Re: Controlling cross contamination / A Clean Slate makes it easier

[Guest guest]

, Is guess Im one of the stupied ones, lets see, are you telling

me to go to the mountains? is there no polutatants in the air there?

is there no mold? so what your saying is to start with a clean slate,

I think thats what I did. now if you want to pay for me to go to the

mountains, Im there! my bad zone , most days is stepping outside my

door! I live in a apartment, Im not rich, I dont have a

decontamination room. and if you have some useful advice, quit

posting it from a book and put it in plain langage, so us dummy's can

understand.

> Dear Dr Schaller,

>

> If I may suggest only two things in case you decide to update the

> book at some point in the future:

>

>

> 1) Could you also include more emphasis on the problem of

> cross-contamination through clothing, furniture, other people's

> belongings etc. You do mention the problem of cross-contamination

> when you speak about remediation and that toxins can be spread

> through the air or someone's shoes. However the problem of cross-

> contamination is, as you surely know, much more complex. Someone

who

> does not have any experience with mold might mistakenly conclude

> that as soon as one leaves the area where the mold grows one will

> get better. That is maybe true for those who are not

hypersensitive,

> but some of us are not so lucky. Decontamination of one's body and

> especially clothes and personal objects can be a nightmarish job,

> lasting months instead of a few minutes.

>

>

> 2) Could there also be a chapter about the problem with mold which

is

> not visible but is still present in huge amounts on object(s). Such

> objects can virtually destroy the life of individuals who are

> hypersensitive to molds and their toxins. The problem is even more

> compounded by the fact that there is no visible mold, and even less

> people will pay attention to cases like this. You do mention a way

to

> decontaminate books with no apparent mold growth, but I feel this

> particular problem with objects without visible mold needs to be

> tackled more, by giving more examples.

>

>

>

> Thanks again, and please do not take these suggestions as a

criticism

> but simply as suggestions. -Branislav<

>

[Guest guest]

> Much to my amazement, the strategy that meant so much in my

>recovery has met with almost universal dismissal, even by those who

>are seeking such information, such as this group.

Denial, disbelief is a very strong impulse to overcome. When I sold

all my properties and moved completely away I thought I was good to

go. I had read post's like yours that talked about cross

contamination and decided to ignore them to my detriment.

I wasn't able to take advantage of that knowledge. I had to see for

myself. This is totally counter to Dr Dean Edell's " Mass Hysteria

Illness "

>Just as we saw with Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, whose H Pylori

>hypothesis spent decades in limbo because the medical profession and

>society at large considered " scientific data " to be " That which is

>already known and peer reviewed " instead of defined as " Using the

>methodology of science " - a perfectly testable hypothesis tends to

>be dismissed on the grounds that it cannot be " proven " by prior peer

>reviewed evidence.

This is where their is a double standard. They discount something that

CAN be reproduced scientifically. Based on the notion that it's

already been reviewed.

And yet they can say " abracadabra " you have a psychological Problem

and that's why the walls of your stomach have been eaten away with

ulcers!

Solely based on a hunch because their is no way to demonstrate this

scientifically.

A great example of pseudoscientific method winning over scientific

method demonstrated by the very snobs that claim to be above this sort

of thing.

What gets me is they still have most's skeptics total trust even

after demonstrating their incompetence on such a grand scale.

> And THAT, alone - is a peculiarity which deserves to be studied,

>for it is undoubtedly the very same mental process which hinders

>recognition of mold illness.

Yes and no, some know the epidemic is real and covering it up, most

are ignorant.

[Guest guest]

, You said sold everything and moved and that didn't do it. So

what are you wishing you had done? Are you saying that moving with a

few items, like the clothes on your back, made you sick in new place

or that you didn't shower before you entered new home, brought the

problem with you? Saying you sold everything makes it a little

unclear, as to what you wished you had done different. thanks

--- In , Christ <antares41-41@...>

wrote:

> Denial, disbelief is a very strong impulse to overcome. When I sold

> all my properties and moved completely away I thought I was good to

> go. I had read post's like yours that talked about cross

> contamination and decided to ignore them to my detriment.

> I wasn't able to take advantage of that knowledge. I had to see for

> myself. This is totally counter to Dr Dean Edell's " Mass Hysteria

> Illness "

>

[Guest guest]

Christ wrote:

> A great example of pseudoscientific method winning over scientific

method demonstrated by the very snobs that claim to be above this

sort of thing. - <

Exactly! That's what stops them. They believe they are " above this

sort of thing " .

The key to overcoming pseudoscience is to stop asking nicely for

them to " believe " you - because their " I don't believe anything that

cannot be substantiated " training tells them that it would be

unscientific for them to do so.

Pleading for belief only strengthens the denial of pseudoscientific

thinkers.

The only way to create a wedge in their intransigence is to

introduce the fear that you might actually know more than they do.

This is the only chance to arouse enough " insecurity " in their fixed

notions to make them wonder if they are missing something.

I challenge them to do " The Mold Tour " .

One doctor, stung by my " arrogant " dismissals of HIS dismissal,

decided to prove me wrong by taking me up on my offer, and I took

him to the worst place I knew.

