Katy's Exposure

Highlights: “ACMT is the last ‘learned body’ of ‘esteemed colleagues’ still marketing that it is scientifically proven toxigenic molds (and so many other antigens, toxins and inflammagens found in water-damaged buildings, WDB) do not harm humans. This is causing physicians and the public to be left unaware that many are living and working in hazardous environments.

Contrary to what your [ACMT] toxicologist-physician trade association has promoted for a decade, science dictates that a linear-dose-no-threshold (LNT) model cannot be used as proof that toxigenic molds do not harm humans….

Had the involved California court officers not fixed the SLAPP suits beginning in 2005 1 and tried to cover it up by criminal means for now a decade, the LNT Veritox Theory would have been long gone from advisories providing falsely feigned safety of the military housing.  Mr. Kelman of Veritox, Inc. and his attorney, Mr. Scheuer, et.al. would have long ago been jailed for submitting fraudulent documents to the court while racketeering — long before these military children in the Lincoln Military Housing were harmed by the Department of Defense (DOD)  agencies being able to cite the Veritox Theory ‘garbage science’ to avoid the liability for harming the children…..

Criminal Kelman’s two co-authors for the 2015 “Standard of Knowledge for the Professional Practice of Toxicology“ are an employee of the DOD and an employee of a pharmaceutical company.  Thus, a criminal is writing the standards for toxicological practices in the United States with a United States federal employee. Why?….

What motivates the federally-funded ‘nonprofit’ toxicological medical trade organization, ACMT, (whose members often serve as toxic tort expert defense witnesses for those who cause environmental disability) to teach physicians that environmental intolerances should never be diagnosed as reactions to not-normal environmental stimuli? This begs the questions: Choosing Wisely® for Whom?”

The following letter has been sent by certified mail on October 28th,  29th, and 30th, 2015 to:

American College of Medical Toxicology, (ACMT) Board of Directors and Director Dr. Paul Wax (LETTER IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH EXHIBITS)

Presiding Justice California Fourth District Division One Court of Appeal (4th/1st) Justice Judith McConnell (cover letter)   (Update 11.10.15 McConnell’s refusal to recall/rescind fraudulent court documents & 11.11.15 new letter to McConnell)

President, Veritox, Inc. Mr. Bruce J. Kelman (cover letter)

American Board of Toxicology, (ABT) Board of Directors (cover letter)

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Board of Directors (cover letter)

United States Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch,  cc to Southern District of California U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy. (cover letter)  Update (11.12.15 cover letter to Duffy)

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell ( see AG Lynch cover letter)

White House, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Director John Holden (see  AG Lynch cover letter)

Attached EXHIBITS are:

1. ACMT Mold Position Statement

2. Veritox Theory

3. AAAAI retired their Mold Statement in 2011 (see bottom of each page)

4. ACOEM retired their Mold Statement in 2015

5. Falsified 2008 Judgment from Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer, San Diego County, California Superior Court, North County Division. This document was used coram non judice as the sole foundational document for the 2nd SLAPP suit in 2010. For now over a decade they have been trying to make me appear not credible and to silence me of multiple California judges’ and justices’ frauds upon their courts when case-fixing for the purpose of aiding the Veritox Theory to continue to be used in discrimination of the WDB disabled. The Veritox Theory is the dark-heart of “Toxic Mold Issue”. Many have known it for now well over a decade but remain silent — at best.

Dear Dr. Wax and ACMT Board Members,

RE: Choosing Wisely® to sunset the ACMT Mold Statement as the main references of the publication have already done so; thereby curtailing discrimination of the environmentally disabled and dying by use of the “Veritox Theory”.

Greetings. I am an advocate for integrity in health marketing. I research and write of how and why concepts are promoted to influence physician education, public health policies, insurer practices, and toxic torts in the United States and Canada.

