Responses to: Help Again!!!! - Carl

[Guest guest]

Barb, and others,

There are several responses direct to me plus other discussions

related to my post. This is written to answer them all.

First:

> Is the damage to other parts of the body irreversible,

> due to the fact the individual was not properly

> diagnosed and treated immediately for mold/mycotoxin

> exposure, or, would the damage have occurred anyway,

> due to the individuals genetic make-up?

>

> Additionally, is it true that using antibiotics for a

> prolonged period of time, does more harm, than good,

> to the body?

I'm not a doctor so I'm not qualified to answer medically. But I can

answer from a logical and common sense point of view.

Is mold exposure irreversible?

Much of it seems to be reversible, at least according to the fact

that everybody is exposed to mold, not everybody gets sick, and of

those that do get sick most recover. We also have to include what do

we mean by " mold exposure. " Mold is everywhere and is included in

every breath you take no matter where you are, including those

locations where you don't react to mold. So what conditions of mold

or combinations of mold or exposure history determines whether or not

you react? That is the $64 billion question.

Does it cause some type of latent harm or accumulative harm like

asbestos and cigarette smoke?

There is divided opinion on this with no definitive answer. Before

they can formulate answers, they must first ask the right questions.

They are just getting started on figuring out the questions.

Where are the studies supporting the 24% of us stay sick?

This is based on the information from Ken Hudnall and Ritchie

Shoemaker. Info is at www.chronicneurotoxins.com and in the book Mold

Warriors.

Delayed treatment for mold/mycotoxin exposure?

First, we have to differentiate between different mold exposures

based on environment (chronic dampness, sudden event, crawlspace, old

house, flood, hurricane, attic, etc); exposoure from being inhaled,

eaten, touched or all of them; which component of the mold are we

susceptible to (protein, glucan, enzyme, mVOC, mycotoxin, or

something else not yet identified); was it mold or also bacteria in a

damp indoor space (some evidence suggests the bacteria is more of a

problem than mold) or chemical release from damaged building

materials? Then we have to talk about " mold treatment " and " mycotoxin

treatment. " The only ones I know don't directly treat either the mold

or the mycotoxins or the glucans or mVOCs. They address the effects

of those components on the body. There is a treatment from exposure

to the proteins of mold because that is what triggers the IgE

response we call allergy.

Or would the damage have occurred anyway because of genetics?

My understanding is you can have a genetic pattern that makes you

susceptible to " something " but the pattern doesn't affect your life

unless you are exposed to that " something. " But there are other

genetic patterns that result in malfunction or damage directly that

are not exposure based. For mold, they don't know.

Does prolonged use of antioiotics cause more harm than good?

If you have a chronic bacterial infection that keeps recurring, then

not using antibiotics will cause great harm or even death. On the

other hand prolonged use of some mycotics, even when appropriately

prescribed, can cause liver damage. This is where (the good) doctors

and other health care professionals earn their money. They have to

balance all the goods with all the bads for that specific individual.

Sadly, most don't know what those are. And, as many of you have

reported, many don't seem to care.

One person e-mailed me off-line about my response to Barb saying that

if the cause is genetic then there will be no improvement until we

learn how to fix genetics. They diplomatically - and somewhat

appropriately - admonished me for my bluntness. They accurately said

that many don't feel well most of the time and they need support,

especially from the experts.

That person points out a critical issue. As those of you who have

posted on IEquality know, the experts too often focus on the " facts "

and ignore the " people " and their needs. In this case, I was guilty.

What I should have also said, and will say now, is that the facts

give little comfort in themselves but we still need them. We need the

best information available, including that which is not encouraging

or supportive - IF IT IS TRUE. The worst support we can have is that

which results in false hope.

Personally, it is just as important to me to know what won't work as

it is to know what will work. That way I don't waste my money, my

time and my life by spinning my wheels. However, the majority of

information is indeterminant and nobody knows whether or not it will

work for anbody, especially me. Uncertainty! How do we live with

that?

It's not easy. It's very difficult. And we all need all the support

we can get along with the information. But let's not shade the truth

just for the purpose of support. Lies that give false hope do more

harm than truth that hurts. It will keep us in failure (victim) which

prevents us from finding the right action.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC