TRUTH OUT Sharon Kramer Letter To Andrew Saxon MOLD ISSUE

Notarized Letter

In PDF Format Sans Links
 
                                                                             April 22, 2010
 
                                                                             Mrs. Sharon Noonan Kramer
                                                                             2031 Arborwood Place
                                                                             Escondido, CA  92029
                                                                            
Snk1955@aol.com
                                                                             (760) 746-8026
 
 
Dr. Andrew Saxon
Professor & Chief Emeritus (retired)
Clinical Immunology/Allergy
Department of Medicine
UCLA School of Medicine
52-262 Center for the Health Sciences
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1690
asaxon@mednet.ucla.edu
 
Re: Misinformation spreading among mold defense litigators and expert witnesses about the authorship of three mold issue publications.
 
The first of these was authored on behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) & paid for by the Manhattan Institute Center for Legal Policy (CLP) (2003); submitted into the court records of a legal proceeding by the National Apartment Association (“NAA”) as a substantive scientific reference (2009).  According to you, it is a “nonscientific piece that has [your] name on it”.
 
Is your intent to assist in removing this nonscientific US Chamber piece of political and sectarian influence from the court records of a legal proceeding in which it has been submitted as a substantive scientific reference; is now a legal document; and purportedly co-authored by you with your accompanying imprimatur of the University of California on it in implied endorsement?

Dear Dr. Saxon and Approximately Fifty Others,
 
1)                 Apparently there is a new rumor being spread among the defense attorneys who are involved in mold litigation that I have stated under oath that I am the author of Dr. James Craner’s “A critique of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, “ACOEM” statement on mold: Undisclosed conflicts of interest in the creation of an ‘evidence-based’ statement.” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health (“Craner IJOEH 2008”). This is false.
 
2)                 I am aware that you communicate with several mold defense attorneys and several of the defense expert allergists, etc., who testify in mold litigation.  Please let it be known among your peers and legal contacts that I have informed you I have never stated such under oath about James Craner’s IJOEH publication.

3)                 If you know who is spreading this rumor, could you please make certain this notarized letter that I am sending to you today gets read by the parties who have started and are spreading this false rumor among defense attorneys and expert witnesses?  I will email this letter to you as well so it is easy for you to forward to others.
 
4)                 Such a false rumor spreading through the defense bar and defense expert witnesses wrongfully impugns the reputations of Dr. Craner, IJOEH and myself.  If I have done anything to help fuel this rumor, will you please let me know (if you know) so I may correct – if needed? 
 
5)                 Regardless of how, where and why this rumor originated regarding Dr. Craner’s paper with its subject matter being the conflicts of interest of  ACOEM and others involved in the mold issue or who is disseminating it; to be perfectly clear:
 

To the best of my knowledge Dr.James Craner is the only author of any paper that lists Dr. James Craner as the only author.

6)                 Perhaps the confusion stems from the fact that both Dr. C-r-a-n-e-r and I, Mrs. K-r-a-m-e-r, have both published papers in the IJOEH on the subject of conflicts of interest in the ACOEM mold policy statement (2002) in two separate IJOEH publications. Mine in 2007 and Dr. Craner’s in 2008. We have individual publications about this position statement of ACOEM’s that is adverse to the health and safety of the American public – -because it infers and promotes the false concept among physicians and the courts, that water damaged buildings are scientifically proven to pose little to no serious health threat to humans.  Mine was published in IJOEH in 2007 with five co-authors.  They are Joseph LaDou MD, Daniel Teitelbaum MD, David Egilman MD MPH, Arthur Frank MD PHD, and James Huff PHD. 
 
7)                 The paper I co-authored for the IJOEH in 2007 is titled, “American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) A Professional Association In Service To Industry”. (“LaDou et al, IJOEH, 2007”).  My portion of LaDou et al, IJOEH, 2007 was to write of ACOEM’s involvement along with the US Chamber of Commerce in mass marketing the false concept of mold induced illness –promoting it as health policy to physicians, the courts and to government agencies.  
 
8)                 My five co-authors for IJOEH wrote of ACOEM’s various actions lending credence (via their medical journal, etc) to scientific concepts with a slant favorable to industry, including matters that are frequently addressed in litigation and in US health policy, besides the mold issue.  My writing of the mold matter may be found on journal pages 420 and 421 within LaDou et al, IJOEH 2007.  It may also be found in Craner IJOEH 2008 on page 16 as Reference 120.

9)                 I have never verbalized a word under oath regarding Craner IJOEH 2008.  The only litigation in which I have written and cited Craner IJOEH 2008, and LaDou et al, IJOEH 2007 and/or their relationship, is the litigation of Bruce J. Kelman & GlobalTox, Inc v. Sharon Kramer, Appellate Case No. D054496, San Diego Fourth District Division One. (“Kelman Case”)
 
10)             As I think you are aware, GlobalTox, Inc. is now known as VeriTox, Inc.  The Redmond, Washington based company is owned by Bruce Kelman, Brian Hardin, Coreen Robbins, Loni Swenson, Robert Clark and Robert Scheibe.  They changed the dba name of their company to VeriTox shortly after filing this libel action against me in 2005, purportedly over my words “altered his under oath statements”.
 
11)             These words were used by me in 2005 within the writing in which I was the first to publicly name the names of those involved in mass marketing the US Chamber’s “Scientific View” of the mold issue to the courts and among stakeholder industries. (Bruce was referring to this US Chamber paper of 2003 as a lay translation yet separate activity from your work with him for the ACOEM position statement on mold in 2002/2003, and then flipping back again to translation of the ACOEM position statement when on the witness stand in Oregon, February 2005. This testimony occurred after a prior trial testimony of Bruce’s regarding the relationships of the US Chamber, the Manhattan Institute think-tank and  ACOEM over the mold issue was permitted into the Oregon trial. Thus “altered”).
 
12)             So you know, I prevailed over VeriTox in trial and they did not appeal.  Bruce prevailed over me and I appealed.  The Kelman Case is fully briefed and awaiting oral argument.  The Appellate Court is also apparently concurrently reviewing the 2006 Appellate Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP) ruling that is related Case No. D047758. On December 29, 2009, the Appellate Court asked for clarification of “Does anything in our prior unpublished opinion in this matter, Kelman v. Kramer (2006) D047758, November 16, 2006, prevent us from reaching the question of whether appellant’s statements were privileged?”
 
13)             I have reviewed the documents from the Kelman Case that I have submitted to the courts. I find nowhere that I claimed I “wrote the paper” of James Craner’s for IJOEH. Perhaps this nasty rumor originated because I have truthfully stated that I, Mrs. Kramer, am a published author for IJOEH regarding the mold issue while citing Dr. Craner’s paper to illustrate that my research and writing of mold issue conflicted interests for LaDou et al, IJOEH 2007 is used as reference for Craner IJOEH 2008, (see page 16 of Dr. Craner’s paper); and for others who have published on the subject in other places.  The San Diego courts have been correctly informed many times over that I am an author of LaDou et al, IJOEH 2007 and am properly listed as such on the publication.
 
14)             On page 16 of Craner IJOEH 2008, one will find my LaDou et al, IJOEH 2007 as Reference No. 120.  One will also find another reference to a paper I co-authored and published as Reference No.111, “Nondisclosure of Conflicts of Interest Is Perilous To The Advancement of Science” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology,(“JACI”) Sept. 2006.  
 
15)             On pages 14, 15 & 16 of Craner IJOEH 2008, one will find publications that I had a hand in causing to be written by others.  These are Reference Nos. 42, 113, 114.  In addition, I supplied some of the deposition transcripts and other related documents for Craner IJOEH 2008.  These are Reference Nos. 40, 94 and 112 to the best of my memory and maybe a couple of others.          
 
16)             The Kelman Case courts have also been informed that my research into conflicts of interest in health marketing over the mold issue has been used extensively as reference by others and even helped to cause a 2006 Federal Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) audit of the current accepted scientific understanding of the health effects of mold. This GAO audit was requested by the late Senator Edward Kennedy at the urging of myself and others with the results issued in Sept 2008, “Indoor Mold: Better Coordination of Research on Health Effects and More Consistent Guidance Would Improve Federal Efforts.” (“GAO Report”)
 
17)              Because my research has been used by others with my permission and encouragement, this certainly does not mean I have claimed to be the author of any papers written by others, including Dr. James Craner.  It certainly does not mean I am the only one who has done extensive research and writing of the conflicts of interest in health marketing that pervade the mold issue while adversely impacting public health and safety in the United States.

Whoever is disseminating this misinformation falsely casting doubt of the authorship of Dr. Craner’s paper, with its subject being conflicts of interest of ACOEM, the US Chamber and others involved in health marketing erroneous information of the mold issue, needs to be told to Stop.

WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE SECOND REASON I AM WRITING TO YOU, SPECIFICALLY
The US Chamber of Commerce’s “Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold” University of California Imprimatur Falsely on the Publication

1)              I have a degree in the science of marketing. For approximately six years have been researching and gleaning evidence of the conflicted interest among several “White Coats and White Collars” who practice medico-legal health marketing as it pertains to illness brought on by microbes found in water damaged buildings. Health marketing is the study of the methodology of dissemination of information to private sector physicians, governmental entities and the courts; and its impact on public health policy.

2)              I am concerned that this rumor unduly questioning the authorship of Dr. Craner’s paper is being disseminated with ulterior motivations in mind, similar to marketing techniques frequently used by Big Tobacco.

3)              Namely: To deflect from the evidence implicating that the US Chamber of Commerce ILR’s mold position statement (2003) with listed authors of Bruce Kelman, Brian Hardin, Coreen Robbins of Veritox, Inc; and Andrew Saxon MD of UCLA; cites false physician authorship according to A.) your sworn testimony of November 28, 2006; B.) the sworn testimony of others, C.) the billing records of those who were paid to author the paper; and D.) the contract issued by the Manhattan Institute think-tank for the endeavor – that resulted in E.) the US Chamber of Commerce’s medico-legal “Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold” (2003), that you say you in sworn statement that you had no knowledge you were listed as co-authoring at the time of its publication and had not even read it (let alone wrote it) as late as three years after its publication.

4)              It is this US Chamber of Commerce’s paper, not Dr. Craner’s, that is the one I have recently informed the San Diego courts in the Kelman Case is the one that cites false physician authorship and is a “nonscientific piece”, (according to you). This US Chamber paper is the one that has been interjected into a legal proceeding purportedly as a credible scientific piece that you call a “nonscientific piece”, of which I have recently informed the courts in the Kelman Case. Perhaps this is where the rumor originated that I have informed the courts of a falsely authored mold publication. Perhaps someone got the wrong paper while rumor mongering? (if you know)

5)              The “science” of mold as marketed to the courts by the words of the US Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) & the Manhattan Institute Center for Legal Policy (CLP), with listed authors of Veritox owners, Brian Hardin, Bruce Kelman, Coreen Robbins; along with non-VeriTox owner: Andrew Saxon MD, UCLA. Quote:

Thus the notion that “toxic mold” is an insidious secret “killer” as so many media reports and trial lawyers would claim is “Junk Science” unsupported by actual scientific study. “A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold” by the US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) & Manhattan Institute Center for Legal Policy (CLP) (2003).

6)              The US Chamber ILR “A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold” was released on July 17, 2003 at a fanfare presentation in Washington, DC. According to Bruce Kelman’s under oath deposition statements on July 22, 2008 in the Kelman Case, he says you co-authored “A Scientific View..” of the US Chamber (ILR) and gave your permission to be listed as authoring it.

7)              He says the Manhattan Institute think tank paid Brian and him for this paper because they specifically told him they wanted him to write something to be made accessible to judges.

8)              Deposition testimony of Bruce Kelman, December 20, 2007 & July 22, 2008 in the matter of Kelman et al. v. Kramer, Case No. GIN044539, San Diego Superior Court:

Q: Do you remember how it came about; what was the genesis of how the Manhattan Institute report came about?

Bruce Kelman: I got a call. I remember the person I was talking to said they wanted to — they read the ACOEM position statement on mold; that it was hard to understand, and I said that it had been written for physicians. And at the time, the question was,
Well could you write something — would you be willing to write an
article that would be more assessable, for example, to judges.

Q: Did he tell you why it was he wanted this to be assessable to judges?

A: That’s all he said.

…………………………

Q: So you wrote the line, quote, The notion that toxic mold is an insidious secret killer, as so many media reports and trial lawyers would claim, is junk science, unsupported by actual scientific study? Those were your words?

A: They were either mine or Dr. Hardin’s. I don’t remember which. We both worked on the transcript. I’m sorry. I meant manuscript.

………………………..

Q: …Who actually did the process of writing the Manhattan Institute report?

A: The majority was Dr. Hardin and I and Andy Saxon did some sections.

Q: Was Dr. Saxon paid in terms of his involvement with preparing the Manhattan Institute report?

A: No he was not.

………………………..

Q: Did anybody else besides the Manhattan Institute make any payments to Veritox for the Manhattan Institute report?

A: No.

………………………….

Q: Did you get Dr. Saxon’s permission to list him as a co-author in the Manhattan Institute paper?

A: We did.

Q: You asked for it and he said yes?

A: He said he had no objection.

9)              But on November 28, 2006, you stated under oath that even three years after its publication, you had not even read – let alone wrote – the policy paper for the US Chamber ILR (aka Manhattan Institute report (2003)), that you purportedly co-authored while employed at UCLA; and did not even know your name was listed as authoring when it was published as what you call a “nonscientific piece that has [your] name on it”. It also has the UC name on it.

10)              This means, according to you, your name and UC physician credentials were added among those who co-authored a purportedly scientific medico-legal policy paper on behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce’s ILR to be made accessible to judges; implied to be endorsed by the UC system and apparently without your knowledge as being named as co-authoring it.

