Re: you can not BE a victim - unless you CHOOSE to be victimized

[Guest guest]

Amen KC,

Well you know I could just add plenty, but you have summed it up just fine.

Pity Party!!!! I could have thought of better words. What we must all

remember is that once we have gotten out of a contaminated environment,

whatever it may be, not to return to another.

We should learn the first time, and not move into another contaminated place

like some people have,after having the education that has been spoken of by

Stacey.

If you are exposed and your life has been effected, you ARE a victim. Just

like someone who is held up at gun point. They will NEVER forget it, and

YES they speak of it, and YES they will have a life to live with it. YES

they were a VICTIMS. They didn't " choose to be victimized, " (as was

mentioned by Stacey) it just happened to them. All true moldies whose lives

have been greatly effected are VICTIMS.

Don't let someone who's life has not been totally effected make ANY of you

feel bad, because he/she has no understanding of how your life was ruined.

They have no way to even BEGIN to understand, not a clue.

We are all here to support each other, listen to each other, cry on each

others shoulders, and YES we can have this (so called) pity party for as

long as we want.

It will effect my families lives probably until the day we die, and I know

it effects my daughters life everyday. She is allowed to be mad, upset,

cry, scream, or whatever it is that helps her on her hard days. See I was

truly effected, and I will never make her be quiet, or try to make her feel

less, because she is a victim-I know what she is going thru.

I hope this helps all to feel better, and your feelings are VERY important.

This group has helped me deal with so much emotional issues. It was a true

life saver for me.

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

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

>

>