I have some questions about what the ACAAI is doing.

[Guest guest]

I have some questions about what the ACAAI is doing:

Existence of toxic mold syndrome questioned

Fri Oct 14, 2005 8:35 PM BST

By Will Boggs, MD

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Mold and dampness can cause

coughing and wheezing, but there is little evidence to

support the existence of the so-called toxic mold syndrome,

according to a report by researchers at the Oregon Health

Sciences University in Portland.

1. The Oregon Health guy is Dr. Bardana - Bardana is an

allergist. How is he qualified to comment on toxic mold

syndrome (mycotoxicoses)? This a poisoning. Not an allergy.

Toxic mold syndrome -- illnesses caused specifically by

exposure to mold -- continues to cause public concern

despite a lack of evidence that supports its existence,

researchers explain in the September issue of the ls of

Allergy, Asthma & Immunology.

2. Isn't the above an incorect statement? TMS is not

caused " specifically by exposure to mold " . It is caused by

exposure to toxins that some molds produce. If one is not

able to understand and report on the difference, are they qualified to

comment on toxic effects?

Several critical reviews have failed to find scientific

support for toxic effects from breathing in mold spores as a

viable mechanism of human disease, they add.

3. What causes blastomycoses, crytocoximycoses,

hystoplasmosis, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis?

Dr. Barzin Khalili and Dr. Emil J. Bardana, Jr. describe

the clinical characteristics of 50 patients with complaints

of illness they attributed to mold exposure in their home

or workplace. The patients had been referred by a defense

attorney in a civil litigation or by insurance adjusters

representing worker's compensation agencies.

4. Could there be any bias in these evaluations by

physicians retained by representatives of the defendants in

the litigation? What did the report by the plantiff's treating physician

say?

There was no consistent set of symptoms, the authors

report, with patients having an average of more than eight

symptoms. Most patients reported a family or personal

history of allergy or asthma.

5. If people are reporting a history of allergy or asthma,

wouldn't these be the same people who are being warned that

they are most susceptible to illness from mold exposure?

Three quarters of the patients had abnormal physical

examination results, the researchers note, with

inflammation of the eye or skin and congestion occurring

most commonly.

6. So 37 people showed symptoms, even from an examination by

physicians hired by the defense. What did the exam by the

plantiff physicians show? What is an " abnormal physical exam " ?

What about the other 13 of the 50 that were evaluated?

Thirty patients had other non-mold-related illnesses that

could explain most, if not all, of their mold-related

complaints, the report indicates, and nearly two thirds of

the individuals had evidence of a previously diagnosed mood

disorder.

7. 30 people were apparently already somewhat immunocompromised in

some form and degree of severity. Aren't those who already have weakened

immune systems most vunerable to mold induced illnesses? What is the

explanation

for the other 20?

" In fact, " the investigators write, " when the entire

history and objective evidence were scrutinized, a number

of well-established and plausible diagnoses emerged that

explained many, if not all, the complaints. "

8. Explained " many if not all " . Does that mean even this

report that only looked at 50 cases that went to court (easy ones settle, so

bias is already there) could not explain all? Does this also mean that these

illnesses could be ruled out as caused by mold/toxins or that

many of the symptoms of 30 out of 50 (or 60%) could possibly

be explained by something else in addition to mold and toxins?

Am I reading this right? 100% of the illnesses could not be ruled out as

caused by mold exposure, but 60% of those could possibly have another

explanation?

In a commentary in the journal, Dr. Abba I. Terr from UCSF

Medical Center, San Francisco contends that toxic mold

disease is " the latest in a series of environmentally

related pseudo-illnesses " that include multiple chemical

sensitivity, also known as idiopathic environmental

intolerance, and chronic fatigue syndrome, which was

attributed at one time to infection with Epstein-Barr virus.

9. Dr. Abba Terr is also and allergist. What are his

qualifications to make psychological evaluations? What are

his qualifications to rule out the effects of toxins as a

cause of illness? How would one explain all the peer

reviewed current scientific evidence from major university

studies that indicate a strong corrilation between mold/toxin

exposure and the illnesses thousands of people are

complaining of? Are all these researchers and average citizens just liars

and whiners out to get money from the insurance industry?

" Since these authors have determined that the patients they

describe do not have a mold-related disease but are

nevertheless seeking compensation for presumed illness

through a legal process that has defined it in those terms,

toxic mold disease is truly a diagnosis of litigation, "

Terr concludes.

10. These researcher did not establish people don't have mold-related

disease. There merely established in some cases, other explanations were

possible.

I would have to partially agree with this statement though. These allergists

are truly writing about a diagnosis of

litigation.

What this report does not say is that allergist Bardana is a

prolific expert witness in mold litigation, is President of

the ACAAI and that and ls of Allergy Asthma and

Immunology is the official publication of the ACAAI. Terr is

also an allergist member of the ACAAI. As is allergist

Marshall who has a grant from Ole Miss to study

the " psychological impacts " of stress from Katrina on mold victims. Gee,

wonder what the conclusions will be?

To me, this garbledy goop is just further evidence that the contention in our

courtrooms stifles the medical understanding, which makes it harder for

people to find proper medical care, which increases their damages, which adds

to

the contention in the courtroom, which stifles the medical understanding,

which.....

Because of the way the medical community is currently operating, this is a

never ending vicious circle. Mold litigation is going to be around for a long

time. And people's lives are going to be unnecessarily devastated.

Sharon