11)              Deposition testimony of Andrew Saxon, November 28, 2006, in the matter of Hake v. Coleman Homes et al, Case No. A496174 8th District, Nevada (“Hake Case”):

Q. When the lay version of the ACOEM paper was printed by the Institute For Legal Reform, the ACOEM again did not have any conflict-of-interest waiver on your part, did it? [sic US Chamber of Commerce “A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold” (2003)]

Andrew Saxon: I have no idea. I’ve never seen that version. I’ll call it the nonscientific piece that has my name on it.

Q. From your view, did you make any efforts, despite anyone calling you or anything else, to make sure that a conflict-of-interest waiver was included with the lay version put out by the Institute For Legal Reform?

A: No, because I didn’t even know my name was on it.

…………………………………

Q: All right. Now, you’ve published a lot, Doctor. I’m certainly respectful and mindful of that. In regard to publishing a paper that specifically deals with the issue of mold in the title, the first time that you have done that was in 2002 in connection with the ACOEM paper? [sic American College of Occupational & Environmental Medicine “Adverse Human Health Effects Association With Mold In The Indoor Environment” (2002)]

A: I’ll say yes.

Q: And since 2002, the next time that you had been involved in a paper that was subjected to peer review was the February 2006 article that we’ve discussed? [sic, American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, ““Position Paper, The Medical Effects of Mold Exposure” (2006)]

A: Sure, the next one relating to mold in the title.

     It does not resonate as true or as logical that two co-authors, Bruce and Brian, would be paid for their work by the Manhattan Institute think-tank on behalf of the US Chamber ILR; while two additional listed co-authors, you and Coreen, would not be paid. It does not resonate as true or as logical that you co-authored a medico-legal policy paper for the US Chamber ILR that you state under oath you had not even read three years after its publication and had no knowledge you were listed as co-authoring at the time of its publication. It is highly unlikely that a UC physician would actually choose to be named, or could be properly named, as co-authoring a policy paper for the US Chamber that they had not even read. Yet Bruce stated under oath that you gave your permission to be named as co-authoring the US Chamber’s “nonscientific view” of the health effects of mold – a paper you call “nonscientific” and swear you had not even read three years after its publication.

12)              This dispute of the validity of authorship between publication listed co-authors of the US Chamber of Commerce’s already controversial “Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold” in 2003, adds one more spindle to the tangled web of conflicts of interest in health marketing over the mold issue and involving ACOEM, the US Chamber and other influential organizations and entities that are medico-legal policy writers such as the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (“AAAAI”); along with various types of insurers – such as workers compensation & property casualty.

13)              These insurers and the courts rely on the credibility of these substantive health policy papers portrayed to be the scientific consensus of thousands of university physicians and scientists; and the validity of their stated authorship when determining financial responsibility – or lack there of- for those injured by microbial contaminants that found in water damaged buildings.

14)              You did indeed co-author the mold medical policy paper with VeriTox owners, Bruce Kelman and Brian Hardin, for ACOEM, “Adverse Human Health Effects Associated With Mold In the Indoor Environment” (2002). There is no question of that. The AAAAI, for which you co-authored the mold medical policy paper published in their JACI in 2006, “Position Paper, The Medical Effects of Mold Exposure”, relied on the ACOEM paper you co-authored with Bruce and Brian in 2002 as a key scientific reference to establish foundation for lack of causation of illness from the toxic components of mold; and thus assisting to establish lack of financial liability for stakeholders of moldy buildings such as property owners, employers, property managers and their insurers – by portraying these medico-legal policy papers to be the consensus of medical and scientific communities.

15)              Between the publication dates of the two closely connected medical associations’ mold policy paper of ACOEM’s in 2002 and AAAAI’s in 2006; some or all of the authors involved with these medical association policy papers wrote a scientifically void medico-legal health marketing piece for the US Chamber that is closely tied to these two medical association policies papers. Yet although named as authors right on the US Chamber publication: You, Bruce, Brian and Coreen; no one lays claim to authoring the US Chamber’s mold medico-legal “Scientific View” of 2003 on their Curriculum Vitaes (“CV”) among their scientific publications.

16)              The physicians with whom you co-authored the AAAAI mold position statement in 2006 while relying heavily on your, Bruce’s and Brian’s ACOEM position statement of 2002 are: Robert Bush, Jay Portnoy (?), Abba Terr and Robert Woods.

17)              Just like you have been let it be known you were unaware of being a named as co-author for the substantive US Chamber medico-legal mold publication of 2003 that carries the UC imprimatur on it; Dr. Portnoy has let it be known he was unaware that he and thus his affiliated university were listed as co-authoring the medico-legal policy paper of the AAAAI at the time of its publication in early 2006.

18)              The AAAAI mold policy statement is a medico-legal publication that is used to market the concept to the courts that it is the consensus opinion of thousands of immunologists who treat mold injured patients on a regular basis. Yet, listed as co-author – Jay Portnoy, who is the Section Chief, Allergy, Asthma, Immunology, Professor of Pediatrics, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine – deems the AAAAI paper as the “scientific approach on this topic has been extremely negative” with his name and University of Missouri credentials attached as authoring without his knowledge. Thus adding false credibility that the AAAAI publication is representative of the consensus of the five stated authors, and the scientific consensus of the thousands of allergist and immunologist members of the AAAAI; consistent with the occupational physicians of ACOEM.

19)              However, Jay did not even know he was named as co-authoring this paper for AAAAI until I told him in a February 2006 email. An acquaintance of mine from Forbes Magazine, Dan Fisher, who frequently writes of litigation from commerce’s position, somehow had access to the AAAAI policy statement before its publication in the JACI and sent it to me. I sent it to Jay. Jay then requested his name be removed. Apparently, the AAAAI replied “No”, as Jay is still named as co-authoring this substantive medico-legal policy paper that does not support his scientific opinion and in reality, he did not co-author. He says you rewrote his findings regarding irritant reactions from mold exposure and from there he had nothing to do with it.

20)              Much like the USA went to war based on the frenzied hype and false marketing to decision makers that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; all three of these closely related medico-legal policy setters, ACOEM’s, AAAAI’s & US Chamber’s, all naming you as co-authoring and thus all carrying the University of California’s imprimatur, are used in marketing the false scientific concept to the courts and into US health policy that Bruce and Brian could legitimately apply math extrapolations to data they took from a single intratracially instilled mechanistic study by Dr. Carol Rao; mix several hypotheticals into the equation; and then mass market via medical associations, teaching hospitals and the US Chamber; what is a nonsequitor of science that flies in the face of the basic tenets of toxicology and common sense. Ie, Based on this one set of calculations, the toxic components of mold that are found in water damaged buildings are scientifically established to pose no threat to human health. Thus, sick little children in the USA, who claim moldy (and insured) buildings are making them seriously ill with chronic immune system inflammations brought on by microbial toxins, are Evil Doers out to scam insurers – and so are their weeping mothers. (Best summed up by a Sacramento, California judge, Huge Leap)

21)              According to the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, Damp Indoor Spaces and Health Report (2004), Chapter Four Toxicity Summary, this is not a method of risk assessment that can legitimately be used to scientifically conclude causation of human illness -or lack there of – from exposure to microbial toxins that are found in water damaged buildings. Fraudulent health marketing in US public health policy over the mold issue has been legitimized by flawed hypotheses & flawed extrapolations much like drunken men use lamp-posts for support rather than illumination.

22)              What this means with you swearing that you did not really co-author a paper for the US Chamber ILR and had never even seen nor read it; and with Bruce swearing that you did co-author the paper for the US Chamber you claim to have never seen nor read – nor were you paid to author like he and Brian were – – is that no less than one of the three authors of the widely influential ACOEM mold medico-legal policy paper is not being truthful when questioned under oath about who really authored the mold medico-legal policy paper that was paid for by a think-tank (Manhattan Institute) on behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform with the specific intent to influences judges over the science of mold. This paper is closely affiliated to both medical associations of ACOEM and AAAAI – which also lists questionable at best authorship. All three of these substantive medico-legal policy papers used by the defense in mold litigation, have your name and thus UCLA’s on them as co-authoring. All three of these papers contain Bruce’s and Brian’s nonsequitur of science that is used extensively in the courts to deny liability for causation of illness from exposure in water damaged buildings – that are not properly constructed and/or not properly maintained.

WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE THIRD REASON I AM WRITING TO YOU, SPECIFICALLY
The National Apartment Association interjecting the US Chamber’s
“Scientific View” into a Legal Proceeding (2009)

1)              Am I misunderstanding something about this situation? If so, could you explain it to me? The reason it is important is because this document penned on behalf of the US Chamber ILR, that you say via sworn testimony contains your name and thus your UC physician credentials as co-authoring without your knowledge and is a “nonscientific piece” according to you, has been submitted into a legal proceeding (to judges) in Arizona by licensed attorneys on behalf of a political action committee (“PAC”) as a substantive scientific reference for the courts to consider in support of denying causation of the deaths of two new born infants.

2)              The US Chamber’s “A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold” has been submitted as a purportedly substantive scientific legal document into the court records of an Arizona legal proceeding by the DC PAC, the National Apartment Association (“NAA”), via an Amicus Curiae Brief (friend of the court) on August 31, 2009. The NAA PAC is comprised primarily of large property management companies who oversee the leasing and maintenance of thousands of multi-tenant rental units throughout in the United States. The NAA PAC lobbies for legislation that is favorable to owners and property managers of multi-tenant housing on federal, state and local levels.

3)              The Arizona mold case in which the NAA PAC Amicus which cites as a scientific reference that is, according to you, a nonscientific piece of the US Chamber with your name and thus UCLA’s on it, was submitted into the consolidate case of Mason et al, v. Wasatch Property Mgmt Inc, et al. CA-CV 2008-0162, Ca-Cv No. 2008-0165 Court of Appeals, Arizona, Division One via the NAA Amicus. This case is commonly referred to as the (“Abad Case”).

4)              Your US Chamber listed co-authors, (on the publication, not their Curriculum Vitaes) Bruce and Coreen of VeriTox are serving as expert witnesses for the defense in the Abad Case. The NAA PAC Amicus has been submitted in purported scientific validation of their professional opinions in the case – which is the denial that the mold toxins in the water damaged apartments could have reached the (“huge leap” hypothetical) threshold level required to cause illness or infant death. This is based largely on the extrapolations found within the ACOEM position statement – that was also co-authored by you, the UC physician, and two of the owners of VeriTox, Bruce and Brian.

5)              As noted above, according to Bruce’s under oath statements in the Kelman Case, the VeriTox owners themselves are responsible for adding your UCLA name as co-authoring with them – what you call the “nonscientific piece” for the US Chamber ILR – that is now a legal document being used to lend credibility to their expert opinions in the Arizona legal proceeding, “A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold” US Chamber of Commerce. Neither Veritox owners, Bruce nor Coreen, nor their business partner, Brian, acknowledge to be the authors of the US Chamber’s “Scientific View” publication on their CVs; that is now a purportedly scientific legal document, submitted into court records by the NAA PAC in support of VeriTox owners, Bruce’s and Coreen’s expert witness opinions.

6)              Specifically, the NAA PAC Amicus Curiae Brief submitted as a legal document into the Abad Case on August 31, 2009, in support of Bruce’s and Coreen’s expert opinions for the defense, states on page 9:

“In a report entitled, ‘A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold’, a panel of scientists, including toxicologists and industrial hygienists stated that years of intense study have failed to produce any causal connection between exposure to indoor mold and adverse health effects.’ U.S. Chamber of Commerce, A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold (2003)”

7)              The attorneys who submitted the Amicus Brief in the Abad Case on behalf of the NAA PAC, while promoting the concepts to the courts that the consensus of scientific opinion is that there is no evidence mold harms and all claims of illness and death are only made because of “trial lawyers, media and Junk Science”; are Scott Clark, Arizona Bar No. 6759 along with NAA attorneys, John McDermott and W. Michael Semco of Arlington, Virginia.

8)              Yet, the NAA PAC has the link to the Federal GAO Report right on their own website that directly contradicts with their Amicus “science” they submitted as a legal document into a legal proceeding to aid the NAA member defendant (Wasatch Property Mgmt, Inc.) and their insurers to be able to deny liability for the deaths of two new born infants and other tenant injuries. As found directly linked on the NAA’s own website, the Federal GAO Report states in the first sentence of its executive summary as the true consensus among true scientists, “Recent research suggests that indoor mold poses a widespread and, for some people, serious health threat.”

9)              In September of 2001, NAA legal counsel John McDermott contributed to an article for Units Magazine “MOLD LIABILITY: PROTECT YOUR RESIDENTS AND YOUR COMMUNITIES THROUGH RESPONSIBLE RESPONSE that states, “Molds are common fungi. They are dependent on factors including temperature (above 40 degrees Fahrenheit and below 100 degrees Fahrenheit), a nutrient base (such as wood or ceiling tiles) and, most importantly moisture. In these conditions, molds thrive and occasionally result in property damage to households and adverse health effects to residents. In certain individuals, exposure to specific molds may result in allergic reactions asthma and other serious health problems…. No judge has ever found the ostrich approach to be reasonable response to a foreseeable risk.”

10)              Thus the notion that the NAA PAC attorneys think that the US Chamber of Commerce’s medico-legal stance on the science of mold is an unbiased, scientifically founded paper; while using it to deceive the courts that scientific consensus holds: “years of intense study have failed to produce any causal connection between exposure to indoor mold and adverse health effects”; or that they believe all claims of ill health from mold toxin exposure have been proven by consensus of the scientific community to only be made because of “trial lawyers, media, and Junk Science” is highly unlikely at best to be truly believed, even among the most guilable of officers of the court subpopulation.

