By Stew Webb

I interviewed Dr. William Croft, DVM, PhD pathologist in Madison, Wisconsin the other day. He was granted a DVM or veterinary degree in 1970, and PhD in 1975 as a research pathologist. Dr. William Croft is a Consulting Scientist who specializes in environmental chemical poisonings with an emphasis on human and animal health problems relating to toxicology, anatomical pathology, carcinogenesis involving Trichothecene Mycotoxicosis (toxic mold), arsenic, asbestos, pesticides, and chronic wasting disease in humans and animals based on cellular changes.

 

Dr. Croft has been studying the cause and effect of highly poisonous chemicals concerning humans using animal models, and monitors the community concerning new developing diseases. He has been successful in identifying illness utilizing anatomic pathology for over 38 years, during which time the scientific community has requested assistance regarding 7,500 sick people and their physicians in successfully diagnosing toxic mold, arsenic, petroleum, asbestos, and Chronic Wasting Disease.

 

He has obtained over $900,000 in research funds from the NIH, EPA, and other agencies during 1980 and 1983 while he was an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin.  Dr. Croft studied many toxic chemicals that could cause cancer. He studied fibrous asbestos within dairy cattle and that clearly demonstrated that the dairy cattle developed mesothelioma after drinking asbestos in water. He also demonstrated that homes that were using contaminated asbestos water with 1.5 asbestos fibers per liter in the air were observed.

 

The normal homes were negative. Dr. Croft received a grant from the EPA to study mesotheliomas in dairy cattle. Today over 250,000 miles of asbestos cement pipe remain in the ground, or 1/3 of the United States drinks from asbestos contaminated water. This study took place in the early 1980’s. To replace one mile of a/c pipe with plastic or ductile iron will cost one million dollars per mile and does not cover the cost of mesothelioma or other health problems in humans.

 

He was placed in prison for one year for theft of human services, or misappropriation of funds, not by him but by the department chairman, especially when the cost of replacement of a/c pipe was 25 trillion.  The insurance company just needed a scape goat to blame, so Dr. Croft became court fodder. What happened to allow such behavior?

 

The early research work within the shipbuilders demonstrated that fibrous asbestos was causing mesothelioma.  Asbestos was used as insulation and represented a health hazard with exposure to asbestos fibers in the air.  Industry claimed that exposure to asbestos fibers in the water from asbestos cement pipe did not cause a health problem because it was not in the air, which was a false claim because asbestos fibers were found in the homes that were using the asbestos cement pipes.

 

Dr. Croft has also studied petroleum exposure in dairy animals from underground contaminated water wells, underground storage tanks and pipe line leakage causing poisoning and cancer in humans and animals.  The pathological effects of benzene and other solvents were recorded in dairy animals, large hog farming operations that were observed within contaminated water lagoons, buildings, and human exposure from working in contaminated environments.

 

Using anatomical pathology the expression of benzene and asbestos exposure in US military fighter jets, F16s, was also established in army personnel that developed mesothelioma and phenol poisoning resulting in death from gasoline exposure. Dr. Croft’s diagnosis is based on anatomical pathology and has been accepted by the Department of Defense. Dr. Croft has always tried to help the men and women in the armed services.  Phenol, a metabolite of benzene that has also been established in military human tissue, has also been demonstrated in his laboratory using gas chromatography.  Phenol is q very elusive vapor. In his studies Dr. Croft clearly demonstrated that the EPA 8020 method of determining phenol in water is 40,000 times off, so it would not detect poisonous phenol  levels saving the petroleum industry large amounts of money in insurance settlements.

 

Dr. Croft has also been involved in demonstrating the poisoning effects of arsenic, chromium and copper.  These metals were exposed to humans in ashes as dust and from improper release of wet wood vapors (treated wood used on outdoor decks) allowing humans to become intoxicated, which caused severe acute and chronic health effects. No warning labels were placed on this treated wood that allowed for the exposure to such toxic and carcinogenic products.

 

Dr. Croft and his team have studied toxic mold for over 31 years and he is regarded as a world expert in the “Trichothecene Mycotoxins”. These toxic fungi produce the most poisonous neurotoxin in the world today.  This neurotoxin was identified in the 1940’s in southern Russia when the snow came early and did not allow the grain to be harvested. This event resulted in the death of over 250,000 people and the acceptance by the third countries as a poison with great magnitude. The mycotoxin shuts down the cellular factory so repair, maintenance or reproduction of cells cannot occur.  Ingestion of the mycotoxin results in bleeding to death through the skin.  Inhalation of the mycotoxin will cause the loss of intestinal mucosa and result in death from starvation.

 

In homes where this mycotoxin is generated results in the home being filled with this poison via gas chamber effect.  The mycotoxin is cumulative in its health effects and over time will cause the organs to shut down leading to the demise of the person.

 

 

 

Trichothecene Mycotoxin is the most poisonous neurotoxin in the world today.

 

The Defense Department has reported that Trichothecene Mycotoxins are used as a war weapon today. The publication of “Airborne Outbreak of Trichothecene Toxicosis, Atmospheric Environment 20:549-552, l986” was the first publication in the North American Continent by Dr. Croft.  This Scientific publication has been referenced by other scientists over 218 times, which establishes Dr. Croft as a World Expert and indicates acceptance of the data by other scientific investigators.

 

The publication of this paper by Dr. Croft and other scientists led to the “sick building syndrome” which put the insurance industry into a panic mode.  A jury awarded a family in Texas $32 million for their human health damage. The insurance industry proceeded to totally deny the sick building syndrome and this highly poisonous mycotoxin as a cause of human disease or poisoning.  The American Medical Association does not recognize Trichothecene Mycotoxicosis as a disease and it is not taught in medical schools across the country.  Therefore, when people are sick and seek out their doctor to help them determine the cause, they are told that they do not know what it may be, or suggest they seek the help of a psychiatrist.  People will be persistent and seek other doctors with little help.  Today the mycotoxins are infecting 50-55% of the population.

 

The presence of this mycotoxin in a family represents a public health emergency and may even can be called a “breach of national security”.

 

 

 

Urine sample demonstrating high levels of Trichothecene Mycotoxins. Please note the dark surface of mycotoxins and the protein on the bottom of jar.

 

Dr. Croft’s team developed a Urine Assay to detect Trichothecene Mycotoxins in the urine of humans and animals that have been exposed to these mycotoxins.  (This method has been patented: U.S. Patent No. 6,703,244—Method for Confirming the Presence of Trichothecene Mycotoxicosis in humans).  In 2003, the National Academy of Press recognized this Urine Assay as the only biomarker in existence at the time for the detection of mycotoxins in humans.  The test correlates the concentrations of the Trichothecene Mycotoxins to the various stages of the disease found in the respective human patient.

 

The Urine Assay is still being used as a great research tool to study toxic mold, and recently has shown a way to establish what is called “Connective Diagnosis” based on the observation of the finger print of mycotoxins found in the ambient environment and in the clothing worn by humans. The fungi growing organism in the ambient environment will generate mycotoxins as a vapor and cause depression of the immune system and display a mycotoxin fingerprint. The inhaled fungal spores shed the outer coat and then generate a yeast coat that invades the body and settles within the small arteries.  Extracting the urine of infected person will display the same fingerprint of the outer fungi within the building.

 

Because Trichothecene Mycotoxins have been used as a biological weapon, the U.S. Department of Defense awarded a grant to Dr. Bruce Jarvis, and his colleague Dr Croft, to study the pathological fingerprint to establish the diagnosis of toxic mold.  The U.S. Army now recommends the use of such urine tests to determine the exposure of humans to Trichothecene Mycotoxins (as noted in the Field Manual Treatment of Biological Warfare Agents Casualties).  The reliability of the urine test was validated in the study conducted by W.J. Rea, et al.: Effects of Toxic Exposure to Molds and Mycotoxins in Building—Related Illnesses, Archives of Environmental Health Vol. 58.)  This urine assay is the only determination of the 180 Trichothecene Mycotoxins and the amount expressed in mg amounts on strong scientific basis. Other urine assays are qualitative but do not measure quantities in the sample and are not accepted by the FDA.

