Guest guest Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 I agree. Unfortunately, the MCS groups simply don't see it that way and Grace Ziem, Dr Thrasher, and an amazing number of other people simply could not see the mycotoxin connection. /message/21286 As late as 2004, people in this very group were still blazing into me for claiming that mycotoxins are chemicals and that mold reactivity is a form of MCS, as you can see in msg. 20379, 20466 and 34386. As I've said in so many ways, what can you do when you speak the words and people refuse to listen? And even get ANGRY at you for saying them? All I did was tell it straight! - Murtaugh wrote: > The article below is what we all know to be true. When it states that the body is overwhelmed and not able to rid itself of chemicals.......sounds eerily like Dr. Shoemaker's Biotoxin Pathway where the body can't get rid of the toxins. > > http://powershowz.medicalillustration.com/healthtopics.php? & A=63136 & I=1102 & article=13512 > > For sufferers of multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) syndrome, even fleeting contact with cleaning products, pesticides, car exhaust and other inescapable substances in the modern world sets off a series of symptoms that mystify most medical experts. > " It's a controversial medical disease, " says victim , executive director of the Chemical Injury Information Network, an MCS support organization based in White Sulphur Springs, Montana. She estimates more than 10 million chemically-sensitive people live in the United States. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 I don't think you can generalize MCS groups or moldy groups. I am a person that is ill from mold and now have a chemical sensitivity or reactive airways and chronic yeast, etc. I don't think everyone that has MCS is ill from mold. We were damaged in different ways. And then we have to try to explain mold and the chemicals to everyone. > > The article below is what we all know to be true. When it states > that the body is overwhelmed and not able to rid itself of > chemicals.......sounds eerily like Dr. Shoemaker's Biotoxin Pathway > where the body can't get rid of the toxins. > > > > http://powershowz.medicalillustration.com/healthtopics.php? > & A=63136 & I=1102 & article=13512 > > > > > For sufferers of multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) syndrome, > even fleeting contact with cleaning products, pesticides, car > exhaust and other inescapable substances in the modern world sets > off a series of symptoms that mystify most medical experts. > > " It's a controversial medical disease, " says victim > , executive director of the Chemical Injury Information > Network, an MCS support organization based in White Sulphur Springs, > Montana. She estimates more than 10 million chemically-sensitive > people live in the United States. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 I became chemically sensitive over time directly from exposure to the mold in my home. I had no chemical sensitivities previously, and also believed in an organic lifestlye, so I know I had no exposure to chemicals to cause this. > > The article below is what we all know to be true. When it states > that the body is overwhelmed and not able to rid itself of > chemicals.......sounds eerily like Dr. Shoemaker's Biotoxin Pathway > where the body can't get rid of the toxins. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 > I don't think you can generalize MCS groups or moldy groups. I am a person that is ill from mold and now have a chemical sensitivity or reactive airways and chronic yeast, etc. I don't think everyone that has MCS is ill from mold. We were damaged in different ways. And then we have to try to explain mold and the chemicals to everyone. > Oh, I'm not generalizing. I'm " specificalizing " . If I take an MCSer to a mold exposure and they respond, that's pretty much an indication that they are specifically reactive and cannot afford to overlook mycotoxins as a driving force in their illness. The fact is that a number of MCSers are failing to control for mold and mycotoxin exposure because doctors have them convinced that molds are an " allergy " . I did the same thing too, until I couldn't listen to them anymore and pointed at specific molds saying " This is slamming me just like chemicals. Are you CERTAIN that they are not? " They were QUITE certain. Fortunately for me, I didn't believe them. Duehrings exposure was caused by pesticide, but doesn't it seem a bit odd that, as in so many cases of MCS - the chemical that did such damage was applied by people who work with far higher levels, - in fact they work with it every day without succumbing? The " pesticide caused MCS " model is suspicious, and that's why people aren't " buying it " . But if you were a mold responder, and were chronically exposed to an evironmental irritant of which you were unaware - and then had a cytokine storm, this just might 'strip the MSH/ACTH gears " . From that point on, even though you may be doing everything possible to control for man made chemicals, it may be insufficient if you are still exposed to neurotoxic molds which are now the main driving force in your continued inflammatory response. I find it extremely compelling that Duehring turned her attention to mold after so many years of implicating the pesticides that seemed to have been the main problem. I don't think she would have shifted her focus like that without a good reason. It was the only thing that saved MY life. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 Because sometimes the " gears " stay stripped, no matter the cause. That's why. There are MCS people right here who control carefully for mold, and they remain MCS. There are people here who control carefully for mold, and they remain MSH difficient. That's why. Who on earth would knowingly, willingly, and purposely expose an MCS person to mold when they knew what it could do to them? Or DO you know what it can do to them? Do you carry a portable detox chamber? Epipen? Are you fully training and certified in all the forms of rescucitation you might need to know? Did you just happily skip over the part where there is actual, responsible medical testing available these days making it possible to KNOW what their sensitivity to mycotoxins is? These people aren't your personal little lab rats, . " Specificalize " on your own time, man. > > > > I don't think you can generalize MCS groups or moldy groups. I am > a person that is ill from mold and now have a chemical sensitivity > or reactive airways and chronic yeast, etc. I don't think everyone > that has MCS is ill from mold. We were damaged in different ways. > And then we have to try to explain mold and the chemicals to > everyone. > > > > > Oh, I'm not generalizing. > I'm " specificalizing " . > If I take an MCSer to a mold exposure and they respond, that's > pretty much an indication that they are specifically reactive and > cannot afford to overlook mycotoxins as a driving force in their > illness. > > The fact is that a number of MCSers are failing to control for mold > and mycotoxin exposure because doctors have them convinced that > molds are an " allergy " . > I did the same thing too, until I couldn't listen to them anymore > and pointed at specific molds saying " This is slamming me just like > chemicals. Are you CERTAIN that they are not? " > > They were QUITE certain. > Fortunately for me, I didn't believe them. > > Duehrings exposure was caused by pesticide, but doesn't it > seem a bit odd that, as in so many cases of MCS - the chemical that > did such damage was applied by people who work with far higher > levels, - in fact they work with it every day without succumbing? > The " pesticide caused MCS " model is suspicious, and that's why > people aren't " buying it " . > But if you were a mold responder, and were chronically exposed to > an evironmental irritant of which you were unaware - and then had a > cytokine storm, this just might 'strip the MSH/ACTH gears " . > From that point on, even though you may be doing everything possible > to control for man made chemicals, it may be insufficient if you are > still exposed to neurotoxic molds which are now the main driving > force in your continued inflammatory response. > I find it extremely compelling that Duehring turned her > attention to mold after so many years of implicating the pesticides > that seemed to have been the main problem. > I don't think she would have shifted her focus like that without a > good reason. > It was the only