11)              Current evidence of a scientific fraud in health marketing and to the courts of the known health effects of mold, supports the proposition that the Chamber’s phrase of “trial lawyers, media and Junk Science” and its false concept interjected into health policy along with that of ACOEM’s & AAAAI’s; are a result of defense lawyers, defense expert witnesses, think-tanks, PACs, medico-legal publications of questionable university physician authorships & questionable peer review (if any); for the intended promotion of “Garbage Science” to the courts in order to unduly influence judicial rulings.

12)              While acknowledging the ACOEM paper had “currency” for its authors in other places (sic the courts); the term “Garbage Science” was first coined by the overseer of the ACOEM mold policy peer review process, Dr. Jonathan Borak. In 2002, he used the term “Garbage Science” in an email to ACOEM board members to describe what your, Bruce’s and Brian’s writing of the health effects of mold would have been deemed if ACOEM had not deemed it their “evidence based” policy statement and purported scientific consensus of their occupational physician trade organization – while portraying it to the courts, teaching hospitals and policy setters be the scientific consensus opinion of thousands of learned occupational and environmental physicians.

13)              Did the authors of the paper that were paid by the Manhattan Institute CLP (think-tank) on behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce ILR to write “A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold” (2003), Bruce & Brian, that is now a legal document interjected into an Arizona litigation by the NAA PAC as a scientific source reference for the courts to consider; list UC physician authorship, namely you, without your knowledge? Does the US Chamber’s “Scientific View” falsely cite UC physician authorship – namely you? Is it a “nonscientific piece” in your opinion, as you say when questioned under oath?

14)              You may view a video of Bruce’s 2008 deposition from the Kelman Case saying under oath that you co-authored that paper for the US Chamber; wrote segments of it, and gave your permission to be listed as co-authoring; thus basically calling your 2006 Hake Case sworn statements false when you say you had not even seen nor even read this paper you purportedly co-authored with him and Brian three years after its publication and had no knowledge that you were named as authoring the “nonscientific piece” at the time of publication; at http://www.blip.tv/file/2877610/.

15)              In addition to reasons of just shear logic and of understanding the history of health marketing by the use of questionable university physician authorship & questionable peer review (if any) of substantive mold policy papers; that are then portrayed to be the scientific consensus of thousands of physicians – and used as such by the defense bar in mold litigation; I am inclined to believe you, Dr. Saxon, over Bruce when it comes to which ACOEM mold position statement author is telling the true facts and who is not, about the actual authorship of the US Chamber’s nonscientific “A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold” – that none of its four listed co-authors even claim as authoring on their Curriculum Vitaes (“CV”) among their publications.

16)              This is because I have the documentation of the billable hours for the US Chamber ILR paper. I have the cancelled checks made out to VeriTox for writing the paper. And, I have the actual contract signed by Lawrence Mone, President, Manhattan Institute for the endeavor on behalf of the US Chamber’s interpretation of legal reform over the mold issue – that has now been interjected into a legal proceeding by the DC political action committee–the National Apartment Association, as purported supporting evidence of the purported consensus opinion among scientists [sic, two professional defense witnesses, Bruce and Brian] that mold and its toxins do not harm.

17)              Nowhere is your name or the Regents of the UC ever mentioned in the contract or billings or even a single word about you. Only Bruce Kelman and Brian Hardin billed hours to the Manhattan Institute think-tank for the US Chamber ILR paper; and billed time for conferring with each other – but not with you.

18)              VeriTox owner and prolific expert mold defense witness in her own right, Coreen Robbins CIH (certified industrial hygienist) , even appears not to have actually had any real input into the endeavor for the US Chamber, even though she too is listed as co-authoring. Just like you are the only one who is a physician that is listed as authoring, Coreen is the only one who is an industrial hygienist listed as authoring. Nowhere did Bruce or Brian bill time for conferring with Coreen. And nowhere is there evidence of VeriTox billing the Manhattan Institute for Coreen’s time of conferring with her VeriTox co-authors, or working on the publication – as she purportedly contributed to their US Chamber ILR medico-legal “Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold”.

19)              Bruce and Brian are not physicians and are not industrial hygienists. Neither one of them had a research background in the study of mold in 2002 & 2003 when they were selected to author substantive medico-legal policy papers to reflect the US Chamber’s & ACOEM’s scientific views of the health effects of mold.

20)             This would cause anyone who wonders how concepts become policy via health marketing to question why these two men were specifically selected to author these two substantive policy papers of a science of which they had no research backgrounds and why the medico-legal policy paper they penned for the US Chamber of Commerce is not even listed on their CVs.

21)              Not one of you three authors of the ACOEM mold statement was a member of the organization before it was determined this mold statement would be written in 2002. You, personally, have never been a member of ACOEM but are a member of AAAAI according to your CV. These two subtantive medico-legal policy papers are the only two papers you have ever published that claim peer review, on the subject of the health effects of mold.

22)              This would also cause anyone who wonders how concepts become health policy via health marketing to question why a medical association, ACOEM specifically comprised of thousands of physicians would bring in a non-member physician to write their medico-legal consensus statement; with this outside, chosen physician being one who had never even published on the subject matter prior to writing a consensus opinion for the organization to which he does not belong; yet he has generated substantial income for himself and his university from expert defense witnessing on behalf of the insurance industry over the matter.

23)              According to your sworn statements, you began providing expert defense witnessing services over the mold issue in approximately 1999. The ACOEM specfically brought you in to their occupational physician trade organization to write their mold medico-legal position statement in 2002. Prior to this, you had never published on the subject matter.

24)              Brian came to the mold issue after retiring as a US Assistant Surgeon General, Deputy Director of the Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (“NIOSH”) in 2001. He then began a second career as an expert witness in toxic torts and as a new co-owner of VeriTox, Inc. Brian swears that he only started reading on the subject of mold in the summer of 2001. This is evidenced by his expert witness testimony of December 20, 2006, in the Scotia Price Cruises, Limited v. The City of Portland Maine Case No.50 180 T 00150 05, State of Maine, “Scotia Prince Case”.

25)              Bruce came to the mold issue circa 2000 after many years of serving as an expert for Big Tobacco. This is also not disclosed on his CV. Several of those who frequently provide expert opinions for the defense in mold litigation like you, Bruce, Bryan and Coreen do; came to the mold issue from Big Tobacco circa 2000; such as Ron Gots, Harriet Burge and Paul Lees-Haley.

26)              As noted above in Bruce’s deposition testimony of July 22, 2008, he says that you, Brian and he wrote the 2003 US Chamber medico-legal paper. Mentions nothing about Coreen. But Coreen the industrial hygienist, just like you the University of California physician, is listed as co-authoring the US Chamber’s “Scientific View” that professes to scientifically prove all claims of illness from the toxins of mold are being made because of “trial lawyers, media and Junk Science”, even though the billing records, etc., indicate that Coreen did not write this “Scientific View” for the US Chamber ILR – Manhattan Institute CLP and neither did you.

27)              With you saying you did not co-author it; and VeriTox not able to document that Coreen billed any hours for it; and Bruce saying he, you and Brian wrote it while mentioning nothing of Coreen; and only Bruce and Brian were paid for it; with none of the four of you disclosing authorship of the US Chamber medico-legal mold publication on your CV’s; it appears that the US Chamber of Commerce’s “Scientific View” of Legal Reform and the Manhattan Institute’s “Scientific View” of Legal Policy over the mold issue is in reality, an authorship falsified document penned by a “panel” of only two defense expert witnesses, Bruce Kelman and Brian Hardin, who were specifically paid for the endeavor by a think-tank to unduly influence judges by what you call“a nonscientific piece that has my name on it” – that the NAA PAC has now submitted as a purported scientific legal document in a legal proceeding – while misleading the courts that the US Chamber of Commerce’s “Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold” is the concensus opinion of the scientific community, including the UC system – in support of Bruce’s and Coreen’s expert testimony before the Arizona courts – with the Chamber paper they do not even disclose as authoring on their CVs being held out as a legitimate scientific reference to corroborate their expert opinions in a litigation involving two new born infant deaths.

Why do none of the four stated authors claim they penned this substantive 2003 medico-legal US Chamber mold policy publication that is closely tied to ACOEM’s & AAAAI’s on their Curriculum Vitaes?

28)              I could be wrong, but personally, I think you are the ACOEM author who is probably telling the truth when questioned under oath regarding who authored what for the US Chamber and that is why it is not on your CV. I think your name and UC physician credentials were added on the US Chamber of Commerce’s ILR mold medico-legal paper without your knowledge (or giving you any share of the money), because it looked better for VeriTox, the Manhattan Institute think-tank and the US Chamber (and now the NAA) to be able to portray that the US Chamber’s “Scientific View” was co-written by a university affiliated physician, namely you and namely UCLA.

29)              If you had co-authored a paper for the US Chamber of Commerce in 2003 regarding their “Scientific View” of the health effects of mold while employed by the Regents of the UC; you would have had to bill for your time with the payment going to your employer, the Regents of UC. That would have been a violation of the California Constitution of “political and sectarian influence” for the UC Regents to be paid to write a medico-legal lobbying piece for the express intent it be made accessible to judges on behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce over a matter that has been extremely expensive for the insurance industry – who are your frequent clients when expert witnessing and generating income for yourself and the Regents of the UC. Right? Bruce claims they offered to pay you. You said No.

30)              And, since you are the only one who is a physician, only one university affiliated, and only non-VeriTox owner listed co-author of this paper for the US Chamber (on the publication, not CVs), I believe you over Bruce when you say under oath that you did not really co-author the medico-legal paper for the US Chamber of Commerce and had not even seen or read the “nonscientific piece” in three years time – that is now a legal document in a legal proceeding being falsely presented to the courts by NAA PAC as a legitimate source of scientific community consensus in support of Bruce’s and Coreen’s professional witness opinions.

31)              AKA, the “nonscientific” “something accessible to judges” “that has [your] name on it”; along with the imprimatur of the University of California and thus implied its Regents’ endorsement of a scientific fraud in health marketing on behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce. – that is now a legal document in a legal proceeding in Arizona – making the claim that all claims of illness from mold toxins are scientifically proven to be the result of “trial lawyers, media and junk science”.

32)              I think that VeriTox and the Manhattan Institute think-tank stuck your name and your UC physician credentials on what is now a questionable at best legal defense document to lend false credibility to the US Chamber’s Scientific View, aka “nonscientific piece that has [your] name [and university affiliated medical credentials] on it”. I think this is because it would not bode well for credibility to have a medico-legal policy paper of the US Chamber of Commerce Institute for ‘Legal Reform’ – that falsely promotes the concept to the courts that it is proven among the medical and scientific community that mold does not harm – to be authored only by two owners, Bruce and Brian, of one litigation defense support corporation, VeriTox, Inc.

33)              These two US Chamber authors are not physicians and thus have never examined or treated a mold injured person. They are men who have no relevant bench research experience in the science of mold. These two men and other from VeriTox dropped five moldy lemons in a trash can, added some math extrapolations and professed at the International Union of Toxicologists (“IUTOX”) Conference, held in Montreal, Canada 2007, that this lemon of a risk model, unveiled via a poster session, proved the concept that mold toxins found indoors do not harm humans.

34)              I think they put Coreen’s name on the Chamber paper, too, while practicing deceptive health marketing by the US Chamber et al, for the intent to unduly influence the courts by making it appear that the medico-legal policy paper of the Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) and the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy (CLP) was co-written by a mold-educated industrial hygienist along with you, a mold educated universty physician.

35)              Contrary to the “friend” of the court legal brief submitted by the National Apartment Association PAC, it appears that not even one industrial hygienist, let alone “hygienists”, was among the panel of only two, Bruce and Brian, who truly penned and were truly paid to pen the paper for the US Chamber & Manhattan Instititue – with the express intent it be made “accessible to judges.” just as the court friendly NAA PAC attorneys have now applied this intended usage of this “nonscientific piece that has [your] name on it” along with the UC imprimatur implying the medical teaching university’s endorsement of the US Chamber of Commerce’s “Scientific View”.

36)              Surely, the Manhattan Institute, which bills itself as America’s leading voice for Tort Reform, was aware of the false authorship of the paper for which they paid on behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce’s ILR. They only saw billable hours for Bruce and Bryan and only paid Bruce and Bryan for authoring, but not you and not Coreen. Clearly, it appears that the US Chamber wanted a paper to unduly influence the courts about the “science” of mold – as the NAA’s legal councels have now applied it.

37)              It appears that true expertise, true scientific consensus and true authorship meant little to the US Chamber of Commerce ILR and the Manhattan Institute CLP self professed gurus of “Tort Reform” as long as the medico-legal publication held up to cursory examination by legal decision makers – judges and justices.

WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE FOURTH REASON I AM WRITING TO YOU SPECIFICALLY
Nondisclosure of Authorship of Medico-Legal Policy Papers on Curriculum Vitaes, Questionable Authorship & Questionable Peer Review (if any)

1)              As the sole person who is a named as co-authoring all three of the medico-legal papers on the publications themselves: the ACOEM Mold Position Statement (2002), the US Chamber of Commerce’s Mold Position Statement (2003) and the AAAAI Mold Position Statement (2006) what are your thoughts, Dr. Saxon? Why do you think Bruce and Brian added your name and University of California medical credentials as acutally co-authoring the “nonscientific”, “Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold” for the US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) and Manhattan Institute Center for Legal Policy (CLP) with VeriTox in 2003?

2)              Why do you think Bruce has stated under oath that you gave them permission to list you as a co-author of the paper they were paid to write by a think-tank and he claims you wrote segments of – that you say under oath you had not even read in 2006, three years after its publication; and that you had no knowledge your name (and thus UC’s) was on it as co-authoring when it was published in 2003?

3)              I know you do not claim the US Chamber medico-legal paper on your CV because you swear you did not even know you were named as co-authoring it.  But, why do you think none of your three listed co-authors of the Chamber’s “A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold”; Brian, Bruce and Coreen, disclose their part in authoring the US Chamber medico-legal document on their CV’s among their other scientific publications? (Coreen, like you, probably because she did not co-author it)

4)              That seems to me to be a pretty impressive honor, to have one’s scientific opinion held in such high esteem that owners of one corporation, VeriTox, would be “commissioned” to author the “Scientific View” of the health effects of mold on behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce.  It seems to me that the Veritox owners would want this substantive and prestigious medico-legal publication for the US Chamber to be front and center on their CVs to bolster credibility and add prestige to the body of their other scientific publications.  If I was chosen to write a medico-legal policy paper on behalf of  the influential US Chamber of Commerce I would certainly want it to be widely known among my peers and decision makers via my CV.  Wouldn’t you?

5)               Have you ever made any effort to have your and the University of California names removed as the only physician listed co-author of the mold medico-legal policy publication that Bruce & Brian were paid by a think-tank to write for the US Chamber of Commerce to influence judges - that you say you had no knowledge you were named as co-authoring and had not even read, three years after publication, this “nonscientific piece” “something accessible to judges” “ that has [your] name on it” along with the imprimatuer of UCLA?.        

6)               What is it that you find to be “nonscientific” about the US Chamber of Commerce’s “Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold” (2003) that has your name as co-authoring and thus UCLA’s imprimatur of endorsement on it?      

7)               When questioned in the Hake Case in 2006, you called it a “nonscientific piece” that you had never even seen. How were you able to determine it was a “nonscientific piece” if you had never even seen nor read it?

8)               If you keep current of developments within the mold issue – an area of science in which you have generated substantial income for yourself and the UC system when expert witnessing – how is it that you had not even read this widely distributed 2003 US Chamber “nonscientific piece”  that has your and UCLA’s names on it even three years after its publication?  

9)               Why did both ACOEM and AAAAI select you to co-author their medico-legal policy statements to be representative of the scientific consensus of their thousands of physician members regarding mold induced illnesses – when, according to your CV, you are not a member of ACOEM, a medical association made up of thousands of physicians? Surely at least one or two of them learned to form and write their own medical opinions in medical school. I happen to know there are some highly educated and very credible physicians in both of these associations.       

10)              In peer review, particularly on policy papers portrayed to be the consensus opinion of the several thousands of AAAAI allergist members, does the AAAAI verify who actually wrote what or verify that listed authors have given their permission to be named as authors for the medical association’s consensus medico-legal opinions?    
 
11)              Why do you think Jay Portnoy’s name and University of Missouri’s were added and left on the substantive AAAAI mold medico-legal policy paper of 2006 as a contributing co-author with you and the other three; when he specifically told AAAAI he did not write any of it and stated he wanted his name removed; deeming the paper negative on the science”?

12)              What type of communication took place between the listed authors of the AAAAI Mold Policy Statement and the Board of Directors of AAAAI that caused Jay’s name to be left on as authoring the medico-legal piece, even after he informed all involved he did not author it and it did not represent his scientific opinion?  
 
13)              Where do you think that false rumor started and who is spreading it, erroneously bringing into question the valid authorship of James Craner’s 2008 IJOEH publication – which is about the conflicts of interest over the mold issue involving ACOEM, AAAAI, the US Chamber and others?
 
14)              The Abad Case, in which the NAA Amicus has cited the US Chamber of Commerce’s “Scientific View” as a purportedly legitimate scientific reference that you, author of ACOEM’s & AAAAI’s consensus science opinions of mold illness, say under oath is a “nonscientific piece that has  my name on it”; involves two newborn infant deaths, an apartment building documented to have an atypical amount of mold, and a $25,000,000 insurance policy issued by Travelers Insurance.

WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE FIFTH REASON I AM WRITING TO YOU, SPECIFICALLY
 Medico-Legal Policy Papers Used To Support Expert Witness Opinion of Those Who Do Not Disclose on Their CV’s That They Authored The Medico-Legal Paper Now Used To Validate Their Opinions.

1)              This is a very serious matter impacting people’s lives and the insurer’s financial liability. When the policy document of the US Chamber (that you swear is a “nonscientific piece with my name on it”), is submitted into court records of a legal proceeding by licensed attorneys as a purported valid scientific reference with the imprimatur of the University of California on it; and in support of the insurer’s & defendant’s hired experts’ opinions – who are the owners of the company that added your name and UC physician credentials as co-authoring the document with them, that is now being used to support the credibility of their non-physician expert opinions – –

     It brings into serious question–Why would the Abad Case defense attorneys and the friendly NAA PAC attorneys use their hired experts’ own “nonscientific piece”, that cites false co-authorship of a university affilaited physician who claims he had not even read it (let alone wrote it) to validate their hired experts’ “scientific” opinions – Yet these same experts do not even claim authorship on their CVs of the purported scientific reference the NAA has submitted to support these same experts opinions as valid science?

2)              I would think that Traveler’s would be quite unhappy to understand that the NAA attorneys had submitted a “nonscientific” “something accessible to judges” with the falsified implied endorsement of the UC system as a scientific something accessible to judges legal document. Yet verified by sworn statement of a listed co-author of the purported scientific legal document – you – to be “nonscientific”. And with the only ones paid to author the nonscientific – scientific something accessible to  judges” being two owners of the company that their own attorneys hired as expert witnesses in the case –, who do not claim authorship of the nonscientific-scientific NAA legal document on their CVs…with twenty-five million dollars on the line.  Ouch!

3)              So just like I am requesting your assistance to help to squelch the false rumor flying through the defense bar that I have stated under oath I wrote Craner IJOEH 2008 – that could deflect from the importance of your sworn Hake Case testimony that you – a UC physician – did not co-author “A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold” for the US Chamber ILR;  I am also requesting  that

You let the defense attorneys involved in the Abad Case and their NAA legal brief submitting friends of the court, know that they have submitted a “nonscientific piece”, -according to the sworn opinion of one of the piece’s listed co-authors, into the court records of their legal proceeding as a purported scientific piece in support of the professional witnesses’ opinions they hired –who wrote the nonscientific piece on behalf of the US Chamber to influence the courts in the first place; and were paid to write it by a think-tank; and added your University of California imprimautur without your knowledge (according to your sworn statements).   

4)              The Abad Case attorneys & friendly NAA PAC attorneys could (and legally should) then let the Arizona Appellate Court know about the nonscientific document of the US Chamber carrying the false imprimatur of the UC medical system,  that they have interjected into the legal proceeding as a definitive source of science – that contradicts the true science of the Federal GAO – which may be found as linked from the NAA’s own website as a scientific reference – as is their fiduciary duty to do as licensed officers of the courts.          

5)              I have already informed the NAA PAC via email a few months ago of the questionable authorship of the Chamber paper submitted in their Amicus Curiae Brief as a legal document; and that a listed co-author of the Chamber paper deemed their legal document used as purported scientific reference to be “a nonscientific piece that has my name on it”.     

6)              Perhaps if you – the sole physician named as co-author of the “nonscientific piece that has my name on it” who says under oath he had not even seen nor read it, three years after its publication, let alone wrote it – would let them know they have submitted a nonscientific piece as a purportedly scientific legal document; they will comprehend the serious implications when large political actions committees such as NAA, submit questionable at best legal documents into legal proceedings while marketing scientific misinformation with apparent falsified university affiliated physician and falsified industrial hygienist authorship (Coreen, Abad Case defense expert) to the courts.  

7)              Perhaps they will take action to remove the nonscientific legal document they are falsely presenting to the courts as a scientific legal document, if the request comes from you – the only physician and only non Veritox owning listed co-author, and thus the only listed co-author with no financial income from the Abad Case, as you are not retained as an expert in this one.

8)              Scott Clark, Arizona Bar No. 6759, submitted the NAA PAC Amicus into the Abad Case on August 31, 2009, citing the US Chamber paper with your name and university affiliated physician credentials on it as co-authoring.  The NAA Amicus Brief was also designated as being submitted by John McDermott and W. Michael Semco of the National Apartment Association, Arlington Va.

9)              Russell D. Hiles III, who is the lead attorney for the defense in the Arizona Abad Case as I understand it, is also licensed to practice law in the state of California, State Bar No. 59502.  I am aware that Russ Hiles and his law firm of Stone & Hiles, Encino California, have a long standing relationship with Bruce and VeriTox over the mold issue. I am aware that Russ has even provided education of mold litigation to the California State Bar, “How to Defend a Mold Claim’, California Continuing Education of the Bar, 2004”.    

10)            By law in California, Rule 5-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the California State Bar provide that “[i]n presenting a matter to a tribunal,” a member of the bar “(A) Shall employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the member such means only as are consistent with truth; [¶] (B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;..”

11)            California Business and Professions Code section 6068(d) provides in relevant part: ‘It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following: To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him or her such means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.” 

12)            And “Honesty in dealing with the courts is of paramount importance, and misleading a judge is, regardless of motives, a serious offense.Paine v. State Bar 14 Cal.2d 150, 154 (1939)

13)            I am pretty sure that if an attorney is licensed in California like Russ is, his ethical duties to the courts also apply interstate to any states where he is practicing law.  I think you should let Russ Hiles and the other attorneys involved in the Abad Case and the NAA PAC Amicus know ASAP that without doubt there has been an important and substantive artiface containing false statement of facts submitted by them into the court records you have sworn you did not know you were named as co-authoring; and you find the piece to be “nonscientific” – “A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold” US Chamber of Commerce (2003), listed authors, Bruce Kelman, Brian Hardin, Coreen Robbins, Andrew Saxon MD, UCLA “nonscientific piece”accessible to judges” “that has [your and UC’s] name on it”.  

14)            Time is of the essence, Dr. Saxon, for you to inform these attorneys you are aware, whether intentionally or not, they are perpetrating what could be deemed as an interstate fraud on the courts containing the false imprimatur of the UC system;  in furtherance of several enterprises with broad implications involving political action committees, legal documents, conflicting under oath statements by professional witnesses, falsified authorship on medico-legal policy publications, and US public health policy & mold litigation.

The situation could potentially unduly influence the Abad Case directly by false artiface with your and University of California’s names on it.  Failure to act may make you and the University of California complicit.

15)            And as to the attorneys involved, you really need to tell them before the Arizona Appellate Court might rule in error based on this nonscientific/scientific reference they submitted into the court records with your and UC’s names on it: “Counsel should not forget that they are officers of the court, and while it is their duty to protect and defend the interests of their clients, the obligation is equally imperative to aid the court in avoiding error and in determining the cause in accordance with justice and the established rules of practice.” Furlong v. White  51 Cal.App. 265, 271 [196 P. 903]. (1921)

16)            “..once the attorney realizes that he or she has misled the court, even innocently, he or she has an affirmative duty to immediately inform the court..Datig v. Dove Books, Inc. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 964, 981
 
17)            I know it must be extremely embarrassing for you that you authored a paper for ACOEM over the mold issue with someone who now basically says you stated untruths in your sworn testimony in the Hake Case about your lack of involvement of being an actual co-author of the US Chamber ILR’s, & Manhattan Institute CLP’s “nonscientific piece” over the mold issue. It hurts the credibility of ACOEM, AAAAI,  Regents of the UC, the defense bar, the defendants, their insurers and of you, Bruce, Brian and Coreen as credible and ethical expert witnesses by this close association; yet with you and Bruce:

I.      basically seeming to call the other an under oath liar about who really authored that paper for the US Chamber; that

II.     was written for judges; that

III.     was paid for by a think-tank; that is deemed by you, listed author as a “nonscientific piece (with the University of California’s name on it); that

IV.    the friendly NAA PAC attorneys have submitted as a purported scientific legal document in purported scientific validation of Bruce’s  and Coreen’s expert opinions in the litigation involving new born deaths and a $25,000,000.00 Travelers’ insurance policy; and that

V.     neither you nor Bruce claim authorship of the US Chamber’s medico-legal paper on your CVs among your listed  publications and neither do Brian or Coreen; yet all four of you are named as the co-authors of the US Chamber’s “Scientific View” right on the publication along with the name “UCLA” – that is now a purportedly scientific, legal document sitting in the court records file in Arizona in the Abad Case.

WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE SIXTH REASON I AM WRITING TO YOU, SPECIFICALLY
Cleansing the Air, Who Really Authored What Medico-Legal, Influential Policy Papers
These Papers Are Frauds in Health Marketing

1)              I think it is time to cleanse the air in the name of public health (double entendre’ intended) and to put a stop to the misinformation of who really authored and who really peer reviewed what substantive mold medico-legal policy publications that are misused by the defense in mold litigation by their ability to falsely portray these questionably authored and questionably peer reviewed papers (if peer reviewed at all) as the scientific consensus opinion of thousands of physicians with the falsified imprimaturs of teaching universities on them; and with the impact being adverse influence on US public health policy as whole. Don’t you?

2)              As such, I would like to help you get the truth of your Hake Case testimony out regarding your noninvolvement with the US Chamber of Commerce over the mold issue and that you find their “Scientific View” publication to be “nonscientific piece that has [your] name [and your UCLA affiliated physician credentials] on it”.