 

Dr. Croft and his team have conducted research of toxic mold in humans and animals. He has developed a method to detect the Trichothecene Mycotoxins within urine. 

 

He has developed an animal model to study the direct effects of this Trichothecene Mycotoxins development a pathological finger print to study the histological effect in humans. He has developed the lethal exposure in people at 500 parts per billion per kilogram for adults and 0.500 parts per billion per kilogram.  Dr. Croft has studied the mechanism of action of this mycotoxin in humans and animal as to the method oF exposure. If the person is exposed to the Trichothecene Mycotoxin via ingestion or within the food, the person will die from bleeding from the skin or small arteries within the body.  If a person inhales the Trichothecene Mycotoxins, the person will have the mucosa slough off the intestine and the person will starve to death.

 

Dr. Croft has put together the pathology concerning man of how these mycotoxins affect the tissue in each organ.  Dr. Croft has also studied the toxic effect of the Trichothecene Mycotoxin with regards to how it attacks the human body, attacking the cellular body.  The epoxide binds to the endoplasmic reticulum (cellular factory) and shuts it down.

 

Dr. Croft also has studied the effects of chlorine on the 9-10 unsaturated bond to form a molecule similar to chlordane, in molecular action to a cause brain tumors. Dr. Croft also knows how to neutralize this war weapon with no effects to the human.

 

 

 

(Young baby in ammonia bath to neutralize the Trichothecene Mycotoxins very safe for the child as shown by her mother resulting from Dr. Croft’s Research)

 

Mother was a US Marine Corps Sergeant.

 

Dr. Croft’s research is discovering more information about this war weapon and getting people to understand this disease.  The insurance industry is attempting to shut the door on this disease, so they will not have to pay claims concerning toxic mold.

 

Attorney Kim M. Kluck from the Department of Safety and Professional Services, which is a service for medical doctors to keep them in order, claimed that Dr. Croft was practicing medicine.  Ms. Kluck stated “It just sounds like he is practicing medicine as a pathologist.”  Ms. Kluck came from American Family Insurance Company in Madison, WI and is now working in the Department of Safety and Professional Services, so the action concerning Dr. Croft is coming from the insurance industry again.

 

Dr. Croft attempted to explain that he was a scientist and not a medical doctor and people came to him for help with their illness because their doctor had no idea of what they were suffering from. A hearing was scheduled and the finding of the judge was that he was practicing medicine.  Ms. Kluck used the rules related to the medical society, not the federal rules regarding a scientist.  She used the wrong playbook and he had no chance of winning that hearing because the cards were stacked against him. In any event, the result of the hearing was that Dr. Croft was practicing medicine and then he applied for another hearing.  Ms Kluck did not recognize the fact that Dr. Croft had a PhD in pathology, which is required to do research on human disease.

 

Dr. Croft requests a new hearing based on the following:

 

1. A.    Exception of Practicing Medicine Pursuant to 448.03(2)(k)
   1. After reviewing the referenced statutes, an exception is provided that is applicable to Dr. Croft pursuant to 448.03(2)(k) that is applicable to any persons, other than physician assistants or perfusionists, who assist physicians.  This exemption removes Dr. Croft from practicing medicine that was not accepted by the ALJ (judge) decision.
   2. Dr. Croft has not practiced medicine as a medical professional but has assisted licensed physicians by providing research data and reports as requested by the physician.  Conclusions, diagnoses and treatment that their patients receive are determined by the physician.  The physicians receiving the information use the report at their discretion, with no force or coercion from Dr. Croft. Since physicians are prohibited from doing animal research and research directly on humans, they have no other way to obtain such information other than through research studies, of which Dr. Croft is a Research Scientist (Pathologist) and therefore, they ask for his assistance.  Dr Croft feels that when assisting physicians, he has a fiduciary duty to maintain the highest ethical and moral standards in providing the information on a scientific basis to the physician.  In providing information, Dr. Croft has never harmed any patient in releasing this data to a physician. It is the physician’s responsibility to the patient as to the diagnosis and treatment and as to whether they accept Dr. Croft’s science and scientific diagnosis.
   3. Dr. Croft generated a scientific report concerning the cause and effect relationship to Dr. Sprouse, medical doctor that requested Dr. Croft assist her by providing his research that he has conducted over the last 29 years after Dr. Sprouse learned of Dr. Croft while attending international meetings. PL 107-188, sec. 123 grants Dr. Croft full access to the human tissue. No laws were found involving these specimens requiring Dr. Croft to be licensed as a medical pathologist, for Dr. Croft is a Research Scientist not a Medical Doctor. Examination of biopsy specimens are allowed during the cause and effect to transfer the animal’s data to the human data so advancement of human disease can be accomplished, which Dr. Croft has reported many times at international meetings and as publications in the scientific literature.

 

4.      In the conclusions, AlJ found that Dr. Croft’s ability to give expert testimony at trial does not permit him to engage in the practice of medicine. PL 107-188, sec. 123, inhibits the direct study of toxic agents in humans,   therefore, animals must be used.  These studies are carried out in animal species applicable to the human enzyme composition and are demonstrated within the animal tissue.  The biopsy of human specimens are allowed to compare the animal to human when that type of exposure happens in humans.  This process occurs on a scientific basis, process and procedure.  This scientific data is reported, in report form for study for the scientific community to observe and give to the medical world for them to assist their patients if they so desire.

 

When Dr. Croft does a study on a scientific basis, he does the study that would apply to a scientific protocol that all actions would be accepted by the court and the scientific community. 

 

Dr. Croft works in the scientific community not the medical community, but has the exception of 448.03(2)(k), assisting medical doctors, that removes the accusation of practicing without a license.  Federal law 107-188, sec. 123 also allows Dr. Croft to evaluate to transfer the cause and effect observation from animal tissue to the human tissue, which is not practicing medicine. The Scientific method is clearly demonstrated by his description of the biopsy and the autopsy tissue that was described and presented.  Henry C. Pitot, M.D., Ph.D. Professor of Oncology and of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine testified that in his opinion Dr. William A. Croft is a pathologist qualified to diagnosis and study the pathology of human tissues. Respondent’s Affidavit, page 2.

 

1. B.    The state did not prove their case that Dr. Croft was practicing medicine.
   1. Petitioner’s experts were not qualified to render opinions that Dr. Croft’s actions constituted the practice of medicine.
   2. There is a peer review process among scientists and any scientist can review and comment on Dr. Croft’s findings.  If parties are in disagreement of the scientist data, research must be done to confirm or disagree with the data. Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Eastman and medical doctors are prohibited from doing research on humans PL 107-188, sec. 123, and cannot perform research on animals for they require a DVM, and therefore, they are not qualified to render Dr. Croft’s studies invalid.  The exception pursuant to 448.03(2)(k) allows Dr. Croft to assist physicians by providing scientific research.  The acceptance of his research by the physician is up to the physician.  Whether or not Drs. Mitchell and Eastman accept or disagree with Dr. Croft’s scientific research is for the individual doctors to determine.  However, the fact that Drs. Mitchell and Eastman are not in agreement with Dr. Croft’s scientific research does not mean that they have the final determination as to whether or not Dr. Croft’s science is valid.
   3. Dr. Mitchell’s medical education in clinical pathology National Board of Medical Examiners test was required for licensure.  Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Eastman are not medical doctors and require licensing to allow them to practice medicine. Their function is to help deal with ill humans on a clinical level, not conduct research, for they are not trained in scientific methods and do not qualify as Research Scientists for they do not have a Ph.D.
   4. Drs. Mitchell and Eastman are not board certified in toxic mold because it is not accepted by the medical society, not taught in medical school, and they have no knowledge of the mycotoxins as they have admitted. (T. Page 80, 20-23,  T. Page 119- line 2-20).  Dr. Croft is an anatomic pathologist as a Research Scientist that studies human and animal disease and has spent five years in graduate school obtaining the tools to study human and animal disease.  Board certification does not grant the doctors information on the same level of understanding as the PhD, making Dr. Croft a highly schooled and accepted scientist around the world.  Dr. Croft has conducted numerous animal studies and correlated with human disease as allowed in the federal law PL 107-188, sec. 123. Dr. Croft has published over 30 research papers on toxic chemicals. Dr. Croft has published the first reporting on toxic mold in the North American continent, cited in the scientific literature 206 times indicating acceptance of the data. Dr. Croft has published many other scientific papers on toxic mold.
   5. Drs. Eastman and Mitchell testified “examining into the fact, cause or conditions of human health or disease.” And accumulating clinical history, looking at the gross appearance of surgical specimens, preparing microscopic descriptions and offering a scientific diagnosis is standard scientific protocol as medical doctors does not mean they are practicing medicine.  When examining the pathological reports by Dr. Croft a complete anatomical description of what the biopsy represented based on the study of cause and effect relationship represents scientific protocol.  MD pathologists have no basis to describe the tissue they observe, so they usually use one word to render their diagnosis, not a scientific diagnosis based on scientific data.
   6. Again, based on rule 702, these doctors were not qualified to testify regarding Dr. Croft scientific data: 1. They were not scientists nor qualified to evaluate the scientific data in these reports, 2. They had no pathological knowledge of the illness that they were testifying to on a scientific basis, 3. They had no scientific principles that they expressed in this study, for they are not scientists, but expressing medical falsities, 4.  They falsely concluded that the words reported in the three reports involving using pathological examination of fluid and tissue was the result of medical observation, when in fact was data based on the scientific process, 5. the data presented was the result of cause and effect study in animal and human correlation data , 6. It is unethical for Drs Eastman and Mitchell to render an opinion concerning such a study as reported Pl 107-188, sec.123. Drs. Eastman and Mitchell are not qualified to testify reqarding scientific data generated by Dr. Croft.  Dr. Croft has shown that the medical doctors are not qualified to testify regarding scientific data, and were prohibited by law from doing so. In rule 104 it is clear that the predominance of the evidence demonstrates that they are not qualified to testify.
   7. This autopsy case was completed, the dissection was by a medical pathologist , but the family wanted a second opinion because,“The pathologist reported that there was essentially no remarkable pathology reported in the deceased”.  According to the family, the deceased was exposed to chemical poisons within his contaminated environment. Therefore, the family requested Dr. Croft to review the autopsy tissue  because of his scientific expertise concerning chemical poisons because this death could represent a possible public health emergency for his son Tom who was very sick during this time. The review of tissues was based on animal pathology related to the cause and effect relationship, which is the normal course of study as a scientist. Dr. Croft completed 25 human autopsies as a requirement in graduate school, teaching Dr. Croft how to review human disease on a pathological basis.  Dr. Croft did not do any dissections concerning autopsies since that time.  Dr. Croft has reviewed 14 cases concerned with Toxic Mold over the last 29 years of study. Reviewing autopsy tissue is a primary method by which scientists obtain information on human disease.
   8. In contrast to Dr. Croft, Drs. Erik Mitchell and James Eastman are not experts per se concerning Trichothecene Mycotoxins at their own admission when they testified that they had no knowledge concerning these mycotoxins.  Drs. Mitchell and Eastman even admitted that they did not have any pathological or experimental experience working with mycotoxins (T. Page 80, 20-23,  T. Page 119- line 2-20).  Therefore, it can be concluded that Drs. Mitchell and Eastman are not qualified to testify under rule 702 and 104 since their testimony was not (1) based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) is not the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witnesses did not apply the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. It is unethical for Drs Eastman and Mitchell to render an opinion concerning direct research in humans as reported Pl 107-188, sec.123.  This process itself clearly demonstrated that there was no medical practice performed by Dr. Croft based on in the fact the medical doctors were not qualified to testify regarding scientist data, and were inhibited by law in doing so. Dr. Croft does have the proper creditionals to function as a Research Scientist.
   9. Therefore Dr. Croft was not practicing medicine as first determined by the ALJ.  The interpretation of the data by ALJ is in error and Dr. Croft’s objection should be accepted, for Dr. Croft was not practicing medicine.

 

                                                Conclusion

 

1. 1.     An exception is provided pursuant to 448.03(2)(k) that is applicable to any persons, other than physician assistants or perfusionists, who assist physicians.. 448.01(9)(a), and (d) provided a pertinent part of the practice of medicine excluding the flowing activities of the practice of medicine and were not applicable to Dr. Croft.
2. Dr. Croft is a research pathologist, the highest position of study in the human world and is allowed to do direct research in animals and then determine the cause and effect relationship in human tissue by observing the skin biopsy tissue. This is not considered practicing medicine because this is a scientific process, not a medical process. Direct exposure is unethical to be tested in humans and requires an animal study to complete the safety procedure for humans. PL107-188, sec. 123.
3. It is unethical for Drs. Eastman and Mitchell to render an opinion concerning direct research in humans as reported Pl 107-188, sec.123.  This process itself clearly demonstrated that there was no medical practice performed by Dr. Croft based on in the fact the medical doctors were not qualified to testify regarding a scientist data, and were inhibited by law by doing so. Dr. Croft does have the proper creditionals to function as a Research Scientist.
4. Based on rule 702 and rule 104, these doctors were not qualified to testify regarding Dr. Croft’s scientific data.
5. Based on the above data Dr. Croft was not practicing medicine, has done nothing wrong and should be free to function as a research pathologist

 

Then Ms. Kluck reported Dr. Croft to the United States Attorney to put added pressure on Dr. Croft.  Dr. Croft wrote a letter to the US attorney in response to Ms. Kluck accusations.

 

June 20, 2013

 

PETER M. JAROSZ

 

Assistant U.S. Attorney

 

Suite 303, City Station

 

Madison, Wisconsin 53703-4703

 

Dear Peter Jarosz:

 

Under the umbrella regarding human health there are two communities, Research and the Medical.  In the research community we work under federal law that requires one to have a Ph.D. as a scientist in pathology because all disease has a histological diagnostic fingerprint identifying the poison or the causative agent. Direct research on humans is unethical so the research must be initiated in animals to identify the diagnostic fingerprint using that data to establish safety.  Additional information is accomplished in the human and animal to understand the causative agent.  The data is collected on a scientific basis and then is published in the appropriate journals. I do have the credentials to study human disease. Since animals are used a veterinarian is required to determine which animal model is the best to use for the study. I completed all the required course work including completing 25 autopsies complied in a report as to cause of death and the histological changes identified for graduate school.  I was granted a PhD in Pathology from the Medical school University of Wisconsin in 1975.  Since that time I have conducted numerous animal studies to determine safety of human exposure.

 

FEDERAL AUTHORITY

 

By the authority granted under Public Law 107-188-June 12, 2002, TITLE 42—PUBLIC HEALTH Sec. 85a.7: Imminent dangers, Title 21, Chapter 1, Part 2, sec. 2.5, Imminent hazard to the Public Health.  

 

The Office of Public Health Preparedness directs HHS Operating and Staff Division implementation of a comprehensive HHS strategy to protect the civilian population from acts of bioterrorism and other public health emergencies.  The OPHP will work with the OPDIVS and STAFFDIVs to ensure the adequacy of HHA strategy for preparing, preventing, responding to, and recovering from acts of bioterrorism and other public health emergencies.  

 

 

SCOPE

 

Congress clearly authorizes that Research Pathologists are qualified to determine Efficacy, Safety of New Drug and Biological Drug Products, and issue a final diagnosis in human disease, and has the final rule or decision. To promulgate the rule or put the law into formal public announcement, In Public Law 107-188, 2002 is observed.

 

“(B) …prioritizing counter measures required to treat, prevent, or identify exposure to a biological agent or toxin pursuant to section 351A:

 

“(C)… facilitation of the awarding of grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements for the development, manufacture, distribution, supply-chain management, and purchase of priority countermeasures;

 

SEC.123 Issuance of Rule on Animal Trials:

 

Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall complete the process of rulemaking that was commenced under authority of section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and section 351 of the Public Health Service act with the issuance of the proposed rule entitled “New Drug and Biological Drug Products, Evidence Needed to Demonstrate Efficacy of New Drugs for Use Against Lethal or Permanently Disabling Toxic Substances When Efficacy Studies in Humans Ethically Cannot be Conducted” published in the Federal Register on October 5, 1999 (64 Fed. Reg. 53960), and shall promulgate a final rule.

 

Using the correct animal model, comparing the pathology observed in humans and animals, the cause-and-effect can be and must be studied on a scientific basis.  We study diseases that are caused by toxic chemicals to determine mechanism of action, metabolism, and whether they are direct acting or if they need metabolic activation to affect the tissue cells.  We study different routes of exposure, i.e., inhalation, dermal exposure and ingestion of substances causing disease.  We study if other influencing toxic chemicals increase the toxicity of these substances.  We study the scientific literature to understand other scientific information on other human exposure by other scientists. We complete autopsies and obtain biopsies to determine the terminal stages of death in an attempt to understand the pathogenesis of the disease.  Human tissues and specimens from ill people are taken and compared to animal specimens to establish scientific data concerning a human disease.  This process is consistent with normal research or scientific methods used by a research pathologist in the scientific community.

 

The Medical community’s main function is to help as many people as they can with what information they have.  They are not scientists and cannot conduct cause and effect relation studies in every case.

 

It is unethical for anyone from the medical community to interfere or dictate behavior to the scientist from the scientific community on how to conduct scientific research or his interest concerning human disease especially a bioterrorist’s mycotoxins.  People within the medical community are not scientists and are not aware of protocols within the scientist community. This includes anyone working within the medical community, including doctors, med techs and including attorneys who do not understand the process.

 

If someone disagrees with the scientific data then they must generate a scientific study to establish their point and then discussed between the parties.

 

Forcing a scientist to conform to statute 42 USC. 263a(b), which pertains to the medicine clinical operation concerning the medical community is unethical.  Because the scientific community uses a process that is much more accurate based on science, why would they go back to an archaic method. This is a good example of interference by the medical community. The medical society is using medical laws to falsely charge the scientific community.  The scientific community uses animals and a research pathologist to determine the cause and effect, and the method is many times more accurate to determine cause and effect. Congress put into law 42 USC 263a(b) to strengthen the work completed by the personnel working in the medical community.  You phoned me and stated “that all were included”, which meant all those in the medical field, not the scientific community for the scientific community already had much more accurate procedures backed by federal laws.  This type of behavior by the medical community is totally unethical.  I work in the scientific community, why am I being dragged back into the medical community? I believe it is to interfere with the research that I am conducting, especially to toxic Trichothecene Mycotoxins.  I must be doing something significant othe wise Ms. Kluck would not be interested in me.

 

We have been asked by the U.S.Department of Defense to conduct research on Trichothecene Mycotoxins.  We have received a small grant and in response have put together “The Pathology of Trichothecene Mycotoxins at Autopsy.” This scientific data is important, for these mycotoxins which are the most poisonous neurotoxins on the planet, and are considered a bioterrorist agent.

 

This process of scientific study of human disease has not changed at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, where I trained as a research pathologist.  I was on the facility and obtained over $900,000 in research funds to conduct scientific studies.

 

“(C)…facilitation of the awarding of grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements for the development, manufacture, distribution, supply-chain management, and purchase of priority countermeasures;

 

(b) Use of Animal Trials.—A drug for which approval is sought under section 505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act on the basis of evidence of effectiveness that is derived from animal studies pursuant to section 123 may be designated as a fast track product for purposes of this section. 

 

Also, please note, we obtain our authority to work as a scientific Research Pathologist from federal law as stated above to observe and study human tissue and disease working in the scientific community. The medical community does not have the ability to study human disease directly, cannot study human disease using animals, and they are not scientists. Introduction of medical processes would be considered interference by the scientific community and is unethical.  What determines a laboratory as research or clinical is just another case of interference from the medical community.

 

Congress has clearly authorizes that Research Pathologists are qualified to determine Efficacy, Safety of New Drug and Biological Drug Products, and issue a final diagnosis in human disease, and has the final rule or decision. To promulgate the rule or put the law into formal public announcement, In Public Law 107-188, 2002 is observed.

 

Therefore, I will remain a Scientific Pathologist and study human and animal disease as I have over the last 35 years. I am asking the medical profession to stop their action against me.

 

Dr. Croft did not hear anything from the state or federal government for seven months, then in mid February the veterinary board was going to do disciplinary proceedings against him.  Dr. Croft asked for 30 more days to get legal opinions  before the State of Wisconsin suspended his veterinary license, and requiring him to pay for their investigation, a sum of $850.00, to be paid in a specific time.

 

On May 14, 2012, the administrative law judge issued a special order stating that Dr. Croft was not supposed to become involved in any manner with people concerning their illness.  On or about October 2012, Dr. Croft was contacted by a Worker involving a Workman’s Compensation case to help establish his case in court. Dr. Croft visited the Worker and observed the home and the occupants within. The worker’s grandchild was severally poisoned with Trichothecene Mycotoxins as he demonstrated severe autism and brain illness.  At this time in my mind this family became a public health emergency.  The worker provided a urine sample and pathology slides for Dr. Croft to examine to confirm the diagnosis and the cause of the illness.  The case for the worker was settled out of court and the man wanted his money returned for testifying in court.  It appears Dr. Croft was set up, but he was concerned about his grandson that was severely poisoned with the mycotoxins that he brought home on his clothing via cross-contamination.  When children are exposed to Trichothecene Mycotoxin they only survive 10 years and about 3-4 years have already passed.

 

Under federal law Congress clearly authorizes that Research Pathologists, are qualified to determine Efficacy, Safety of New Drug and Biological Drug Products, and issue a final diagnosis in human disease, and has the final rule or decision. To promulgate the rule or put the law into formal public announcement, In Public Law 107-188, 2002 is observed.

 

“(B) …prioritizing counter measures required to treat, prevent, or identify exposure to a biological agent or toxin pursuant to section 351A”.  Remember at this point the medical society has not even accepted the toxic mold as an illness and does not even teach doctors in medical school about the poisoning. 

 

In any event Dr. Croft’s Veterinary license is suspended indefinitely. Where does he go from here?  He never thought he would ever be destroyed by terrorists in the United States of America. He never thought that the insurance companies would be pushing and assisting the terrorists. That is why one should read the book that my editor and I wrote to inform the public about the disguised disease. They tell how single handedly the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance dealt with terrorists in generating disease that draws attention from the real cause. As a pathologist Dr. Croft uncovered the real cause of these diseases that would not have been uncovered without a highly skilled pathologist.  You can order the book called “Operation Synapse” on Dr. Croft’s website, www.williamcroft.com.

 

I Stew Webb highly recommend the book and you will be glad you did get it.  These scientists are attempting to inform the people and the United States as to what is happening in the world.

 

Hardback, Soft Cover or Electronic Download Special $3.99

 

Dr. William Croft’s website buy his book:

Your kind and generous contributions are much appreciated and needed, Please copy and paste the link below into your browser to contribute today thank you Stew Webb.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/SWebb822

Contributions by mail:

Stew Webb

federalwhistleblower@gmail.com

12820 SW K-4 HWY #B

Topeka, Kansas 66601-9749

Phone: 785-213-0160