Got slammed by mycotoxins again, personal documents contaminated

August 1, 2006

About a week ago I was going into my bank by public bus. A young man

came into the bus about 3 stations before I reached the destination.

He carried a large suitcase. I guess he was probably returning from a

vacation from a foreign country (*). His suitcase emitted huge amounts

of extremely powerful mycotoxins, and I got contaminated. All I

carried with myself (personal ID, bank documents and a lot more)

became contaminated too. I thought the contamination would drop off by

itself but it didn't. Of course, the bank is now contaminated as well.

Apperently it was not living mold but mainly mycotoxins. Even my

plastic bank card got contaminated. That wouldn't be possible if it

was only spores, would it?

When I came back home I thought the contamination was decreasing (I

was dead wrong). I put these documents on top of ALL of my other clean

documents. Needless to say, they all got contaminated. This is the

second time I was slammed by a predominantly mycotoxin " cloud " . The

first time it happened in 2002 and I still haven't decontaminated all

the things till this very day.

I can ask for the new ID and bank cards to be issued, but how on earth

can I change ALL my documents? I mean - the certificate from my high

school, the book in which all my jobs are recorded, my medical papers,

my birth certificate, my university diploma...everything!

I tried with sodium hypochlorite and (separately) with ammonia

solution in water. Only the hypochlorite solution had some effect, but

it's still far from good. Ammonia doesn't destroy this mycotoxin.

I found this interesting article, but I'm not sure how effective

this would be on paper.

http://www.leatherheadfood.com/eman2/fsheet4_2.asp

Scroll down to trichothecenes. They suggest Calcium hydroxide

monomethylamine against T-2 toxin and sodium bisulfite against DON.

Ammonia only seems to be effective against aflatoxins.

Is there a way to decontaminate these papers? Any ideas from the

experts? (Carl Grimes, perhaps?)

I think this must be a mixture of trichothecene mycotoxins, since only

they produce diarrhea, nausea etc. upon skin contact or inhalation,

which is what I'm experiencing right now.

-Branislav

(*) Take a look at my next posting. On the basis of 15 years of

most painful experience, I think I know exactly where this person was

returning from.

August 1, 2006

> Apperently it was not living mold but mainly mycotoxins. Even my

plastic bank card got contaminated. That wouldn't be possible if it

was only spores, would it?

>

If you saw my story about the waterproof binoculars on Dr Klein's

Stachybotrys website, the point was that the toxins have the same

inflammatory effect whether they are still on the spore, or adsorbed

into plastic.

Once the immune system is upregulated by a potent initiator

molecule, you then become aware of lesser exposures which were

already present, but insufficient to generate the clinical response.

It makes everything feel like it suddenly became contaminated, when

it already was - but unfelt.

The only way I have found to shut off the overt upregulation is

by " getting clear " in a safe zone. Then these lesser exposures can

be tolerated - as before.

Once that is accomplished, you reset the immune response - until

the next time...

-

August 1, 2006

never ends it seems like

erikmoldwarrior <erikmoldwarrior@...> wrote:

> Apperently it was not living mold but mainly mycotoxins. Even my

plastic bank card got contaminated. That wouldn't be possible if it

was only spores, would it?

>

If you saw my story about the waterproof binoculars on Dr Klein's

Stachybotrys website, the point was that the toxins have the same

inflammatory effect whether they are still on the spore, or adsorbed

into plastic.

Once the immune system is upregulated by a potent initiator

molecule, you then become aware of lesser exposures which were

already present, but insufficient to generate the clinical response.

It makes everything feel like it suddenly became contaminated, when

it already was - but unfelt.

The only way I have found to shut off the overt upregulation is

by " getting clear " in a safe zone. Then these lesser exposures can

be tolerated - as before.

Once that is accomplished, you reset the immune response - until

the next time...

-

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

See the all-new, redesigned .com. Check it out.

August 1, 2006

>

> > Apperently it was not living mold but mainly mycotoxins. Even my

> plastic bank card got contaminated. That wouldn't be possible if it

> was only spores, would it?

> >

>

> If you saw my story about the waterproof binoculars on Dr Klein's

> Stachybotrys website, the point was that the toxins have the same

> inflammatory effect whether they are still on the spore, or adsorbed

> into plastic.

>

> Once the immune system is upregulated by a potent initiator

> molecule, you then become aware of lesser exposures which were

> already present, but insufficient to generate the clinical response.

> It makes everything feel like it suddenly became contaminated, when

> it already was - but unfelt.

> The only way I have found to shut off the overt upregulation is

> by " getting clear " in a safe zone. Then these lesser exposures can

> be tolerated - as before.

