Bryan D. Hardin
Coreen A. Robbins
Lonie J. Swenson
Abba I. Terr
Daniel T. Tranel
Blair King (Canada)
Norman King (Canada)
Ajit S. Arora
Jay M. Portnoy
Robert K. Bush
Tee L. Guidotti
David V. Jones
Robert A. Wood
Dwight R. Lee
Kelly G. Richardson
M. Eric Gershwin
and many other defense experts and defense attorneys
The naysayers claim that mold and mycotoxins
aren't harmful when inhaled. That is NOT true.
They have known about the inhalation health effects of mycotoxins
since at least 1985 and probably much earlier.
It’s amazing how our government officials, judges, medical organizations and allopathic physicians have turned their backs on the people who are ill and suffering just because of this handful of naysayer papers written by these bought-and-paid-for defense experts. Yet, they ignore the hundreds of research papers that discuss the health effects of exposure to mold and mycotoxins.
Check out the collection of Research Papers
on our website to learn more about the heath effects of mold, mycotoxins and other indoor air contaminants.
*Here are excerpts about Exponent from the book "Doubt is Their Product:"
From page 46 of the book:
As the product defense work has gotten more and more specialized, the makeup of the business has changed; generic public relations operations like Hill and Knowlton have been eclipsed by product defense firms, specialty boutiques run by scientists. Having cut their teeth manufacturing uncertainty for Big Tobacco, scientists at ChemRisk, the Weinberg Group, Exponent, Inc., and other consulting firms now battle the regulatory agencies on behalf of the manufacturers of benzene, beryllium, chromium, MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether), perchlorates, phthalates, and virtually every other toxic chemical in the news today. Their business model is straightforward. They profit by helping corporations minimize public health and environmental protection and fight claims of injury and illness. In field after field, year after year, this same handful of individuals and companies comes up again and again.
The range of their work is impressive. They have on their payrolls (or can bring in on a moment’s notice) toxicologists, epidemiologists, biostatisticians, risk assessors, and any other professionally trained, media-savvy experts deemed necessary. They and the larger, wealthier industries for which they work go through the motions we expect of the scientific enterprise, salting the literature with their questionable reports and studies. Nevertheless, it is all a charade. The work has one overriding motivation: advocacy for the sponsor’s position in civil court, the court of public opinion, and the regulatory arena. Often tailored to address issues that arise in litigation, they are more like legal pleadings than scientific papers. In the regulatory arena, the studies are useful not because they are good work that the regulatory agencies have to take seriously but because they clog the machinery and slow down the process.
From page 47 of the book:
Should the public lose all interest in its health, these product defense firms would be out of luck. Exponent, Inc., one of the premier firms in the product defense business, acknowledges as much in this filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission:
Public concern over health, safety and preservation of the environment has resulted in the enactment of a broad range of environmental and/or other laws and regulations by local, state and federal lawmakers and agencies. These laws and the implementing regulations affect nearly every industry, as well as the agencies of federal, state and local governments charged with their enforcement. To the extent changes in such laws, regulations and enforcement or other factors significantly reduce the exposures of manufacturers, owners, service providers and others to liability, the demand for our services may be significantly reduced.
Exponent, Inc., began its existence as an engineering firm, calling itself Failure Analysis Associates and specializing in assisting the auto industry in defending itself in lawsuits involving crashes.7 ‘‘Failure analysis’’ is a standard methodology for investigating the breakdown of a system or machine, but the firm must have realized that ‘‘Failure’’ in its name might not work well outside the engineering world and switched to the more palatable Exponent, Inc., when it went public in 1998.
Exponent’s scientists are prolific writers of scientific reports and papers. While some may exist, I have yet to see an Exponent study that does not support the conclusion needed by the corporation or trade association that is paying the bill.
From page 49 of the book:
When a study by consulting epidemiologists discovered a high rate of prostate cancer cases at a Syngenta plant that produced the pesticide atrazine,21 Exponent’s scientists produced a study that found no relationship between the chemical and the disease.
After numerous studies that linked pesticide exposure and Parkinson’s disease appeared in prestigious scientific journals, Exponent’s scientists produced a literature review for CropLife America, the trade association of pesticide producers, whose conclusion maintained that ‘‘the animal and epidemiologic data reviewed do not provide sufficient evidence to support a causal association between pesticide exposure and Parkinson’s disease.’’
Exponent specializes in literature reviews that draw negative conclusions. The company’s scientists have produced several reviews of the asbestos literature for use in litigation, all of which conclude that certain types of asbestos and certain types of asbestos exposure are far less dangerous than previously believed.
From page 137 of the book:
Brush needed a more convincing argument, and so it hired the product defense firm Exponent, Inc., which proceeded to do what it does best: manufacture uncertainty. Maybe different forms of beryllium do not pose the same health hazard. Maybe particle size is what is important. Maybe skin exposure is more significant than we thought. Whatever is going on with beryllium is very complicated, according to this line of reasoning, so we need defending the taxicab standard to do more research, more research, more research.
From page 181 of the book:
In regard to asbestos harming auto mechanics because of the asbestos in automobile brake pads....
Scientists at Exponent, Inc. and ChemRisk have flooded the scientific literature with analyses that conclude that auto mechanics who repair asbestos brake shoes are not exposed to much asbestos and when they are, the asbestos has been transformed into non-toxic material. These studies do not come cheaply; between 2001 and April 2006 these two firms alone billed approximately $23 million to General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler for their work.