Note: for ease of reading the linked-references for this letter, it may be read online at Katy’s Exposure Blog, in a post entitled “American College of Medical Toxicology, Choose Wisely To Sunset Your Mold Statement”.[1] Short link:   http://wp.me/plYPz-3VW

The gravamen of this letter is to request that ACMT stop causing environmental disability, death and discrimination of the disabled and dying by ceasing to promote a flawed scientific concept as appropriate physician education. Three “nonprofit” medical associations have been the primary mass-marketers of an erred concept for use by insurers, governmental agencies, private-sector stakeholders, and many other “nonprofit” organizations to stave off financial liability for causation of environmentally caused disabilities and deaths. The other medical associations which were mass-marketing the illness-causing scientific fraud have ceased to do so. ACMT is the last “learned body” of “esteemed colleagues” still marketing that it is scientifically proven toxigenic molds (and so many other antigens, toxins and inflammagens found in water-damaged buildings, WDB) do not harm humans. This is causing physicians and the public to be left unaware that many are living and working in hazardous environments.

INTRODUCTION

Contrary to what your toxicologist-physician trade association has promoted for a decade, science dictates that a linear-dose-no-threshold (LNT) model cannot be used as proof that toxigenic molds do not harm humans. Regarding the substantial error of promoting the false concept that LNT risk assessment models are able to prove more than they are scientifically capable of doing:

“Eventually a disturbing conclusion was reached, that is, the principal dose-response model… had never been validated, but simply accepted as true, being passed down with authoritative conclusionary statements from textbook to textbook, from professor to student, from regulatory agencies to citizens, across generations of scientists, creating an illusion of knowledge and informed guidance.” Edward J Calabrese Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, [2]

[Interpreted for lay people: One cannnot take a rat-study’s data, add some math and claim they have scientifically proven no human is being injured by an environmental exposure. To do so is spinning science to a fraudulent outcome. This spin to fraud has been mass-marketed as legitimate risk-assessment for far too long in U.S. public health advisories, in physician education, and in courts by “learned bodies of science and medicine”.]

ACMT’s position statement on illnesses caused by mold, mycotoxins and other microbial contaminants found in WDB is hereafter referred to as the “ACMT Mold Statement”. Entitled “Institute of Medicine Report on Damp Indoor Spaces and Health”[3] and attached hereto as EXHIBIT 1, it was co-authored in 2006 by Tom Kurt, M.D., and Daniel Sudakin, M.D. Dr. Sudakin is a current ACMT board member. In 2006, he was an affiliate of Veritox, Inc. along with ACMT Fellows, Dr. Michael Holland and Dr. Kevin Wallace.[4] [5] Dr. Wallace is still an affiliate of Veritox, Inc. [See footnote (fn) 5]

According to the ACMT website regarding position statement review policies [6]:

“All statements should be reviewed on a periodic basis (every 3 years) and as needed when new data or questions arise. The original author(s) will be asked to address any questions, indicating the date of any revisions on the statement. Each author must sign a disclosure form discussing any potential sources of bias and conflict of interest.” [Lines 15-18]

The ACMT Mold Statement has not been updated in nine years since approved for publication in June of 2006.   It includes the following antiquated and always inaccurate key statement:

“With respect to mycotoxins in indoor air, exposure modeling studies have concluded that even in moldy environments, the maximum inhalation dose of mycotoxins is generally orders of magnitude lower than demonstrated thresholds for adverse health effects. (3,7,8)” [Paragraph 7, lines 1 & 2]

I.  MISAPPLICATION OF A LINEAR-NO-THRESHOLD RISK MODEL (LNT) “THE VERITOX THEORY” Page 4

II.  ACMT MISUSE OF REFERENCES TO PROMOTE THE VERITOX THEORY AS SOUND SCIENCE   Page 6

III. HARM BY POSITION STATEMENTS WORDSMITHED TOWARD AGENDA PROMOTIONS Page 8

IV.  ACMT REFERENCES No. 15 & No. 3 HAVE CEASED MASS-MARKETING THE VERITOX THEORY Page 11

V.  FOURTEEN YEARS OF MEDICAL “NONPROFITS” PROMOTING THE VERITOX THEORY FOR EXPERT DEFENSE WITNESS PROFIT BY SCIENTIFIC FRAUD UPON U.S. COURTS Page 14

VI.  THE VERITOX THEORY WAS SPUN BY INDUSTRY “NONPROFIT” LOBBYISTS & VERITOX, INC. OWNERS, PURPOSED TOWARD BLATANT SCIENTIFIC FRAUD UPON THE COURTS Page 16

VII.  A DECADE OF RETALIATORY CRIME BY CALIFORNIA JURISTS, CLERKS, ATTORNEYS & MR. KELMAN TO KEEP THE VERITOX THEORY IN U.S. POLICIES, PHYSICIAN EDUCATION & COURTS Page 22

VIII. A DANGEROUSLY JUSTIFIED SELF-PERCEPTION OF BEING ABOVE THE LAW Page 32

IX.  2012 VOID PERMANENT INJUNCTION TO NOT “REPUBLISH” A SENTENCE NEVER PUBLISHED, PURPOSED TO KEEP THE VERITOX THEORY IN U.S. POLICIES & U.S. COURTS BY CRIMINAL MEANS Page 38

X.  IN 2015, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REFUSED TO PROSECUTE MR. KELMAN & CALIFORNIA COURT OFFICERS, ET.AL, FOR CRIMINAL ACTS IN SLAPP ~ USDOJ HAS USED THE VERITOX THEORY FOR OVER A DECADE Page 42

XI. FEDERAL & STATE COVER-UP OF THE VERITOX THEORY FRAUD FROM SEA TO SHINING SEA (Part I) Page 45

XII. FEDERAL & STATE COVER-UP OF THE VERITOX THEORY FRAUD FROM SEA TO SHINING SEA (Part II) Page 49

XIII. FEDERALLY-FUNDED-ACMT PROLIFERATION OF SCIENTIFIC FRAUD SINCE 2006 APPEARS TO BE NO ACCIDENT Page 53

XIV. A CRIMINAL SETTING OF STANDARDS FOR U.S. TOXICOLOGISTS — WHY? Page 56

XV.  FEDERALLY FUNDED “NONPROFIT” MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS CHOOSING WISELY® FOR WHOM? Page 58

XVI. CHOOSE WISELY TO USE FEDERAL FUNDS TO TEACH WDB INJURY PREVENTION – NOT TO TEACH A LITIGATION DEFENSE ARGUMENT WHILE CAUSING DISCRIMINATION & DISABILITY   Page 62

XVII. SEVENTY YEARS OF DISCRIMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY INJURED BY LINEAR-DOSE MODELS Page 64

XVIII. JUSTICE MCCONNELL, RECALL & RESCIND THE REMITTITURS Page 66

XIX. CONCLUSION PLEASE CHOOSE WISELY TO CEASE PROMOTING SCIENTIFIC FRAUD AS EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE Page 68

XOXOXO. THIS LETTER IS DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF THE LATE JARED JOSEPH DUSSAULT Page 69

Jared Joseph Dussault

March 26, 1998 – August 16, 2015

Jared was fifteen year old environmentally injured boy living in Florida. He was bullied into hanging himself. Beginning in the fall of 2014, he, his mother and two younger siblings were being treated like criminals for saying their NAA-affiliate-owned, water-damaged-apartment caused them to experience CIRS-WDB and EI, and that the bad faith acts of others with powerful political connections to cover it up, were only figments of their imagination.

The abusive insult to devastating injury drove him to take his life. Like so many others being maliciously deemed liars and horrifically harassed over the Toxic Mold Issue at a time in their lives when they need the most help, all he wanted was to be believed when telling the truth and treated like he mattered and was Somebody – which he was.

December 11, 2014 VIDEO of Jared Dussault pleading to “public servants” for help to stop the harassment and bullying of his family over the Toxic Mold Issue – to no avail.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Sharon Noonan Kramer  “Woman with Stones“

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

I was asked to share this information.  Apparently there is a problem with EMSL’s Environmental Relative Moldiness Index (ERMI) and people are being offered a free do-over.  Seems that it has been marketed to the mold community though various websites and people need to know how to obtain their free do-overs — so they are not living with a false sense of security as to the safety of their living and working environments.

Two key highlights from Dr. Shoemaker’s message that he asked me to share:

“Just to be clear: I am stating my opinion that anyone, including Dave Asprey and his employee who is selling ERMI from EMSL, as well as any and all others promoting flawed ERMI testing, should stop now and refund all users since 6/22/2015, at least until EMSL and all other labs with quality control problems pass all aspects of EPA quality control. The public trust depends on lots of sunshine being focused regarding this important question about validity.”

“Beginning in late spring 2015, physicians from the Professionals Panel of Surviving Mold noted that something was odd with a variety of Environmental Relative Moldiness Index (ERMI) reports. A number of labs, including EMSL, appeared to not report low levels of Aspergillus penicilloides, A. versicolor and Wallemia sebi. ERMI testing (involves MSQPCR DNA identification and quantification) is a necessary part of a peer reviewed, published protocol used to diagnose and treat chronic inflammatory response syndrome (CIRS) caused by exposure to the interior environment of water-damaged buildings (WDB). Significant health risks are associated with low levels of these fungi when present in WDB, with as few as 10 spore equivalents/mg dust markedly associated with acquisition of illness.”

The message in its entirety:

“EMSL lab director acknowledges EPA investigation; offers free repeat ERMI

Beginning in late spring 2015, physicians from the Professionals Panel of Surviving Mold noted that something was odd with a variety of Environmental Relative Moldiness Index (ERMI) reports. A number of labs, including EMSL, appeared to not report low levels of Aspergillus penicilloides, A. versicolor and Wallemia sebi. ERMI testing (involves MSQPCR DNA identification and quantification) is a necessary part of a peer reviewed, published protocol used to diagnose and treat chronic inflammatory response syndrome (CIRS) caused by exposure to the interior environment of water-damaged buildings (WDB).   Significant health risks are associated with low levels of these fungi when present in WDB, with as few as 10 spore equivalents/mg dust markedly associated with acquisition of illness.

Many people think that Stachybotrys is the important fungus in damp buildings (“Black Mold; Toxic Mold”), and it is but to a very small extent, but the Aspergillus species named above are major players in occurrence of adverse health effects caused by exposure to the interior of WDB.

Another under-stated organism, Wallemia sebi, also was under-reported by EMSL in casual physician observations. Far more important, Wallemia likes lower water activity (A(w)) than other fungi (and bacteria!) in wet buildings. Wallemia is perhaps the worst actor of all the molds when it comes to risks for acquisition of human illness from WDB. From its drier locations, especially in ductwork, Wallemia gets no significant publicity on the Internet but it sure does in offices of actual data-driven, CIRS-treating physicians.

Simply stated: EMSL wasn’t finding the DNA of these organisms often.   Even worse, other mycology labs found these DNA markers in the same places when EMSL didn’t. Was there a problem with methods used by EMSL? If so, was the problem in primers (ABI but not IDT?), probes or TaqMan enzymes? Or the DNA analyzer?

We reported our concerns to experts at the EPA who promised to initiate an investigation. And they did.

Remember that the patent for QPCR testing for ERMI was granted to the EPA in 5/14/2002, number 6,387,652 B1. EPA began licensing their testing protocols to private labs later, provided that the testing outlined in the EPA Standard Procedures for Fungal DNA QPCR Analysis was followed.

Think about it, here we have EMSL, a reputable lab, having problems detecting low levels of important organisms, but for most of the newbies (they seem to be appearing faster than wire grass in a new garden!) coming to the mold field, who would ever know? Add to the problem of rookies trying to help mold patients is the entry of another entrant into the ERMI field, myERMI. When this outfit, linked to Dave Asprey and his new Bulletproof Internet business, announced they were providing ERMI testing, they asked, any questions?

Even now, you can hear my voice on the (listen to it on the Bulletproof website) trailer for Dave’s movie, Moldy. So, Dave knows me.

I asked who their ERMI lab supplier was. Answer: EMSL. What were the primers EMSL used? I was surprised at the aggressive non-response from Dave’s employee.

“What do you want that information for? What relevance is the primer?” Whoa, bro! Just answer the question.

You know, when someone is not responsive to a simple question, they usually are doing so for some no-good reason. Attorneys really focus on non-responsive answers. Me too. I still have a lot more questions for this non-responder. We expect politicians to be evasive, not salesmen. Moving on.

Actually, all DNA labs obsess over accuracy of MSQPCR testing, the basis of ERMI. All DNA labs must pay attention to much more than primers, but primers are where the analysis is based. They must be exquisitely careful with a series of lab methods. Primers, enzymes and machines all are important in providing people in a life and death situation with accurate information. Imagine if someone with CIRS-WDB were told that a building was assuredly safe because the ERMI was low and then the patient went into the building with a false sense of security. What would happen to the victimized patient? We all know.

There would be a significant relapse, with all its chronic proteomic and genomic abnormalities. Who would be responsible for the ensuing wrongful death or disability? The lab? Or the agent that funneled business to the lab when they must have known, or should have known, the lab was having trouble?

Now imagine being the business outfit that sells ERMI. Do you think that ongoing EPA investigation for failure to meet specifications from patents and lab procedures might fit into your advertising campaign?

Can you understand how people like me would be demanding accuracy from labs? And can you understand why I would be demanding accuracy from outfits like myERMI who seemingly didn’t know what a primer was, yet was selling ERMI tests? Maybe it is just my opinion, but if I am selling a test, I feel I have to know everything a reasonable person would be expected to know about that test.

Just to be clear: I am stating my opinion that anyone, including Dave Asprey and his employee who is selling ERMI from EMSL, as well as any and all others promoting flawed ERMI testing, should stop now and refund all users since 6/22/2015, at least until EMSL and all other labs with quality control problems pass all aspects of EPA quality control. The public trust depends on lots of sunshine being focused regarding this important question about validity.

But how did anyone know that EMSL was having problems with their assay? Quality control is supposed to be performed with every new batch of chemicals used in such a complex assay. No one demands publication of the results of QC, however. The EPA can’t force its ERMI licensees to do anything! But a question still nags at me: if the lab isn’t following dictates of both the patent and lab instructions, can we really say the lab is using the patented test?

By the time myERMI was selling EMSL testing, the investigation of EMSL procedures and results was already initiated. One can only wonder how a lab test that was being doubted by a Federal agency was being sold by a non-medical website without informing the public of the investigation. Didn’t they know that they might be selling a test that could get them in trouble? Sounds to me like old fashioned due diligence was missing.

So I called EMSL, asking about problems with the EPA testing. Dr. Charlie Li was direct with me on the phone on 9/23/2015. He knew there was a problem. He was working with EPA to resolve the difficulty with “non-detects.” He promised me that everyone who had an EMSL ERMI done in the last three months could be repeated at no charge when the methods of EMSL were corrected. Just call the EMSL phone number on your lab result, ask for the lab, give them the lab number on the upper right hand corner and ask the lab to repeat the test at no charge when the lab passes EPA requirements.

I hope that everyone who had an EMSL ERMI done since 6/22/2015 will contact EMSL or their test broker to obtain a repeat of their ERMI when the lab is doing better in QC for the three species of incredible importance. If the ERMI was sold through a broker, I feel a refund is in order.

Are there people harmed by the difficulty EMSL has? I don’t know. But my data set is truncated at best. At www.survivingmold.com we are willing to be a clearing house for information regarding possible adverse health effects from flawed ERMI reporting. Alternatively, if you have concerns, perhaps if your ERMI was bought from and paid to myERMI you could contact myERMI, as all of their ERMI reports done since they started their service in mid-July will likely be flawed. Dave Asprey has written me that he wants to help people get better; so let him make things right. I don’t speak for Dave but since he wants to help people by offering ERMI testing, and I believe that he will stand by his products, let him obtain your refund for you.

When I raised the issue of quality problems with EMSL with Dave on our call 9/9/2015 at 12:30 EDT, he wasn’t receptive, yet promised to look into the matter, which he did. Two weeks later, Dave and his employee apparently didn’t feel that they had to know the science underlying the product they were selling. Hypothetically, when anyone is selling unsubstantiated treatment with some diet or another to mold patients using environmental studies that are being investigated, how can one say diet is the culprit when the environment is falsely being ruled out? Remember, saying one feels “amazing” as a testimonial doesn’t translate to showing data to a journal editor and unbiased reviewers.

If you think you have been injured by a falsely low reported ERMI from EMSL from 6/22/2015-9/22/2015, please don’t go seeking a lawyer. Let us know and we will help you. No charge.

There are so many points to be made with this lab problem. I remember doing cardiac isoenzymes in Clinical Chemistry years ago. If my CPK result showed heart attack, that person was changed forever. Integrity of science and medicine was my mantra then. Still is. Medical care for CIRS is not just a game or a profit-making venture. Integrity counts.

I remember well fifteen years when the outspoken voices of mold world were Jonathan Wright, Erik Johnson, Sharon Kramer and me, with maybe a few others. Internet sales? Nope. Weren’t there. Now 15 years later, mold is selling like crazy. Crazy is a good word for the unsupported claims. If today’s Internet is a “Wild, Wild West,” patients surely can be swayed by slick advertising, just like they might be at a used car lot. In mold venues, if you are selling, sell truth. Sell honesty. For patients, if the claims of Dr. Mike O. Toxin (made up name) aren’t matched by high quality, published peer reviewed data, skip using your credit card that day.

Now, you should see the non-existent data and undisciplined ideas about mold being sold that are dressed up like the Emperor (the one with no clothes).   “Yes, I ate this food and I got sick. I know it was the food because I never lie and I don’t need science,” says one. Another says, “Ignore what you eat, your urine shows what is wrong with you.”Another is now selling “special nutrients;” and others are selling “methylation correctors.”The list goes on.

OK, let us see the data. Oops. None are available. Our group has been publishing for 15 years! You want data? So do I. We have published data on over 2500 adults and children in peer reviewed literature, not to mention 1000 controls and two double blinded, placebo controlled clinical trials.

I still am bemused by folks thinking that diet will cause CIRS-WDB illness (Oh, really?), knowing that this attempt at an argument was one we defeated in fierce one-on-one combat in mold litigation. When the CDC says diet is no big deal (MMWR 2/2015), and they do (and the overwhelming scientific community agrees), don’t start buying mold free tea or mold free wheat or mold free blue cheese or mold free mushrooms. Dietary causes of CIRS-WDB illness? Show me some science. Show me objective markers in a prospective study.

The world of CIRS-WDB is now full of tests providing objective fingerprints of brain injury, proteomics and genomics. We are in a Golden Era of peer reviewed, published papers on therapy of CIRS-WDB. We must demand scientific integrity from our new-found Internet sales machines. We cannot giveaway our science for false hopes based on marketing ploys.

Thankfully, EMSL has said they have a problem with their ERMI results. The EPA is working with them and other labs to make sure we won’t have the problem of possibly unreliable ERMI results in the future. Let us all revisit their ERMI products in the future when the bugs are out of their systems. Talk to Dave Asprey; I’m sure he will get your money back if you bought a flawed ERMI from him.”

As we all know by now, the mold issue is complex and mistakes get made by relying upon the words and actions of others — who may also be relying upon the words and actions of others.  The true test of character is when one takes action to acknowledge the mistake and moves to correct any problems it may be causing.

Thank goodness that this one looks relatively easy to correct any possible damage done, by people simply being made aware of the problem and being provided an opportunity to accept help to undo it.  Glad to see EMSL is offering free do-overs of ERMI.  Hopefully, others will follow suit.

Sharon Kramer

PS. Don’t contact me if you have any questions.  This is not my area of expertise in the mold issue.  I’m simply forwarding a public service announcement.

Contact Dr. Shoemaker with any questions.  He says,

“If you think you have been injured by a falsely low reported ERMI from EMSL from 6/22/2015-9/22/2015, please don’t go seeking a lawyer. Let us know and we will help you. No charge.”

“you’re not so worried about mold anymore, we think a better and cheaper way to gain peace of mind is to drop that coverage and simply take steps to prevent a mold problem from developing in the first place by taking the steps below.”

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/homeownersinsurance/avoid-a-mold-problem-with-bleach-not-insurance

Seems step #1 for consumers is to let your insurer off the hook for liability when you get sick from inhaling the mold spore and their toxins via their becoming airborne by use of bleach. CR’s advice to drop any mold coverage you may have on your policy, helps no one but your homeowner’s insurer.

The author of this article is a senior editor for Consumer Reports.  He infers he has come over from the dark side of money and now advocates for consumers’ protection from “tricks”.  According to his bio for this article:

“I learned how corporations operate as a reporter at Forbes, switched sides to Consumer Reports, and now use my business savvy to uncover the tricks and find better deals for you. My passion for investigative reporting about money won two National Magazine Awards and a Loeb Award. I love sharing wine with my wife and pitching batting practice to my MLB-focused son. Follow me on Twitter (@JeffBlyskal); assist my work at Tell-A-Reporter.com.”

Here’s what you need to understand:

Consumer Reports is a non-profit organization that has teamed up with non-profit medical associations of dubious reputation.  They have a new campaign to control and “educate” U.S. physicians called “Choosing Wisely” of which, Consumer Reports dissiminates the info to the public.

Here is just one recent example of what Consumer Reports put out for the American College of Medical Toxicology with regard to teaching physicians not to diagnose environmental disabilities/acquired idiopathic environmental sensitivities: