web
analytics
Truth About Mold

Naysayers

Naysayers (Deniers)

The insurance industry, their attorneys and defense experts and other naysayers (deniers) claim that mycotoxins aren't harmful when inhaled.  Their claim is false, and they know it!!!

They have known about the inhalation health effects of mycotoxins since at least 1985 (when an Army-funded study was completed) and probably much earlier than that.

News:  Court says the insurance company can be sued for negligence because they told the homeowner that mold is harmless. Click here to read the article.

The following list highlights a few of the key naysayer (denier) papers that have been used by the insurance industry and others to deny the truth about the health effects of mold.  Please Contact us if you want a copy of these papers.  

To see a more extensive list of naysayer papers, click here.

ACOEM (2002):  Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the Indoor Environment

The ACOEM 2002 position statement was prepared by (naysayers) "Bryan D. Hardin, PhD, Bruce J. Kelman, PhD, DABT, and Andrew Saxon, MD, under the auspices of the ACOEM Council on Scientific Affairs. It was peer-reviewed by the Council and its committees, and was approved by the ACOEM Board of Directors on October 27, 2002."

ACOEM (2011):  Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the Indoor Environment (very little change from the 2002 version; no new research papers added since 2002)

The ACOEM 2011 position statement was "prepared under the auspices of the Council of Scientific Advisors and approved by the ACOEM Board of Directors on February 14, 2011. This revised statement updates the previous (2002) position statement which was prepared by Bryan D. Hardin, PhD; Bruce J. Kelman, PhD, DABT; and Andrew Saxon, MD; under the auspices of the ACOEM Council on Scientific Affairs."

NOTE: ACOEM removed their 2011 position statement from their website in early 2015.

AAAAI (2006):  The Medical Effects of Mold Exposure (written by Robert K. Bush, Jay M. Portnoy, Andrew Saxon, Abba I. Terr,  and Robert A. Wood)

AIHA (2017): Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) -- Criteria for New Construction (Acknowledgments given to several naysayers/deniers including Coreen A. Robbins). Click here.

A New Plague – Mold Litigation: How Junk Science and Hysteria Built an Industry (2003) (written by attorneys Cliff Hutchinson and Robert Powell)--this paper was commissioned by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform and the Center for Legal Policy at The Manhattan Institute (see below under "The Growing Hazard of Mold Litigation")

A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold (2003) (written by Bryan D. Hardin, Andrew Saxon, Coreen Robbins and Bruce J. Kelman)--this paper was commissioned by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform and the Center for Legal Policy at The Manhattan Institute (see below under "The Growing Hazard of Mold Litigation")

Are Indoor Molds Causing a New Disease? (2003) (written by Abba I. Terr)

Crossing Over to the Dark Side of Mold. A Dissenting View.  (2003) (written by Emil J. Bardana, Jr., J.A. Chapman, E.N. Charlesworth, R.L. Jacobs and Abba I. Terr)

Evaluation of potential health effects from inhalation exposure to mycotoxins in indoor office and residential environments (no date) (written by Bruce J. Kelman, Coreen A. Robbins, Lonie J. Swenson)

Fungi: Toxic Killers or Unavoidable Nuisances?  (2001) (written by Harriet A. Burge)

(The) Growing Hazard of Mold Litigation (2003) (by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform and the Center for Legal Policy at The Manhattan Institute)

"The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform was founded in 1998 as a 501(c)(6) tax-exempt, separately incorporated affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce."

"The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, partnering with the Center for Legal Policy of the Manhattan Institute, commissioned two papers that take a close look at mold litigation and the science of mold. The first, by Cliff Hutchinson and Robert Powell, two experienced litigators with Hughes and Luce in Dallas and Austin, provides a legal perspective on mold claims. The second, written by a team
of scientists led by Dr. Bryan Hardin, former Deputy Director of NIOSH and former Assistant Surgeon General in the Public Health Service, addresses the scientific evidence."

These two papers are listed individually above and their titles are:

A New Plague – Mold Litigation: How Junk Science and Hysteria Built an Industry (by attorneys Cliff Hutchinson and Robert Powell)

and

A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold (by Hardin (written by Bryan D. Hardin, Andrew Saxon, Coreen Robbins and Bruce J. Kelman)

Health Effects of Mycotoxins in Indoor Air: A Critical Review (2000) (written by Coreen A. Robbins, Lonie J. Swenson, Mark L. Nealley, Ronald E. Gots and Bruce J. Kelman)

Indoor air quality and health does fungal contamination play a significant role? (2003) (written by Emil J. Bardana)

Inhalational Mold Toxicity: Fact or Fiction? A Review of 50 Cases (2005) (written by Barzin Khalili and Emil J. Bardana)

Mold and Human Health: Separating the Wheat from the Chaff (2010)(written by H. David Pettigrew, Carlo F. Selmi, Suzanne S. Teuber, M. Eric Gershwin)

Mold Neurotoxicity: Validity, Reliability and Baloney (2002) (written by Paul R. Lees-Haley)

(The) Next Environmental Battleground: Indoor Air (1992) (written by Dwight R. Lee)

Proving causes of illness in environmental toxicology: ‘sick buildings’ as an example (1992) (written by Ronald E. Gots, Barbara A. Gots, J. Spencer)

Risk from inhaled mycotoxins in indoor office and residential environments (2004) (written by Coreen A. Robbins, Lonie J. Swenson, Bryan D. Hardin)

Scientific Literature Review of Mold: A Report on the Health Effects of Indoor Mold (2003) (written by the National Association of Home Builders)

Sick Building Syndrome: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing (1997)
(written by Emil J. Bardana)

Stachybotrys chartarum: Current Knowledge of Its Role in Disease (2000) (written by Daniel L. Sudakin)

Toxic mold: phantom risk vs science (2003) (written by J.A. Chapman, Abba I. Terr, R.L. Jacobs, E.N. Charlesworth, Emil J. Bardana)

Toxicology and Risk Assessment of Mycotoxins (2004) (written by Raymond D. Harbison, Todd Stedeford, Marek Banasik and Carlos A. Muro-Cacho)

To view a list of these and other papers written by these naysayers, click here.

Truth About Mold - Naysayers (Deniers)
Some of the NAYSAYER (DENIER) organizations who have participated in spreading these inaccurate claims are listed here:
  • AAAAI (American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology)
  • ACOEM (American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine)
    • The ACOEM naysayer report from 2011 does not reference any paper after 2002. In the world of medicine, this is seriously outdated and makes the paper’s stand on mold-related illness completely irrelevant.
  • AACT (American Academy of Clinical Toxicology)
  • ACMT (American College of Medical Toxicology)
  • AIHA (American Industrial Hygiene Association)
  • AOEC (Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics)
  • ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry)
  • CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • Exponent (defense experts for big business)
  • HHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services)
  • Institute of Medicine (IOM)
  • Insurance Companies 
  • NIOSH (National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health)
  • Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units (PEHSU)
  • U.S. Chamber of Commerce
  • Veritox (defense experts for big business, includes Bruce Kelman, Bryan Hardin, Coreen Robbins, Lonie Swenson)

The NAYSAYERS also include the following defense experts and defense attorneys:

Arora, Ajit S.
Assouline-Dayan, Yehudith
Bardana, Emil J.
Barrett, Stephan J.
Burge, Harriet A.
Bush, Robert K.
Chang, Christopher M.
Chapman, Jean A.
Charlesworth, Ernest N.
Cheung, Hung K.
Clark, Geneva L.
Fisher, Daniel
Franklin, Donald E.
Gershwin, M. Eric
Ghannoum, M.A.
Golden, David
Gots, Ronald E.
Guidotti, Tee L.
Hagan, Philip
Harbison, Raymond D.
Hardin, Bryan D.
Hays, Steve M.
Hedge, Alan
Hein, Robert P.
Hutchinson, Cliff 
Jacobs, Robert L.
Jarvis, BruceB.
Jones, David V.
Kelman, Bruce J.
Khalili, Barzin
Khan, Farah
King, Blair
King, Norman
Kirkland, Kimberly H.
Kuhn, D.M.
Kung'u, Jackson
Kurt, Thomas L.
LaBar, Gregg
Larson, Jeremy R.
Lee, Dwight R.
Lees-Haley, Paul
Leong, Albin
Light, Ed N.
Millar, J. Donald
Miller J.David
O'Reilly, James T.
Page, Elena H.
Payne, James D.
Pettigrew, H. David
Phillips, Michael
Phillips, Scott
Portnoy, Jay M.
Powell, Robert
Rand, Thomas G.
Richardson, Kelly G.
Rizzo, Matthew
Robbins, Coreen A.
Saxon, Andrew
Schoenberg, Patrick S.
Selmi, Carlo F.
Shoenfeld, Yehuda
Sudakin, Daniel L.
Swenson, Lonie J.
Sylvera, Darryl
Terr, Abba I.
Teuber, Suzanne S.
Tranel, Daniel L.
Trout, Douglas B.
Truex, Bruce A.
Verhoeff, Armoud P.
Wedner, H. James
Weiner, Howard M.
Williams, C.W.
Wood, Robert A.
Zalma, Barry

And many other defense experts and defense attorneys.

The naysayers claim that mold and mycotoxins aren't harmful when inhaled.  That is NOT true.

They have known about the inhalation health effects of mycotoxins since at least 1985 and probably much earlier.

It’s amazing how our government officials, judges, medical organizations and allopathic physicians have turned their backs on the people who are ill and suffering just because of this handful of naysayer papers written by these bought-and-paid-for defense experts.  Yet, they ignore the hundreds of research papers that discuss the health effects of exposure to mold and mycotoxins.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Here are excerpts about Exponent from the book "Doubt is Their Product:"

From page 46 of the book:

As the product defense work has gotten more and more specialized, the makeup of the business has changed; generic public relations operations like Hill and Knowlton have been eclipsed by product defense firms, specialty boutiques run by scientists. Having cut their teeth manufacturing uncertainty for Big Tobacco, scientists at ChemRisk, the Weinberg Group, Exponent, Inc., and other consulting firms now battle the regulatory agencies on behalf of the manufacturers of benzene, beryllium, chromium, MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether), perchlorates, phthalates, and virtually every other toxic chemical in the news today. Their business model is straightforward. They profit by helping corporations minimize public health and environmental protection and fight claims of injury and illness. In field after field, year after year, this same handful of individuals and companies comes up again and again.

The range of their work is impressive. They have on their payrolls (or can bring in on a moment’s notice) toxicologists, epidemiologists, biostatisticians, risk assessors, and any other professionally trained, media-savvy experts deemed necessary. They and the larger, wealthier industries for which they work go through the motions we expect of the scientific enterprise, salting the literature with their questionable reports and studies. Nevertheless, it is all a charade. The work has one overriding motivation: advocacy
for the sponsor’s position in civil court, the court of public opinion, and the regulatory arena. Often tailored to address issues that arise in litigation, they are more like legal pleadings than scientific papers. In the regulatory arena, the studies are useful not because they are good work that the regulatory agencies have to take seriously but because they clog the machinery and slow down the process.

From page 47 of the book:

Should the public lose all interest in its health, these product defense firms would be out of luck. Exponent, Inc., one of the premier firms in the product defense business, acknowledges as much in this filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission:

Public concern over health, safety and preservation of the environment has resulted in the enactment of a broad range of environmental and/or other laws and regulations by local, state and federal lawmakers and agencies. These laws and the implementing regulations affect nearly every industry, as well as the agencies of federal, state and local governments charged with their enforcement. To the extent changes in such laws, regulations and enforcement or other factors significantly reduce the exposures of manufacturers, owners, service providers and others to liability, the demand for our services may be significantly reduced.

Exponent, Inc., began its existence as an engineering firm, calling itself Failure Analysis Associates and specializing in assisting the auto industry in defending itself in lawsuits involving crashes.7 ‘‘Failure analysis’’ is a standard methodology for investigating the breakdown of a system or machine, but the firm must have realized that ‘‘Failure’’ in its name might not work well outside the engineering world and switched to the more palatable Exponent, Inc., when it went public in 1998. 
 
Exponent’s scientists are prolific writers of scientific reports and papers. While some may exist, I have yet to see an Exponent study that does not support the conclusion needed by the corporation or trade association that is paying the bill.

From page 49 of the book:

When a study by consulting epidemiologists discovered a high rate of prostate cancer cases at a Syngenta plant that produced the pesticide atrazine,21 Exponent’s scientists produced a study that found no relationship between the chemical and the disease.

After numerous studies that linked pesticide exposure and Parkinson’s disease appeared in prestigious scientific journals, Exponent’s scientists produced a literature review for CropLife America, the trade association of pesticide producers, whose conclusion maintained that ‘‘the animal and epidemiologic data reviewed do not provide sufficient evidence to support a causal association between pesticide exposure and Parkinson’s disease.’’

Exponent specializes in literature reviews that draw negative conclusions. The company’s scientists have produced several reviews of the asbestos literature for use in litigation, all of which conclude that certain types of asbestos and certain types of asbestos exposure are far less dangerous than previously believed.

From page 137 of the book:

Brush needed a more convincing argument, and so it hired the product defense firm Exponent, Inc., which proceeded to do what it does best: manufacture uncertainty. Maybe different forms of beryllium do not pose the same health hazard. Maybe particle size is what is important. Maybe skin exposure is more significant than we thought. Whatever is going on with beryllium is very complicated, according to this line of reasoning, so we need defending the taxicab standard to do more research, more research, more research.

From page 181 of the book:

In regard to asbestos harming auto mechanics because of the asbestos in automobile brake pads....

Scientists at Exponent, Inc. and ChemRisk have flooded the scientific literature with analyses that conclude that auto mechanics who repair asbestos brake shoes are not exposed to much asbestos and when they are, the asbestos has been transformed into non-toxic material. These studies do not come cheaply; between 2001 and April 2006 these two firms alone billed approximately $23 million to General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler for their work.

Share by: