Yohanning (phoenetic), do you know who he is?
K:  Oh, yes.

Pg 51, Line 11

V:  All right.  So, it doesn?t surprise you to learn that he’s called it in a speech in Boston, “Undemocratic and not objective”?
K:  Well, I guess I would have trouble with the characterization from Dr. Yohanning of “unobjective”.  I’d say critical review by 100 critical, very critical, physicians is quite objective, and I would also have to say that normally when one picks a learned body, you don’t do it democratically.  You pick the people that have the best scientific credentials and the best knowledge of the area.

Testimony of Bruce J. Kelman (K) from the trial of Kilian vs. Equity Residential Trust, Arizona, June, 2004.  Mr. Langerman (L) is the attorney for Ms. Kilian.

Kilian, Page 856, Line 21

L: Let me interrupt you.  When you say it’s a college of medicine, do you mean to infer that it is a professional affliliation that is available primarily to physicians, medical doctors?
K:  The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine was originally an association of physicians, and about two years ago they opened membership up to a few PhD’s who had expertise in affiliated areas, and toxicology is one of the areas.

Page 921, Line 10

L:  Dr. Kelman, you informed us earlier that you have done some laboratory research; is that correct?
K: Yes.

L:  None of the laboratory research that you’ve done involves mold or mycotoxins, correct?
K:  Aside recently from growing some, no.

L:  No, it’s not correct, or yes, it is correct?
K:  Oh, I’m sorry.  Aside from growing some, I have not done laboratory research on animals.

A portion of Dr. Johanning’s speech before the Boston City Council, December 9, 2004:

“I feel I am qualified to speak on the subject because I am an occupation physician and I have worked in research and have worked several government agencies such as EPA, CDC, and & HUD.  I have been involved with this issue for the past 15 years in NYC.  We had had several symposiums and have brought scientists together 5 times who will be more than willing to collaborate our findings, which have already been published.

I know the Washington office of the Budget Management did a study of the structure and situations of schools and concluded that a third of the schools have serious Indoor Air Quality problems and that many of these are related to water intrusion.  The press picked up on this issue many years ago, much more than the medical community I’m sad to say, and probably got the word out…

I have seen over the last couple of years organized effects by the insurance industry and their advocates to defuse the issue and recently a report and some papers have come out on the issue saying we don’t see a connection.  I am a member of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.  They state they have a so-called paper that concludes that we don’t think the evidence that connects mold in particular, mold to adverse health effects. If you go and look how this paper was generated you will realize, and I have legal documents to prove this, that this wasn’t an objective, free discussion within our membership.  But rather a paper that was pushed in such a secret manner, was pushed through the committee in order to use that as a statement against doctors who think that there is a problem….

Email authored by Bryan Hardin, dated August 16, 2002 and sent to Jonathan Borak, Chair of the Committee of Scientific Affairs of the ACOEM.

“…Finally, we also would object to involving Drs. Hodgson or Dearborn or others outside the normal ACOEM process for position papers.  So far as we can ascertain, they have no standing in the ACOEM, e.g., as members of Board, the House of Delegates, etc. We have welcomed the thorough, impartial, and scientifically rigerous peer review to date, but would think it inappropriate to add ad hoc reviewers who are highly visible advocates for a point of view the draft position paper analyzes and finds lacking…

Email authored by Borak, dated February 27, 2002 and sent to Bryan Hardin. The following are direct quotes of that email:

I had several conversations with Dean Grove, ACOEM President, and Barry Eisenberg, ACOEM Executive Director, and both are enthusiastic about your willingness to be involved with and contribute to the ACOEM.

The following is a suggested way that we could put these pieces together.

1.  ACOEM will enroll you as an Associate Member (the catogory for PhD’s, as contrasted to MDs) at no cost for the first year.  That will be an advance “thank you” for your contributions, specifically the preparation of a scientific position paper on the subject of mold, indoor air quality and health.

2.  “That position paper would be prepared by you and your GlobalTox colleagues. We ask that you and/or Dr. Kelman be listed as the first authors, as you two will be the ACOEM members on the authorship list. We would be delighted if the other authors would consider joining ACOEM, be we won’t insist on that.  Unfortunately, the College policies limit the number of free membership that can be awarded, so we can only provide that to you.

8.  Finally, when all has been done, it is my great hope that you will continue your membership in the ACOEM and that the Board and the Executive Director can call upon you from time to time for advice, suggestions and guidance.  You have a unique and valuable perspective on the totality of occupational and environmental health.  It would be of great value to ACOEM if you will share your knowledge and wisdom with us.

Email authored by Borak, dated June 16, 2002 and sent to Phillip Harber, M.D.  Also, blind copied to Dean Grove, Edward Bernacki, John Holland, Tim Key, Pamela Hymel, Marianne Dreger and Bryan Hardin.

…Background:  This past February, Dean Grove (as President) asked me (as Chair of CSA to develp a position statemtn on indoor mold.  With Dean’s agreement, I approached Bryan Hardin–former Deputy Director of NIOSH–to develop such a statement.  In return for his efforts, Dean and Barry approved the granting of a one-year courtesy membership to Bryan, who was not then a member (although his co-author, Bruce Kelman, was a dues-paying member).

Since then, I have been approached by others who heard (from Dean Grove) that this was an issue to be addressed by ACOEM. One sent written info, the others expressed interest.  Nobody who initiated contact on the issue has been involved in its development….

In an email authored by Borak and sent September 6, 2002, Borak states ?As this was an effort that you, Dean, asked me to initiate I thought that you might have a good idea about what might be done?.

Not A Post (#29)

I have some questions:

In Kelman’s testimony in the Kilian case, June, 2004, he stated the ACOEM only opened membership to PhD?s approximately two years earlier. This project was started in February, 2002.  At what point did Kelman become a ‘dues-paying member’ of the ACOEM?

Why was Kelman chosen to work on this project? He testified in the Kilian case, he had no prior laboratory experience with mold.

Why was Hardin brought into the organization and even provided a free membership, yet some who were already members and had years of experience with environmental illnesses, were not asked or even permitted to participate in the ‘peer review process’?

Who did Dean Grove communicate with early on, to initiate this project?

Sharon Kramer

Post # 30
Posted by Greg Weatherman on 7/12/05

Sharon & Doug,

You would think there would be no funny business with dissemimating valuable information that can be helpful in depositions and trials for cases with such a huge financial impact and human health implications.

I personally don’t know why divulging email communications between ACOEM members that are used as part of Sharons declaration should not be referenced. The documents were gained by lawful means weren’t they?

I know as an expert witness that any communication I have with the attorneys, plaintiffs, defendants or other expert witnesses is open to dicovery.

Why would a legal chatboard “suppress” this information when a judge in a court would not?

What gives, Greg Weatherman, Arlington VA 22202

Disclaimer: This article is solely the opinion of the above credited author, therefore, does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Mold Help; its contributors, writers, advisors, peers, or affiliates.  Mold Help is not liable for the content of this commentary and does not endorse or agree with this announcement.  MH provides this public service as the civil right to freedom of speech but by doing such; assume no liability of this submission whatsoever.  Any inquiries to the author can be sent to this site and will be forwarded to the author if deemed appropriate.

Author: Carolyn Willbanks