Congratulations Dr. Kelman! Excellent news!

Well, the LA Weekly has it wrong once again, this time under the byline of Jill Stewart who states: "Like Kelman, Heimpel merely reported the truth, that scientists have repeatedly shown that household mold is not toxic to healthy people and does not make them sick."

That is NOT what scientists have repeatedly shown, and in fact the ACOEM position statement co-authored by Mr. Kelman says, "Current scientific evidence DOES NOT SUPPORT the proposition..." etc. There is a VAST DIFFERENCE. Almost without exception, the references to that position statement validate negative health affects and encourage more research. I think Kelman himself would disagree with Ms. Stewart's statement, and in fact HAS in legal proceedings.

Once again, LA Weekly portrays the matter incorrectly.... They fail to mention that VeriTox, which is Mr. Kelman’s company, lost the case.... But what is most disturbing about this newest attack by LA Weekly is that they are well aware I have been receiving hang up calls and have been fearful for my and my daughter’s safety since given the false light labels of “Mold Queen” and her “Starring Victim”.... Within Heimpel’s original article he notes that the last person given the false label of “Mold Queen”, Melinda Ballard, still receives death threats to this very day....Emotions run high on both sides of this highly controversial, multi-billion dollar, issue....I have begged LA Weekly to please stop this.... They know that what they have done, causes me fear for the safety of my family..... Not only did LA Weekly knowingly give us these false labels while aware it could elicit death threats, they ran our pictures on the front page....Instead of correcting the false light label that causes me fear, they ran it again..... This newest attack is beyond wreckless....It is viscious and malicious..... LA Weekly also forgot to put the words “old tobacco” in front of “scientist” when describing Mr. Kelman.....Or note that his science over the mold issue is a dinosaur according to current accepted science..... It is no longer cited as a reference in legitimate circles over the issue.....Seems people got wise to the fact that it is not scientific to apply math to a single study of rodents and conclude the implausibility of all human illness from atypical mold exposure in water damaged buildings....It was nothing more than a trick right out of the Big Tobacco playbook....... (See letter from RJReynold Director of Toxicology to Bruce Kelman, 1987 -http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ati84d00/pdf],,,,,,Kelman’s “science” over the mold issue has been thrown out of court and even called a “huge leap” by one judge.... This “science” was penned by an old tobacco scientist and his business partner, (Kelman and Bryan Hardin), legitimized by a medical association with dubious history of endorsing product defense, courtroom science, (American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine), spun further by a think-tank (the Manhattan Institute), and promoted by the US Chamber of Commerce and a US Congressman - who is currently under investigation by the FBI (Gary Miller – R Ca). However, the deceit that has been used extensively within the courts to deny financial liability for stakeholders of moldy buildings, has been brought to greater public and legislative light.... See Wall Street Journal, “Court of Opinion, Amid Suits Over Mold, Experts Wear Two Hats”..... [http://moldwarriors.com/SK/WSJOnlineJan92007.pdf]......I am proud to say that I have played a major role in this and have helped to render Kelman’s courtroom science impotent.... It is beyond me why LA Weekly, a paper that holds itself out to be a liberal paper of the people, would continue with this charade and would knowingly and recklessly place my family in potential danger when they are well aware I have been fearful for our safety from being publicly held out in false light by LA Weekly...... The only thing I can think that would cause such reckless disregard for our safety and the continued publishing and re-publishing of known false information would be that someone pretty high up at LA Weekly must be involved in a mold litigation..... And last, but certainly not least. Yes, Virginia, prior healthy people can become seriously ill from atypical exposure to mold in water damaged buildings and it is a recognized public health threat.... Just ask the EPA.... "May 2007 Berkeley Lab, EPA Studies Confirm Large Berkeley Lab, EPA Studies Confirm Large Public Health And Economic Impact of Dampness and Mold: They estimate that number of asthma cases attributable to exposure in home is 4.6 million, at $3.5 billion annual cost.” http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/EETD-mold-risk.html........ So I wish LA Weekly would stop attacking me and causing me to be fearful for my and my daughter’s safety..... All I am doing is helping to raise awareness of an issue that is negatively and unnecessarily impacting our health and our economy.... For that, I deserve this horrid, false light, characterization by a paper that holds itself out to be for the people of LA?... There is something terribly wrong and insidious going on here.....Money has to be the root to this evil.

Many times the judge does not let evidence in court so how can a jury know the details of a case. I just know that my husband and I got very ill in a home that had indoor mold. We were perfectly healthy. In fact my husband had a major seizure and had to be rushed to the hospital while in the process of moving out of a moldy home. It is a shame that our leaders have not put out the truth about indoor mold so people know not to ignore everyday leaks. I have been ill for ten years and have read stories of court houses, firehouses, police stations, schools, hospitals, old homes, new homes, apartments with sick people. I had never heard of the problem before I got severely ill and now live with reactive airways disease, had sinus surgery, organ damage, etc. My life has forever been changed. Linda

Molds and Mycotoxins (Toxic Molds) in Human Health

It is commonly recognized that a large body of medical literature and extensive clinical experience indicates that sufficiently high exposures to indoor airborne mold can lead to disease in otherwise healthy individuals. Since environmental health has not been a focus of medical education, many physicians are not fully aware of the scope of mold related health problems and are inadequately equipped to investigate and manage possible cases of mold exposure in a timely fashion.

Exposure to significant levels of indoor mold can cause acute or chronic dysfunction or injury to all organ systems including the respiratory, neurological, cardiovascular, genitourinary, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, immune (through both immediate and non-IgE mechanisms) and hematological systems. In addition to the resulting more commonly considered respiratory conditions such as asthma and rhinosinusitis, exposure to mold proteins and mycotoxins has been associated with fatigue, reduced concentration, imbalance, poor memory and hemorrhagic disorders.

Mold contaminated buildings may well require prompt, serious remediation since avoiding further exposure is the first step in treatment as well as a major part of disease prevention. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) recommends continuing research regarding mold related health problems and suggests that experienced health authorities disseminate knowledge about this public health issue in order to achieve widespread clinical competence among health professionals in the investigation and management of actual or alleged mold exposure. Supporting medical and scientific literature on this issue, along with opportunities for formal training in environmental health, are available through the AAEM.

Common household mold ? ! Common “Household molds” are not the issue in the public health debate about the impact of atypical indoor mold that are associated with water damage, floods and leaks leading to building deterioration and adverse health effects in exposed building occupants or clean-up workers. The readers may like to know, that recently a study group outside of the US “jurisdiction” summarized (WHO Regional Office for Europe- Development of WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: dampness and mould):
1. Sufficient epidemiological evidence from studies conducted in different countries and climatic conditions shows that occupants of damp or mouldy buildings, both homes and public buildings, are at increased risk of experiencing respiratory symptoms, respiratory infections and exacerbations of asthma. Some evidence suggests an increased risk of developing allergic rhinitis and asthma. Although not many intervention studies are available, their results show that remediation of dampness problems leads to a reduction in adverse health outcomes. 2. There is clinical evidence that exposures to moulds and other dampness-related microbial agents increase the risk of rare conditions, such as hypersensitivity pneumonitis/allergic alveolitis, chronic rhinosinusitis and allergic fungal sinusitis. 3. Toxicological evidence in vivo and in vitro supports these findings by showing diverse inflammatory and toxic responses after exposure to specific microorganisms isolated from damp buildings, including their spores, metabolites and components. 4. While groups such as atopic and allergic individuals are particularly susceptible to exposures to biological and chemical agents in damp indoor environments, adverse health effects have also been widely demonstrated in non-atopic populations. 5. The increased prevalence of asthma and allergies in many countries increases the number of people susceptible to the effects of dampness and mould in buildings. (ff) – These are the issues in the public health prevention efforts – and personal vendettas only distract from the real issues and need to educate openly and unbiased.

Readers here may wish to review the followup commentary that was actually contributed to Mr. Heimpels original story.

Statements from representatives of legitimate 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations and other named and well recognized public health advocates were part of the discussion. This was in direct contrast to dozens of malicious attacks on Mrs. Kramer from anonymous posters supporting the flawed position of the article. The latter appeared to be a conscious allowance by the moderators of the LA Weekly's discussion board, in direct violation of the Terms of Use agreement of the site.

The LA Weekly has every appearance of being a complicit participant in an industrially underwritten national public health fraud. These questionable pieces of journalism look to be a last ditch effort to defuse controversy prior to the expected delivery of a major federal study of the issue the the US General Accountability Office.

Jonathan Lee Wright
Director
Fungal Disease Resource Center, Inc
http://www.fdrcinc.org

I think some of the posters here have lost track of the point, which is simply: Kelman won. Kramer lost.

Yes Mr. Kelman seems very excited that he barley won the case it came down to one question in the deliberation room and there right VeriTox did not win the case against Mrs. Kramer.

Quite interesting that only those who naysay the severity of mold induced illnesses and attempt to hang on to the dying concept that ACOEM promotes real science over the mold issus.. use fictious names.

seems to me that the people worried about mold toxins are in the same league as those that were obsessed with the problem of asbestos and those that were concerned with the effects of radium they were appying to glow in the dark watches in the fifties. i think they wet their brushes with their tongues. i don't think that ended up very well as best my memory serves me. but by god they had a job. recently reviewed a story about a nuke transported into nepal and the results of the sherpas that huddled around it for warmth, no happy ending, but once again there was a bit of complaining in a recent book that was given little notice as it should have been. they were fortunate for the comfort. how can you complain about the warmth in that hostile enviroment. there seems to be no end to people bitching about little things that don't involve the majority of the population. quit complaining and enjoy the safety and peace our leaders continue to give us every day.

Once again, for those who are ignorant, we are not speaking of "common household mold", we are speaking of mycotoxins from the mold spores and the off gassing of spores that creates toxic chemicals such as acetone and benzene. Mycotoxins are toxic and chemicals are toxic! Do you get it know or are you going to keep up the cover-up! And if you do your research you will find scientific evidence of mycotoxins and the off gassing making people very ill. Why not breath some in and find out for yourself just how sick one can get from breathing in mycotoxins, acetone, etc. ALL TOXINS CAN KILL YOU!!! IDIOTS!

As someone else pointed out. The POINT is that Sharon Kramer was found to have DEFAMED Dr. Kelman.

The jury found Dr. Kelman credible, and Ms. Kramer not credible.

The ONLY congratulations Dr. Kelman deserves is that he won a court decision based upon five (5) individual words reflecting whether or not he had changed his testimony from one trial to another. The Court is “black and white” to that specific evaluation, no science, no other influences. That is the way the court operates. The molecular sciences of various fields of complex study (i.e., genetics, biophysics, and biochemistry, and others) that confirm scientifically and medically what Ms. Kramer has been dedicating her life to are also very specific and factual. Multiple hospitalization records relating to nosocomial diseases (i.e., hospital-caused and or contributing microbial factors) attest that many a person can be immune competent entering a hospital environment only to suffer respiratory micro fungi (i.e., microscopic live-celled mold and yeast) exposures detrimental to health. To criticize Ms. Kramer as a "Mold Queen" and characterize her or any other person who studies and reports the serious and deadly health affects of inhaled micro fungi as "misguided" is to demonstrate pure ignorance of the molecular sciences. Ms. Kramer may have lost, to my understanding, ONE PENNY on an utterly stupid SLAPP litigation matter, but she has actually won in another sense, that micro fungi inhalation, even in immunocompetent people can cause serious health risks and can lead to deadly outcomes - from the very young to the elderly. I would "LOVE" the chance to be challenged in a court of law over what I have just stated! Why, because the evidence is overwhelming on many scientific fronts, and gaining confidence almost daily. For instance, in genetics micro fungi are being used to analyze disease causation because of the fact that these live-celled pathogens are structurally and chemically close to the human cell composition. It is not hard for any scientist and/or medical doctor to observe just how rapidly micro fungi do their natural job of decomposing a human body after a person has died; it is within mere hours depending upon environmental factors, and since the body is not breathing this decomposition activity takes place within the human body, not external of it under normal circumstances. So why is it so hard for the common man to realize how dangerous respiratory exposures are to a human being? The general amount of exposure is not as much a concern to medical scientists as are the biological factors and activities taking place at a cellular level inside their patient. People do not get sick immediately, under usual circumstances, it is human cells that get sick and it takes time for that cellular sickness to spread from cell to cell until human illness symptoms begin to appear. This is through an adverse chemical transfer process that takes place between human cells and an attacking chemical challenge brought on by reacting pathogens (i.e., primarily molds and bacteria, and genetic material based viruses). Can few pathogens generate mass cellular disease over time? Yes. How do you think disease starts? The company Dr. Kelman is president and a principal of called VeriTox, Inc. (formerly GlobalTox, Inc.) is a company that attempted to introduce a "rat study" into testimony in the Sacramento Superior Court. (James Harold, et al. v. California Casualty Insurance Company, et al. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, Case No. 02AS04291, April 2006) In this Kelly-Frye evidence credibility examination hearing the Honorable Michael P. Kenny, Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Sacramento disallowed it. Why? It is not supported by the scientific community to a level of peer-supported confidence. I have personally met and spoken with Ms. Kramer; I consider her an outstanding community-conscious person and friend. She is a very tough and savvy investigator and prolific document researcher. Her work has provided a substantial amount of useful detail as to the inner workings of politics and methodology used by various associations (i.e., medical and otherwise) to subvert or skirt the facts/truth about the health dangers of micro fungi exposures. It is about time responsible media venues such as yours get on board and start protecting and preserving the health and safety of human beings instead of literally punishing the public for challenging what is absolutely ignorant in 21st century America.

Douglas R. Haney
Bio-Health Research Psychologist

Doug,

As always, you just can't get your facts straight, can you.

It wasn't a slapp. The court ruled on that previously.

It was a buck, not a penny.

The court ruled that Kramer defamed Kelman. Simple stuff.

Are you even an American?

Haney wrote above: " ... that micro fungi inhalation, even in immunocompetent people can cause serious health risks and can lead to deadly outcomes - from the very young to the elderly. I would "LOVE" the chance to be challenged in a court of law over what I have just stated!"

What a great statement from a non-MD. Do you even have a PHD??

EVERYONE knows that immuno-competent humans can get ANY disease.
It's not common but it happens. We just don't know WHY.
Maybe it's because they were NOT immuno-competent after all!!
That's what I think.

Mold is all around us ALL the time. Who knows where the mold spore that caused illness came from?? Oh, it HAS to be from my "damaged" younameit that MUST be somebody else's problem and I sure deserve an entitlement....I'll take $$$CASH$$$ please.

Trash the ACEOM all you want , but let's hear your take on the position of the American Acvademy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

I'll take their opinion over a self-proclaimed "Bio-health Research Psychologist" anytime.

Dear Hack,

Wow! One young man who cannot be more than 22, got it and wrote about it in 50 words or less.

http://www.thecoastnews.com/articles/4553/

Also, did you happen to catch the National Public Radio Leonard Lopate Show disspelling the BS in science that is harming many, that you just KNOWINGLY supported based on your false, HACK editing, Ms. Stewart?

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2008/09/01

Thank the good lord above and all the karma in the universe, there are some REAL journalists left in this world who write truths for the bettement of mankind. Unfortunately, you are not among them.

The issue in this case wasn't whether "mold hurts you" it was whether Kramer defamed Kellman. The article I read says jurors were divided, mainly over the legal meaning of the word "malicious" which is not necessarily the same in plain English as it is in the legal world. I personally don't engage in extreme practices to make my point and I'm careful what I say, especially publicly. But that does not mean I think Kramer was wrong about mold.

Also, I agree with others here that this isn't about common household mold such as we all clean up in our showers or whatever. Mold that makes people sick is that from floods, leaks, etc, and is a much larger problem because of the amount of mold, the fact it's often hidden inside walls for a long time before it's discovered. I believe that amount of mold can make people sick even before they know they have it. No one would volunteer to enter this world of criticism and belittling, and loss of money, that mold can cause. I believe from what I've seen of people who had it, that it is harmful. I have not had this problem myself but I don't have to, to see that it's bad. The medical evidence is there, it's just not accepted thanks to big industry interference, because big industry doesn't want to pay for shoddy construction, insurance bad faith, etc. I don't think most people have any idea how much influence big industry has on our courts, our laws, our politicians, and on which scientific evidence gets credibility or even published. Going through a severe legal case and/or working in consumer advocacy teaches you how much industry has a grip on everything in this country. The nay sayers are sticking their heads in the sand, choosing to side with the bullies because that's the easy way. It takes thought and courage to keep an open mind and go against the grain when it's called for. I may not personally like extreme methods like Kramer's, but that doesn't mean she's wrong.

To the guy who answered as "Doug's Aphreek"! Really cleever jeerk!

Why don"t you try me out in a court of law and we will see what I do have in my background, No one has tested it yet, and I am certainly ready for the test. No kidding, who would have guessed that you would accept the Position of as you have stated, the American "Acvademy" of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. I certainly hope you are not a medical doctor and especially not a paying member of the AAAAI!

I would be willing to bet that few of them and including those of the ACOEM membership as well, have more that 3 academic units from any medical college. Please do not include the ACOEM as a college-- which it is not.

To the guy who answered as "Doug's Aphreek"! Really cleever jeerk!

Why don"t you try me out in a court of law and we will see what I do have in my background, No one has tested it yet, and I am certainly ready for the test. No kidding, who would have guessed that you would accept the Position of as you have stated, the American "Acvademy" of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. I certainly hope you are not a medical doctor and especially not a paying member of the AAAAI!

I would be willing to bet that few of them and including those of the ACOEM membership as well, have more that 3 academic units from any medical college. Please do not include the ACOEM as a college-- which it is not.