Veterans Target Of Mold Lady – Linda May

The beginning of the end for Linda May and her scams.  katy

by Paul C. Clark
Staff Writer

 
August 27, 2009

The woman who thrust herself into the center of the Oak Ridge Elementary School environmental mystery, terrifying parents, is at it again.

Linda May, a self-proclaimed “mold expert” who drove the news coverage of the longstanding health problems at Oak Ridge for weeks, trying to get herself hired as an expert witness and to sell $345 medical tests of questionable validity to worried Oak Ridge parents, has moved on to another target audience: elderly, ailing veterans.

On August 11, May appeared on Veterans for Veteran Connection, an internet radio program, selling the same test kits for Agent Orange exposure. Agent Orange is a pesticide chemically unrelated to mold and was used as a defoliant during the Vietnam War.

On the show, May claimed that the test kits are approved by the US State Department, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). “We are approved to do the testing for Agent Orange T-2 toxin for all government agencies in the US,” she said of her company, Warbler of Illinois. T-2 is a toxin found in mold and is chemically unrelated to Agent Orange.

All that sounds impressive, but May, as usual, didn’t provide anything to back up either her personal qualifications or the claims she made for the test she is selling. She said the Warbler of Illinois lab is in Pontiac, Illinois, in a secret location. On the show, as in Guilford County, she repeatedly turned down requests to verify her credentials and those of her purported laboratory by saying they were deep government secrets. When she was operating here, she refused to provide her resume, the number of the patent she claims to hold on the urine test, any US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for the test, or proof of Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) registration for the claimed laboratory – a registration that is required for labs offering medical tests in the United States.

May also claimed that the test would benefit Gulf War veterans, World War II veterans and Korean War veterans. “Same toxin, same test,” she said.

That angered some of the listening veterans, who said May was comparing apples and oranges and trying to sell a test to as many veterans as possible, whether or not they were exposed to any chemicals. One veteran said, “I don’t think they had problems with an overgrowth of foliage in the Gulf War.”

May interjected herself into the Oak Ridge debate this June, calling reporters and parents and identifying herself as “the international mold expert,” “the international health and safety expert,” a “Department of Defense bioweapon expert” and claiming connections with OSHA and the EPA. She also claimed to be an OSHA-certified mold expert, to have written the OSHA regulations governing mold and chemical contamination in the workplace, and to have secret connections that could get Oak Ridge parents millions of dollars to build a new school. She didn’t back up any of those claims with evidence.

May made wild health claims that went far beyond any symptoms actually reported at Oak Ridge, which included headaches, nosebleeds, sore throats and dizziness. She told parents that mold found at Oak Ridge “basically is AIDS by inhalation,” and, “You do not expose your child to a room full of cyanide – I’m telling you, you have a room full of cyanide.” She also told parents to expect funerals.

At the time, a spokeswoman for OSHA said she could find no record of May being involved in any of the agency’s rulemakings, and that OSHA had no certification for mold experts – so May could not be one.

On the radio show, skeptical veterans grilled May about her qualifications and the claims she made for the purported urine test, and the president of a veterans group later said he thinks she’s a fake.

“Her laboratory doesn’t exist,” said Jim Davis, the president of California-based Veterans for Change, which lobbies for veterans benefits. “The test she’s trying to sell is only a sterile urine bottle, and you can buy one at any pharmacy for less than $5. This is the third time since we’ve founded the organization that we’ve found someone trying to scam veterans. If they’re doing harm, we try to stop them.”

May’s resume lists a bachelor’s degree in nursing from Lakeview College of Nursing in Illinois. It also lists an OSHA accreditation as an instructor of construction safety and health, and an OSHA/EPA accreditation as a hazardous materials site manager. None of those claims, even if true, would qualify her to sell medical tests or to act as an expert witness in a lawsuit, and May has provided no example of any lawsuit in which she has acted as an expert witness.

A spokeswoman for OSHA in Washington had already debunked the mold certification, saying it didn’t exist. And Jim Barnes, the director of OSHA’s Office of Training and Educational Programs, part of the OSHA Directorate of Training and Education in the agency’s regional office in Arlington Heights, Illinois, said the other OSHA certifications May has claimed don’t exist either.

Barnes said, “OSHA does not accredit nor certify individuals.”

The FDA found no listing for May or her company in its approval databases for biological tests.

“As far as we can tell, we haven’t cleared or approved any devices or tests like that,” said Peper Long, a spokeswoman in the FDA press office. “Nothing that could make those claims. These tests would need CLIA and FDA approval if they were going to be sold to the public. If she is marketing it as FDA approved or FDA cleared, it’s not. In general, a medical device isn’t legal if it hasn’t been approved by the FDA, and it can’t be marketed in the US.”

There is no listing for Warbler of Illinois or May in the FDA’s CLIA database.

Susan Myler, a spokeswoman in the Chicago regional office of the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs the CLIA program, said the Warbler of Illinois lab would have to be registered under CLIA.

“That’s correct,” Myler said. “If they’re reporting results back to a clinician, and it evaluates health, it has to be under CLIA.”

Myler said the Warbler test could be a case of “sink testing” – so called in the medical industry because they are offered by companies that pour the samples down the sink, then provide whatever test results a person wants, or no results at all. “It’s amazing how many people will send $400 to people on the Internet,” she said.

There are waivers to the requirements for FDA approval and CLIA registration, and it is conceivable that the Warbler of Illinois test could fall under one of those waivers. But such waivers are public, not secret, and May should be able to provide them if they exist. To date, she has offered neither any approvals nor any waivers, and in an interview with The Rhino Times in June, she seemed to know nothing about the FDA and CLIA approval processes.

May’s air of secrecy contrasts sharply with the way legitimate testing laboratories operate – in public. The Warbler of Illinois website lists no address for the company, and May won’t identify the site of the laboratory, the company’s employees, their qualifications or the methodology of the claimed test.

FDA, OSHA and medical experts asked about testing laboratories said they knew of no cases in which the location of a laboratory was a secret.

Davis, who said he has worked for a company that held Department of Defense (DOD) contracts, said he knew of no cases of such secrecy – and if one existed, he would expect it to be nuclear manufacturing, not urine tests.

“If you’re granted a contract, especially with the DOD, there is no language that demands that any laboratory or manufacturing facility remain secret,” he said. “It just doesn’t happen.”

On the radio show, May claimed veterans have won benefits from the US Department of Veterans Affairs, but wouldn’t say how many such cases there were, or provide examples, despite repeated questions on that issue from veterans. “I don’t keep track of that,” she said.

On the radio show, as in Guilford County, May claimed that any profits from the sale of the tests would go to three orders of nuns, which she wouldn’t name, because she said the nuns wanted that kept secret. But Warbler of Illinois is registered with the Illinois Secretary of State’s Office as a for-profit corporation, and is not on the US Internal Revenue Service list of 501(c)3 or 501(c)4 nonprofit groups. It would be unusual for a corporation whose financial goal was to benefit three orders of nuns to be set up as a for-profit corporation, subject to normal federal and state taxes.

In Guilford County, May claimed that a long-available cholesterol drug could cure the symptoms of toxic mold exposure, and on the radio show, she made the same claim for the same drug for Agent Orange-related illnesses. It’s a claim doctors we’ve talked to have heard nowhere else.

May claimed to have a patent on the test, but searches of the US Patent and Trademark Office database found no patents with May listed as the inventor or assignee of a patent or the legal representative of a patent holder. The database lists two patents under the name “Linda May,” one by an Oklahoma woman for a livestock restraining gate and one by a California woman for a face pillow.

An effort to talk to May about her claims was rebuffed. A call to the phone number on her business card, which she identified in June as her cell phone number, and which she answered when she was in Guilford County, was answered by a woman who certainly sounded like May, who The Rhinoceros Times interviewed for an hour in June and who spoke at length at public meetings here. The woman acted as if the phone were an office line.

“She’s in a business meeting,” the woman said after learning that the call was from The Rhino Times. “She can’t come to the phone.” Told that her voice seemed recognizable as Linda May, she hung up.

A few minutes later, a man who identified himself as Chuck Marlow, a “gofer” in the company, called back, claiming that the woman who answered the phone was May’s sister. He refused to give the company’s address or the location of its lab. “I’m not supposed to give out information,” he said, also hanging up.

In June, May answered questions about her company not with references to legitimate sources, such as government agencies, physicians or academic studies, but with references to a strange collection of people she said would vouch for her, including her attorney, someone she knew in college and a low-level employee in an Illinois state agency whom she said couldn’t talk on the record, because Illinois has a law making it illegal for government employees to talk to the press. Illinois has no such law, which would be unconstitutional on its face.

The mayor of Pontiac, Bob Russell, appeared on the radio show with May and a group of veterans from Pontiac town hall, saying the town had been working with May for months to try to get her to locate a lab there. Russell spoke as if the lab did not yet exist, at least in Pontiac. In a story in the Pontiac Daily Leader on August 12, Russell was quoted as saying Warbler of Illinois had a clean bill of health in regard to government contracts, but didn’t specify any contracts the company had.

Contacted later by phone, Pontiac City Administrator Robert Karls angrily refused to answer any questions about May or Warbler.

“We’re still in the preliminary stages with her,” Karls said. “We deal with companies all the time, and until something is ready to be announced, we don’t discuss those things.”

May was scheduled to go back on the radio show at 9 p.m. on Tuesday, August 25. Veterans groups were prepared for her this time, and arranged for doctors, people who had researched May’s history and a woman who said that May had defrauded her of $1,500 in a California workers compensation case to participate in the show.

May, possibly sensing a backlash, didn’t show up to defend herself or her company.

greensboro.rhinotimes.com

Posted in Health - Medical - Science, Toxic Mold, Veterans | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Sharon Kramer reports on – Injured Workers, Toxic Mold, ACOEM & Senator Edward Kennedy

By California Coalition For Workers Memorial Day

Aug 26th, 2009

At a press conference for injured movie and Kaiser workers at the Downey dump site mold expert Sharon Kramer reported on her efforts to expose the conflict of interest between the corporate doctor’s trade group ACOEM and government agencies which are supposed to protect injured workers and the public. She discovered that ACOEM is an organization that promotes “junk” science and it’s rules are written into the law in California with the deregulation of workers compensaton by Governor Schwartzenegger and the Democratic controlled legislature. She also reports on the role of Senator Edward Kennedy on deleting a government study on this conflict of interest.

Video – Injured Workers, Mold, ACOEM And Senator Edward Kennedy

Sharon Kramer, an expert on mold and ACOEM spoke at a press conference called by the California Coalition For Workers Memorial Day for injured workers at the Downey toxic dump site.

VideoDowney Toxic Dump Site – LA Press Conference

California Coalition For Workers Memorial Day
P.O. Box 720027 San Francisco, CA 94172
workersmemorialday.org

American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM):
A Professional Association in Service to Industry
moldwarriors.com/SK/IJOEH_Oct07_LaDou.pdf

indybay.org

Posted in Environmental Health Threats, Health - Medical - Science, Mold and Politics, Mold Litigation, Toxic Mold, US Chamber of Commerce | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lawyers’ Committee for Better Housing – Notes from the Field – Affordable Housing Preservation Project

The Affordable Housing Preservation Project (AHPP) was contacted by the residents of this 5 unit building due to its extreme hazardous conditions. Upon entry of this property, its dilapidated conditions became apparent immediately.

As I stood beside a row of burglarized mailboxes in the foyer, leakage emanated from the gaping hole in the ceiling above me and dripped on my forehead. I stood in a puddle of collecting water and listened to the building’s faulty electrical wiring hum in my ears.

I wondered how many children and elderly lived in this deteriorating façade of a building. Before we accepted this case, one of the tenants informed me that this building consists of many dangerous and hazardous conditions.

These conditions included perpetual leaking and exposed pipes, rampant mold throughout the building, inconsistent water, no heat, and gaping holes in the walls of many units. But somehow such a description means very little until you enter the property and smell the mold yourself.

One must negotiate one’s descent down slippery deteriorating steps, and combat the dizziness and nausea that develop as a result of just two hours touring a building with rampant mold, before having any clear understanding whatsoever of the conditions under which many Chicago tenants are forced to survive.

As I move from apartment to apartment and interview the tenants of this property, I learn that many individuals moved in just months ago. Often thy paid their rent in cash after touring another building owned by Management described as a “comparable property.” Despite these substandard living conditions, property management continued to accept rent from low-income individuals and move tenants into this building, demanding an average of $500 for the monthly rental rate.

At the time of our building tour, a young woman just moved into the building with her infant child who suffers from Sickle Cell Anemia. She explained that she too was shown a building that was described as a “comparable property,” and paid her rent and security deposit in cash as a result of that tour.

When she moved into the unit, the manager told her that they would remove the paint strewn across the floors and fix the exposed outlets and broken windows. They explained that they would stop her ceiling from leaking and do something to plug the hole in the bathroom that allowed her to watch her next door neighbor bathe and brush their teeth.

In the coming weeks, despite her repeated phone calls and letters, she found that Management failed to deliver on their promises, and likely never intended to provide a safe living environment for her and her child.

Fierce with determination to make this awful situation workable for her and her daughter, she elected to purchase the tools and equipment required to make her apartment safe. So she went to a neighborhood hardware store and spent over a hundred dollars on these items. When she returned from work the next afternoon to commence this massive renovation project on her own, she found that due to the lack of security in the building, someone entered her unit and not only stole her tools, but all of her clothing and items for her baby.

This is but one story of many shared with us by tenants as we advocate for affordable housing in the city of Chicago. These tenants expect only a modicum of safety and fairness in exchange for their hard-earned rent payment.

In the weeks that followed this building visit, AHPP appeared on behalf of the tenants in the building and advocated for the vacating of the property as we felt strongly that this property was sadly beyond rehabilitation.

Consequently, we worked to secure over $8000 of relocation assistance for the tenants with whom the Project worked and we continue to advoca te for the return of the $300 move-in fees. AHPP worked with the City to coordinate the relocation of the tenants in the building.

Consequently, all the tenants with whom he AHPP worked directly have successfully relocated. In the proceeding months, the AHPP intends to maintain contact with the tenants in the building and hold training on landlord-tenant rights. We find that providing free legal education for tenants in the City allows us an opportunity provide the tenants with a basic understanding of the protections provided by Chicago’s Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance and their right to safe and affordable housing in this city.

-Keri Lindsay, AHPP Staff Attorney

lcbh.org

Posted in Civil Justice, Environmental Health Threats, Riverstone Residential, Toxic Mold | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Start of the Current Mold Problems in the US

In the United States, the 1970’s saw the extensive use of drywall (gypsum board with paper on both sides) in both residential and commercial construction. This was mainly because drywall construction costs 50% less than plaster construction. Thus began the introduction of “mold friendly” building materials into homes, commercial, and industrial buildings. The paper and glues in drywall are organic materials that can support mold growth when they become wet. Plaster, on the other hand, contains very little organic matter to retain water or to support mold growth (Occasionally, horsehair and cellulose can be found in the rough coat.) Plaster also has a final coat of ‘lime plaster’ which is mostly calcium hydroxide. Lime plaster is very alkaline when wet, which further inhibits microbial growth. Therefore, drywall is much more “mold friendly” than plaster.

The next factor in the start of the mold problem was energy market manipulation in the mid 1970’s. The oligopolistic major oil companies induced a fabricated “oil shortage” by holding imported oil in tankers off shore and creating a so-called “energy crisis.” This contrived oil shortage was similar to the one created in the early 1920’s (see newspapers of that time for references). The prior contrived shortage also resulted in significantly increasing oil prices and corporate profits. This also ushered in an era of “energy conservation” in the US.

Note: Another example of “repeating history when we failed to learn from it” occurred in the area of ventilation standards. In December 1981, in response to the contrived “energy crisis” mentioned above, the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) reduced the required amount of outside make-up air from 15 cfm per person to only 5 cfm per person. This ventilation standard (ASHRAE 62-1981) clearly disregarded earlier research that showed a health risk from low ventilation rates. Shortly thereafter, the indoor air quality /sick building problems of the 1980’s began to surface. In January of 1983, ASHRAE rescinded its 62-1981 standard due to “health concerns.”

Worse yet, thousands of buildings continued to be built a number of years after that using the unhealthful ASHRAE 62-1981 for. The main reason for this continued unhealthy construction was the common practice in the US of using the “low bidder.” Mechanical engineering firms would win contracts by being the low bidder using the ventilation system requirements of ASHRAE 62-1981 (5 cfm/person) over the higher bids of competing companies using the correct, older ventilation requirements of ASHRAE 62-1976 (15 cfm/person).

