HuffPo Publishes Insurer Fraud Over the Toxic Mold Issue, Nov 4, 2015

On November 4, 2015, the Huffington Post published an article by Blogger Blaire King[1] entitled, “The Truth About ‘Toxic Molds.”[2] Mr. King bills himself as an “Environmental Scientist, Husband, Father”.

[1] HuffPo Bio Blaire King
[2] November 4, 2015 HuffPo article “The Truth About ‘Toxic Mold


By now, anyone who follows the Toxic Mold issue knows that the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Mold Position Statement[3] was sunset earlier this year and is no longer consider current accepted science.[4]  Apparently the Blogger King is one of the few unaware of this fact. In his HuffPo article claiming to provide the “Truth About ‘Toxic Mold”, Mr. King cited the ACOEM Mold Statement to support the false concept:

“Current scientific evidence does not support the proposition that human health has been adversely affected by inhaled mycotoxins in home, school, or office environments.”

[3] October 27, 2002 ACOEM Mold Statement “Adverse Human Health Effects Associated With Molds in the Indoor Environment” minor revision 2011, sunset February 2015
[4] March 9, 2015 WorkCompCentral “ACOEM Takes Down Position Paper commonly Used to Defend Against Mold Claims”


The widely marketed ACOEM Mold Statement was known to be “garbage science” and a “litigation defense argument” right from its very inception in 2002. [5] [6] Prior to being sunset in 2015, it had been used for thirteen-years for insurers, the U.S. government, and other stakeholders of moldy buildings to deny liability for causation of illness, disability and death. [7] [8] [9]

In other words, it was mass-marketed scientific fraud, legitimized by a “nonprofit” medical association and purposed toward misleading the courts to the desired end result of no liability for moldy-buidling stakeholders, aka insurer fraud.

[5] September 6, 2002 Email from ACOEM’s Chair of the Scientific Advisory Board JBorak to BOD members referring to the ACOEM Veritox Theory as “garbage science” & “litigation defense argument
[6] September 2008, Craner J. A critique of the ACOEM statement on mold: undisclosed conflicts of interest in the creation of an ‘evidence-based’ statement”. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2008;14(4):283-98.
[7] Veritox Theory in workcomp insurer fraud
[8] Veritox Theory in multi-unit rental insurer fraud
[9] Veritox Theory in USDOJ fraud over moldy military housing


A primary area of insurer fraud within the ACOEM Mold Statement lies with the falsely claimed concept of proof that microbial toxins in WDB could never reach a level to harm people. To form the erred conclusion, the paper’s authors,  Bruce J. Kelman and Brian D. Hardin of Veritox, Inc., applied extrapolations to data taken from a single rodent study and professed they had proven[10]:

“Levels of exposure in the indoor environment, dose-response data in animals, and dose rate considerations suggest that delivery by the inhalation route of a toxic dose of mycotoxins in the indoor environment is highly unlikely at best, even for the hypothetically most vulnerable subpopulations.”

[10] The LNT Veritox Theory


The myopic linear-no-threshold (LNT) model that Mr. Kelman and Mr. Hardin used to form such a conclusion has been discredited over and over again. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] From a scientific standpoint, the problem with the ACOEM LNT model (“Veritox Theory”) is that one cannot apply math and a few bells and whistles to mechanistic research data and ethically leap to the false conclusion that they have proven no human is being harmed by microbial toxins in WDB. [17]

While causing vast harm to the public by “nonprofit” medical associations and others promoting the Veritox Theory, the following material facts are ignored:

1) unlike the research rats in the LNT model, humans in WDB may be exposed to multiple molds and mycotoxins for long periods of time;

2) via all routes of exposure simultaneously — ingestion, inhalation & dermal contact;

3) synergistically with multiple biocontaminants; and

4) because of the complexity of WDB exposures, the threshold for causation of human illness by individual component of the mixture is undeterminable by mere LNT model of one offending agent by one route of exposure. 

[11] Misapplication of LNT when setting public health policies
[12] May 2006 Harris Martin Publishing re: the Veritox Theory not passing a Kelly-Frye hearing.
[13] 1998, U.S. Congressman Bernard Sanders speaking before the House. “MCS is a chronic condition marked by heightened sensitivity to multiple different chemicals and other irritants at or below previously tolerated levels of exposure….MCS is often accompanied by impaired balance, memory and concentration.”
[14] 2001 Miller CS “The compelling anomaly of chemical intolerance”. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Mar;933:1-23.
[15] 2014 Dr. Mary Ackerley “The Brain on Fire The role of toxic mold in triggering psychiatric symptoms
[16] 2014 Shoemaker RC, House D, Ryan JC, “Structural brain abnormalities in patients with inflammatory illness acquired following exposure to water-damaged buildings: A volumetric MRI study using NeuroQuant®” Neurotoxicology and Teratology 45 (2014) 18–26
[17] Veritox Theory explained


So why is the Blogger King still marketing this discriminatory insurer fraud as legitimate science in the HuffPo? Perhaps Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker said it best when interviewed by WorkCompCentral earlier this year:

“Shoemaker said that even though the ACOEM paper appears to have been sunset, he expects it to continue cropping up in court because ACOEM was the last organization to hold the position that mold inhalation wasn’t likely to cause medical problems. ‘They don’t have anything else,’ Shoemaker said. ‘The British were throwing rocks at Washington as he crossed the Delaware River because the Hessians were too drunk to fire their muskets.”

Seems to me that the Huffington Post should do a better job of vetting its bloggers. Blogger King’s article promotes  a dangerously false concept – the validity of the LNT Veritox Theory –  that lulls people into a false sense of security while misleading them to believe that microbial toxins in water damaged buildings could never reach a level to harm them.

When the illnesses become debilitating, the same false concept then becomes insurer fraud. This is because when those who penned and mass-marketed the Veritox Theory are hired and well-paid as expert defense witnesses to stave off insurer liability in court — as the unaware become the harmed — it is used as discriminatory insurer fraud in scientific fraud upon the court. [18]

[18] January 9, 2007 Wall Street Journal, “Court of Opinion, Amid Suits Over Mold Experts Wear Two Hats, Authors of Science Paper Often Cited by Defense Also Help in Litigation”

Its a wickedly hateful, multi-billion dollar public fleecing founded upon causing horrific degradation and retaliation against the environmentally disabled. [19]

[19] August 15, 2015 “Mold injured teen commits suicide. Mother pleads for laws to protect children

Sharon Noonan Kramer, Advocate for Integrity in Health Marketing

About Sharon Kramer

Hi, I'm an advocate for integrity in health marketing and in the courts.
This entry was posted in Health - Medical - Science. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s