you can not BE a victim – unless you CHOOSE to be victimized

[Guest guest]

Sorry about the crossposting folks, but I have not responded to

Ms.Champion on the IEQuality board. I am not real pleased with her

actions and who she claims to be. Stacey happened to be one of the

lucky ones that happened to recover to a point to almost live a

normal life, from what I gather. Apparently she forgets that these

toxins tend to affect many of us, some more severely than others.

She is saying about all we do is " bitch " about our situation and

dwell on it, and we join in on our own " pity party " . Obviously she

feels we are not active in addressing this issue. Since she is NOT a

member of any longer (if she ever was) I don't know

how she is able to critize what we are doing here.

I find this ironic or actually an oxymoron to supposedly be a mold

victim, an enviromental consultant and have a business dealing

strickly with IAQ issues, and then have such a low opinion of the

people she is dealing with. But at the same time paying her bills by

directly benefiting from us.

As we have warned each other many times on this board you have to be

very cautious of who you let in your front door. It has been

mentioned many times over there are charlatins and industry whores

that are more than willing to drain your finances and you should

proceed with caution.

KC

From: " Stacey Champion " <schampion@...>

Date: Thu Jan 26, 2006 6:27 pm

Subject: RE: [iequality] No Comment about the CDC acknowledging

death from Inhaled Myco... ivanafrump2003

iequality/message/5348

Sharon –

I think that I am probably the best person to maybe respond to some

of your arguments, given that I came into this industry

as an " affected consumer. " I know we've hashed this out in the

past – both on and off-list, and I know that you think

I can be " condescending " at times because I have in your

words, " gone to some conferences and taken some classes, " but

this is what I think:

I think that you are missing the point. Do you not understand and

realize that those of us out there " in the field " are helping

(or at least trying to help) many people every day??? While I can

certainly sympathize with the folks on " " (which

was where I first met Larkin in my quest,) you can not BE a

victim – unless you CHOOSE to be victimized. I quickly tired

of those groups, because quite frankly, I felt that all most of the

people did was `bitch " and dwell in their situation. Certainly not

all – but plenty. We were out of our home for 8 months. Three of

those months were spent in a motel room, three months

were spent in a rental house, and two were spent in our garage and

an RV. I'm simply pointing this out to say " yep – I've been

there, and it sucks really bad. " I was still somehow able though,

to do research and learn " with an open mind. " Having people

call you and tell their stories, is much much different from being

out there on a daily basis seeing " the good, the bad, and the ugly! "

I've been on both sides of that coin, so I can say it with

conviction!

I know I keep reiterating it OVER and OVER – but MOLD is not the

only thing which causes, or leads to crappy indoor air/env. quality –

which yes – can make people very sick. I am much more concerned

about pesticide poisoning than mycotoxin poisoning, to be

perfectly honest… If you could just open your mind a little bit,

stop fighting so hard, and use that amazing energy of yours to help

educate people on the IMPORTANCE of healthy living and working

spaces, maybe we could get there a little bit faster…

We've hashed out the " yellow rain " thing in past posts. I brought

up ricin, if you recall. Yes – there is a HUGE difference. Nobody

on this list is saying that the homes in the Gulf aren't going to

have mold problems, but as stated in the past, MANY other things

(bacteria, chemicals, etc.) play into the equation.

I see " sick " houses on a very regular basis, and having lived

through it, I would never discredit someone's health complaints. I

do however

get my clients to be pro-active and won't play a part in

anyone's " pity party. " I work at helping to find solutions. If a

builder has screwed up –

I teach him (or her) how to fix it, then hope that they won't repeat

the same mistake again. I educate realtors on the importance of

disclosure and " putting themselves in other people's shoes. " I

educate my clients and other consumers on the importance of

preventative

measures, etc. I call out remediators on bad remediation jobs and

stand over their shoulders if I have to, to assist them on doing the

job correctly. I talk to doctors, naturopaths, etc. on asking good

questions about their patient's environments when they have

reoccurring

visits dealing with the same symptoms, etc. This is called being

PRO-ACTIVE. One small baby step at a time… I always tell my six

year

old son that if a " situation " can not be dealt with in a calm and

logical manner, that it's best to save your energy and walk away.