Professional mechanical engineers, even though they were aware of the “health concerns” statement by ASHRAE, were under no “legal” duty to inform prospective building owner of the unhealthiness of 62-1981, since this is only a guideline. As the same time, few building owners were unaware that ASHRAE had retracted the newer standard. Consequently, the practice of building poorly-ventilated buildings continued throughout the 1980’s until the formal reissuing of this standard by ASHRAE in 1989. Many local government code bodies, also unaware that ASHRAE had rescinded the 62-1981 standard, continued to specify these unhealthful ventilation rates until 1990.

Consequently, many homes and commercial buildings built during that decade were “tightened up” to reduce heating and cooling costs. Insulation standards increased and infiltration rates were decreased. The consequence of this was that when drywall became wet, due to decreased wall air infiltration and less ventilation of moisture-ladened air, it did not dry out as quickly as it did in the past. Mold growth became a problem after even relatively minor water intrusion events.

In the 1980’s, Canada and the Scandinavian countries, as an extension of the concern about radon gas in homes, began to study indoor mold levels. The computerized national healthcare record systems in these countries made identifying mold related health symptoms an easy task. This disease incidence data could then be compared to specific mold levels in individual patient homes. These countries subsequently developed “acceptable” mold standards for housing. These standards are still in use today.

Two of the major studies of the relationship of indoor mold to occupant illness in homes were conducted in the Netherlands 352 and Taiwan 336 in the early 1990’s. Neither of these studies found a directly relationship between reported symptoms and mold spore levels. However, the reporting of “damp” conditions in the home clearly was related to an increased risk of respiratory disease.

In the 1990’s, the potential health implications of indoor mold growth were finally broadly recognized in the United States. Further, buildings containing “mold-friendly” building materials were now widespread throughout the United States. Interestingly, Germany, Poland, Columbia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and many other countries still require the use of plaster instead of drywall and coincidently do not have as many mold problems as are found in the United States.

Note: An interesting story regarding to the use of plaster occurred in 2000 when the Czech Republic experienced extensive flooding. The AIHA contacted officials in that country and offered them help with mold problems resulting from the flooding. The officials wrote back to the AIHA and said they had very little mold problems from the flooding because they don’t use drywall.

safety-epa.com

Posted in Environmental Health Threats, Mold and Politics, Toxic Mold | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

A Worthless Corrupt Decision on Appeal – Corrupt Riverstone Residential – Toxic Mold Infested Jefferson Lakes Apartments – Unethical Attorney J Arthur Smith III – A Judge with a Conflict of Interest & The Corrupt State of Louisiana

I will post more on the false information by Riverstone Residential and the evidence our unethical attorney chose to NOT to pursue along with not correcting wrong information sent when subpoenaed.  But then, this is the reason I have the 2007 Mold Inspection Reports done when the complex was sold then totally IGNORED.  Also, there is the subpoena to the wrong company so evidence would NOT be sent.  This document is filled with wrong information – minor to major – all because our attorney spent so little time on it because the plan was for this to get dismissed.  See – Attorney Malpractice

Anyone with half a brain and some common sense can read the documents on this site and view the photos and see that mold has been a huge problem at Jefferson Lakes Apartments and they know about it and try to hide it.

This extreme infestation of molds filling these apartments with toxins will be allowed to continue spreading at this complex while making many more sick (not to mention all the previous tenants) just as the corruption in this litigation spread to involve so many.  This is all just fine with the owners, Riverstone Residential, the Louisiana Housing Finance Agency, and the State of Louisiana.

Our health was violated by the owners of these buildings and Riverstone Residential and then our rights were violated by an unethical, lying, sorry excuse for an attorney – J Arthur Smith III and the unethical, corrupt justice system in the corrupt State of Louisiana.

This is not over at all. 

A Worthless Corrupt

Decision on Appeal

See also –

Toxic Mold Infested Jefferson Lakes Apartments managed by Riverstone Residential

Riverstone Residential Litigation

Mold Inspection Reports

Photos of Mold in Apartment

Attorney Malpractice

Posted in Environmental Health Threats, Louisiana Housing Finance Agency, Mold and Politics, Mold Litigation, Riverstone Residential, Toxic Mold | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment