Short story: You can’t add math to data taken from a single rodent study and profess you have scientifically proven not one individual could be sick from an environmental or chemical exposure. That ain’t science now and it never was! So why is this Garbage Science allowed to continue to be used to sell doubt of causation of illness in various US public health policies and US courts?
Long story: Like with many other matters in the US in which industry was given carte blanche control over society and government in the early 2000’s, policy based on phoney science is no different. While things have improved somewhat in recent years, the devastation contiues for many environmentally injured because of industry’s control over science and because those who aided it are desperately trying to conceal their past & present misdeeds that continue to harm the lives of thousands.
Toxicology risk models are meant to protect the public, not harm them. What they are, are mathematical calculations applied to data obtained from mechanistic research (rodent studies, etc). Their purpose is to try to extrapolate date from what level of exposure that a rodent, etc. gets sick and corrolate it to what level of exposure before a human gets sick.
When setting environmental exposure limits in public health policy, toxicology models are to be used to set general guidelines of an amount of an environmental exposure before it is thought that illness occurs in the general population – not that no individual could be made ill if exposed at a level below this hypothetical number.
They are hypothetical numbers based on the best information available. They are unable to duplicate real world settings or take into account many variables from individual to individual. Nor are they able to address multiple exposures to various contaminants occurring simultaneously or within a very short period of time from each exposure.
Toxicology risk models were never meant to be used in US courtrooms by themselves to profess it was scientifically proven one claiming injury “Could not be” made ill from the exposure. Yet, this exactly how the Centers for Disease Control’s National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH) and American Toxic Substance Disease Registry (ATSDR), and private sector medical associations misused toxicology models to the benefit of industry to be able to deny liability for causation of environmental illnesses.
Environmental medicine is an ever evolving and rapidly changing field. While it is perfectly acceptable science to say we do not know everything of how the environment, drugs and vaccines affect the human body; it is Garbage Science to say toxicology models can be used by themselves to prove lack of causation of individual’s illnesses from the exposure and Garbage Science set US public health policy upon this. To do so is nothing more than a Litigation Defense Argument which allows those responsible for causation of illness to skirt financial responsibility for making people sick. Its nothing more than marketing of false science through tricks learned from the Big Tobacco issue.
The way it works is that “scientists” who hold themselves out to be toxicologists take data from mechanistic research of others (rodent studies, etc). They then apply extrapolations (math calculations) to the data with numerous hypotheicals, assumptions and caveats. They profess as expert defense witnesses in toxic torts that their modeling theories establish that people could never be exposed to enough of the environmental hazard de jour to cause illness. Think-tanks and “non-profits” get it established into public health policy.
Income is then generated by the toxicologists as expert defense witnesses professing their calculations prove their clients (typically chemical manufacturers, pharmaceutical companines, insurers and/or employers) are not responsible for these illnesses in individuals. They profess they have established that the dose is not enough to make the poison for the general population, therefore the individual who is claiming illness from the exposure is lying or feigning illness.
Besides the conflicts of interest of influencing exposure limits in policy, this is not legitimate science that should even be allowed in US courtrooms to claim proof of lack of causation of individual illness. According to the newly released Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Third Edition,
“Models are idealized mathematical expressions of the relationship between two or more variables. They are usually derived from basic physical and chemical principles that are well established under idealized circumstances, but may not be validated under actual field conditions. Models thus cannot generate completely accurate predictions of chemical concentrations in the environment.”
WITH REGARD TO MYCOTOXINS FOUND IN WATER DAMAGED BUILDINGS
Mycotoxins are naturally occurring chemicals. They are secondary metabolites of mold. There are many types and are often found in combination in water damaged buildings (WDB) along with other biocontaminants (bacteria, etc.)
The National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a report in 2004 titled, “Damp Indoor Spaces and Health“. As accurately stated in the report, not all is known of what illnesses occur from exposure to the biocontaminants in WDB. Also accurately stated, a toxicology model of one mycotoxin cannot be used by itself to claim proof of lack of causation of individual illnesses from the exposures in WDB.
IOM Executive Summary: “Toxicologic studies, which examine such responses using animal and cellular models, cannot be used by themselves to draw conclusions about human health effects.”
IOM Chapter 4 Mycotoxins Summary: “Except for a few studies on cancer, toxicologic studies of mycotoxins are acute or short-term studies that use high exposure concentrations to reveal immediate effects in small populations of animals. Chronic studies that use lower exposure concentrations and approximate human exposure more closely have not been done except for a small number of cancer studies.”
IOM Chapter 4 Mycotoxins Summary Considerations in Evaluation of Evidence “Most of the information reviewed in this chapter is derived from studies in vitro (that is studies in an artificial environment, such as a test tube or a culture medium) or animal studies. In vitro studies, as explained below, are not suitable for human risk assessment. Risk can be extrapolated from animal studies to human health effects only if chronic animal exposures have produced sufficient information to establish no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) and lowest-observed-adverse-effect levels (LOAELs). Extrapolation of risk exposure from animal experiments must always take into account species differences between animals and humans, sensitivities of vulnerable human populations, and gaps in animal data.”
PETITIONING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO STOP THE FRAUD
That’s why we, many physicians, scientists and citizens, have petitioned OSHA and the Federal Interagency Committee On Indoor Air Quality (CIAQ) to shut down this fraud on the courts that is used to delay and deny liability for causation of individual’s illness from WDB. It is causing misinformation in policy, in physicians’ offices and is aiding to continue to harm US citizens and people throughout the world.
In December 2011, we sent a LETTER requesting federal interagencies collectively issue a public health advisory regarding the known plausible illnesses caused by WDB. We are asking they make it clear to physicians and state health departments that toxicology risk models cannot be used by themselves as proof of lack of causation of individual illness cause by the exposure to contaminants, some of which are known to have toxic properties, found in water damaged buildings.
CALIFORNIA COURTS ILLEGALLY AIDING IT TO CONTINUE & INCARCERATE FOR EVIDENCING TRUE SCIENCE
Our REQUEST to OSHA and the CIAQ was posted on the blog site of Katy’s Exposure on December 9, 2011. On December 21, 2011, the post was submitted to the court in San Diego, California, by Bruce J. Kelman, toxicologist and prolific expert defense witness in mold litigation as evidence of Contempt of Court and a reason to incarcerate a US citizen.
Mr. Kelman states under oath when serving as a professional defense witness, that it is proven individual illnesses “COULD NOT BE” caused by mycotoxins found in water damaged buildings, based solely on a modeling theory he and co-owner of his corporation VeriTox, Inc., Bryan Hardin, crafted in 2002. They would like for Mrs. Kramer to locked up so they can continue to defraud the public and keep this good gig going in US courts.
The letter to EPA & OSHA, as posted on Katy’s Exposure blog, was summitted as EVIDENCE (see pdf page 17) in the case of Kelman v. Kramer of why Sharon Kramer should be incarcerated for Contempt of Court.
Additionally submitted as evidence of why Sharon should be incarcerated were letters sent by Sharon to the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Tani Cantil-Sayauke and other members of the California Judicial Council, September 11, 2011, seeking help to stop the courts’ aiding harassment by Kelman and his attorney, Keith Scheuer to keep the scientific fraud going in all US courts. These letters were posted on the OBRag and also sumbitted as evidence of why Sharon should be jailed. (see “EVIDENCE” link above).
Of course the Contempt of the Court for us is strong and for good cause. The California judicial system, at it’s highest levels, has been aiding this fraud to continue in courtrooms throughout the US, which has caused unnecessary harm to thousands and thousands of people who have been made ill from environmental exposures – sometimes even causing unnecessary death from their aiding of lack of awareness.
They have been harassing and threatening us with more litigation and incarceration to try to silence us of what the courts have willingly done and willingly continue to do.
It’s simple. All the courts have to do to stop the toxicology fraud on all US courts is acknowledge the uncontroverted evidence that the plaintiff, Bruce Kelman, committed perjury to establish needed reason for malice while strategically litigating against Sharon Kramer and all courts suppressed the evidence.
In seven years time, no judge, no state bar and no agency that is to police ethics in the California courts will acknowledge the uncontroverted evidence of Kelman’s perjury to establish needed theme for malice; as they went out of their way to frame Sharon for libel for the words, “altered his under oath statements”. This has been used to try to discredit all of her TRUTHFUL WORDS that have helped to reshape policy and limit misapplication of toxicology models to deny financial responsibility for causation of environmental illnesses.
Unable to explain why they can provide no evidence to corroborate the reason given for malice or why the courts crafted their opinions to make a false finding of libel, the courts only defense is to try to have Sharon deemed insane and locked away; and that is exactly where they appear to be headed.
TRANSCRIPT of Contempt of Court Hearing, January 6, 2012, for putting the evidence on the Internet that the courts KNOW they have been suppressing evidence and making stuff up; thereby colluding to defraud the public by participating in malicious, Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation.
TERRIBLY CONFUSED, IF NOT ILL. I MEAN, IF IT WERE
ME, OR YOU, I SUSPECT, AND SOMEONE SAID, “LOOK, STOP
DOING THAT, THE JURY HAS DECIDED IT WAS WRONG (sic after false hearsay email somehow got into the jury room & the jury instructions dictated that the writing in question was false & malicious), THE APPELLATE COURT AGREED WITH THEM (sic, while suppressing evidence they framed a defendant for libel in their 2006 anti-SLAPP opinion), ANOTHER, A NEW JUDGE LOOKED AND SAID, LOOK, I’VE GOT TO UPHOLD THE FINALITY OF THE RULING IN ANOTHER COURT (because…why???) , SO DON’T DO IT,” ALL SHE HAS TO DO IS STOP DOING IT. I KNOW THAT’S NOT SOMETHING SHE’S PREPARED TO DO. AND YET SHE CAME HERE, I THINK IT WAS YESTERDAY, AND TRIED TO CONVINCE ME NOT TO GO FORWARD TODAY. NO BASIS FOR ME TO NOT GO FORWARD
TODAY. I MUST. I HAVE SEEN AND HEARD FROM THE VERY
BEGINNING, IF THIS WERE A TRUE CRIMINAL CASE, PEOPLE
VERSUS, I WOULD BE ORDERING HER DOWN TO THE
PSYCHIATRIC UNIT FOR AN EXAMINATION, NOT THAT SHE
NEEDS INSTITUTIONALIZATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT,
BUT IF SHE’S NOT COMPETENT TO GO FORWARD IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS, SHE HAS A RIGHT TO SAY THAT AND HAVE
SOMEONE SAY IT FOR HER….
ANYWAY. TOUGH STUFF. IF YOU CAN THINK OF A WAY TO CREATE THAT DEFENSE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE INTERESTING. (sic, create this defense for WHOM?????) SHORT OF THAT, AND SHORT OF YOUR
AUTHORITY TO REALLY PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS
AS I GET IT, THEN I THINK WHAT WE’LL DO IS GO FORWARD WITH THE PLAINTIFF.
And we are NOT SHUTTING UP! of the courts colluding to defraud the public by aiding with seven years worth of SLAPP.
We can prove it! That’s why this website’s address is: “ContemptOfCourtFor.Me”
Sharon Kramer & Crystal Stuckey