Page 2
THE MOLD CONTROVERSY (cont'd)
There have been many documented cases of farm animals dying from eating moldy hay. The malady of “farmer’s lung” was known to have been caused largely by mold. Toxins emitted by mold, particularly aflatoxins and ochratoxins, have been shown to cause cancer. But there are other kinds of toxins produced by molds that have not been studied as carefully, partly because they have been discovered fairly recently and partly because there was strong governmental impetus for discovering mold problems in the agricultural setting, given that agriculture is such a large component of our economy and gross national product.
After mold was found to be a real problem in sick building syndrome cases, insurers needed time to revamp their policies to exclude mold. So they hired pseudo experts to deny the association between mold and health problems. Then they fought tooth and nail and spread misinformation to prevent people from proving they were sick from moldy buildings.
What’s worse, the government was no help to mold victims. Not only does the government want a thriving economy, but one is mindful that there are thousands of government buildings with flat roofs that are most prone to water leaks. Acknowledging mold was a major health problem could have led to a flood of worker’s comp claims by government workers.
When Dr. Dearborn showed that the deaths of a number of infants in Cleveland, Ohio was due to the presence of stachybotris (the only substance common to all of the homes), which caused pulmonary hemosiderosis (bleeding lungs), his findings raised alarms in the insurance and business communities. Political pressure was brought to bear to muddy the waters and “re-evaluate" his findings. The Center for Disease Control used other doctors that had nothing to do with his study to say that whether mold caused the infants’ deaths was still an open question. These back seat drivers did not even consult him or use his evidence before concluding that his findings were “inconclusive.” But when the surviving children were removed from their moldy homes their health improved. When five of them were returned, their symptoms also returned and one of them died. The American Academy of Pediatrics has since recommended that “Infants who die suddenly without known cause should have an autopsy done including a Prussion blue stain of lung tissue to look for the presence of hemosiderin.”
During this period of confusion caused by this dubious re-evaluation of Dr. Dearborn’s findings, business interests, insurers, builders groups, their lobbyists and attorneys began developing misinformation and trying to change the legal landscape to reduce their exposure to lawsuits. They have been trying their level best for the past decade to head off claims from people that were victimized by shoddy building practices and insurers that refuse to pay claims on their policies.
But the truth has a way of filtering through. Medical science has come up with thousands of studies showing associating mold with human health problems. Today, the CDC has come around and proclaimed that mold can cause illnesses. The EPA, FEMA and the Institute of Medicine all agree that mold can cause illnesses. Read Chapters 4 and 5 of the IOM Report called "Damp Indoor Spaces." However, defense attorneys working for builders, landlords and insurance companies cite the IOM report and take it out of context, distorting its findings and creating ambiguities—all to save money and deny justice to innocent mold victims. I have heard defense attorneys say all too often that the CDC concludes that mold Is not harmful. That isn’t true. The CDC has finally come around to acknowledging that mold is harmful to humans.
Like with lawsuits against big tobacco, the first plaintiffs usually lost their mold cases, but a few isolated wins now and then gave other mold victims hope. That is where we are today.
<<previous page | next page >>
Click here to download a PDF version of this article.
