Controlling cross contamination / A Clean Slate makes it easier

[Guest guest]

A critical element in controlling cross contamination is the

precautionary identification of " Bad zones " .

If you frequently enter contamination zones, the necessity and

extent of measures required for controlling cross contamination can

be made predictable and tailored to your own PIR.

It is easiest to identify these areas of questionable contamination

by using the " relative shift " of response by " getting clear " prior

to making an attempt to assess the level of potential for cross

contamination.

When one is in the midst of an chronic inflammatory response,

detecting the relative shift of symptomology that identifies these

areas of special concern is far more difficult - since the symptoms

remain fairly constant and are less specific with regard to location.

Deciding if an exposure is strong enough to cross contaminate

objects and necessitate decontamination is always easier if you

start with a clean slate.

I remember the first I hiked Mt Whitney after working out this

concerted strategy and proposing it to Dr while in the NIH

CFS study.

As I climbed the dreaded " Switchbacks " , I thought " This is a Miracle.

The doctors told me there was no way to control my illness - yet

here I am! And they thought there was nothing that would help! "

And I thought " People will want to know about this. "

It should be a simple matter to explain to a doctor attempting to

help his patients that I had uncovered a relevant clue and get some

interest into the mycotoxin connection to CFS.

That way, I would get research into this peculiarity and, with the

cooperation of a doctor, make this strategy more accessible to

anyone sufficiently desperate enough to try it.

Just as we in support groups had asked anyone who found something

that really helps in their CFS to return and share it - I felt that

it was my duty to do what I had asked of others. So I traveled to

support groups, contacted the CDC/NIH, hundreds of doctors, put my

story in message groups, and even had it posted in the british

medical journal.

The most incredible part of this strange journey is to learn that

people do not acquire new information the way they think they do.

Their epistemological philosophy is exemplified by Dr Byron Hyde

who rejected my information saying " I don't want to hear it. No

matter how many more people you find with this mold reactivity -

this is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. That does not

consitute proof " .

Repetitive demonstrations which confirm a phenemonon, such as

taking people into a moldy building so they can personally feel the

consequences - are completely discarded in favor of an opinion

written on a piece of paper by someone who has " scientist " written

on his business card.

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.

The efforts of mold sufferers to silence and suppress any concept

that doesn't originate with recognized authority is reflected by the

replies that have met my proposals for a refined and concerted

effort at mycotoxin avoidance, and is also manifested by the notable

lack of interest - which is surely an indication of denial that is

epistemologically predicated upon a prejudicial disbelief of my

uncredentialed and unprofessional status.

As Branislav describes in our discussion, I may have found some

answers, but that is entirely besides the point.

To paraphrase: " Nobodies gonna believe it no matter what, 'cause

I'm not a doctor " .

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.

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.

-

Branislav wrote:

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<