3)              I know this does not come as news to you, Dr. Saxon: Your, Bruce’s, Brian’s, Coreen’s, the US Chamber of Commerce’s, ACOEM’s and AAAAI’s conflicted interests and the resultant adverse impact on mold litigation and thus US health policy as a whole, have previously been written of on the front page of the Wall Street Journal in 2007 “Amid Suits Over Mold Experts Wear Two Hats, Authors of Science Papers Often Cited by the Defense Also Help in Litigation”.

4)              The matter has been written of twice in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health (IJOEH). It has been brought to numerous courts’ attentions in numerous legal proceedings throughout the US. It, and the nonsequitor of science behind it – “huge leap” hypothetical to establish false denial of human toxicity -have been written of in several medical and non-medical publications.

5)              Center for Science in the Public Interest (“CSPI”) has voiced concerns of the matter and its impact on the mold issue and public health when expert witnesses for the defense do not disclose their financial interests while seeing their writings published as substantive medical policy papers portrayed in medical journals as representative of the opinions of thousands of physicians; and thereby serving the interest of the insurance industry and the authors themselves when generating income by expert witnessing before the courts.

6)              The AAAAI oddly did not retract or edit their 2006 mold medico-legal policy paper, even after receiving numerous complaints from physicians and scientists (including Dr. Harriet Ammann, the author of Toxicity Section for the IOM Report (2004) with which the AAAAI mold statement falsely professes to be in sync) ; and even after Jay informed them he did not really author any aspect of the final product of their policy paper – in 2006. The AAAAI did change their journal authors’ required disclosure policy to include income generated from professionally witnessing, directly because of this fiasco over the mold issue – which lives on through the US Chamber of Commerce and the NAA. – “panel of scientists” “years of intense study have failed to produce any causal connection” “nonscientific piece that has my name on it” “something assessible to judges” “negative on the science” “huge leap” of the AAAAI, ACOEM, and US Chamber of Commerce’s “Scientific View” of the health effects of mold and 2009, NAA legal document in Arizona.

7)              The under oath conflicting testimonies of you and Bruce of who really authored what for the US Chamber of Commerce over the mold issue further diminishes the scientific credibility of both ACOEM’s and AAAAI’s mold position statements that are both co-authored by you — by the entanglement of medical association position statement authors and prolific expert defense witnesses – who basically seem to point the finger at each other about who really authored a scientifically void, medico-legal marketing piece for US Chamber of Commerce over the mold issue with the express intent to influence the courts – and no one claiming authorship of the Chamber paper on their CV’s.

8)              The Big Lie in health marketing perpetrated by both ACOEM and AAAAI is Plainly Stated in Lay Terminology by the US Chamber paper, Ie, that it is scientifically proven the toxic components of mold does no harm when one is exposed in a water damaged building and anyone who says it does should be considered by their doctors and the courts to be mentally ill liars out to scam their insurer, employer or landlord– with your imprimatur and thus the University of California’s on all three of these medico-legal policy papers: ACOEM’s, AAAAI’s & the US Chamber’s.

9)              This is easy to substantiate as a scientific fraud on the courts by the NAA when the Chamber’s Scientific View with its apparent falsified university physician and falsified industrial hygienist authorships, falsely professes it is scientifically proven that all claims of illness from the toxins of mold have been established by “a panel of scientists” to be made solely because of “trial lawyers, the media and Junk Science.” This is because I know that you, a listed co-author of the Chamber’s Scientific View, (now NAA legal document) – know this is not science today, nor was it ever. This is because I know that you know the Chamber paper is a “nonscientific piece with [your] name on it”.

10)             I study your and other professional witnesses’ depositions and trial testimonies as I am researching conflicts of interest in health marketing over the mold issue. As such, I know that it is not your professional opinion that you testify to under oath – i.e., that mold and their toxins are scientifically proven to do absolutely no harm to human health, as the NAA PAC is misleading the Arizona courts to believe is your opinion via that Chamber paper that has your name on it as being among the “panel”. You, listed co-author of the Chamber’s Scientific View, have stated under oath that it is your opinion mold and its toxins can indeed cause immunosuppressive effects in humans.

11)             A.) US Chamber of Commerce ”Scientific View”, cited and attached as ascientific reference exhibit to the NAA Amicus: “Thus the notion that ‘toxic mold’ is an insidious secret ‘killer’ as so many media reports and trial lawyers would claim is ‘Junk Science’ unsupported by actual scientific study”, listed co-author Andrew Saxon, MD, UCLA. B.) NAA Amicus: “a panel of scientists”, including toxicologists and industrial hygienists stated that “years of intense study have failed to produce any causal connection between exposure to indoor mold and adverse health effects” C.) Mr. McDermott of the NAA in 2001: “…molds thrive and occasionally result in property damage to households and adverse health effects to residents. In certain individuals, exposure to specific molds may result in allergic reactions asthma and other serious health problems” D.) Testimony of Andrew Saxon – in the matter of Kilian v. Equity Residential Trust et al, Case No. CIV 02-1272-PHX-FJM, June 22, 2004. Arizona, (“Kilian Case”):

Q: If the researchers on the panel appointed by the National Academy of Sciences indicated that various species of Penicillium produce immunosuppressant mycotoxins, you would have no reason to disagree with that finding?

Andrew Saxon: I would have no reason to disagree that Penicillum species can make molds that have immunosuppressive effects, none whatsoever, given the right dose.

12)             As I understand it, your 2004 Kilian Case client, Equity Residential Trust, is a large REIT whose gross income was $1,943.7M for 2009. It is owned by Sam Zell and is a founding member of the National Apartment Association. NAA has submitted the nonscientific piece that has [your] name on it” along with the UC imprimatur, as a purported scientific piece via their Amicus Brief to the courts in 2009 in the Abad Case to support Bruce’s and Coreen’s defense expert opinions in the litigation involving two deceased infants.

13)             Bruce was also an expert witness for Equity Residential, on June 22, 2004 in the Kilian Case, like you were. He testified in that bench trial the same day as you did. Bruce Kelman in the matter of Kilian v. Equity Residential Trust et al, Case No. CIV 02-1272-PHX-FJM, June 22, 2004. (“Kilian Case”):

Q: And that new version [sic, of the ACOEM mold statement] that you did for the Manhattan Institute, your company, GlobalTox [sic, VeriTox], got paid $40,000, correct?

A: Yes, the company was paid $40,000 for it.

14)             I must ask, Dr. Saxon. Did you know by that day of June 22, 2004, that Bruce & Brian had added your name and UC physician credentials as a listed co-author of the 2003 US Chamber ILR “Scientific View”; and that they were paid for that paper by a think-tank, the Manhattan Institute, to write something for judges on behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce ILR?

15)             Did you know when you were co-authoring that mold position statement for the AAAAI in 2006 and while citing to your, Bruce’s & Bryan’s 2002 ACOEM publication as a definitive scientific source regarding toxicity; that your ACOEM co-authors, Bruce & Bryan, had added your name on that 2003 US Chamber judicial marketing nonscientific piece?

16)             When did you become aware you (and UCLA) were named as a co-author of the US Chamber’s nonscientific “Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold” that is now a legal document in a legal proceeding in Arizona being used to stave off financial liability for Travelers Insurance in a litigation involving infant deaths?

16)             Why had you never taken the time, within three years of Chamber’s publication to even read this widely distributed policy paper “that has [your and UCLA’s] name on it” and involving a science matter of which you professionally and frequently witness of in US courts?

17)             Why have you never asked that your and University of California names be removed from this document that your listed co-authors were paid to write on behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce, but you were not? (Or have you, like Jay Portnoy did for himself and the University of Missouri teaching hospital on that 2006 AAAAI medico-legal mold paper with the answer apparently being “No”?)

18)             As you yourself generate much income when serving as an expert defense witness in the courts, I think it would not bode well for your credibility if you take no action to stop what you have stated under oath is a “nonscientific piece” for the US Chamber, that you now know is a legal document in Arizona being presented as a scientific piece with your University of California physician affiliated medical credentials on it in validation of Bruce’s and Coreen’s non-university affiliated, non-physician expert opinions.m

19)             Moreover, you have been directly informed via this notarized and certified letter of how the legal document of the NAA that does not support your own expert opinion when professionally witnessing (Ie, that mold and its toxins can indeed harm by causing immunosuppressive effects); and how the “nonscientific piece that has [your and UCLA’s] name on it” is being misrepresented as a legally scientific piece that has your and UCLA’s names on it in the Abad Case to discredit the claims of two mothers of two deceased infants and other injured tenants.

20)             I must say that I do not agree with the majority of your testimonies of the current scientific understanding of the health effects of molds when found in water damaged buildings. I find much of your expert opinions to be rather archaic and myopic on the subject; and oddly not well read of the current literature (apparently even one with your and the UC names on it as authoring on behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce). But in all my years of reading your depositions and trial testimonies as I research conflicts of interest in health marketing over the mold issue, I have never once found a direct lie in your under oath statements.

21)             Thus, I believe you over Bruce when you swear you had no knowledge you were named as co-authoring the US Chamber ILR’s “nonscientific” view with the VeriTox owners, that is now being used in a legal proceeding in validation of Bruce’s and Coreen’s “scientific” expert opinion, with your name and your credentials as a UCLA physician added on the medico-legal policy paper Bruce & Brian were paid to write; and thus lending false scientific credibility to the “nonscientific piece” and Bruce’s & Coreen’s non-physician opinions in the Abad legal proceeding.

22)              I do, however, question your logic and reasoning of why you journal published with Bruce and Brian again in January of 2007 in the AAAAI’s Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, (JACI) while twisting words to deflect from the Fact that the entire premise of people not experiencing toxicity from exposure to water damaged buildings is founded solely on one set of calculations by Bruce and Brian and found within the ACOEM mold statement. This denial of a scientific fraud in health marketing and conflicted interests by the three of you collectively was published in the JACI just two months after you stated under oath in the Hake Case in November 2006, that you were aware Bruce and Brian had added your name (and UCLA’s) without your knowledge as a co-author of a nonscientific piece you had never even seen and had not read in three years of its publication – let alone co-authored.

“A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold” for the US Chamber of Commerce (ILR) aka “nonscientific piece” “something accessible to judges” that has now had your name and University of California’s imprimatur on it for seven years while misleading the courts and impacting US public health policy.

23)             I would think as a reputable UC physician, that by 2007 you would have wanted nothing to do with authoring again with someone who you swear you knew by that time had added your name to theirs’ on a medico-legal document as purportedly co-authoring a legitimate “Scientific View” for the US Chamber, three years earlier. And they got paid by a think-tank to write it when you did not; with no one claiming authorship of the US Chamber publication on their CVs. Am I missing something?

24)             To the best of my knowledge, the Abad Case (2009) is the first to bring the (2003) US Chamber ILR/Manhattan Institute CLP mold publication, out of the shadows of how judiciaries are influenced by self professed Tort Reform marketing pieces penned to be “accessible to judges” – while listing false physician authorship and false teaching university imprimaturs for the courts’ hood winked eyes. It is the first time since its 2003 publication that I am aware the Chamber publication has been directly presented as a purportedly, scientifically legitimate legal document in a court record –unlike her sister publications for ACOEM (2002) & AAAAI (2006) that almost always show up in court records in mold litigation, with all being listed as co-authored by you and thus all having the University of California imprimatur on them in implied endorsement.

25)             The World Health Organization (“WHO”) recently published a paper on the subject, “Damp and Mould: Health risks, prevention and remedial actions” (2009). The WHO does not find claims of illness from molds and microbial toxins in water damaged buildings are frivolously caused by “trial lawyers, the media or Junk Science” as the Chamber ILR, Manhattan Institute CLP, and Bruce & Brian do.

26)             The WHO does not find that it is the consensus among the scientific community that “years of intense study have failed to produce any causal connection between exposure to indoor mold and adverse health effects”, like the court friendly NAA PAC attorneys (sometimes) do. Nor does the US Federal GAO – whose report on the matter may be found linked directly from the NAA’s own website. (but probably not for long, once the President of NAA receives his certified copy of this notarized letter to you)

27)             The WHO finds, “In many EU countries, 20–30% of households have problems with dampness. Strong evidence indicates that this is a risk to health. In damp conditions, hundreds of species of bacteria and fungi grow indoors and emit spores, cell fragments and chemicals into the air. Exposure to these contaminants is associated with the incidence or worsening of respiratory symptoms, allergies, asthma and immunological reactions. Children are particularly susceptible.” “Perturbation of the immunological system” is how they refer to it. WHO July 2009.

28)             Rather than attach realms of supporting documents for this notarized letter, what I will do so it is easier for you to inform and evidence for the Abad Case defense attorneys & their NAA political action committee “friends” of the court; is have a friend of mine – who is a friend of the perturbed public – immunologically and otherwise by mold, toxins and the system – and who have difficulty getting justice from confused courts and treatment from confused physicians – put this notarized letter to you on her website so that you may read it online and just click on the links of the legal documents, journal publications, emails, etc, referenced within this letter.

29)             I will ask her to title the blog, “TRUTH OUT Sharon Kramer Letter to Andrew Saxon MOLD ISSUE”. I would anticipate it will be posted by April 29th on KatysExposure.Wordpress.Com. Once she does that, I will put it on ToxLaw, http://toxlaw.com/chatboards/blackmold so you and the defense attorneys may easily find it and read it there also, with the support evidence links attached. And again, you can watch a 23 minute video of Bruce saying under oath that you co-authored that paper for the US Chamber of Commerce with Brian and him, contradictorily to your Hake Case sworn statements, at: http://www.blip.tv/file/2877610/

30)             To help you further to get your truth about the “nonscientific piece that has [your and UCLA’s] name on the US Chamber of Commerce mold medico-legal paper, to where it needs to go; I will also send a certified copy of this notarized letter to the attorneys mentioned above and will include Bruce’s and four of the five owners’ of VeriTox’s personal attorney in the Kelman Case, Keith Scheuer.

31)             So you know, Brian, retired high level CDC/NIOSH employee, was never disclosed to be an owner of VeriTox or a party to the Kelman Case on the Certificate of Interested Parties submitted to the Appellate Court in 2006. When denying the anti-SLAPP motion, the current Chair of the California Commission on Judicial Performance, Justice Judith McConnell, wrote the anti-SLAPP opinion being informed and evidenced, yet ignoring this fact. The courts were also informed via irrefutable evidence, that undisclosed party, Brian’s, business partner, Bruce, committed perjury to establish a fictional reason for my malice for him, personally – in a libel litigation where the sole claim of the case is that I maliciously accused Bruce of committing perjury by my use of the phrase “altered his under oath statements” that just happened to be in the same writing that was the first to publicly write of the deceit of the US Chamber paper.

32)             It was a unanimous, unpublished Appellate opinion issued on November 16, 2006 with Justices Cynthia Aaron and Alex McDonald concurring – and no one addressing the evidence that Brian’s name was oddly missing from the Certificate of Interested Parties or that his US Chamber co-author and business partner, Bruce, was committing perjury to establish a needed reason for personal malice.

33)             I sure hope the Appellate panel grasps the law this time around, Ie,that legally, one cannot use criminal perjury to prove they were falsely accused of criminal perjury – because four San Diego lower court judges failed to understand this – just like the anti-SLAPP Appellate panel did in 2006. I have provided uncontroverted and irrefutable evidence of Bruce’s perjury to establish a needed libel law reason for me to harbor malice for him personally, no less than fifteen times for the San Diego courts since September of 2005.

34)             I do I do not even know Bruce personally, and I am pretty sure that citizens of the United States and of California are suppose to be able to speak out of a deceit in health marketing adversely impacting US public health policy (of which Bruce just happens to be one of many involved) without fear of retribution – no matter whose ox is getting properly gored, including the US Chamber of Commerce, the American College of Occupational & Environmental Medicine and the University of California. The only time I met him prior to researching conflicts of interest in health marketing was when he testified in my own mold case that my home was an increased risk for my daughter with Cystic Fibrosis after a botched remediation because the mold spore count was higher. As such, he helped my family receive approximate a half a million dollar settlement. Russ Hiles of the Abad Case can confirm this for you. Stone & Hiles was the law firm that hired Bruce as an expert witness in my family’s mold litigation of long ago.

35)             It has cost me literally millions to defend the truth of my words written in March of 2005, in the name of public health of the scientific fraud of the US Chamber medico-legal paper – with the UC imprimatur on it. It has been five years worth of unbridled strategic litigation. I have been called every name in the book by people like Ron Gots and political yellow journalists with the ability to publish nationally, Daniel Heimpel and Jill Stewart of Village Voice Media published a false a false light political hit piece three weeks before the 2008 trial. Heimpel was awarded political investigate reporter of the year by the LA Press Club 2008. However, LA Press Club board member and editor of Daniel Heimpel’s work, Jill Stewart, did not submit his yellow journalism over the mold issue in the body of work to be considered for this prestigious award in journalism.; My husband and children were even attacked and held out in false light to try to intimidate and discredit me. Although this has caused an extreme hardship on my own family, I will not be silenced about a deeply seeded scientific fraud in health marketing by the US Chamber of Commerce et, al, that continues to adversely impact US policy and the health and safety of the American public to the financial benefit of US Chamber and affiliates.

36)             Keith – who is also licensed to practice law in the State of California just like the Abad Case attorney Russ of Stone & Hiles is – can also verify for you that I have never submitted any document to the courts that states I “wrote the paper” that was authored solely by Dr. James Craner to the best of my knowledge for the IJOEH in 2008. But that I have cited it while truthfully stating I wrote a paper for IJOEH on the same subject; as page 16 of Jim Craner’s IJOEH publication cites reference to my IJOEH publication, LaDou et al, IJOEH in 2007.

37)             I cited it because it helps to establish for the courts that my publications, other writings and research of the conflicts of interest among medico-legal health marketers has had a substantial impact on the mold issue and US public health policy as a whole. It helps to establish the true reason for the five years worth of strategic litigation of the Kelman Case and why the defense experts and defense bar would like for me to be silenced about the scientifically void nonsequitur found in the ACOEM, AAAAI and US Chamber mold medico-legal policy papers with regard to human toxicity and water damaged buildings. And their usage in the courts and teaching hospitals to deem sick little US children as lying little “Evil Doers” who are, in reality, not evil. They are sick and suffering from Weapons of Mass Destruction in the form of fraudulent medico-legal policy papers portrayed to be the consensus opinion of the US medical and scientific communities for the purpose of unduly influencing the courts – just as the NAA has now applied the US Chamber, et al, Weapon of Mass Destruction in a litigation involving two infant deaths.

38)             When Russ Hiles, Mr. Clark, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Semco and the two other attorneys for the defense in the Abad Case, Ms. Kuhn and Mr. Kuratz, have your contact information and you have theirs via this notarized and certified letter, you will be able to communicate directly amongst yourselves about the “nonscientific” US Chamber ILR paper with your name on it (but not on your CV), that they have cited for a purported substantive scientific reference in the NAA Amicus Brief and have submitted into the court record of a legal proceeding before the Arizona Appellate Court – in support of the Abad Case expert opinions of two of your listed co-authors of the Chamber’s “nonscientific piece that has [your and UCLA’s] name on it”, Bruce Kelman and Coreen Robbins of VeriTox, Inc.- who also do not list the “Scientific View” publication of the US Chamber ILR on their CVs, either.

39)             I know you would not want to see this type of reputation impugning situation happen to anyone else like it has happened to you and Jay Portnoy and your respective teaching hospitals, regarding false stated authorship without the listed author’s knowledge of being named as authoring substantive mold medico-legal policy publications; and with the stated positions of the substantive publications being contrary to the actual sworn opinions of the listed authors themselves – who had no knowledge they were even named by their peers as being a co-author.

40)             Jay Portnoy has done much to advance the understanding of irritant reactions caused by water damaged buildings, contrary to his portrayed opinion found in the AAAAI mold policy publication of 2006. Because of this AAAAI publication, I, myself, have had to let people know on several occasions that Jay does not adhere to the science of the US Chamber of Commerce that all claims of illness from the toxins of mold have been proven to be a result of “trial lawyers, media and Junk Science”; as they wrongfully deem Jay to be a mold litigation defense physician by his name and university teaching hospital imprimatur being among those that co-authored “Position Paper, The Medical Effects of Mold Exposure” AAAAI/JACI, February 2006.

41)             So hopefully you will do your best to reciprocate my favor of helping you to get your sworn truth out in the Hake Case about your noninvolvement with actually authoring the Chamber nonscientific piece. And let it be known among the defense bar and defense expert witnesses within your sphere of influence, that I have informed you to the best of my knowledge any paper that lists Jim Craner as the sole author is authored solely by Jim Craner.

42)             To reiterate, it is the US Chamber of Commerce’s (2003) mold position paper and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology’s (AAAAI) (2006) mold position paper that are both evidenced to cite false physician and university affiliated authorship. Both of these papers relied heavily on ACOEM’s (2002) mold position paper. All three of these policy papers have your name and your University of California medical credentials on them as co-authoring.

WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE SEVENTH REASON I AM WRITING TO YOU SPECIFICALLY
Medico-Legal Mold Policy Papers of Questionable Scientific Merit, Questionable Authorship & Questionable Peer Review Used to Generate Income for the UC System by Denying Causation of Illness of the Sickly Little “Evil Doers”

1)              The California Constitution, Article IX, Section 9 is specifically regarding conflicts of interest and avoidance of politics within the University of California teaching system, which would include its medical teaching universities. Specifically the California Constitution states, in Article IX.Section 9(f):

“The university shall be entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence..”

2)              Yet, when you and others affiliated with the UC system serve as expert witnesses for the defense in mold litigation, such as Phillip Harber of UCLA and Marion (Joe) Fedoruk of UC Irvine, while denying causation of mold induced illnesses based on the teachings of ACOEM, AAAAI and the US Chamber of Commerce – (which all have the imprimatur of UCLA on them following your name as co-authoring) – the Regents of the UC generate income by promoting the medico-legal policy of the US Chamber of Commerce, et al.

3)              This is because the money for expert witnessing fees goes to the Regents of the UC when their physician employees testify in court. As I understand it, the Regents of the UC keep approximately 50% of the monies generated by promoting the concept of the US Chamber et al, in the courts that all claims of illness from the toxins of mold are a result of “trial lawyers, media and Junk Science”. As I understand it, the going hourly rate of which the Regents of the UC keep 50% for expert witness fees is between $500 and $900 per hour.

4)              Phillip Harber of UCLA and Joe Fedoruk of UC Irvine are both members of ACOEM. They were listed as those who provided peer review for the 2002 ACOEM medico-legal policy paper. Phillip Harber’s main peer review input from what I am able to ascertain of his emails to board members of ACOEM in 2002, was to request that ACOEM make certain that the peer reviewers were not left open to being personally sued for their part in deeming your writing (with UCLA’s imprimatur on it) to be the purported scientific consensus opinion of the thousands of occupational physician members of ACOEM.

Correction: Dr. Fedoruk would like it to be known that he did not actually peer review the ACOEM Mold Statement. Based on his following testimony of February 23, 2005, I incorrectly interpreted his statements to mean he was a board certified medical toxicologist who peer reviewed the ACOEM mold statement. What he actually said was that he was a board certified toxicologist who was given the opportunity to review; and that it included medical toxicologists as part (but not him). My apologies to Dr. Fedoruk:

Dee vs. PCS, Los Angeles, February 23, 2005:

“Q: Okay. Do you agree with this position of Dr. Ordog’s statement as to the ACOEM study: “that the study was not performed by medical toxicologists who are experts in the medical treatment of patients with mold and mycotoxin exposure”?

Dr. Fedoruk: Was not performed by medical toxicologists. It included medical toxicologists as part of that because I was sent a copy of it to review. I am a board -certified toxicologist. So before it was published, I know ACOEM sent that document out to a number of people for comment, for review.”

5)              Dr. Harber and Dr. Fedoruk not only peer reviewed the ACOEM mold statement and have not only testified for the defense in mold litigation while generating income for the Regents of the UC and while promoting the science of ACOEM, just as you have; they have taken the matter even a step further. Via the Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics (“AOEC”) and the Pediatric Health Specialty Units (PEHSU) that are located at teaching hospitals throughout the US, the two have given joint UCLA/UC Irvine teaching seminars at the UCLA occ-med location to physicians in 2007 and 2008 – while promoting the teachings of ACOEM and thus the teachings of the US Chamber of Commerce to “educate” occupational and pediatric physicians of the science of mold induced illnesses. “MOLD: State of the Medical and Environmental Science” UCLA 2007 & 2008.

6)              Complete with mock mold trials (Dr. Fedoruk did not participate in the mock trials) of how to use the ACOEM mold statement in court when denying liability for insurers, et al, for claims of illness or death from mold exposure in school children, adult workers and others; the two ACOEM peer reviewers and other physicians of the UC Irvine AOEC/PEHSU have basically assisted in training a little army of medical defense expert witnesses through the UC medical teaching system by promoting that a child or an adult should meet a courtroom standard burden of proof of causation before they are to be considered to be made ill from mold toxins- and that there is money to be made for physicians (and the Regents of the UC) while denying causation of illness via expert witnessing – while promoting the science of ACOEM and thus the US Chamber of Commerce – that both have the UC imprimatur on them.

7)              I am aware that Dr. Harber is currently retained as an expert defense witness in the State of Nevada to deny that mold within the district office was the cause of the death of a Southern Nevada Health District employee, Dan Pauluk. I believe that you also have been retained. (I know that your expert witness fees no longer go to the Regents of UC since you have emeritus status).

8)              We tax payers federally fund the AOEC and PEHSU to advance the understanding of environmental illnesses in workers and children, including mold and microbial toxin induced illnesses. The AOECs oversee the funding for the PEHSUs. In California, this federal funding goes to the UC medical teaching system to lend financial support to the teachings of physicians such as Dr. Harber and Dr. Fedoruk (UC Irvine AOEC physician), in the name of advancing the understanding of environmentally induced illnesses in children and workers.

9)              Other federally funded nonprofits, such as Healthy Schools Networks (HSN) strongly support additional federal funding go to the AOEC/PEHSU located at teaching hospitals across the US to disseminate the current accepted medical understanding in a systematic manner, of environmentally induced illnesses in school children, throughout the entire United States. This is evidenced in New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, “Who’s in Charge of Children’s Environmental Health at Schools?” Jerome Paulson (AOEC) & Claire Barnett (HSN), April 2010.

10)             From what I have witnessed, the answer to this question is: The US Chamber of Commerce is in charge along with, their affiliates and the trade associations of workers comp physicians of ACOEM and AOEC, who influence the direction of university teaching hospitals while overseeing the funding for research and treatment protocols of environmental illnesses in our children; and while causing mass quackery among physicians that the microbial toxins of moldy schools do not harm the children”.

11)             The PEHSU have many honorable physicians who have dedicated their lives to advancing the understanding of illness in children from chemical exposures. However, being fully aware of what is occurring to mold toxin sick children because of the conflicts of interest over the mold issue involving ACOEM, AAAAI, the US Chamber of Commerce and teaching universities such as UC Irvine; yet encouraging federal funding be provided via the AOEC/PEHSU’s to the benefit of their own research endeavors and to the detriment of the mold toxin sick; it gives them an ethical black eye for taking the money but remaining mum. Basically they are complicit to aiding the mold issue scientific fraud of the US Chamber et al, to the detriment of workers and children that the AOEC and PEHSU are federally funded to help.

12)             The UC Regents generate income when Dr. Harber and Dr. Fedoruk and yourself (priorly), professionally witness denying the existence of causation of the mold toxin induced illnesses – the exact same illnesses we federally fund the UC system to advance the understanding of, via the AOECs & PEHSUs. With regard to the mold issue, we are using our tax dollars to teach that environmental exposures in water damaged buildings do not cause ill health indicative of toxicity, according to ACOEM and the US Chamber of Commerce, et al.; thus denying medical diagnosis and treatment for the sick little “Evil Doers” who attend moldy schools and complain of chronic systemic immunologic perturbation far beyond just their respiratory systems and allergies – that sometimes do not go away when they are removed from the moldy schools.

13)             As a result of the AOEC/PEHSU teaching they are lying little Evil Doers for complaining of symptoms of toxicity; our tax dollars are being misapplied to help the insurance industry deny liability for causation of these toxicological illnesses that the AOEC, PEHSU, and UC medical system, etc, are being federally funded to advance the medical understanding of.

14)             With regard to mold toxicilty and contrary to current usage, they are not federally funded to promote medical science that is to the benefit of workers comp & property insurers and the US Chamber of Commerce et al, to be able to deny financial liability for an environmentally induced illness –toxicity from molds and bacterias often found in water damaged buildings.

15)             So how do you think that works, Dr. Saxon? Why would the UC Regents be motivated to properly use the federal funding for the AOEC/PEHSU to advance the understanding of mold toxin induced illnesses, when they generate substantial income by both federal funding and expert witness fees used to deny causation of these illnesses? Seems like “Do Not Research” grants to me with many remaining silent to get their own federal grant money to fund their own non-profits and research areas in the name of purported environmental public health of our children.

16)             How would it financially benefit the UC system to see our tax dollars be used via funding for the AOEC/PEHSU to advance the understanding of mold toxin induced illnesses to overcome the nonsequitor in toxicological mold science of the teachings of ACOEM, AAAAI and the US Chamber of Commerce – with all three of these mold medico-legal policy papers having the UC imprimatur and implied endorsement of the purportedly ”entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence” medico-legal paper penned on behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce, AAAAI and ACOEM by prolific mold expert defense witnesses? I don’t think it would financially benefit anyone from the UC system or the AOEC/PEHSU physicians to speak up to get rid of this fraud in health marketing over the mold issue. Do you?

17)             I think you should let the Regents of the UC know ASAP that you state you did not know that, you – and thus they – are named as co-authoring “A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold” for the US Chamber of Commerce – that is now a nonscientific-scientific legal document in the state of Arizona in a litigation involving infant deaths. The Regents of the UC, may want their imprimatur removed from the medico-legal document on behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce, once you make them aware that you did not really author the “nonscientific piece” “something accessible to judges” “of political and sectarian influence” “that has [your and the University of California] names on it” But then again, maybe not.

18)             I would think that just from an ethics standpoint alone, your UC peers – the honorable physicians of the AOECs and PEHSUs of the University of California, along with non-profits which work to make school environments safe for children, would want the University of California’s imprimatur removed from the US Chamber of Commerce’s “Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold”, so they are not finding themselves lobbying for Federal funds when they ask for UC AOEC/PEHSU monies that are then applied to advance the US Chamber’s “Scientific View” of an environmental exposure (mold and toxins) to the detriment of environmentally sick children.

19)             I guess we will not know until you inform the UC environmental and pediatric physicians that that they are vicariously named as endorsing the science of the US Chamber of Commerce through you, right on the “Scientific View” publication, contrary to their lives’ work of advancing the understanding of environmental illness in workers and children.

20)             So you do not have to start over and explain it to the Regents of the UC from the beginning as you are telling them about the University of California imprimatur right on a US Chamber publication as endorsing the “nonscientific piece” of fraudulent health marketing used in legal proceeding by the insurance industry, et al; I will assist you by sending a copy of this notarized letter to Russell Gould, Chairman of the Board of the Regents of the University of California and Arnold Schwarzenegger, President of the Board of Regents of the UC.

21)             I will also let AOEC National President, Robert Kosnik of AOEC at UCSF know of the matter for you. That way the Regents of the UC and the AOEC/PEHSU will also have easy documentation to reference when you address this very serious matter about removing the University of California name from a US Chamber of Commerce medico-legal “Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold”. I will let them know that supporting evidence may be found linked at, KatysExposure.wordpress.com.

22)             I am pretty sure that the US Chamber of Commerce carrying the imprimatur of a University of California teaching hospital on a “nonscientific” medico-legal paper, written to be made accessible to judges, that professes all claims of illness from the toxins of mold are scientifically established to only be made because of “trial lawyers, media and Junk Science” based on a hypothetical huge leap in science; and then the Regents of the UC profiting from promoting this “huge leap” via UC employees expert witnessing for the defense – while accepting Federal funds to teach this via AOEC and PEHSU; could be construed as not quite ”entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence” as is dictated to the Regents of the UC via the California Constitution, Aritcle IX, Section 9 (f). But you will need to ask them their opinion and their intent to help you correct when you inform them that you did not author the US Chamber’s “Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold” even though the UC name is in black and white on the US Chamber of Commerce’s “Scientific View” publication of “political and sectarian influence”.

23)             Have you ever informed the Regents of the UC within the last seven years since it’s publication that you did not really co-author “A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold”? Or that your and the UC names are on the US Chamber of Commerce’s medico-legal document of “political and sectarian influence”? And that the Regents of the UC have been generating substantial income via expert witness fees by promoting the ACOEM, US Chamber “Garbage Science” to the courts – that are all based on a nonsequitur of toxicology used to deny diagnosis and medical treatment to mold sick school children and injured workers?

24)             Do you know much income the Regents of the UC have generated from the mold expert defense witness fees you have been paid over the years? How much do you think they have generated from ACOEM mold statement peer reviewers, Dr. Harber’s and Dr. Fedoruk’s mold expert witnessing, over the years? Wonder how much they have generated total from mold litigation expert defense witness fees over the years by the disciples of Dr. Harber’s and Dr. Fedoruk’s AOEC/PEHSU mock mold trial, physician education seminars?

25)             Do you know how much money has gone to the Regents of the UC via federal funding of the AOEC/PEHSU that are located at their teaching hospitals – while using tax dollars to teach the science of ACOEM and the US Chamber of Commerce by their UC employees – who were authors and peer reviewers of the ACOEM mold position statement, that also carries the UC imprimatur?

26)             I co-authored another paper for the IJOEH that was also to be published in October of 2007 on this exact subject. It is titled “Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics (AOEC): Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units”. My co-author, Ms. Jo Ellen Perez was a veteran CDC private contractor disabled by mold and their toxins in the CDC leased building in which she worked in Atlanta. Although the paper was fully peer reviewed and galley finished, it was determined at the Collegium Ramazzini Conference in Capri, Italy, October 2007, that the paper would not be published.

27)             I do not know why this is, but this was the same conference at which Howard Frumkin of the CDC/ATSDR (American Toxic Substance Disease Registry) physically and publicly handed whistleblower CDC employee, Christopher DeRosa, a bad review for his work in toxicology of formaldehyde –his first bad review in 27 years. According to ProPublica regarding this meeting, “Several former and current CDC scientists interpreted De Rosa’s reassignment as a message that CDC employees should be wary of criticizing CDC projects”.

28)             I did not receive this memo about the dangers of retribution for Whistleblowing of matters involving CDC sanctioned projects and fraudulent health marketing. Not that it would have made any difference to me with so many little “Evil Doers” and their families losing everything they own, including their health and sometimes lives – because of the US Chamber’s et al, scientific fraud in health marketing, penned by a retired high level CDC employee who professed to scientifically prove that the toxins of mold are not toxic – which is now being taught in teaching hospitals that receive federal funds via nonprofits who are suppose to be advancing the understand of environmentally induced illness – while these teaching facilities are double dipping by also generating income from expert defense witness fees denying causation of these exact same environmental illnesses on behalf of the insurance industry and other affiliates of the US Chamber of Commerce.

29)             Just like the medical experts from the University of California, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has used the science of ACOEM and thus the US Chamber to defeat claims of mold toxin induced illness in sick military families living in moldy military housing (2006). Like the Abad Case, they too have retained Bruce and Coreen as expert defense witnesses. I should probably copy Eric Holder of the DOJ, too, on this notarized letter to you. That way, you can explain to him about the falsified authorship on the medico-legal mold policy paper of the US Chamber with your and the UC names on it; that A.) one of the DOJ’s experts was paid to pen (Bruce); and, B.) both of their experts are listed as authoring (Bruce and Coreen) on the publication, but C.) neither claim as authoring on their CVs -nor does their business partner – retired high level CDC employee (Brian); and D.) the DOJ expert witnesses put your name and University of California’s name on the US Chamber medico-legal publication without your knowledge – according to your Hake Case testimony; that E.) is now being used in validation of the DOJ’s experts’ opinions when the are witnessing in the Abad Case.

30)             In recent developments, Collegium Ramazzini’s Mr. Frumkin, a past president of AOEC, no longer heads the CDC/ ATSDR. I will have my friend link the IJOEH peer reviewed, nonpublished, finished galley paper on her website as well, so you may read of AOEC/ PEHSU/ UC Regents/ US Chamber/ ACOEM/ AAAAI/ and monies generated for teaching hospitals through the denial of causation of microbial toxin induced illness via defense expert witnessing fees – and federal grants to teaching hospital with taxpayer dollars, favorable to the insurance industry and the US Chamber of Commerce to be able to deny financial liability for causation of illness. I should probably copy the President of the Collegium Ramazzini, Phillip Landrigan, on this notarized letter to you, also. He is employed at the AOEC Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, NY; with a specialty in pediatrics.

THANK YOU, DR. SAXON FOR HELPING TO SHED LIGHT ON THE NONSCIENTIFIC US CHAMBER MOLD POLICY PAPER THAT IS NOW A LEGAL DOCUMENT IN ARIZONA CITING YOUR & UCLA’S IMPRIMATUR –

1)             I certainly would not want to do anything that gives the opportunity to deflect from the national significance of your 2006 Hake Case under oath statements as they relate to the issue of mold and serious illness from water damaged buildings; falsified authorship of the US Chamber of Commerce ILR and nonscientific legal documents marketed to the courts to be scientific legal documents by the friendly political action committee attorneys. So again, if there is anything that I have done to help cause this false rumor of questioned authorship of Dr. Craner’s IJOEH 2008 publication please let me know, if you know…

2)             …Other than I have recently let the San Diego Appellate Court know there is a nonscientific document that cites false physician and industrial hygienist authorships involving the US Chamber of Commerce, the Manhattan Institute, the National Apartment Association, Veritox, the defense bar, yourself, and UCLA; sitting in court records in Arizona as a purported scientific legal document. I already know that this could be a contributing factor to the misinformation. (I think someone must have gotten the wrong publication that I have informed the courts cites false authorship while rumor mongering).

3)             Also, please let me know your intent to assist with removing what could be deemed an interstate fraud (with your name and the University of California imprimatur on it) being perpetrated on the Arizona courts by political action committees and licensed attorneys – that is favorable to the defendants and their insurer in a litigation involving two deceased infants, if not corrected; along with your intent to inform the Regents of the UC that they are falsely named as endorsing the “Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold” of US Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform (2003).

4)             I feel certain you are able to comprehend why it is important for public health, particularly that of apartment dwellers and school children, that you not be complicit and that you make it known among the Regents of the UC and defense litigators, particularly those involved in the Abad Case, that you are not the author of the “NonScientific View” that is marketed to the courts by the US Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform and the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy as purported current scientific consensus.

5)             And thank you again, Dr. Saxon, for your sworn testimonies helping to debunk myths in health marketing over the mold issue involving the US Chamber of Commerce, the University of California and other influential entities that are adverse to public health and safety. Ie,

A.) that it is the consensus opinion among scientists that it is scientifically proven the toxic components of mold do not adversely impact human health – all claims of illness are being made because of “trial lawyers, media and Junk Science”

False, according to your Kilian Case testimony immune suppression can be caused by molds and mycotoxins; and

B.) that a “panel of scientists” have concluded that “years of intense study have failed to produce any causal connection between exposure to indoor mold and adverse health effects”

False according to your Hake Case testimony and the billing records there was no “panel of scientists” including one from the US system that was involved in authoring the think-tank paid for endeavor to conclude anything for the US Chamber of Commerce about the science of mold; and

C.) that the “nonscientific piece that has [your] name on it and UCLA’s Imprimatur’s purportedly in support of the US Chamber of Commerce may be properly submitted by a PAC Amicus to influence judicial rulings while falsely portraying it to be a scientific legal document written by a “panel of scientists” and reflective of the consensus of the scientific community.

False, evidenced by the CV’s of all listed Chamber co-authors – who are the authors of the widely distributed ACOEM mold statement- everyone involved in the endeavor to health market misinformation to the courts, knew this Chamber medico-legal “Tort Reform” document (with false authorship) was never a publication worthy to be disclosed among their various accomplishment in health marketing; let alone worthy of being submitted to the courts in a legal proceeding as purportedly substantive, unbiased science or to be federally funded and taught “entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence “.

       People’s lives, health and safety are adversely impacted when policy papers carrying the imprimatur of influential organizations, such as the US Chamber of Commerce’s and the University of California teaching hospitals lend false credibility within the courts and within medical teaching facilities that a nonscientific publication is a scientific publication and is the purported consensus opinion of thousands of learned men and women. What occurs in the courts and in teaching hospital from concepts that are health marketed via medico-legal (purported) consensus publications impacts US health policy as a whole. I feel certain you understand how that works.

       Integrity in health marketing and proper public health policy over the mold issue depends on you and I – and all other interested parties who know the score and make decisions for public good – bringing the “nonscientific” science of the US Chamber of Commerce et al, to greater public light; thereby stopping its ability of health marketing misinformation to the courts and among physicians while wrongfully impacting US public health policy as a whole. As the saying goes,

“Evil flourishes when good men stand by and do nothing”.

       If there is something that I am not understanding correctly about ACOEM authors, you and Bruce, and your conflicting sworn statements of who really authored a scientifically void medico-legal policy paper on behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce ILR – that was paid for by a think-tank to influence judges; and that is now a purportedly scientific legal document in the State of Arizona with the imprimatur of the University of California on it, as submitted by a DC political action committee – that no one discloses they authored on their CVs; please let me know.

       If I may be of any further assistance to help you get your Hake Case truth out so no more lives are unnecessarily damaged and no more monies are wasted by the marketing of misinformation to the courts and teaching facilities – by PACs, not profit medical associations, other federally funded nonprofits and medico-legal position statements of questionable authorship, questionable science, questionable peer review (if any) and questionable motivation – that leave property owners, employers, school districts and landlords misinformed of the true potential for occupant, worker and school children injury in water damaged buildings – please do not hesitate to ask.

       I anxiously await your reply to my queries of your intent to assist to remove a scientific fraud in health marketing from US public health policy and from US courts that literally has your name and the University of California written all over it in violation of the California Constitution Article IX, Section 9 (f). Thus the notion that “toxic mold” is an insidious secret ‘killer’ as so many media reports and trial lawyers would claim is ‘Junk Science’ unsupported by actual scientific study” US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) & Manhattan Institute Center for Legal Policy (CLP) (2003) listed co-author – Andrew Saxon M.D. UCLA.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Sharon Noonan Kramer

Chancellor UCSD – designated residence uninhabitable because of MOLD

TRUTH OUT Sharon Kramer Letter To Andrew Saxon MOLD ISSUE
Recipients

Board Of Regents University of California

Arnold Schwarzenegger
President of Regents UC
300 South Spring Street, Suite 167
Los Angeles, California 90013
(cc’d via certified letter)

Russell Gould
Chair of the Board of Regents UC
1111 Franklin Street, 12th floor
Oakland, CA 94607
(cc’d via certified letter)

Sherry Lancing
Vice Chair, Board of Regents UC
1111 Franklin Street, 12th floor
Oakland, CA 94607
(cc’d via certified letter)

Cheryl Vacca
Vice President, Ethics & Compliance
1111 Franklin Street, 12th floor
Oakland, CA 94607
(cc’d via certified letter)

Charles Robinson
Vice President, General Counsel
1111 Franklin Street, 12th floor
Oakland, CA 94607
(cc’d via certified letter)

Employees of the University of Calfornia

Mark G. Yudof
President of the UC
1111 Franklin Street, 12th floor
Oakland, CA 94607
(cc’d via notarized letter)

Erwin Chemerinsky
Environmental Law
Dean, UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Drive, Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
(cc’d via certified letter)

Lisa Bero
UCSF Tobacco Legacy Library
University of California, SF
3333 California Street, Suite 420
San Francisco, CA 94143–0613
(email)

Robert Kosnec, MD, MPH
President, AOEC
UC San Francisco
2380 Sutter Street, 3rd Fl
San Francisco, CA 94115
(cc’d via certified letter)

Gina Solomon
Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC),
Associate Director PEHSU
UC San Francisco
2380 Sutter Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94115
(cc’d via certified letter)

Marion Fedoruk, FACOEM
Exponent, Inc
Occupational and Environmental Health Clinic
AOEC/PEHSU
UC Irvine
5201 California Avenue, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92617
(email no cover)

Phillip Harber, FACOEM
Occupational & Environmental Medicine
UC Los Angeles
10940 Wilshire Blvd Ste 1220
Los Angeles, California 90024
(email no cover)

US Chamber ILR

Lisa A. Rickard, Esq.
President,
1615 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20062-2000
(cc’d via notarized letter)

Manhattan Institute CLP

Lawrence J. Mone,
President
52 Vanderbilt Avenue
New York, NY 10017
(cc’d via notarized letter)

The Travelers Companies

Mr. Jay Fishman
Chairman and CEO
485 Lexington Ave.
New York, NY 10017
(cc’d via notarized letter)

National Apartment Association

Kevin H. Brown
Chief Executive Officer
4300 Wilson Boulevard, Su 400
Arlington, Virginia 22203
(cc’d via certified letter)

National Apartment Association Legal Counsel

John McDermott, Esq.
Legal Counsel NAA
4300 Wilson Boulevard, Su 400
Arlington, Virginia 22203
(cc’d via notarized letter)

W. Michael Semko
Legal Counsel NAA
4300 Wilson Boulevard, Su 400
Arlington, Virginia 22203
(cc’d via notarized letter)

Attorney for NAA Amicus

Scott Clark, Esq.
Az. Bar No. 6759
Offices of Scott M. Clark
3008 North 44th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85018-7
(cc’d via notarized letter)

Defense Counsel

Mr. Russell Hiles, Esq.
Cal. Bar No. 59502
Stone & Hiles
16633 Ventura Blvd #1420
Encino, CA 91436
(cc’d via notarized letter)

Frank Kuratz, Esq
Stone & Hiles
Ca. Bar No 74668
16633 Ventura Blve
Encino, CA 91436
(cc’d via notarized letter)

Cynthia Kuhn, Esq.
Arizona Bar No. 10969
Rusing & Lopez, PLLC
6262 North Swan, Su 200
Tuscon, AZ 85718
(email)

American College of Occupational & Environmental Medicine
Pamela A. Hymel,
President,
25 Northwest Point Blvd., 700
Elk Grove Village, Illinois, 60007-1030
(cc’d via certified letter)

American Academy of Allergy,
Asthma & Immunology
Paul A. Greenberger, MD,
President,
555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100
Milwaukee, WI 53202-3823
(cc’d via certified letter)

Association of Occupational & Environmental Clinics

Robert Kosnec, MD, MPH
President,
UC San Francisco
2380 Sutter Street, 3rd Fl
San Francisco, CA 94115
(cc’d via certified letter)

Collegium Ramazinni
Phillip Landrigan
President
Mt. Sinai School of Medicine
1212 Fifth Avenue, 1A
One Gustave L. Levy Pl.
New York, New York 10029
(cc’d via certified letter)

Healthy Schools Network, Inc
John Shaw
President,.
110 Maryland Ave NE, 505
Washington, DC 20002
(cc’d via certified letter)

Healthy Schools Network
Claire Barnett
Executive Director,
773 Madison Avenue
Albany, NY 12208
(email)

Natural Resource Defense Council
Gina Solomon
Associate Director PEHSU
UC San Francisco
2380 Sutter Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94115
(cc’d via certified letter)

American Academy of Pediatrics
Judith Palfrey
President,
Children’s Hospital Boston
Division of General Pediatrics – Wolbach 2
300 Longwood Avenue
Boston, MA 02115
(cc’d via certified letter)

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Paul W. Brandt-Rauf, MD, ScD, DrPH
Editor
1175 SPHPI, MC 923
University of Illinois at Chicago
Chicago, IL
(cc’d via certified letter)

Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Donald Leung
Editor
1400 Jackson St
National Jewish Medical & Research
Denver, CO 80206
(cc’d via certified letter)

International Journal of Occupational And Environmental Health
Dr. David Egilman
Editor
8 N. Main Street Su 404
Attleboro, MA 02703
(email)

Chief, Section of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology
Dr. Jay Portnoy
The Children’s Mercy Hospital
2401 Gillham Road
Kansas City, MO 64108
(email)

The State Bar of California

Howard Miller
State Bar President
180 Howard Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105
(cc’d via certified letter)

Russell Wiener,
Interim Chief Trial Counsel Intake Office
1149 South Hill St.
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(cc’d via certified letter)

Mr. Keith Scheuer, Esq.
Cal. Bar No. 82797
Scheuer & Gillett
4640 Admiralty Way, 402
Marina Del Rey, California 90292
Attorney Kelman & 4 VeriTox owners
(cc’d via certified letter)

The California Commission On Judicial Performance

Justice Judith McConnell
Chairperson
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102
(cc’d via certified letter)

Katherine Feinstein
Vice Chairperson
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102
(cc’d via certified letter)

Anthony Capozzi, Esq
Commissioner
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102
(cc’d via certified letter)

Judge Kenneth K. So
San Diego Presiding Court Judge
Main Courthouse
Fifth Floor
220 W. Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
(cc’d via certified letter)

California US Senator
Bettina Poirier
General Counsel,
Barbara Boxer
Chair, Env. & Public Works Committee;
Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee
112 Hart Senate Office Bldg
District of Columbia 20510-0505
(fax)

California US Senator,
Dianne Feinstein
Judiciary Committee
One Post Street, Suite 2450
San Francisco, California 94104
(fax)

US Senator, Arizona
John McCain
HELP Committee
5353 North 16th Street, Suite 105
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
(fax)

US Senator, New Jersey
Frank Lautenberg
Environment & Public Works Committee
Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee
1 Gateway Center, 23rd Floor
Newark, New Jersey 07102
(fax)

California 30th District Congress
Robin Appleberry
General Counsel,
Henry Waxman
2204 Rayburn Office Building,
District of Columbia 20515-0530
(fax)

California Congress 7th District
George Miller
Chair of HELP Committee
Califonia 7th 1333 Willow Pass Road, Suite 203
Concord, California 94520
(fax)

California Congress 42nd District
Gary Miller
US Chamber Keynote Speaker 7.17.03
1800 East Lambert Road, Suite 150
Brea, California 92821
(fax and sent along with US Chamber)

Congress, TN 6th District
Bart Gordon
Chair, Science & Technology Committee
305 West Main Street
Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37130
(fax)

US Senator, Iowa
Tom Harkin
Chair of HELP Committee
210 Walnut Street, Room 733
Des Moines, Iowa 50309 (fax)

Congress MI 14th District
John Conyers
Chair, Judiciary Committee
231 West Lafayette Boulevard,
669 Federal Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226
(fax)

California Attorney General
Edmond Brown
California Department of Justice
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA
(cc’d via registered letter – to be sent)

US Attorney General
Eric Holder
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20530
(cc’d via registered letter – to be sent)

Environmental Information Association
Michael Breu
President
Fiberquant Analytical Services
5025 S. 33rd Street
Phoenix, AZ 85040
(email 3)

Village Voice Media
Steven P. Suskin
General Counsel
1201 East Jefferson Street
Phoenix, AZ 85034
(cc’d via certified letter)

Village Voice Media
Michael Lacey
Owner
1201 East Jefferson Street
Phoenix, AZ 85034
(cc’d via certified letter)

Los Angeles Press Club
Will Lewis
President
4773 Hollywood Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90027-5333
(cc’d via certified letter)

Los Angeles Press Club
Chris Woodyard
Board Member
4773 Hollywood Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90027-5333
(cc’d via certified letter)

ICTM
Ronald Gots
Professional Defense Witness
2301 Research Boulevard Suite #210
Rockville, MD 20850-3204
(cc’d via certified letter)

EM Lab & PK
Harriet Burge
Professional Defense Witness
CALIFORNIA – San Bruno
1150 Bayhill Drive, Suite 100
San Bruno CA 94066
(email)

Paul R. Lees-Haley
Professional Defense Witness
Panorama Drive,
Huntsville, Alabama 35801
(email)

Bryan Hardin
NIOSH (retired)
Hilton Head, SC
(cc’d via certified letter)
(email)

 

This entry was posted in Environmental Health Threats, Health - Medical - Science, Louisiana Housing Finance Agency, Mold and Politics, Mold Litigation, Politics, Riverstone Residential, Tenants Rights, Toxic Mold, US Chamber of Commerce and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to TRUTH OUT Sharon Kramer Letter To Andrew Saxon MOLD ISSUE

  1. Sharon Kramer says:

    Dear Mrs. Holliday,

    I am so sorry to hear of your tragic loss. Thank you for your kind words. It saddens me greatly that there are so many professional people, scientists, physicians, legislators, and stewards of institutions that govern integrity in science – who understand exactly what causes the deceit of the US Chamber et al, to continue to flourish and leave so many unaware of the potential for serious health complication, even death to occur. Failure of those who know, yet they remaim mum is what causes others to have to follow in you and your husband’s footsteps.

    I have no intention of being silenced by those that allow this to continue. Eventually, there will be no choice but for the truth to emerge and the fraud in health marketing for the sake of saving insurers’ money will be forced to stop. It is not a matter of “if”, but simply a matter of “when”.

    Again, my condolences to you and your family,
    Sharon Kramer

  2. Deborah Daniels says:

    Speechless. Such perfidiousness stalks amongst us. Thanks, Sharon, for the audacity and courage to publicly decry those that seek to destroy us for some small profit at the expense of the greater good. Is it wrong for me to wish that they choke on their ill gotten gain? If so, may God have mercy upon me.

  3. Beverly Curtis Holliday says:

    God Bless You, Sharon Kramer. As a victim who has lost my husband to mold, been bankrupted, and subjected to thousands of days of torture at the hands of those like Saxon, Kelman, and Veritox, I applaud your strength and committment to the truth. May God have pity on those who have wrecked so many thousands of lives and ruined the scientific credibility of the scientific community of the United States for the sake of the almighty dollar. Surely someone will come along and sue all these crooks for their fraud.

  4. Excellent letter! It’s great to see the truth is coming out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s