How paid experts mislead and misinform the public about the dangers of toxic mold

by | Jan 4, 2019 | Mold Corruption

“Many of these unscrupulous Physicians are like businessmen without a conscience. The only difference is they have your health and trust in their hands–a very dangerous combination when money is involved.” – Dr. Sayed Mohammed – Retired Oncologist

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Print Friendly

Many people falsely assume that molds (fungi) are not dangerous. This myth has been mostly perpetuated by so-called paid experts who more often than not work for corporations that have a lot to lose if the toxic mold facts get out to the general public. Some examples of corporations that seek to hide the truth would be insurance companies, real estate brokers, and property management firms to name a few.

The data, and research from real experts without agendas who show the true dangers and the many illnesses, diseases, and deaths that have been attributed to toxic mold is substantial and far outweighs the meager research being put forth by paid disinformation agents.

So please don’t be fooled and or tricked into believing mold is harmless by nefarious so-called experts with agendas who lie for money.

These disinformation agents I speak of are normally doctors and or scientists that get paid by various corporations to create misleading research and or as defense experts in mold cases. They give their spun testimony, inaccurate research and or write biased articles for the media in exchange for money from these same corporations. Their #1 job is to convince people through the media and or juries in lawsuits that mold is a harmless organism.

What people need to understand is that scientists and researchers are putting forth research on mold that is biased and misinformation. The scientific quality of mold and mycotoxin literature is extremely variable and of questionable merit. Many of these researchers are culling and omitting pertinent information in their studies

These facts have been proven many times over the years by other researchers and also the media.

For example, a 2003 study by the New Orleans Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, and the Southern Regional Research Center titled, Mycotoxins found that researchers are putting forth factual errors, misinformation and culling information from their studies. The scientists had stated;

“There is a disconcertingly high level of inaccuracy in a few reports, with some authors culling their information from earlier reviews of questionable merit and thereby perpetuating factual errors and discredited hypotheses. Where possible, we will attempt to point out such misinformation. We will focus on those mycotoxins that are known or suspected to cause human disease; on metabolites that are produced by molds that are associated with human food or habitation; and on other topics related directly to human health.”

Misinformation is false or incorrect information, spread intentionally or unintentionally. These studies on mold that act as if it is harmless are done intentionally. Lying is the act of one person intending to mislead another, deliberately, without prior notification of this purpose, and without having been asked by the target. Such behavior includes efforts at both concealment and falsification. Verbal strategies of deceit involve the use of denial, distortion, evasiveness, fabrication, irrelevance, nonresponsiveness, and omission.

A 2007 Wall Stree Journal article titled, “Amid Mold Suits, Experts Wear Two Hats,” had detailed how the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine’s mold policy paper written by non-physician authors who falsely claimed to prove that humans could not plausibly be exposed to enough mold toxins within a damp indoor environment to cause symptoms of ill health.

The Wall Street Journal reported, “The paper has become a key defense tool wielded by builders, landlords and insurers in litigation. It has also been used to assuage fears of parents following discovery of mold in schools. One point that rarely emerges in these cases: The paper was written by people who regularly are paid experts for the defense side in mold litigation.

These paid experts promote the legitimacy of the mold policy paper while billing as much as $700 per hour. The US Chamber of Commerce has promoted the document throughout the industry by trumpeting it as scientific proof that serious mold-induced illnesses are merely a result of “trial lawyers”, “media reports” and “Junk Science”.

Another medical association published a policy paper in 2006, the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI).  It was titled “The Medical Effects of Mold” and was simply a rehash of the ACOEM Mold Policy Paper.

The problem with this paper is that one of the paper’s authors, Jay Portnoy, chief of allergy, asthma, and immunology at the Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Mo., had told the Wall Street Journal that he “felt that there was an agenda” and the effort “seemed very biased toward denying the possibility of there being harmful effects from mold on human health.”

Portnoy also stated that parts of his contributions to the paper were rewritten without his knowledge and he even considered trying to get his name off the paper, but it was too late because they already published it.

The Wall Street Journal reports;

“A third author of the academy’s paper, Jay Portnoy, chief of allergy, asthma, and immunology at the Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Mo., says he “felt that there was an agenda” — the effort “seemed very biased toward denying the possibility of there being harmful effects from mold on human health.” He says he considered removing his name from the paper, but it was published before he could decide.

Dr. Portnoy says a section he contributed was rewritten by Dr. Saxon to be “a lot more negative.” He says the paper wrongly says mold isn’t proven to cause allergic rhinitis, with symptoms like wheezing, sore throat and sneezing.

Long time mold activist, Sharon Kramer, had said this about the WSJ article;

“As referenced by the WSJ, to make this key finding, the authors borrowed data from one rodent study in which mold was forced into the trachea of rats. They then applied calculations to make the leap that human illness could not plausibly occur if one is exposed indoors. The leaders of ACOEM put their imprimatur on the statement. The insurance industry and its surrogates have since brandished it like the biblical jawbone of an ass. The finding carries much weight within the courts as it is portrayed to be the opinion of thousands of environmental physicians.

But the EPA and the Institute of Medicine, Damp Indoor Spaces Committee, have both identified the technique used by ACOEM to make the key conclusion, as non-acceptable methodology for determining the existence or absence of human illness from indoor mold toxin exposure. The finding represents an affront to anyone with rudimentary logic skills. It is a complete non sequitur, where the premise does not support the conclusion.

Since the ACOEM mold paper’s publication in November of 2002, it has saved worker’s compensation insurers, property insurers, general liability insurers and building stakeholders, hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Insurance industry surrogates – the paid witnesses – including some ACOEM members themselves – and the lawyers, have earned millions in fees. Of more importance, the sick receive no medical treatment and no compensation for devastated lives and financial ruin.”

The reality is that there are many molds (fungi) that are very dangerous to our health, and can even cause death. This statement can easily be backed by real science and genuine experts who tell the truth and are not paid by corporations that force them to be biased.

This is why studies and are funded by corporations and researchers with their so-called expert testimony and research are most always biased. The reason is simple, they are paid by the very corporations who do not have the people’s best interest at heart and are only looking to save and make money by perpetuating the myth that mold is harmless and people who are sick from mold are crazy and or lying.

What you need to understand is that people such as doctors being paid by corporations to lie is nothing new. It has been going on for a long, long time.

There are studies, and many articles that prove that doctors will lie and commit fraud for money. Hell, doctors are arrested for lies and fraud all the time. Just because they have a Ph D and a white coat means nothing. After all, they are only human and can easily be corrupted.

Dr. Sayed Mohammed, a retired Oncologist, had once said, “Many of these unscrupulous Physicians are like businessmen without a conscience. The only difference is they have your health and trust in their hands–a very dangerous combination when money is involved.”

For example, this month in Australia, channel 9 news reported that a court in Brisbane, Australia, has found Parkinson’s researcher Caroline Barwood guilty of two charges of fraud and three counts of attempted fraud.

Barwood admitted during an investigation by her institution’s integrity unit to have “not even met a single patient” or seen any patient files, ethical clearance documents or patient consent forms in regards to a 2009 study about Parkinson’s disease. Between 2011 and 2013, Barwood and Murdoch applied for about $700,000 (AUD) from various organizations for the 2009 study, which never took place.

Barwood, who left the UQ in 2013, was also found to have passed off another researcher’s papers as her own while applying for grants, fellowships and travel funding.

Crown prosecutor Caroline Marco said that Barwood’s actions denied other researchers of much-needed funding as well as costing her university money, 9News reported. She also noted that her research also gave Parkinson’s patients false hopes.

A 2012 survey published in the journal Health Affairs had asked 1,891 physicians nationwide about how honest they are with their patients regarding medical mistakes and a patient’s prognosis.The survey found that although two-thirds of doctors agree they should share serious medical errors with their patients, one-third did not completely agree.

Approximately two-fifths of the respondents said they did not disclose their financial relationships with drug and device companies. About 20 percent say they have not fully disclosed a mistake to a patient because they were afraid of being sued, and more than 55% of physicians said they often or sometimes described a patient’s prognosis in a more positive manner than the facts might support. (CNN)

The researchers concluded, “Our findings raise concerns that some patients might not receive complete and accurate information from their physicians. Especially in the context of life-threatening illness, physicians might not tell patients the complete truth because of lack of training, time limitations, uncertainty about prognostic accuracy, family requests and feelings of inadequacy about their medical interventions.”

In September 2016, an article published in JAMA Internal Medicine, by Dr. Cristin Kearns at the University of California, San Francisco, had proved that two famous Harvard nutritionists in the 1960’s, Dr. Fredrick Stare and Mark Hegsted, who are now deceased, were paid to lie and had worked closely with a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation to influence public understanding of sugar’s role in disease.

Dr. Fredrick Stare and Mark Hegsted published two reviews in a top medical journal downplaying the role of sugar in coronary heart disease. 50 years later, Dr. Cristin Kearns discovered old dusty documents in the Harvard basement that proved the tow Harvard doctors lied and the sugar industry trade group initiated and paid for the studies, examined drafts, and laid out a clear objective to protect sugar’s reputation in the public eye.

The group paid the equivalent of $48,000 in 2016 dollars to Hegsted and colleague Dr. Robert McGandy, though the researchers never publicly disclosed that funding source, Kearns found.

Bill Nye the Science Guy had recently said, “There is also a general mistrust of science among civilians and leaders, and unfortunately shady science practices, such as the sugar industry buying off Harvard scientists to write negative studies focusing on fats while omitting research that would hurt the sugar industry, does a lot of damage to the public perception of scientific method. Those stories make it a little easier to believe scientists can be bought, and therefore that science as a whole can be doubted.”

A well-known cancer doctor from Michigan, Dr. Farid Fata, recently admitted in court one year ago to intentionally and wrongfully diagnosing healthy people with cancer in order to make money treating them. Fata also admitted to giving them chemotherapy drugs for the purpose of making a profit. He had a patient load of 1,200 people and received $62 million from Medicare; he billed for more than $150 million.

Fata pleaded guilty in 2014 to charges of health care fraud, conspiring to pay and receive kickbacks, and money laundering. On July 10, 2015; he was sentenced to 45 years in federal prison. had reported in 2014 that many prominent doctors and scientists that worked for prestigious universities such as Harvard and Columbia Universities were paid large sums of money by big pharmaceutical companies to warn the public against the use of marijuana. Of course, these pharmaceutical companies create man-made drugs that compete for money with the all natural plant, marijuana and they would lose billions of dollars if more people started using marijuana for their illnesses and or diseases. reports:

Dr. Herbert Kleber of Columbia University. Kleber has impeccable academic credentials, and has been quoted in the press and in academic publications warning against the use of marijuana, which he stresses may cause wide-ranging addiction and public health issues. But when he’s writing anti-pot opinion pieces for CBS News, or being quoted by NPR and CNBC, what’s left unsaid is that Kleber has served as a paid consultant to leading prescription drug companies, including Purdue Pharma (the maker of OxyContin), Reckitt Benckiser (the producer of a painkiller called Nurofen), and Alkermes (the producer of a powerful new opioid called Zohydro).

Dr. A. Eden Evins, an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, is a frequent critic of efforts to legalize marijuana. She is on the board of an anti-marijuana advocacy group, Project SAM, and has been quoted by leading media outlets criticizing the wave of new pot-related reforms. “When people can go to a ‘clinic’ or ‘cafe’ and buy pot, that creates the perception that it’s safe,” she told the Times last year.

Notably, when Evins participated in a commentary on marijuana legalization for the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, the publication found that her financial relationships required a disclosure statement, which noted that as of November 2012, she was a “consultant for Pfizer and DLA Piper and has received grant/research support from Envivo, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer.” Pfizer has moved aggressively into the $7.3 billion painkiller market. In 2011, the company acquired King Pharmaceuticals (the makers of several opioid products) and is currently working to introduce Remoxy, an OxyContin competitor.

Dr. Mark L. Kraus, who runs a private practice and is a board member to the American Society of Addiction Medicine, submitted testimony in 2012 in opposition to medical marijuana law in Connecticut. According to financial disclosures, Kraus served on the scientific advisory panel for painkiller companies such as Pfizer and Reckitt Benckiser in the year prior to his activism against the medical pot bill.


The facts are that people lie all the time and they can be very greedy. Especially when there is money involved. As this article proves, doctors and scientists are no different. The only difference is that when they lie, innocent people such as little children can be hurt or even die as a result of this fraudulent research.

Some of you may remember back in the 1950’s-1970’s when tobacco was marketed to the public, school-aged children, and even doctors smoked. Back then, the American Medical Association (AMA) said, “smoking in moderation, totally fine and on balance smoking’s probably beneficial.”

This was during a time when they had thousands of studies proving that smoking was dangerous to people’s health, and even deadly. They had decades of science showing that non-smokers [have a] 90% less lung cancer risk. Yet, everybody kept smoking. They ignorantly thought smoking was fine and even doctors were telling people to smoke. Hell, even the doctors were smoking themselves.

It took over 25 years and over 7,000 studies before finally in the 1960s when the first Surgeon General’s report warning people that smoking was dangerous. It wasn’t until the Surgeon General came out that people and the media started to understand that smoking was potentially deadly.

You would think that after the first 6,000 studies that The Powers That Be could give the public a little heads up about the dangers of tobacco. But no, it took over 25 years and 7,000 studies. Just imagine how many people died before the Surgeon General had warned the people?

Today, we are at a similar crossroads. But this time, it is with a tiny organism that is millions of years old and much more deadly than tobacco.

Mold is the new pink toxic elephant in the room that is wreaking havoc on people’s health and causing countless deaths. How many more people will have to die until the truth about mold is known to the public?


  1. Most sources in the article have links
  2. Sugar industry secretly paid for favorable Harvard research
  3. Leading Anti-Marijuana Academics Are Paid By Painkiller Drug Companies


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share This