> Once that is accomplished, you reset the immune response - until

> the next time...

> -

>

Yes, I read your story about the waterproof binoculars many times .

This isn't the first time this type of thing happened to me. Almost

identical, if not much worse, contamination occurred in 2002 just

around this time of year (July).

The theory that you are proposing - that a powerful mycotoxin

basically just changes something in one's immune system so that the

person merely becomes aware of already present but unfelt

contaminations on other objects for which he/she thought were clean -

simply doesn't hold water for me.

For instance, one T-shirt which was contaminated in 2002 came into

contact with that infamous kitchen table of mine. The table had been

completely neutral before. I used to sit at it. I used to write a lot

while sitting at that table. It was one of the safest objects in my

whole house. And you are saying that the table was contaminated all

along, but the T-shirt just made me aware of it? That is totally

impossible.

Why, then, after having stayed at a cousin of mine (her house doesn't

have a mold problem) for about 2 months, and regained my health, as

soon as I approached the table I got all the symptoms again? According

to your theory the table should have been fine by then.

No, that's not a satisfactory explanation of what happens when a

powerful mycotoxin contaminates certain objects.

My hypothesis is that when a powerful mycotoxin lands on a surface,

although the mycotoxin is not alive itself, it acts as a strong

barrier and poison against other normal molds / bacteria, and favours

only the mold that produced the mycotoxin in question. It's possible

that during original contamination at least some spores of the

mycotoxin producing mold attached to objects apart from the mycotoxin.

It's also possible that the mold in question is normally always

present in the air in small concentrations. But now, because of its

mycotoxin advantage over other molds on the cross-contaminated object,

that type of mold can re-grow, cross-contaminate and spread to many

other objects.

Some scientist even say that mycotoxins GROW. For example look at this

quote taken from this website:

http://www.moldreporter.org/vol1no4/mycotoxins

" Trichothecene mycotoxins GROW well at low temperatures and frequently

contaminate grain and other foodstuffs. During World War II, there was

a large outbreak of food poisoning due to toxins of the Fusarium mold,

left in grains that had overwintered in the fields. Many died from the

disease (alimentary toxic aleukia), the symptoms of which resembled a

severe radiation injury. (Rand Corp.) "

How can a non-living substance " grow " ? How can it cross-contaminate

grain and other foodstuffs? Grains don't have immune systems that can

be upregulated.

-Branislav

August 2, 2006

> How can a non-living substance " grow " ? How can it cross-contaminate

> grain and other foodstuffs? Grains don't have immune systems that can

> be upregulated.

> -Branislav

To the best of my knowledge, it cannot.

Without the spores, there would be no source for mycotoxins.

I have the experience on an almost daily basis of seeing my immune

upregulation cause me to react to normally non-reactive places and

objects - on a minor level.

I am working in a building that is not very good. When I leave in the

afternoon, and before I decontaminate, I'm always amazed at how places

like a local grocery store 'set me off' when normally the place

doesn't bother me at all.

I can certainly understand contaminating a table with a T shirt, but

I consider it unlikely that the toxins are propagating without spores.

-

August 2, 2006

It's hard to imagine spores emiting mycotoxins since they would not be

breathing or defecating, etc., where would odor come from. I would

think only something living, not pre-living like a spore, like the

adult mold to give off mycotoxins. Just what I would think.

>> Without the spores, there would be no source for mycotoxins.

>

August 2, 2006

" barb1283 " <barb1283@...> wrote:

>

> It's hard to imagine spores emiting mycotoxins since they would

not be breathing or defecating, etc., where would odor come from. I

would think only something living, not pre-living like a spore, like

the adult mold to give off mycotoxins. Just what I would think.

>

That " odor " comes from mVOC's, microbial volatile organic compounds

from normal metabolic function as mold colonies subsist on substrate.

The killer stuff that we need to worry about is the " secondary

metabolites " : the antimicrobial mycotoxins that are packaged in the

spore to give it protection from competitors as it wanders off to

attempt to start a new colony.

Since all slimes, molds, smuts, yeasts and bacteria produce mVOC's

as a normal non toxic by-product, using a musty odor as a guide to

avoidance will have you running from a lot of places where " good

fungi " and bacteria are just doing their normal and necessary job of

decomposing waste.

" Mycotoxin avoidance " is primarily dedicated to staying out of the

range of toxic secondary metabolites that come from mold colonies

in " spore clouds " - which, when driven by the wind in a specific

direction - are called " plumes " .

-

August 2, 2006

also, spores that we inhale release their attached mycotoxins once

inside the

body.

> >

> > It's hard to imagine spores emiting mycotoxins since they would

> not be breathing or defecating, etc., where would odor come from.

I

> would think only something living, not pre-living like a spore,

like

> the adult mold to give off mycotoxins. Just what I would think.

> >

>

> That " odor " comes from mVOC's, microbial volatile organic

compounds

> from normal metabolic function as mold colonies subsist on

substrate.

> The killer stuff that we need to worry about is the " secondary

> metabolites " : the antimicrobial mycotoxins that are packaged in the

> spore to give it protection from competitors as it wanders off to

> attempt to start a new colony.

> Since all slimes, molds, smuts, yeasts and bacteria produce mVOC's

> as a normal non toxic by-product, using a musty odor as a guide to

> avoidance will have you running from a lot of places where " good

> fungi " and bacteria are just doing their normal and necessary job

of

> decomposing waste.

> " Mycotoxin avoidance " is primarily dedicated to staying out of the

> range of toxic secondary metabolites that come from mold colonies

> in " spore clouds " - which, when driven by the wind in a specific

> direction - are called " plumes " .

> -

>

August 2, 2006

,

So wherever there are mold colonies there would

be BOTH mVOC's and ALSO mycotoxins. The mVOC's

would indictate that mold colony is near. That

that mold colony is near would give you plenty of

spores I assume, so mycotoxins would be there

also. So you do NOT smell mycotoxins? So

running from innocent VOC's still would be good

idea because mycotoxins would certainly be there

also (unless odor is coming from bacteria only).

Okay, so you are saying then even if no smell,

mycotoxins could be an ODORLESS problem where you

are if there is mold plume, which COULD just blow

through area and NOT stay?? You notice plumes by

a reaction in YOURSELF, nothing external, so

smell, no sight, etc.

I thought mold plume was term you 'coined' for

your experience. Googling I didn't find a whole

lot right off the bat, but did find some

reference to mold plume or bloom on cigars, which

they said was a 'good' thing?? However I found

the term toxic plume on this website of lawyers

in New Jersey;

http://www.wilentz.com/wstv/toxic-injuries-consumer.php

--- erikmoldwarrior

<erikmoldwarrior@...> wrote:

>> That " odor " comes from mVOC's, microbial

> volatile organic compounds

> from normal metabolic function as mold colonies

> subsist on substrate.

> The

August 2, 2006

>

> ,

> So wherever there are mold colonies there would

> be BOTH mVOC's and ALSO mycotoxins. The mVOC's

> would indictate that mold colony is near. That

> that mold colony is near would give you plenty of

> spores I assume, so mycotoxins would be there

> also. So you do NOT smell mycotoxins? So

> running from innocent VOC's still would be good

> idea because mycotoxins would certainly be there

> also (unless odor is coming from bacteria only).

> Okay, so you are saying then even if no smell,

> mycotoxins could be an ODORLESS problem where you

> are if there is mold plume, which COULD just blow

> through area and NOT stay?? You notice plumes by

> a reaction in YOURSELF, nothing external, so

> smell, no sight, etc.

> I thought mold plume was term you 'coined' for

> your experience. Googling I didn't find a whole

> lot right off the bat,

The neurotoxic mycotoxins have no odor per se.

It creates an " acrid " olfactory sensation; " Burning " .

The trick to to distinguish acridity from stench so there is no

need to run from harmless mVOC's.

I only respond to " sensation " and not to musty smells.

I had heard of " spore clouds " but this didn't reflect the action of

movement necessary to create a mental picture of how these clouds

travel and " hit " you, so I started calling them " spore plumes " .

Think " cigarette smoke " .

You can get a lungful, while it passes unnoticed right past the

person sitting next to you.

-

August 3, 2006

" The neurotoxic mycotoxins have no odor per se.

It creates an " acrid " olfactory sensation; " Burning " .

The trick to to distinguish acridity from stench so there is no

need to run from harmless mVOC's.

I only respond to " sensation " and not to musty smells.

I had heard of " spore clouds " but this didn't reflect the action of

movement necessary to create a mental picture of how these clouds

travel and " hit " you, so I started calling them " spore plumes " .

Think " cigarette smoke " .

You can get a lungful, while it passes unnoticed right past the

person sitting next to you.

- "

I second all you said. Mycotoxins have no odor per se. That's why it's

often so hard to explain to anyone unaffected that you're having

serious problems, while he/she is symptom free. When a mold emits

mVOC's that can be smelled by anyone, people are more willing to

listen. Especially if the mold is visible. But then, there are so many

harmless molds that can grow to be visible, emit smelly mVOCs, but no

harmful mycotoxins.

, how do you handle your personal documents (your ID card for

instance)? When you have to go with your documents to a place where

mold hits are possible, do you carry them protected in some

hermetically closed box or...? I think it's a rather good idea. Better

that than to have to change them every time you're hit by a nasty

mycotoxin plume.

If the global molding gets worse (as it will unfortunately), total

avoidance might become very hard or even impossible in a populated

area. I think we should consider studying available and affordable

chemical/biological treatments that can decompose trichothecene

mycotoxins on personal objects. If someone can try these substances on

small contaminations with success, please report here. I'm not

advocating their use, just proposing alternatives in case the global

mold problem continues to aggravate. As far as I know, the proposed

inanimate chemicals are mostly harmless to humans. I'm not so sure

about the proposed bacteria.

http://193.132.193.215/eman2/fsheet4_2.asp

Decontamination by chemical agents:

" Trichothecenes

Calcium hydroxide monomethylamine has been used to decontaminate feeds

containing T-2 toxin and diacetoxyscirpenol at 10 to 20 mg/kg; the

success of the procedure is dependent on the moisture content of the

feed and the processing temperature. In particular, about 50% of

mycotoxin reduction was observed when the treatment was performed at

about 25 Deg C and 10% moisture in 4 hours; when the moisture content

was increased to 25% T-2 toxin level was reduced by 95 to 99%.

Sodium bisulfite solutions were able to reduce deoxynivalenol (DON)

level (85%) in contaminated corn (4.4 mg/kg DON) and form a

DON-sulfonate conjugate when the treatment was performed at 80 Deg C

for 18 hours (8). Because this compound appeared to be nontoxic to

pigs, this treatment has been proposed for decontaminating

DON-contaminated corn destined for use in pig feeds.

Other chemicals (hydrochloric acid, hydrogen peroxide, sodium

hypochlorite, ascorbic acid and ammonium carbonate) did not prove to

be as effective as sodium bisulfite and had little or no effect on DON

level. "

http://193.132.193.215/eman2/fsheet4_4.asp

Decontamination by bilogical agents:

" Trichothecenes

The 12,13-epoxide ring is essential for the toxicity of these

mycotoxins, and removal of this ring results in a significant loss of

toxicity. Ruminal or intestinal microflora are capable of detoxifying

deoxynivalenol (DON) by enzymatic reduction of the epoxide ring

resulting in the metabolite DOM-1 that is known to be non-toxic. A

pure anaerobic bacterial strain (Eubacterium), capable of the

biotransformation of DON to DOM-1, was isolated from an enriched mixed

culture obtained from bovine rumen content. This bacterium transformed

DON and other trichothecenes within 24-48h in in vitro experiments

using pieces of pig intestine.

Treatments of moldy corn contaminated with approximately 5

microgrammes/g of DON with microbial inoculum from the digestive tract

of poultry reduced the DON concentration by 54%. This decontamination

process also partially alleviated the toxic effects of this diet on

feed intake and body weight gain in young pigs.

A bacterium isolated from soil and belonging to the

Agrobacterium-Rhizobium group was found to transform 70% of DON to

3-keto-DON after a 1-day incubation. This metabolite exhibited a

reduced immunosuppressive toxicity as compared to DON. The bacterium

showed the same activity against 3-acetyl-DON but not against other

trichothecenes such as nivalenol and fusarenone X.

The selection and field-testing of competitive fungi for controlling

ear infection by toxigenic Fusarium spp. in cereals have been

performed in a recent EU-funded project (Control Mycotox Food). The

studies have shown that some antagonists, including non-toxigenic

Fusarium species, can effectively decrease Fusarium Head Blight on

wheat and significantly control DON production by >70%, as well as

that obtained with present fungicides.

The objective of the ongoing EU-funded project FUCOMYR is to reduce

mycotoxins contamination in wheat, Europe's most important cereal

crop, at the pre-harvest stage by means of improved Fusarium Head

Blight resistance. "

August 3, 2006

My doctor says that mold in large quantities is

never harmless, even if mold is not toxic mold.

I would think mold in enough quantity to make a

room smell would be harmful. Could be some

bacteria involved but still lots of microbes you

are breathing in.

--- Brad <arealis@...> wrote:

>But

> then, there are so many

> harmless molds that can grow to be visible,

> emit smelly mVOCs, but no

> harmful mycotoxins.

>

August 4, 2006

" Brad " <arealis@...> wrote:

> I second all you said. Mycotoxins have no odor per se. That's why

it's often so hard to explain to anyone unaffected that you're

having serious problems, while he/she is symptom free. When a mold

emits mVOC's that can be smelled by anyone, people are more willing

to listen. Especially if the mold is visible. But then, there are so

many harmless molds that can grow to be visible, emit smelly mVOCs,

but no harmful mycotoxins.

>

, how do you handle your personal documents (your ID card for

instance)? When you have to go with your documents to a place where

mold hits are possible, do you carry them protected in some

hermetically closed box or...? I think it's a rather good idea.

Better that than to have to change them every time you're hit by a

nasty mycotoxin plume.

> If the global molding gets worse (as it will unfortunately),

total avoidance might become very hard or even impossible in a

populated area. I think we should consider studying available and

affordable chemical/biological treatments that can decompose

trichothecene mycotoxins on personal objects.

>

Unfortunately, this is exactly what I am seeing.

The difficulty of maintaining a sufficiently low level of exposure

in populated areas has grown noticeably more difficult in the last

few years.

Objects that have had long term exposure stay bad for a long time.

Things that have had only momentary exposure clean up readily.

I used to have a forced " outside-air " Hepa system on my RV to

maintain positive pressure of filtered air. I thought that this

would allow me to to stay more comfortable in a contamination zone.

But all it did was allow MORE time for my entire RV to build up an

intolerable level that takes longer to die down.

So I removed the filter system. Better to get the bad news

immediately and act immediately. Otherwise the consequences of

toxin accumulation are intensified beyond anything that I can handle.

So all my possessions have not been in spore plumes long enough to

be a problem. The objects that I have bought, which

were " precontaminated " by storage in a moldy warehouse, or even

during manufacturing, I have been forced to abandon.

I do my best to " perceptify " something before I buy it, but I'm not

always successful, and only find out that I cannot tolerate it after

bringing it home.

This gets expensive, but I wasn't given a choice in the matter.

Like I said, " I didn't get to make the rules, I only learned how to

play the stupid game " .

-

August 5, 2006

You didn't answer the question: how do you handle your personal

documents when you must take them with yourself to a place where mold

hits are possible? Do you enclose them in something to prevent

contamination?

This thread got quite out of its first question, which was - how to

decontaminate personal papers contaminated with trichothecene

mycotoxins? Photocopying isn't an option as most of them must be shown

in its original form.

I tried bleach, ammonia, hydrogen peroxide. Peroxide worked to some

extent but ultimately failed. This toxin is far worse I initially

anticipated. My whole house is in danger now. Threw the papers out

onto the terrace, most likely they'll all have to be discarded. This

is terrible :\

-Branislav

> , how do you handle your personal documents (your ID card for

> instance)? When you have to go with your documents to a place where

> mold hits are possible, do you carry them protected in some

> hermetically closed box or...? I think it's a rather good idea.

> Better that than to have to change them every time you're hit by a

> nasty mycotoxin plume.

> > If the global molding gets worse (as it will unfortunately),

> total avoidance might become very hard or even impossible in a

> populated area. I think we should consider studying available and

> affordable chemical/biological treatments that can decompose

> trichothecene mycotoxins on personal objects.

> >

>

> Unfortunately, this is exactly what I am seeing.

> The difficulty of maintaining a sufficiently low level of exposure

> in populated areas has grown noticeably more difficult in the last

> few years.

>

> Objects that have had long term exposure stay bad for a long time.

> Things that have had only momentary exposure clean up readily.

> I used to have a forced " outside-air " Hepa system on my RV to

> maintain positive pressure of filtered air. I thought that this

> would allow me to to stay more comfortable in a contamination zone.

> But all it did was allow MORE time for my entire RV to build up an

> intolerable level that takes longer to die down.

> So I removed the filter system. Better to get the bad news

> immediately and act immediately. Otherwise the consequences of

> toxin accumulation are intensified beyond anything that I can handle.

> So all my possessions have not been in spore plumes long enough to

> be a problem. The objects that I have bought, which

> were " precontaminated " by storage in a moldy warehouse, or even

> during manufacturing, I have been forced to abandon.

> I do my best to " perceptify " something before I buy it, but I'm not

> always successful, and only find out that I cannot tolerate it after

> bringing it home.

> This gets expensive, but I wasn't given a choice in the matter.

> Like I said, " I didn't get to make the rules, I only learned how to

> play the stupid game " .

> -

>

August 5, 2006

" Brad " <arealis@...> wrote:

> You didn't answer the question: how do you handle your personal

documents when you must take them with yourself to a place where mold

hits are possible? Do you enclose them in something to prevent

contamination?

>

I can't answer the question the way you would like because I don't

believe that your documents became contaminated in the way you

described:

" About a week ago I was going into my bank by public bus. A young man

came into the bus about 3 stations before I reached the destination.

He carried a large suitcase. I guess he was probably returning from a

vacation from a foreign country (*). His suitcase emitted huge

amounts of extremely powerful mycotoxins, and I got contaminated.

All I carried with myself (personal ID, bank documents and a lot

more) became contaminated too. I thought the contamination would

drop off by itself but it didn't. Of course, the bank is now

contaminated as well.

Apperently it was not living mold but mainly mycotoxins. Even my

plastic bank card got contaminated. That wouldn't be possible if it

was only spores, would it? "

You see, I don't believe that your materials became contaminated by

that specific exposure - I think they were already contamined at the

Bank by adsorbed mycotoxins, and the powerful mycotoxins from the

man with the suitcase upregulated your immune response and made the

precontamination of your materials apparent to you.

This is why I keep referring to " going to a pristine place to get

clear " . It is because when you return, you will find that objects

and locations which you thought were safe, aren't all that safe at

all. It was just lower of the relative scale of response, and

the " blocking " effect common in MCS was in play and made you unable

to perceive it.

Extreme Avoidance means that you must go out of your way to

identify areas that are " masked " by " blocking " and treat them as

though they were perceptible " hits " and a driving force in a chronic

immune response which wears you down over time.

This discussion on buying a house and having to sleep in it goes

right to the point. It might not be possible to feel an intolerable

level of " badness " right away, and if you aren't educated

in " unmasking " subclinical intolerances hidden by blocking, you'll

walk right into another trap.

So, to try and answer your question. I make no provisions for

protecting my documents from this type of momentary exposure,

because I do not believe that casual exposure causes this type of

contamination. My experience is that under the circumstances that

you describe, " mycotoxin precontamination " was only unmasked by a

potentiating upregulation of inflammatory response.

-

August 5, 2006

> You see, I don't believe that your materials became contaminated by

> that specific exposure - I think they were already contamined at the

> Bank by adsorbed mycotoxins, and the powerful mycotoxins from the

> man with the suitcase upregulated your immune response and made the

> precontamination of your materials apparent to you.

I have tons of papers from that bank accumulated over the years.

Mostly bank receipts, contracts, and paper money. I just looked at

them. I even have several papers I got on the SAME day the

contamination occurred, but from my morning visit to the bank (I went

twice to the bank on that unlucky day, in the morning when nothing

happened, and in the afternoon when I got slammed with the mycotoxin

cloud).

NONE of these papers cause me any adverse reactions except those that

I carried with me when the man with the suitcase passed by me.

According to your theory the bank already had substantial amount of

mycotoxins on their papers, but I wasn't aware of it until the

powerful mycotoxin cloud slammed me. The corollary would be that all

the papers from that bank should be causing me problems now when my

immune system was upregulated. But that's just not the case.

> This is why I keep referring to " going to a pristine place to get

> clear " . It is because when you return, you will find that objects

> and locations which you thought were safe, aren't all that safe at

> all. It was just lower of the relative scale of response, and

> the " blocking " effect common in MCS was in play and made you unable

> to perceive it.

Okay, in 2004 and 2005 during Summer I went to pristine places. I went

to a beutiful mountain and to the country, respectively. Both places

are completely clean and very mold-free. I can tell that because I

didn't have any symptoms typical for mold exposure. I felt completely

refreshed upon return.

When I got back to my flat, there were no surprises you are talking

about. The objects that I had previously considered to be clean were

clean after I came back, causing me no surprise reactions. Those

objects that I knew that had been contaminated were still contaminated

after I came back. How does this fit into your theory?

August 5, 2006

" Brad " <arealis@...> wrote:

> I have tons of papers from that bank accumulated over the years.

> Mostly bank receipts, contracts, and paper money. I just looked at

> them. I even have several papers I got on the SAME day the

> contamination occurred, but from my morning visit to the bank (I

went twice to the bank on that unlucky day, in the morning when

nothing happened, and in the afternoon when I got slammed with the

mycotoxin

> cloud).

>

> NONE of these papers cause me any adverse reactions except those

that I carried with me when the man with the suitcase passed by me.

>

> According to your theory the bank already had substantial amount of

> mycotoxins on their papers, but I wasn't aware of it until the

> powerful mycotoxin cloud slammed me. The corollary would be that

all the papers from that bank should be causing me problems now when

my immune system was upregulated. But that's just not the case.

> Okay, in 2004 and 2005 during Summer I went to pristine places. I

went to a beutiful mountain and to the country, respectively. Both

places are completely clean and very mold-free. I can tell that

because I didn't have any symptoms typical for mold exposure. I felt

completely refreshed upon return.

>

> When I got back to my flat, there were no surprises you are talking

about. The objects that I had previously considered to be clean were

clean after I came back, causing me no surprise reactions. Those

objects that I knew that had been contaminated were still

contaminated after I came back. How does this fit into your theory?

>

If papers are carried in layers, one would assume that only the

outer layers have the potential to be become the most contaminated.

If the Bank was the source, a topsheet would have contaminate far

exceeding the contents underneath. I would expect whatever

documents that were placed 'at risk " had more exposure.

So I do not agree that all documents from the bank can be used for

ruling out the concept since cannot all be considered " equal " in

terms of exposure.

If you were carrying your paperwork in layers, I don't see how the

momentary exposure could have done much more than contaminate

exterior layers. Interior ones were not at risk.

Where did their contamination come from if they were not at risk

during that briefcase event?

I shop at a local store that feels perfectly fine to me when I

return from the wilderness. But when I leave my moderately

contaminated workplace, this same store is not only slams me, but I

feel hits from people in the store on a regular basis.

This happens so consistently that I do not believe that when I fail

to perceive it, that this store and these people just happen to be

totally lacking in contamination that day. I believe that the

amount of exposure unveiled my reactivity above and beyond the level

that a pristine environment would.

Conversely, when I've had a major slam from somewhere other than my

workplace - going there feels like a major relief - even though I

know from years of experience that long duration of exposure to that

place would take me apart.

I cannot look at this as " Reaction vs. No reaction " because it

always changes according to where I am on the " Power Curve of

Exposure " .

Everything has to be placed in context according to where it stands

on the " Relative Shift " of variable response.

-

August 6, 2006

This is getting a bit tiresome. You have your theory which is based on

your experience, and thus far it seems it has served you well.

However, based on your descriptions and your understanding of how

mycotoxins work or " behave " , I can only conclude that you either

a) have much, much higher resistance to mycotoxins than me, or

you have never experienced such powerful mycotoxin clouds as I have

That is because you say:

> If papers are carried in layers, one would assume that only the

> outer layers have the potential to be become the most contaminated.

NO! Mycotoxins that I'm talking about here are so powerful that they

can penetrate many layers of paper! Gosh, why is it so hard to

imagine? Thrichothecene mycotoxins have very small molecules, thus

they can penetrate deep into objects, especially porous ones. If a

pile of papers is " sprayed " with a concentrated form of trichothecene

mycotoxins, they will penetrate at least 10 cm, especially if they are

given about an hour to do their job and if it the temperature is high.

> If the Bank was the source, a topsheet would have contaminate far

> exceeding the contents underneath. I would expect whatever

> documents that were placed 'at risk " had more exposure.

> So I do not agree that all documents from the bank can be used for

> ruling out the concept since cannot all be considered " equal " in

> terms of exposure.

In all honesty I don't understand what you're talking about now. You

are starting to contradict yourself.

Remember what you said:

>You see, I don't believe that your materials became contaminated by

>that specific exposure - I think they were already contamined at the

>Bank by adsorbed mycotoxins, and the powerful mycotoxins from the

>man with the suitcase upregulated your immune response and made the

>precontamination of your materials apparent to you.

I will repeat once more some important facts:

I have been to that bank many times, carrying with myself my ID card

and my bank card. After having finished the job I had in the bank I

would receive several paper bank receipts from the bank teller (and

sometimes paper money of course).

I have kept these receipts in a few boxes. They are kept in a

different location from my other important papers. The oldest receipts

date from 2003, but I have also the most recent ones.

I went to the bank in the morning on July 24th. I returned home, and

had lunch. On the same day, in the afternoon, I went again into the

bank. That's when the man with the contaminated suitcase passed by me.

Only the receipts that I got during my visit to the bank in the

afternoon are now contaminated. Also the ID card, bank card and my

clothes are contaminated of course, they are the real sources of the

contamination that transpired in the bank. If I hadn't underestimated

the power of the mycotoxin cloud, as soon as I was hit by the

mycotoxin cloud, I would have instantly returned home. I would not

have gone to the bank at all if I had felt that this was no ordinary

mold hit. In that case only my ID card, my bank card and the clothes I

wore would now be contaminated.

Let's agree upon the fact that I have always carried with me my ID

card and my bank card whenever I went to the bank. These two objects

have always had the ability to cross-contaminate all the papers they

were coming into contat with. That means that whatever contamination

that existed in the bank would be trasfered to all the receipts I ever

got there. Not only directly when the bank teller touched them, but

also through the cross-contamination with my ID card and bank card

because I manipulated with them every time. Therefore, all the

recepits from all the time periods should carry whatever contamination

has been present in the bank.

That begs the question: Why is it that (in addition to my ID card and

bank card) only those receipts that I got after I had got slammed with

the mycotoxin cloud are now causing me problems? All other

receipts/papers from the same bank are NOT causing me any reactions.

Today I took a shower, changed clothes and inspected carefully all

other receipts, papers, contracts. They are completely neutral.

However, those that came into contact with my ID card upon exposure to

the mycotoxin cloud - I can feel them from the 2 meters distance.

> If you were carrying your paperwork in layers, I don't see how the

> momentary exposure could have done much more than contaminate

> exterior layers.

I see that you have yet to experience a really strong mycotoxin cloud.

Not that I wish it ever happens to you! But, this just goes on to

prove you haven't been exposed to anything remotely similar to what I

have.

If it ever happens, a major paradigm shift is bound to occur, and you

would quickly forget all the theories about immune upregulation

regarding this issue. The notion that only the outer sheet of an

object can become predominantly contaminated after a stong mycotoxin

hit would sound like an odd but utterly false theory from some earlier

and better times. ;(

The porous objects that one carries while being slammed with an

extremely powerful mycotoxin cloud ALWAYS become totally unusable, no

matter how many layers they have (the only exception might be if an

object has very hard and non-porous covers, but that's just maybe and

everything also depends on the strenght of the mycotoxin cloud,

temperature, and how long you keep it with the contaminated clothes

which further mycotoxin penetration).

A powerful mycotoxin cloud penetrates deep into the object, and

remains there for a very long time, perhaps forever. It also has the

ability to cross contaminate other objects if it's left on their

surface for long (several hours is usually enough, a few days is a

guarantee).

> I shop at a local store that feels perfectly fine to me when I

> return from the wilderness. But when I leave my moderately

> contaminated workplace, this same store is not only slams me, but I

> feel hits from people in the store on a regular basis.

> This happens so consistently that I do not believe that when I fail

> to perceive it, that this store and these people just happen to be

> totally lacking in contamination that day. I believe that the

> amount of exposure unveiled my reactivity above and beyond the level

> that a pristine environment would.

That's perfectly understandable. When your body is already exhausted

by an existing contamination you will percieve less intense

contaminations more easily and they will sometimes seem to you even

like considerably strong hits (although they are not so strong).

Also, when you are slammed with something on a larger scale, literally

any place seems to be better than the " memory " of a recent major

mycotoxin hit that your body still remembers.

That is all logical and nothing new. But, do not make a mistake and

claim that you have found out the explanation for *extremely* strong

mycotoxin hits. What you have explained now is something I took for

granted almost 15 years ago, but I didn't make a theory of it. For

instance, once I was slammed by a mycotoxin cloud. Prior to that I

didn't have any mold problems. While I was under the influence of this

contamination I could percieve even mold contaminations from insects

and sewers - something I wasn't able to do before. These places would

make me nauseous while before exposure to the mycotoxin cloud they

seemed neutral. It's not that they were not without some mycotoxin

contamination before. They were. But, after being slammed my immune

system was off ballance and more sensitive than usually.

Conversely while I was under the influence of a mycotoxin and mold

from a soap, lots of objects in my house were severely

cross-contaminted. There were periods when I would find some respite

by being in other rooms in my flat which were far from good. They just

felt a whole lot better than the bathroom which felt positively like a

portal to hell itself. After I got rid of the contamination in the

bathroom, I realized those 'safer' places in other rooms needed a lot

of cleaning to become really safe.

I just hope you don't experience really strong mycotoxin hits.

Oftentimes ignorance is bliss, especially with mold illness.

August 6, 2006

Hello, I just joined this group today. I hope some you can shed some light on

my circumstances. I have worked in a building since 2001. I knew the building

was old and all and probably did have some mold. Of course, I have suffered

allery symptoms, been diagnosed with Fibromyalgia and the like. Then in 2004

the basement of the building flooded, someone reported it and black mold was

found. Several months later they paid to have it cleaned up (the basement

only). Additionally, birds have been getting into the building year after year

and nesting, dying, leaving motes and the like.

Although, I have complained to the management, no one really listened or they

pretend they did not smell or see anything. Now finally this past week someone

complained and an air quality check was done.

well they announced yesterday they would clean the duct work and so some other

maintenance on things that were found.

All along myself and others have been in this building day after day week after

week suffering symptoms. Now I have been going to the docs but never mentioned

the building and the mold and the like.

Can anyone offer any suggestions to what course of action I shoudl take now?

Obviously, there are things found wrong OR else no work would be getting

performed to clean things up a bit.

Thanks

[] Re: Got slammed by mycotoxins again, personal

documents contaminated