That's what I'm going to do now – after not listening to my own

advice! Until you reach a point where YOU are the one who is willing

to open your mind, attend some conferences or training seminars,

spend some time " out in the field " with a competent professional,

and stop twisting and blaming, I am done reiterating. I wish for

you only the best, and hope that your tireless pursuit has a big

pot of gold (but no mold!) at the end of your rainbow.

Very Sincerely,

Stacey Champion

---------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of snk1955@...

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 11:40 AM

iequality

Subject: Re: [iequality] No Comment about the CDC acknowleding death

from Inhaled Myco...

Hi All,

Before I respond to your posts I want to tell you that I was really

not a happy camper over this issue yesterday. Besides the two

suicides that the folks on Sickbuildings are dealing with (that were

caused by the mixed information, frustration and inability for

people to get any help over this matter). I am also dealing with a

situation that encompasses just about everything that is wrong with

this issue. It involves a really nice tenant and a really nice

landlord who are both about to sucked into this issue because of the

way it is currently being handled. I'll write it up later.

Hopefully, you all will better understand what I see.

So anyway, in response to your posts, I am going to be blunt and

direct. Again, nothing personal meant, it is just the easiest way

for me to communicate effectively.

In a message dated 1/26/2006 8:14:57 AM Pacific Standard Time,

pwalsh@... writes:

Oh boy, here we go again. Replies below (prefaced by **). *sigh*

Please take the condesending tone out of your comments. There is

more than building science and rat studies involved in this issue.

All aspects need to be better understood by those who hold

themselves out as experts advising over this issue. *sigh*

-----Original Message-----

In a message dated 1/25/2006 1:32:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Sharon (and Wei) writes:

Please qualify your statement. Higher concentration than what? A

home that has sat underwater for two months? I don't think so.

** Believe it. Until you have actually taken a mycotoxin sample,

had it analyzed, and had it come back with non-detects across the

board, you don't know what you're talking about.

Surely you are not trying to make the argument molds within damp

indoor environments NEVER produce mycotoxins, are you? Because that

would be like saying molds, no matter where the environment, never

produce mycotoxins. That would be a ridiculous argument.

My opinion on that would be, until you have clinical and

epidemiological studies to back up your samples analyzed as they

corrolate to human illness, you too, don't know what you are talking

about.

And there in is the root the problem. Because of the uncertainty of

the matter, many are set on doing nothing to help people receive

medical care based on " ya can't prove it " . I say there are stong

indications of people complaining of illnesses indicative of

mycotoxicoses and there are people who are responding well to

treatment protocols that address mycotoxicoses. Given the

uncertainty of the situation, it is better to err on the side of

safety and investigate mycotoxicoses as the source of illness. Then

either treat it or rule it out.

** Your argument against the word " weaponized " is scientifically

uninformed and wildly overstated. As has been stated dozens of

times in response to your posts, you fail to understand the concepts

of chemical concentration and dose-response. Dozens of the

industry's finest minds have told you this, and you're going to tell

them they're wrong?? Despite all their training, despite the fact

that they are correct on hundreds of projects a year??

Well, I guess I am going to tell the finest minds they are wrong.

And here is why:

The mantra that keeps getting stated over and over again is " dose

response " . Dose response is based on rodent studies that then have

mathematical extrapolations applied to deduce existance or absence

of human illness.

The problem with the " dose response " argument is that it is not

current accepted scientific evidence to deduce existance or absence

of human illness based solely on mechanistic studies. These types of

studies are useful in researching for indications, but they are not

to be used as conclusive evidence in the absence of epidemiological

or clinical observation studies of actual human beings. These

findings are not conclusive and have long been scientifically

understood to not carry as much weight as you all are applying to

them.

Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes:

Scientific and Ethical Issues (2004) Values and limitations of

animal studies of toxicity.

" As described in Chapter 1 of this report, uncertainties associated

with animal data are reflected by the routine use of a 10-fold

interspecies uncertainty factor when extrapolating from laboratory

animals to humans "

IOM Damp Indoor Spaces and Health

" Except for a few studies on cancer, toxicologic studies of

mycotoxins are acute or short-term studies that use high exposure

concentrations to reveal immediate effects in small populations of

animals. Chronic studies that use lower exposure concentrations and

approximate human exposure more closely have not been done except

for a small number of cancer studies. "

** Let me explain it like this. How many pounds of olives do you

think it takes to make one pound of olive oil? Based on this link:

http://www.australianolives.com.au/TOP/Autumn02.html, it takes 5-10

pounds of olives to make 1 of olive oil, and it varies by crop. The

oil is only a small part of the olive--you have the meat, the skin,

and the pit, all of which contain some oil. The oil is extracted,

refined, and concentrated from all the other stuff.

I don't really care how many pounds of olives it takes to make a

pound of olive oil. It is a given with concrete data and easy to

establish a finite answer. It is not relevant to the study of molds

and mycotoxins as these substances are not consistant of the amount

of mycotoxins produced by molds at any given time.

** The same is true for mold--you have protein, polysaccharaides

(sugars), and lipids (fats)--and toxins, too, but the amount of

toxin can be ZERO, as reported several times in scientific

literature.

" Can be ZERO " Not is always zero.

I would think that would probably be more that Osama Bin Laden could

ever blow into a building. I see no qualifer on the statement by

the CDC in regard to the statement that inhaled mycotoxins can cause

death. I also see not qualifier in the statement by Redd of " little

evidence of illness from inhaled mycotoxins " .

** " Weaponized " is the qualifier. Weaponized means that the toxin

is extracted, refined, and concentrated, just like the olive oil is.

Okay, let me ask it this way: Can " weaponized " mycotoxins produce

adverse health effects within an indoor environment? What is the

minimum dose of weaponized mycotoxins a human would have to inhale

to cause adverse health effects?

What is the minimum dose of non-weaponized mycotoxins a human (not a

rat) would have to inhale to cause adverse health effects? I don't

believe you can answer those question based on current scientific

evidence.

So, through the weaponized study it has been determined that inhaled

mycotoxins can produce adverse health effects in humans.

We know that molds within damp buildings have been established as

producing mycotoxins. And we know that mycotoxins can cause ill

health through inhalation.

Given the fact that inhaled mycotoxins at an indeterminable level

can cause adverse health effects in humans.

Given the fact that mold in buildings can produce mycotoxins.

Given the fact that there are THOUSANDS of people experiencing

adverse health symptoms consistant with the symptoms of

mycotoxicoses after exposure to mold in damp buildings.

Given the fact that mycotoxins are so dangerous they are sometimes

weaponized,

Which is more logical?

Assume these people may be ill from mycotoxins when they are

complaining of symptoms of mycotoxin exposure and help them get some

viable treatment if there illnesses are caused by mycotoxins?

Or assume they are not ill from mycotoxin exposure...and do

absolutely nothing to help them?

** There is no double talk. There is no conspiracy to hide the

facts. There is only your lack of desire to face reality. I'm

sorry to put it so bluntly, but you have ignored the fact that every

scientist on this open-minded and cutting-edge list has told you

you're wrong, based upon their knowledge of the published data and

their own anecdotal experiences.

No, I have not ignored what you all have said. I have learned

much. And I don't think everyone who has a different point of view

than I do is in on some big conspiracy. Although I do think there

are some advising on this issue that need to think alittle more

outside the box.

But, there are some involved in this issue, who are more interested

in saving money for their clients through litigation than they are

moving the science forward so that people may receive proper medical

treatment.

Here is an example:

When XXXXX was asked under oath before a jury of lay

people, " Based on the studies you have done, the literature that you

have discussed, and your experience and training, have you formed an

opinion based on reasonable scientific probability or certainty as

to whether or not there was enough mycotoxins in the home to have

caused illness to Mrs. YYYYY, YYYYY, or YYYYY? " XXXXX

answered, " Yes. " The attorney went on, " And what is that opinion,

doctor? " XXXXX answered, " There could not be. I mean the

difference between the maximum dose that we could come up with and

the level at which we see effects for a broad range of mycotoxins is

just too great. "

There are absolutely no scientific studies, including the

ZZZZZ, that would support XXXXX's concrete statement " It could not

be " . This statement is not based on studies he has claimed to have

read. It is not even based on studies he has written.

Sharon