thing that saved MY life. > - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 " pushcrash " wrote: > Who on earth would knowingly, willingly, and purposely expose an MCS person to mold when they knew what it could do to them? Or DO you know what it can do to them? Do you carry a portable detox chamber? Epipen? Are you fully training and certified in all the forms of rescucitation you might need to know? Did you just happily skip over the part where there is actual, responsible medical testing available these days making it possible to KNOW what their sensitivity to mycotoxins is? These people aren't your personal little lab rats, . " Specificalize " on your own time, man. < Yes, I DID just happily skip over the " actual, responsible medical testing " part. And VERY happily so, because the " experts " are flat out wrong regarding the circumstances and consequences of mycotoxin exposure. Their approach is misguided and arises from a false premise which they failed to re-check. (Yes, I used to subscribe to The Objectivist Newsletter and read Ayn Rand and iel Branden too) The entire thrust of your analytical process indicates that you share their fundamental misunderstandings and limitations. For example, when you stated the necessity and importance of medical testing, my thought was to ask why someone would accept the validity of such results over their own perceptions? I tested my own response, treated it as valid - despite all assertions to the contrary, and I believe that my situation is now supprted by the science that Dr Shoemakers developed to measure the experience of those who have duplicated my circumstances. I find medical testing to be completely unnecessary to arrive at an understanding of this reactivity. Especially when such testing can be self conducted with such ease. Like it or not, we are exposed to mycotoxins every day, and my level of reactivity allows me to witness a simultaneity of response in others. I know what they are responding to although they do not generally know or admit it themselves because " You ain't the doctor " and " Who do you think you are " interferes with their objective assessment of the results of our non clinical - real world test situation. They have indeed become my unwitting " lab rats " . Your misplaced faith in medicine and rejection of the concept of individualized perception has not stood you in good stead and is an obstacle to taking better control of your illness. Yes, I do carry around my own portable detox chamber and this IS my own time. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 When I was first exposed to toxic mold in 1991, I thought it was a chemical exposure that had caused my problems. and even ignored such evidence as passing out when a vile smell of mold wafted under my nose- not once but 3x- in my home- it was only years later that I pieced together the info- why I became MCS and lung damaged- not one of the DRs I went to had a clue karen > > > > I don't think you can generalize MCS groups or moldy groups. I am > a person that is ill from mold and now have a chemical sensitivity > or reactive airways and chronic yeast, etc. I don't think everyone > that has MCS is ill from mold. We were damaged in different ways. > And then we have to try to explain mold and the chemicals to > everyone. > > > > > Oh, I'm not generalizing. > I'm " specificalizing " . > If I take an MCSer to a mold exposure and they respond, that's > pretty much an indication that they are specifically reactive and > cannot afford to overlook mycotoxins as a driving force in their > illness. > > The fact is that a number of MCSers are failing to control for mold > and mycotoxin exposure because doctors have them convinced that > molds are an " allergy " . > I did the same thing too, until I couldn't listen to them anymore > and pointed at specific molds saying " This is slamming me just like > chemicals. Are you CERTAIN that they are not? " > > They were QUITE certain. > Fortunately for me, I didn't believe them. > > Duehrings exposure was caused by pesticide, but doesn't it > seem a bit odd that, as in so many cases of MCS - the chemical that > did such damage was applied by people who work with far higher > levels, - in fact they work with it every day without succumbing? > The " pesticide caused MCS " model is suspicious, and that's why > people aren't " buying it " . > But if you were a mold responder, and were chronically exposed to > an evironmental irritant of which you were unaware - and then had a > cytokine storm, this just might 'strip the MSH/ACTH gears " . > From that point on, even though you may be doing everything possible > to control for man made chemicals, it may be insufficient if you are > still exposed to neurotoxic molds which are now the main driving > force in your continued inflammatory response. > I find it extremely compelling that Duehring turned her > attention to mold after so many years of implicating the pesticides > that seemed to have been the main problem. > I don't think she would have shifted her focus like that without a > good reason. > It was the only thing that saved MY life. > - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 ... Since you are still feigning mold=chemical sensitiivty...why don't you join the REAL activists in the war against chemical injury OUTSIDE of the mold community and see if the real players agree with you. You are invited to join CSDA@... who you are and see if they grant you access. You will be with the BIG PLAYERS....then we can cross post your theory with those in the trenches ANGEL WITH CHEMICAL INJURY NOT ASSOCIATED WITH MOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, kl_clayton wrote: > Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:20:37 -0000 > From: kl_clayton <kl_clayton@...> > Reply- > > Subject: [] Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Debate: We know > the answer to this > > I became chemically sensitive over time directly from exposure to the mold in my home. I > had no chemical sensitivities previously, and also believed in an organic lifestlye, so I know > I had no exposure to chemicals to cause this. > > > >>> The article below is what we all know to be true. When it states >> that the body is overwhelmed and not able to rid itself of >> chemicals.......sounds eerily like Dr. Shoemaker's Biotoxin Pathway >> where the body can't get rid of the toxins. >>> > > > > > > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 So true! On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, pushcrash wrote: > Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 17:15:06 -0000 > From: pushcrash <pushcrash@...> > Reply- > > Subject: [] Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Debate: We know > the answer to this > > Because sometimes the " gears " stay stripped, no matter the cause. > That's why. There are MCS people right here who control carefully for > mold, and they remain MCS. There are people here who control > carefully for mold, and they remain MSH difficient. That's why. > > Who on earth would knowingly, willingly, and purposely expose an MCS > person to mold when they knew what it could do to them? Or DO you > know what it can do to them? Do you carry a portable detox chamber? > Epipen? Are you fully training and certified in all the forms of > rescucitation you might need to know? > > Did you just happily skip over the part where there is actual, > responsible medical testing available these days making it possible > to KNOW what their sensitivity to mycotoxins is? > > These people aren't your personal little lab rats, > . " Specificalize " on your own time, man. > > > >> >> >>> I don't think you can generalize MCS groups or moldy groups. I am >> a person that is ill from mold and now have a chemical sensitivity >> or reactive airways and chronic yeast, etc. I don't think everyone >> that has MCS is ill from mold. We were damaged in different ways. >> And then we have to try to explain mold and the chemicals to >> everyone. >>> >> >> >> Oh, I'm not generalizing. >> I'm " specificalizing " . >> If I take an MCSer to a mold exposure and they respond, that's >> pretty much an indication that they are specifically reactive and >> cannot afford to overlook mycotoxins as a driving force in their >> illness. >> >> The fact is that a number of MCSers are failing to control for mold >> and mycotoxin exposure because doctors have them convinced that >> molds are an " allergy " . >> I did the same thing too, until I couldn't listen to them anymore >> and pointed at specific molds saying " This is slamming me just like >> chemicals. Are you CERTAIN that they are not? " >> >> They were QUITE certain. >> Fortunately for me, I didn't believe them. >> >> Duehrings exposure was caused by pesticide, but doesn't it >> seem a bit odd that, as in so many cases of MCS - the chemical that >> did such damage was applied by people who work with far higher >> levels, - in fact they work with it every day without succumbing? >> The " pesticide caused MCS " model is suspicious, and that's why >> people aren't " buying it " . >> But if you were a mold responder, and were chronically exposed to >> an evironmental irritant of which you were unaware - and then had a >> cytokine storm, this just might 'strip the MSH/ACTH gears " . >> From that point on, even though you may be doing everything > possible >> to control for man made chemicals, it may be insufficient if you > are >> still exposed to neurotoxic molds which are now the main driving >> force in your continued inflammatory response. >> I find it extremely compelling that Duehring turned her >> attention to mold after so many years of implicating the pesticides >> that seemed to have been the main problem. >> I don't think she would have shifted her focus like that without a >> good reason. >> It was the only thing that saved MY life. >> - >> > > > > > > > > > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 As usual , if it does not follow your THEORY that you are hawking its not a fact. I guess all the research on ENZYME deficiencies being done and how the body can not detox ALDEHYDES is just a moot point. SInce those with aldehyde type expsoures are not mold related are not really injured. DO a web search on University in Ohio and see the FUNDED research on REAL chemical injury and you will NOTICE that there is not ONE MOLD reference in their research. Then please tell us how those people are getting sick from mold predicated on your theory?! On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, erikmoldwarrior wrote: > Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:52:26 -0000 > From: erikmoldwarrior <erikmoldwarrior@...> > Reply- > > Subject: [] Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Debate: We know > the answer to this > > >> I don't think you can generalize MCS groups or moldy groups. I am > a person that is ill from mold and now have a chemical sensitivity > or reactive airways and chronic yeast, etc. I don't think everyone > that has MCS is ill from mold. We were damaged in different ways. > And then we have to try to explain mold and the chemicals to > everyone. >> > > > Oh, I'm not generalizing. > I'm " specificalizing " . > If I take an MCSer to a mold exposure and they respond, that's > pretty much an indication that they are specifically reactive and > cannot afford to overlook mycotoxins as a driving force in their > illness. > > The fact is that a number of MCSers are failing to control for mold > and mycotoxin exposure because doctors have them convinced that > molds are an " allergy " . > I did the same thing too, until I couldn't listen to them anymore > and pointed at specific molds saying " This is slamming me just like > chemicals. Are you CERTAIN that they are not? " > > They were QUITE certain. > Fortunately for me, I didn't believe them. > > Duehrings exposure was caused by pesticide, but doesn't it > seem a bit odd that, as in so many cases of MCS - the chemical that > did such damage was applied by people who work with far higher > levels, - in fact they work with it every day without succumbing? > The " pesticide caused MCS " model is suspicious, and that's why > people aren't " buying it " . > But if you were a mold responder, and were chronically exposed to > an evironmental irritant of which you were unaware - and then had a > cytokine storm, this just might 'strip the MSH/ACTH gears " . > From that point on, even though you may be doing everything possible > to control for man made chemicals, it may be insufficient if you are > still exposed to neurotoxic molds which are now the main driving > force in your continued inflammatory response. > I find it extremely compelling that Duehring turned her > attention to mold after so many years of implicating the pesticides > that seemed to have been the main problem. > I don't think she would have shifted her focus like that without a > good reason. > It was the only thing that saved MY life. > - > > > > > > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Why not take an ONLINE course at Tulane for a MPH and then research your THEORY? Upto now it's your theory and no one in the chemical injury arena seems to give you any credibility becasue it is not relevant! The chemical injury choir is not listening...they are following the RESEARCH that disproves your theory. You are going from the specific to the general, when it should be the general to the specific. I think you need to hold off on your campaign for everything is mold related until the reseach that is going to be poublished THIS SPRING that refutes everything you say. I know this for a fact as I spoke with those doing the reserach.....stop dispensing false medical advise when the lab tests are being finalized that disprove your theory 100000%. On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, erikmoldwarrior wrote: > Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:07:54 -0000 > From: erikmoldwarrior <erikmoldwarrior@...> > Reply- > > Subject: [] Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Debate: We know > the answer to this > > " pushcrash " wrote: >> Who on earth would knowingly, willingly, and purposely expose an MCS > person to mold when they knew what it could do to them? Or DO you know > what it can do to them? Do you carry a portable detox chamber? > Epipen? Are you fully training and certified in all the forms of > rescucitation you might need to know? > Did you just happily skip over the part where there is actual, > responsible medical testing available these days making it possible > to KNOW what their sensitivity to mycotoxins is? > > These people aren't your personal little lab rats, > . " Specificalize " on your own time, man. < > > > Yes, I DID just happily skip over the " actual, responsible medical > testing " part. > And VERY happily so, because the " experts " are flat out wrong > regarding the circumstances and consequences of mycotoxin exposure. > Their approach is misguided and arises from a false premise which they > failed to re-check. (Yes, I used to subscribe to The Objectivist > Newsletter and read Ayn Rand and iel Branden too) > The entire thrust of your analytical process indicates that you share > their fundamental misunderstandings and limitations. > For example, when you stated the necessity and importance of medical > testing, my thought was to ask why someone would accept the validity > of such results over their own perceptions? > I tested my own response, treated it as valid - despite all > assertions to the contrary, and I believe that my situation is now > supprted by the science that Dr Shoemakers developed to measure the > experience of those who have duplicated my circumstances. > I find medical testing to be completely unnecessary to arrive at an > understanding of this reactivity. Especially when such testing can be > self conducted with such ease. > Like it or not, we are exposed to mycotoxins every day, and my level > of reactivity allows me to witness a simultaneity of response in > others. > I know what they are responding to although they do not generally > know or admit it themselves because " You ain't the doctor " and " Who do > you think you are " interferes with their objective assessment of the > results of our non clinical - real world test situation. > They have indeed become my unwitting " lab rats " . > Your misplaced faith in medicine and rejection of the concept of > individualized perception has not stood you in good stead and is an > obstacle to taking better control of your illness. > Yes, I do carry around my own portable detox chamber and this IS my > own time. > - > > > > > > > > > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Angel & and anyone else that I missed, Your statement Angel, " Up to now it's your theory and no one in the chemical injury arena seems to give you any credibility becasue it is not relevant! " I happen to disagree with this strongly. Nothing is 100%. Right or Wrong in anyones favor, including physicians and scientists until proven otherwise. There are many individuals that have had mold induced illnesses that are now experiencing MCS symptoms, including my wife. At the same time there have been many others that have been exposed to mold without symptoms of MCS at this time. There are most likely several triggers and I don't think we will ever know all of them. The way I understand it, it is a toxic exposure OVERLOAD, whether it is VOC's from mold or manmade chemicals. Mycotoxins are chemcials or any other fancy name you want to give them. They are poisons bottomline and we have been poisoned. From what I understand, you can wake up one morning and have MCS and never know why. Obviously to me, something has affected the CNS with a hypersensitivity reaction. Some of us know what triggered it, many will never know. Not everyone fits in any one category, no matter what the condition. does make a very good point, if he happened to meet my wife and tried to convience her on what triggered her MCS before we were aware of what mold could do, she may have told him he was nuts. If he then took her into a moldy bldg. knowingly, and all the symptoms showed their nasty face that corresponded with a mold induced illnesses, then I would definately consider a piece of his theory. But these are showing symptoms of mold, not MCS. Now did her exposure possibly trigger the MCS, very possible. In fact, now we know it did. Her MCS reactions are totally different than her mold reactions. Depending on the type of chemical " hit " will result in various different degrees of reaction. Normally she starts off either way, light or strong hit, with a dry hacking cough. This is also a warning for me to be alert of how serious her response may become. Then normally within seconds her voice goes from normal to something like minnie mouse, then gone. This can last 3-4 hours or 3-4 days. At the same time I have to watch her closely for oxygen intake. Because this can become restricted very quickly. So far we have been lucky and this is the only time she uses an inhaler that has up till now kept her airways open. It has been brought to my attention several times that I better take classes on how to put a trach tube in. So a mold hit is completely different, at least for her. Again, I am not 100% sure why we are arguing on what has triggered an individuals MCS, because there are many. Mold may be a factor that alot of people do not look at, and I think that is what is trying to say. We all must remain openminded to all possibilities. Science is changing continuously... And so must we......... KC > >> Who on earth would knowingly, willingly, and purposely expose an MCS > > person to mold when they knew what it could do to them? Or DO you know > > what it can do to them? Do you carry a portable detox chamber? > > Epipen? Are you fully training and certified in all the forms of > > rescucitation you might need to know? > > Did you just happily skip over the part where there is actual, > > responsible medical testing available these days making it possible > > to KNOW what their sensitivity to mycotoxins is? > > > > These people aren't your personal little lab rats, > > . " Specificalize " on your own time, man. < > > > > > > Yes, I DID just happily skip over the " actual, responsible medical > > testing " part. > > And VERY happily so, because the " experts " are flat out wrong > > regarding the circumstances and consequences of mycotoxin exposure. > > Their approach is misguided and arises from a false premise which they > > failed to re-check. (Yes, I used to subscribe to The Objectivist > > Newsletter and read Ayn Rand and iel Branden too) > > The entire thrust of your analytical process indicates that you share > > their fundamental misunderstandings and limitations. > > For example, when you stated the necessity and importance of medical > > testing, my thought was to ask why someone would accept the validity > > of such results over their own perceptions? > > I tested my own response, treated it as valid - despite all > > assertions to the contrary, and I believe that my situation is now > > supprted by the science that Dr Shoemakers developed to measure the > > experience of those who have duplicated my circumstances. > > I find medical testing to be completely unnecessary to arrive at an > > understanding of this reactivity. Especially when such testing can be > > self conducted with such ease. > > Like it or not, we are exposed to mycotoxins every day, and my level > > of reactivity allows me to witness a simultaneity of response in > > others. > > I know what they are responding to although they do not generally > > know or admit it themselves because " You ain't the doctor " and " Who do > > you think you are " interferes with their objective assessment of the > > results of our non clinical - real world test situation. > > They have indeed become my unwitting " lab rats " . > > Your misplaced faith in medicine and rejection of the concept of > > individualized perception has not stood you in good stead and is an > > obstacle to taking better control of your illness. > > Yes, I do carry around my own portable detox chamber and this IS my > > own time. > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Angel, I think you are wrong on this Angel and when I locate the document I will post it. But I do remember reading some research to where mycotoxins after entering the body make a form of ALDEHYDE. This is why alot of mold patients who DO develope MCS become very sensitivity to formaldehyde. This was one of our experiences, because I worked in a woodshop, standing 30 feet out the door Sharon got a hit and lost her voice and my boss couldn't believe it. There are bloodwork that does show that the enzyme levels are off after mold exposure. You are quoting from one group of doctors and moldies are quoting from another group. So who is right, BOTH in their own way... KC > > > Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:52:26 -0000 > > From: erikmoldwarrior <erikmoldwarrior@...> > > Reply- > > > > Subject: [] Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Debate: We know > > the answer to this > > > > > >> I don't think you can generalize MCS groups or moldy groups. I am > > a person that is ill from mold and now have a chemical sensitivity > > or reactive airways and chronic yeast, etc. I don't think everyone > > that has MCS is ill from mold. We were damaged in different ways. > > And then we have to try to explain mold and the chemicals to > > everyone. > >> > > > > > > Oh, I'm not generalizing. > > I'm " specificalizing " . > > If I take an MCSer to a mold exposure and they respond, that's > > pretty much an indication that they are specifically reactive and > > cannot afford to overlook mycotoxins as a driving force in their > > illness. > > > > The fact is that a number of MCSers are failing to control for mold > > and mycotoxin exposure because doctors have them convinced that > > molds are an " allergy " . > > I did the same thing too, until I couldn't listen to them anymore > > and pointed at specific molds saying " This is slamming me just like > > chemicals. Are you CERTAIN that they are not? " > > > > They were QUITE certain. > > Fortunately for me, I didn't believe them. > > > > Duehrings exposure was caused by pesticide, but doesn't it > > seem a bit odd that, as in so many cases of MCS - the chemical that > > did such damage was applied by people who work with far higher > > levels, - in fact they work with it every day without succumbing? > > The " pesticide caused MCS " model is suspicious, and that's why > > people aren't " buying it " . > > But if you were a mold responder, and were chronically exposed to > > an evironmental irritant of which you were unaware - and then had a > > cytokine storm, this just might 'strip the MSH/ACTH gears " . > > From that point on, even though you may be doing everything possible > > to control for man made chemicals, it may be insufficient if you are > > still exposed to neurotoxic molds which are now the main driving > > force in your continued inflammatory response. > > I find it extremely compelling that Duehring turned her > > attention to mold after so many years of implicating the pesticides > > that seemed to have been the main problem. > > I don't think she would have shifted her focus like that without a > > good reason. > > It was the only thing that saved MY life. > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 This not what I am looking for but its a start.When I find the doc.I will post it. http://www.mold-help.org/index.php?option=content & task=view & id=457 Volatile Fungal Metabolites During exponential growth, many fungi release low molecular weight, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as products of secondary metabolism. These compounds comprise a great diversity of chemical structure, including ketones, aldehydes and alcohols as well as moderately to highly modified aromatics and aliphatics. Cultural studies of some common household moulds suggests that the composition of VOCs remains qualitatively stable over a range of growth media and conditions (Sunesson et al. , 1995). Furthermore, the presence of certain marker compounds common to multiple species, such as 3-methylfuran, may be monitored as a proxy for the presence of a fungal amplifier (Sunesson et al. , 1995). This method has been suggested as a means of monitoring fungal contamination in grain storage facilities (Börjesson et al. , 1989; 1990; 1992; 1993). Limited evidence suggests that exposure to low concentrations of VOCs may induce respiratory irritation independent of exposure to allergenic particulate (Koren et al. , 1992). Volatile organic compounds may also arise through indirect metabolic effects. A well- known example of this is the fungal degradation of urea formaldehyde foam insulation. Fungal colonization of this material results in the cleavage of urea from the polymer, presumably to serve as a carbon or nitrogen source for primary metabolism. During this process formaldehyde is evolved as a derivative, contributing to a decline in IAQ (Bissett, 1987). > > > > > Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:52:26 -0000 > > > From: erikmoldwarrior <erikmoldwarrior@> > > > Reply- > > > > > > Subject: [] Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity > Debate: We know > > > the answer to this > > > > > > > > >> I don't think you can generalize MCS groups or moldy groups. I > am > > > a person that is ill from mold and now have a chemical > sensitivity > > > or reactive airways and chronic yeast, etc. I don't think > everyone > > > that has MCS is ill from mold. We were damaged in different > ways. > > > And then we have to try to explain mold and the chemicals to > > > everyone. > > >> > > > > > > > > > Oh, I'm not generalizing. > > > I'm " specificalizing " . > > > If I take an MCSer to a mold exposure and they respond, that's > > > pretty much an indication that they are specifically reactive and > > > cannot afford to overlook mycotoxins as a driving force in their > > > illness. > > > > > > The fact is that a number of MCSers are failing to control for > mold > > > and mycotoxin exposure because doctors have them convinced that > > > molds are an " allergy " . > > > I did the same thing too, until I couldn't listen to them anymore > > > and pointed at specific molds saying " This is slamming me just > like > > > chemicals. Are you CERTAIN that they are not? " > > > > > > They were QUITE certain. > > > Fortunately for me, I didn't believe them. > > > > > > Duehrings exposure was caused by pesticide, but doesn't it > > > seem a bit odd that, as in so many cases of MCS - the chemical > that > > > did such damage was applied by people who work with far higher > > > levels, - in fact they work with it every day without succumbing? > > > The " pesticide caused MCS " model is suspicious, and that's why > > > people aren't " buying it " . > > > But if you were a mold responder, and were chronically exposed to > > > an evironmental irritant of which you were unaware - and then > had a > > > cytokine storm, this just might 'strip the MSH/ACTH gears " . > > > From that point on, even though you may be doing everything > possible > > > to control for man made chemicals, it may be insufficient if you > are > > > still exposed to neurotoxic molds which are now the main driving > > > force in your continued inflammatory response. > > > I find it extremely compelling that Duehring turned her > > > attention to mold after so many years of implicating the > pesticides > > > that seemed to have been the main problem. > > > I don't think she would have shifted her focus like that without > a > > > good reason. > > > It was the only thing that saved MY life. > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 KC, I happen to disagree with you. Mold has its own unique set of symtpoms/reactions as do chemicals. This is the DEFINING reason, IMO that MCS and other chemically induced illness can not be quantified by lab tests. Each chem has its own signature, so to speak. Those with mold have lab tests that can identify them, it is very difficult to determine a chemcial injury if someone doesn't know their trigger. There are no experts that can say with assurance that one equates to the other. NOw, can one provoke another, of course, as once the system has sustained a *hit*, it is subject to others. But being so gun-ho that mold is the starting point is ridiculous and shows a complete lack of foundation for a theory of that nature. I have yet to see any case won in a court that someone started out with MCS then it was back tracked and found mold to be the cause and was won on a mold exposure. I deal with too many people who are the forerunners in this area and I think heavy duty researchers with years of expertise in this area would have made the connection, as some of them ARE SUFFERING and they have r/o mold and are still looking for answers. Post nasal drip can lead to an URI but an URI does not have to be founded in a post nasal drip. SImiliar but not dynamic. On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, tigerpaw2c wrote: > Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 01:13:53 -0000 > From: tigerpaw2c <tigerpaw2c@...> > Reply- > > Subject: [] Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Debate: We know > the answer to this > > Angel & and anyone else that I missed, > > Your statement Angel, " Up to now it's your theory and no one in the > chemical injury arena seems to give you any credibility becasue it > is not relevant! " I happen to disagree with this strongly. Nothing > is 100%. Right or Wrong in anyones favor, including physicians and > scientists until proven otherwise. There are many individuals that > have had mold induced illnesses that are now experiencing MCS > symptoms, including my wife. At the same time there have been many > others that have been exposed to mold without symptoms of MCS at > this time. There are most likely several triggers and I don't think > we will ever know all of them. The way I understand it, it is a > toxic exposure OVERLOAD, whether it is VOC's from mold or manmade > chemicals. Mycotoxins are chemcials or any other fancy name you want > to give them. They are poisons bottomline and we have been poisoned. > >> From what I understand, you can wake up one morning and have MCS and > never know why. Obviously to me, something has affected the CNS with > a hypersensitivity reaction. Some of us know what triggered it, many > will never know. Not everyone fits in any one category, no matter > what the condition. does make a very good point, if he happened > to meet my wife and tried to convience her on what triggered her MCS > before we were aware of what mold could do, she may have told him he > was nuts. If he then took her into a moldy bldg. knowingly, and all > the symptoms showed their nasty face that corresponded with a mold > induced illnesses, then I would definately consider a piece of his > theory. But these are showing symptoms of mold, not MCS. Now did her > exposure possibly trigger the MCS, very possible. In fact, now we > know it did. > > Her MCS reactions are totally different than her mold reactions. > Depending on the type of chemical " hit " will result in various > different degrees of reaction. Normally she starts off either way, > light or strong hit, with a dry hacking cough. This is also a > warning for me to be alert of how serious her response may become. > Then normally within seconds her voice goes from normal to something > like minnie mouse, then gone. This can last 3-4 hours or 3-4 days. > At the same time I have to watch her closely for oxygen intake. > Because this can become restricted very quickly. So far we have been > lucky and this is the only time she uses an inhaler that has up till > now kept her airways open. It has been brought to my attention > several times that I better take classes on how to put a trach tube > in. > > So a mold hit is completely different, at least for her. Again, I am > not 100% sure why we are arguing on what has triggered an > individuals MCS, because there are many. Mold may be a factor that > alot of people do not look at, and I think that is what is > trying to say. We all must remain openminded to all possibilities. > Science is changing continuously... And so must we......... > > KC > > > > > > > > >>>> Who on earth would knowingly, willingly, and purposely expose > an MCS >>> person to mold when they knew what it could do to them? Or DO > you know >>> what it can do to them? Do you carry a portable detox chamber? >>> Epipen? Are you fully training and certified in all the forms of >>> rescucitation you might need to know? >>> Did you just happily skip over the part where there is actual, >>> responsible medical testing available these days making it > possible >>> to KNOW what their sensitivity to mycotoxins is? >>> >>> These people aren't your personal little lab rats, >>> . " Specificalize " on your own time, man. < >>> >>> >>> Yes, I DID just happily skip over the " actual, responsible > medical >>> testing " part. >>> And VERY happily so, because the " experts " are flat out wrong >>> regarding the circumstances and consequences of mycotoxin > exposure. >>> Their approach is misguided and arises from a false premise > which they >>> failed to re-check. (Yes, I used to subscribe to The Objectivist >>> Newsletter and read Ayn Rand and iel Branden too) >>> The entire thrust of your analytical process indicates that you > share >>> their fundamental misunderstandings and limitations. >>> For example, when you stated the necessity and importance of > medical >>> testing, my thought was to ask why someone would accept the > validity >>> of such results over their own perceptions? >>> I tested my own response, treated it as valid - despite all >>> assertions to the contrary, and I believe that my situation is > now >>> supprted by the science that Dr Shoemakers developed to measure > the >>> experience of those who have duplicated my circumstances. >>> I find medical testing to be completely unnecessary to arrive at > an >>> understanding of this reactivity. Especially when such testing > can be >>> self conducted with such ease. >>> Like it or not, we are exposed to mycotoxins every day, and my > level >>> of reactivity allows me to witness a simultaneity of response in >>> others. >>> I know what they are responding to although they do not > generally >>> know or admit it themselves because " You ain't the doctor " > and " Who do >>> you think you are " interferes with their objective assessment of > the >>> results of our non clinical - real world test situation. >>> They have indeed become my unwitting " lab rats " . >>> Your misplaced faith in medicine and rejection of the concept of >>> individualized perception has not stood you in good stead and is > an >>> obstacle to taking better control of your illness. >>> Yes, I do carry around my own portable detox chamber and this > IS my >>> own time. >>> - >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> FAIR USE NOTICE: >>> >>> >>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Kc... And how does that equate mold to GWS? Were all the vets exposed to mold who developed GWS? Shedding light on Gulf War Ills By Lamb Dayton Daily News The goal was to explain a serious medical condition affecting thousands of Gulf War veterans, whose symptoms have been dismissed and ridiculed for lack of understanding them.When they finished, researchers at State University's medical school also shed important new light on another serious medical condition affecting millions of civilians whose symptoms have also been dismissed and ridiculed.Gulf War syndrome and multiple-chemical sensitivity both are a baffling and often debilitating collection of diverse symptoms.Both can leave people with cloudy thinking, unable to concentrate or remember.Both can cause weakness, pain or numbness in the muscles and joints.Both can lead to headaches, dizziness, rashes, diarrhea or persistent fatigue.And victims of both have specific biochemical peculiarities, it turns out. Those discoveries, by more than a dozen Ph.D.-level researchers over four years, will help identify those who have either affliction explain why they have it and raise a realistic hope of finding ways to treat it.Everybody has enzymes that help break down small amounts of toxic chemicals and chase them harmlessly out of their bodies. Chemically sensitive people, who have significantly lower levels of those enzymes, can become seriously ill from mere traces of some commonplace chemicals. " We were able to clearly discriminate between normal and sensitive groups, " said Gerald Alter, who did much of the enzyme research. Just by analyzing blood samples, colleague Berberich said, he could tell a sensitive patient from someone else. " It doesn't necessarily take high levels of chemicals, " said Organisciak, who chairs the department of biochemistry and molecular biology. " Not just the levels that we already knew might cause problems, but relatively low levels that might be in the environment all the time. " That makes sense to Dr. , who treats chemical sensitivity in her Centerville practice. Chemicals also could be causing genetic abnormalities that lead to the enzyme deficiency, she said.Follow-up research will try to tease out the roles of both inherited genes and environmental contacts, Berberich said. He hopes it will lead to a diagnostic test that could identify chemically sensitive people before their symptoms overwhelm them. " From a patient's stadpoint, it's wonderful to have this validation, " said Jackie Barton of Centerville. " It's good that people understand this is a legitimate problem, and that when I ask people not to wear perfume, I'm not doing it just to be difficult or controlling. I have a very uncomfortable, sometimes long-term reaction to things like fragrances, paint, new carpeting, even the chemicals thrown off by fluorescent lights. " The Department of Defense gave State $7.2 million toward the cost of the study and the establishment of its Center for Genomics Research. With support from Rep. Hobson, R-Springfield, and Springfield philanthropist Petticrew, Organisciak said, the researchers explored the similarities between Gulf War veterans and the broader chemically sensitive population, which the National Academy of Sciences has estimated at up to 15 percent of Americans.Gulf War syndrome appears to be at least partly a heightened sensitivity to low doses of sarin, a chemical weapon known to damage the brain and nervous system in higher amounts. While it's impossible to trace directly to the estimated 80,000 veterans with symptoms, evidence indicates microscopic sarin exposure could be at least one of the causes. " We can't be so cavalier in terms of low-dose exposure, " said na , who chairs the pharmacology and toxicology department. Although the damage from small amounts isn't easily measured, " that doesn't mean you're not having an effect. " Alter's group specifically tested organo-phosphates and formaldehyde. They both " pervade modern homes and workplaces, " he said, the formr in insecticides and the latter in a vast array of synthetic products that include Perma-Press clothing, construction pressboard and carpeting. " We live in a toxic soup, let's face it, " said. " We've been eating pesticides and herbicides laced into our foods, albeit in very low concentrations, since the late 1940s. It's a huge chemical experiment that needs to be looked at, as to why we're seeing so much more chemical sensitivity over the last 25 years. " Contact Lamb at 225-2129 Find this article at: http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/1005gulfwar ..html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 This still does not prove that everyone with chemical injury has been exposed to mold. It shows that the spores release the same VOC's as other chemicals. Its going from the specific to the general not the general to the specific. On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, tigerpaw2c wrote: > Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 02:40:27 -0000 > From: tigerpaw2c <tigerpaw2c@...> > Reply- > > Subject: [] Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Debate: We know > the answer to this > > This not what I am looking for but its a start.When I find the doc.I > will post it. > > http://www.mold-help.org/index.php?option=content & task=view & id=457 > > Volatile Fungal Metabolites > During exponential growth, many fungi release low molecular weight, > volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as products of secondary > metabolism. These compounds comprise a great diversity of chemical > structure, including ketones, aldehydes and alcohols as well as > moderately to highly modified aromatics and aliphatics. Cultural > studies of some common household moulds suggests that the > composition of VOCs remains qualitatively stable over a range of > growth media and conditions (Sunesson et al. , 1995). Furthermore, > the presence of certain marker compounds common to multiple species, > such as 3-methylfuran, may be monitored as a proxy for the presence > of a fungal amplifier (Sunesson et al. , 1995). This method has been > suggested as a means of monitoring fungal contamination in grain > storage facilities (Börjesson et al. , 1989; 1990; 1992; 1993). > > Limited evidence suggests that exposure to low concentrations of > VOCs may induce respiratory irritation independent of exposure to > allergenic particulate (Koren et al. , 1992). Volatile organic > compounds may also arise through indirect metabolic effects. A well- > known example of this is the fungal degradation of urea formaldehyde > foam insulation. > > Fungal colonization of this material results in the cleavage of urea > from the polymer, presumably to serve as a carbon or nitrogen source > for primary metabolism. During this process formaldehyde is evolved > as a derivative, contributing to a decline in IAQ (Bissett, 1987). > > > > > >>> >>>> Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:52:26 -0000 >>>> From: erikmoldwarrior <erikmoldwarrior@> >>>> Reply- >>>> >>>> Subject: [] Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity >> Debate: We know >>>> the answer to this >>>> >>>> >>>>> I don't think you can generalize MCS groups or moldy groups. > I >> am >>>> a person that is ill from mold and now have a chemical >> sensitivity >>>> or reactive airways and chronic yeast, etc. I don't think >> everyone >>>> that has MCS is ill from mold. We were damaged in different >> ways. >>>> And then we have to try to explain mold and the chemicals to >>>> everyone. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Oh, I'm not generalizing. >>>> I'm " specificalizing " . >>>> If I take an MCSer to a mold exposure and they respond, that's >>>> pretty much an indication that they are specifically reactive > and >>>> cannot afford to overlook mycotoxins as a driving force in > their >>>> illness. >>>> >>>> The fact is that a number of MCSers are failing to control for >> mold >>>> and mycotoxin exposure because doctors have them convinced that >>>> molds are an " allergy " . >>>> I did the same thing too, until I couldn't listen to them > anymore >>>> and pointed at specific molds saying " This is slamming me just >> like >>>> chemicals. Are you CERTAIN that they are not? " >>>> >>>> They were QUITE certain. >>>> Fortunately for me, I didn't believe them. >>>> >>>> Duehrings exposure was caused by pesticide, but doesn't > it >>>> seem a bit odd that, as in so many cases of MCS - the chemical >> that >>>> did such damage was applied by people who work with far higher >>>> levels, - in fact they work with it every day without > succumbing? >>>> The " pesticide caused MCS " model is suspicious, and that's why >>>> people aren't " buying it " . >>>> But if you were a mold responder, and were chronically exposed > to >>>> an evironmental irritant of which you were unaware - and then >> had a >>>> cytokine storm, this just might 'strip the MSH/ACTH gears " . >>>> From that point on, even though you may be doing everything >> possible >>>> to control for man made chemicals, it may be insufficient if > you >> are >>>> still exposed to neurotoxic molds which are now the main > driving >>>> force in your continued inflammatory response. >>>> I find it extremely compelling that Duehring turned her >>>> attention to mold after so many years of implicating the >> pesticides >>>> that seemed to have been the main problem. >>>> I don't think she would have shifted her focus like that > without >> a >>>> good reason. >>>> It was the only thing that saved MY life. >>>> - >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> FAIR USE NOTICE: >>>> >>>> >>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Dr Schaller's web site that I just read today said that he never met a MCS that didn't have mold illness. Loni Angel!! <jap2bemc@...> wrote: ... Since you are still feigning mold=chemical sensitiivty...why don't you join the REAL activists in the war against chemical injury OUTSIDE of the mold community and see if the real players agree with you. You are invited to join CSDA@... who you are and see if they grant you access. You will be with the BIG PLAYERS....then we can cross post your theory with those in the trenches ANGEL WITH CHEMICAL INJURY NOT ASSOCIATED WITH MOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, kl_clayton wrote: > Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:20:37 -0000 > From: kl_clayton <kl_clayton@...> > Reply- > > Subject: [] Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Debate: We know > the answer to this > > I became chemically sensitive over time directly from exposure to the mold in my home. I > had no chemical sensitivities previously, and also believed in an organic lifestlye, so I know > I had no exposure to chemicals to cause this. > > > >>> The article below is what we all know to be true. When it states >> that the body is overwhelmed and not able to rid itself of >> chemicals.......sounds eerily like Dr. Shoemaker's Biotoxin Pathway >> where the body can't get rid of the toxins. >>> > > > > > > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 " tigerpaw2c " wrote: > So a mold hit is completely different, at least for her. Again, I am not 100% sure why we are arguing on what has triggered an individuals MCS, because there are many. Mold may be a factor that alot of people do not look at, and I think that is what is trying to say. We all must remain openminded to all possibilities. Science is changing continuously... And so must we......... > > KC As I said in Mold Warriors, Dr diagnosed me as a " Universal Reactor " who was " At a point where most people with CFS commit suicide " . But I said that at this level, my reactivities became specific enough that I could point at a single irritant that stood out as being different and " specific " . And when I identified it, it was a common denominator at the site of many other CFS onsets. And that by avoiding this primary irritant, it seemed to have more effect at reducing my symptoms than all the avoidance of chemical irritants that I had previously attempted. I'm not the only one. We've seen that trichothecenes are far more prevalent than anyone suspected. Why this opposition to mold when there is so much supporting evidence? Especially in a MOLD GROUP? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Then I have a list for him....... Angel On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Loni Rosser wrote: > Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 20:12:09 -0800 (PST) > From: Loni Rosser <loni326@...> > Reply- > > Subject: Re: [] Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Debate: We > know the answer to this > > Dr Schaller's web site that I just read today said that he never met a MCS that didn't have mold illness. Loni > > Angel!! <jap2bemc@...> wrote: > > ... > > Since you are still feigning mold=chemical sensitiivty...why don't you > join the REAL activists in the war against chemical injury OUTSIDE of the > mold community and see if the real players agree with you. > > You are invited to join CSDA@... who you are and > see if they grant you access. You will be with the BIG PLAYERS....then we > can cross post your theory with those in the trenches > > ANGEL WITH CHEMICAL INJURY NOT ASSOCIATED WITH > MOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, kl_clayton wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:20:37 -0000 >> From: kl_clayton <kl_clayton@...> >> Reply- >> >> Subject: [] Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Debate: We know >> the answer to this >> >> I became chemically sensitive over time directly from exposure to the mold in my home. I >> had no chemical sensitivities previously, and also believed in an organic lifestlye, so I know >> I had no exposure to chemicals to cause this. >> >> >> >>>> The article below is what we all know to be true. When it states >>> that the body is overwhelmed and not able to rid itself of >>> chemicals.......sounds eerily like Dr. Shoemaker's Biotoxin Pathway >>> where the body can't get rid of the toxins. >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> FAIR USE NOTICE: >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Then again....those with Toxic Encephalopathy do not have mold exposures associated with them and they have some of the same symptoms of MCS but its not the same ailment. I know for a fact that ANYONE with a science background would not make such a hard core fact regarding generalities. Am I the only one who understands the concept: You can't go from the specific to the general? On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Loni Rosser wrote: > Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 20:12:09 -0800 (PST) > From: Loni Rosser <loni326@...> > Reply- > > Subject: Re: [] Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Debate: We > know the answer to this > > Dr Schaller's web site that I just read today said that he never met a MCS that didn't have mold illness. Loni > > Angel!! <jap2bemc@...> wrote: > > ... > > Since you are still feigning mold=chemical sensitiivty...why don't you > join the REAL activists in the war against chemical injury OUTSIDE of the > mold community and see if the real players agree with you. > > You are invited to join CSDA@... who you are and > see if they grant you access. You will be with the BIG PLAYERS....then we > can cross post your theory with those in the trenches > > ANGEL WITH CHEMICAL INJURY NOT ASSOCIATED WITH > MOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, kl_clayton wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:20:37 -0000 >> From: kl_clayton <kl_clayton@...> >> Reply- >> >> Subject: [] Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Debate: We know >> the answer to this >> >> I became chemically sensitive over time directly from exposure to the mold in my home. I >> had no chemical sensitivities previously, and also believed in an organic lifestlye, so I know >> I had no exposure to chemicals to cause this. >> >> >> >>>> The article below is what we all know to be true. When it states >>> that the body is overwhelmed and not able to rid itself of >>> chemicals.......sounds eerily like Dr. Shoemaker's Biotoxin Pathway >>> where the body can't get rid of the toxins. >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> FAIR USE NOTICE: >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Please provide the link to this statement. Thank you. On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, Angel!! wrote: > Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 07:13:34 +0000 (UTC) > From: Angel!! <jap2bemc@...> > Reply- > Loni Rosser <loni326@...> > Cc: > Subject: Re: [] Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Debate: We > know the answer to this > > > > Then again....those with Toxic Encephalopathy do not have mold exposures > associated with them and they have some of the same symptoms of MCS but > its not the same ailment. > > I know for a fact that ANYONE with a science background would not make > such a hard core fact regarding generalities. > > Am I the only one who understands the concept: > You can't go from the specific to the general? > > > > On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Loni Rosser wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 20:12:09 -0800 (PST) >> From: Loni Rosser <loni326@...> >> Reply- >> >> Subject: Re: [] Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Debate: We >> know the answer to this >> >> Dr Schaller's web site that I just read today said that he never met a MCS that didn't have mold illness. Loni >> >> Angel!! <jap2bemc@...> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> Since you are still feigning mold=chemical sensitiivty...why don't you >> join the REAL activists in the war against chemical injury OUTSIDE of the >> mold community and see if the real players agree with you. >> >> You are invited to join CSDA@... who you are and >> see if they grant you access. You will be with the BIG PLAYERS....then we >> can cross post your theory with those in the trenches >> >> ANGEL WITH CHEMICAL INJURY NOT ASSOCIATED WITH >> MOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> >> >> On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, kl_clayton wrote: >> >>> Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:20:37 -0000 >>> From: kl_clayton <kl_clayton@...> >>> Reply- >>> >>> Subject: [] Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Debate: We know >>> the answer to this >>> >>> I became chemically sensitive over time directly from exposure to the mold in my home. I >>> had no chemical sensitivities previously, and also believed in an organic lifestlye, so I know >>> I had no exposure to chemicals to cause this. >>> >>> >>> >>>>> The article below is what we all know to be true. When it states >>>> that the body is overwhelmed and not able to rid itself of >>>> chemicals.......sounds eerily like Dr. Shoemaker's Biotoxin Pathway >>>> where the body can't get rid of the toxins. >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> FAIR USE NOTICE: >>> >>> >>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 For me I think it was a combination of things that did me in: I first had an allergic reaction all over my body twice in a week. I looked like I was 100. The first thing was several months of prendizone and zyrtec and a few other meds. THen the landlord let her kids remove wallpaper that had stachybotrus mold and others and then painted. Then I was ready for sinus surgery. We had to get out a few weeks after surgery. No recovery or anything. I called everyone but had no rights. Then we moved into another moldy place. I never stood a chance. Then the nightmare with the next landlord. They have a liscence to kill apparently. So the courts, landlords did me in. > >>>> The article below is what we all know to be true. When it states > >>> that the body is overwhelmed and not able to rid itself of > >>> chemicals.......sounds eerily like Dr. Shoemaker's Biotoxin Pathway > >>> where the body can't get rid of the toxins. > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> FAIR USE NOTICE: > >> > >> > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 Angel!! wrote: > DO a web search on University in Ohio and see the FUNDED research on REAL chemical injury and you will NOTICE that there is not ONE MOLD reference in their research. > Nor is there much interest in mold from the mainstream medical community, which is why mold illness is misunderstood and why mold victims are demanding that this oversight be corrected. This lack of interest should not be construed as evidence that no interest should be taken. My " theory " consists of accompanying people complaining of chemical sensitivities into mycotoxin zones and witnessing a reaction. Many have asked their doctors if their response could be to mold and they have been dissuaded of this notion - perhaps incorrectly. Perhaps the question should be " Why is there not ONE MOLD reference in their research? " - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 Then why do ALL the people I PERSONALLY know with CI have NO REACTIONS to mold?! Others I know in other areas OUTSIDE OF VEGAS developed SOME and noticed I said SOME reaction but NOTHING that I have seen posted on this borad. Granted there are a few on this board that really suffer from mold related expsoures. That does NOT equated that mold sensitivity is going to be acquired by everyone! On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, erikmoldwarrior wrote: > Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 00:34:02 -0000 > From: erikmoldwarrior <erikmoldwarrior@...> > Reply- > > Subject: [] Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Debate: We know > the answer to this > > Angel!! wrote: > >> DO a web search on University in Ohio and see the FUNDED > research on REAL chemical injury and you will NOTICE that there is not > ONE MOLD reference in their research. >> > > Nor is there much interest in mold from the mainstream medical > community, which is why mold illness is misunderstood and why mold > victims are demanding that this oversight be corrected. > This lack of interest should not be construed as evidence that no > interest should be taken. > My " theory " consists of accompanying people complaining of chemical > sensitivities into mycotoxin zones and witnessing a reaction. > Many have asked their doctors if their response could be to mold and > they have been dissuaded of this notion - perhaps incorrectly. > Perhaps the question should be " Why is there not ONE MOLD reference > in their research? " > - > > > > > > > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.