The results were absolutely delightful.

He literally dropped. Choking and reeling, he staggered to his

car, crawled in and rolled down the window just a crack, and as he

jammed his car in gear and peeled rubber in his haste, I heard him

say " How caan anyone stay alive in there? Get out! "

SCREEEECH!!!!

That was rewarding, to have made another instant believer, but it

did little good in terms of getting any assistance.

Doctors are helplessly reliant on " peer reviewed information " to

shape their mindset. Without access to scientific literature,

doctors are even more unable to deal with the situation than the

average person.

Since there was nothing in his library, and he had little

experience, this doctor was at more of a disadvantage than I was.

Medical training and indoctrination into the mentality of reliance

on peer reviewed scientific data makes doctors especially likely to

invalidate any concept that lacks " supporting references " , no matter

how obvious it may seem to anyone else.

While my attitude of " arrogance " bothers people mightily, if there

is anything I've learned through this experience, it is that people

who pride themselves on being scientifically skeptical never respond

to pleading. The only thing that even remotely shakes them is the

element of doubt inspired by a demeanor of forceful confidence in a

concept.

-

[Guest guest]

-your right about that. I have offered my homes many times to non-

believers, to go in, to live in, to see for theri selfs, none would

take me up on this offer, but would rather, just keep believeing what

they

want.

-- In

, " erikmoldwarrior "

<erikmoldwarrior@...> wrote:

>

> Christ wrote:

> > A great example of pseudoscientific method winning over

scientific

> method demonstrated by the very snobs that claim to be above this

> sort of thing. - <

>

> Exactly! That's what stops them. They believe they are " above this

> sort of thing " .

> The key to overcoming pseudoscience is to stop asking nicely for

> them to " believe " you - because their " I don't believe anything

that

> cannot be substantiated " training tells them that it would be

> unscientific for them to do so.

>

> Pleading for belief only strengthens the denial of

pseudoscientific

> thinkers.

> The only way to create a wedge in their intransigence is to

> introduce the fear that you might actually know more than they do.

> This is the only chance to arouse enough " insecurity " in their

fixed

> notions to make them wonder if they are missing something.

>

> I challenge them to do " The Mold Tour " .

> One doctor, stung by my " arrogant " dismissals of HIS dismissal,

> decided to prove me wrong by taking me up on my offer, and I took

> him to the worst place I knew.

> The results were absolutely delightful.

> He literally dropped. Choking and reeling, he staggered to his

> car, crawled in and rolled down the window just a crack, and as he

> jammed his car in gear and peeled rubber in his haste, I heard him

> say " How caan anyone stay alive in there? Get out! "

> SCREEEECH!!!!

>

> That was rewarding, to have made another instant believer, but it

> did little good in terms of getting any assistance.

> Doctors are helplessly reliant on " peer reviewed information " to

> shape their mindset. Without access to scientific literature,

> doctors are even more unable to deal with the situation than the

> average person.

> Since there was nothing in his library, and he had little

> experience, this doctor was at more of a disadvantage than I was.

>

> Medical training and indoctrination into the mentality of reliance

> on peer reviewed scientific data makes doctors especially likely to

> invalidate any concept that lacks " supporting references " , no

matter

> how obvious it may seem to anyone else.

>

> While my attitude of " arrogance " bothers people mightily, if there

> is anything I've learned through this experience, it is that people

> who pride themselves on being scientifically skeptical never

respond

> to pleading. The only thing that even remotely shakes them is the

> element of doubt inspired by a demeanor of forceful confidence in a

> concept.

>

> -

>

[Guest guest]

-in my first home, the victorian, I had 2 people, not long ago, who

tear down these types of homes for the lumber, wood floors and

woodwork. I explained the very toxic mold problem to them and offered

them masks, they refused the masks and I had them sign a paper saying

they were going in , and I would not be responcable if they got ill.

one came out saying, " I see what you mean, I have a really bad taste

in my mouth " , the other one did too, than called me later to say he

had gotton a bad headacke on the way home. they had both said before

going in, that they deal with mold all the time and it doesn't effect

them.

-- In

, " who " <jeaninem660@...> wrote:

>

> -your right about that. I have offered my homes many times to non-

> believers, to go in, to live in, to see for theri selfs, none would

> take me up on this offer, but would rather, just keep believeing

what

> they

>

want.

>

> -- In

> , " erikmoldwarrior "

> <erikmoldwarrior@> wrote:

> >

> > Christ wrote:

> > > A great example of pseudoscientific method winning over

> scientific

> > method demonstrated by the very snobs that claim to be above this

> > sort of thing. - <

> >

> > Exactly! That's what stops them. They believe they are " above

this

> > sort of thing " .

> > The key to overcoming pseudoscience is to stop asking nicely for

> > them to " believe " you - because their " I don't believe anything

> that

> > cannot be substantiated " training tells them that it would be

> > unscientific for them to do so.

> >

> > Pleading for belief only strengthens the denial of

> pseudoscientific

> > thinkers.

> > The only way to create a wedge in their intransigence is to

> > introduce the fear that you might actually know more than they do.

> > This is the only chance to arouse enough " insecurity " in their

> fixed

> > notions to make them wonder if they are missing something.

> >

> > I challenge them to do " The Mold Tour " .

> > One doctor, stung by my " arrogant " dismissals of HIS dismissal,

> > decided to prove me wrong by taking me up on my offer, and I took

> > him to the worst place I knew.

> > The results were absolutely delightful.

> > He literally dropped. Choking and reeling, he staggered to his

> > car, crawled in and rolled down the window just a crack, and as

he

> > jammed his car in gear and peeled rubber in his haste, I heard

him

> > say " How caan anyone stay alive in there? Get out! "

> > SCREEEECH!!!!

> >

> > That was rewarding, to have made another instant believer, but

it

> > did little good in terms of getting any assistance.

> > Doctors are helplessly reliant on " peer reviewed information " to

> > shape their mindset. Without access to scientific literature,

> > doctors are even more unable to deal with the situation than the

> > average person.

> > Since there was nothing in his library, and he had little

> > experience, this doctor was at more of a disadvantage than I was.

> >

> > Medical training and indoctrination into the mentality of

reliance

> > on peer reviewed scientific data makes doctors especially likely

to

> > invalidate any concept that lacks " supporting references " , no

> matter

> > how obvious it may seem to anyone else.

> >

> > While my attitude of " arrogance " bothers people mightily, if

there

> > is anything I've learned through this experience, it is that

people

> > who pride themselves on being scientifically skeptical never

> respond

> > to pleading. The only thing that even remotely shakes them is

the

> > element of doubt inspired by a demeanor of forceful confidence in

a

> > concept.

> >

> > -

> >

>

[Guest guest]

-, there is a certain amount of parinoia that goes with finding

out your illnesses are from toxic molds, yes advoidence is most

important, I agree with on that. but with MCS advoidence is

impossable. toxic chemicals are everywhere. and has admitted in

one post that he still has MCS, so thats why I get irratated with his

post. I just want him to be real and talk with the group, not at

them. for whatever reasons, he can not do this, he is only hurting

himself. as far as belongings, yes, some are hard to part with. try

amonia and water to wash what you can and do it often. wash your

laundry with amonia to, makes a difference, sheets and pillowcases a

must and often, and pillows. if your not sure with some things , put

them in plastic air tight containers. I took every picture that i had

left that wasn't in my moldy photo albums. and carefully wipe theem

down with one of those dust magnets. and put them in new frames.

sadly my photo albums had to be tossed with negatives to, this hurt

as most were picture of my children when they were little. but family

has some so I will get

copies.

[Guest guest]

directions are on the bottle. Dr. Croft told me to use this, it

really helps,with clothes, and makes a big difference with bedding.

but try not to breath it directly. were a mask if you need to. but

after things are washed and dried, the amonia smell is gone.my mom

used to use this in all dads laundry when he raised hogs to get the

smell out. also you can mix some with water in a spray bottle and

spray the air in your home. this methed has been used some in moldy

homes during mold remeditation to help keep mold spores in the air

knocked down, half and half for this, but I used less. this helped in

the last apartment I was in.but I dont know if I would do this very

often just depends, might bother MCS people, dont know. didn't bother

me much after its watered down. ?? use your own judgement on this.

DONT MIX WITH BLEACH.amonia and bleach together produces a chemical,

very bad I heard. according to Dr. Croft, this temporarely

nutralizes the mold spores. it does not kill them, but neither does

bleach. and spores do not wash out of laundry, so this is a

alternative to throwing all your laundry away and bying

new.

>

> jeanine,

> It does make it very difficult when you fear things that are not

> necessarily a hazard but than ignore things that are a hazard like

> the monitor I had, like the sail boat I was living in. You have to

be

> very vigilant and use good judgment. Something I have proved over

the

> years to be very deficient in. I am a slow learner but I think at

> last I am starting to get it.

>

>

> I know I am sensitive to chemicals but try to downplay this because

> they are in my opinion or my case at least insignificant when

compared

> to my sensitivity to mold and it's relation to my prevailing day to

> day symptoms.

>

> But they defiantly are not innocuous. And further I know some

people

> will disagree with this but I think or at least in my case know that

> chemicals are responsible for or played a large part in my

> sensitivities to mold. Mold alone may well be enough to create this

> illness but I think I had a lot of help from chemicals.

>

> So clearly I can't stress enough how important avoidance of

chemicals

> is to ones health. Weather your sbs or mcs or a mixture of the two,

> you want to avoid chemicals and the cumulative effect they have at

> all cost's.

>

> At the same time, at least I know this to be true in my case. You

> don't want to discount the fact that mold plays a predominant part

in

> your day to day condition and one should never discount it based on

> the idea that they are mcs or cfs.

>

>

> > I

>

>

> >yes, some are hard to part with. try

> >amonia and water to wash what you can and do it often.

> Never heard of ammonia in the wash. I use bleach for that. Maybe I

> will give it a try. How much do you use?

>

>

> >

>