Re: Rolling Uterus? Moss? Toxic Mold? Disgusting and Derogato...

[Guest guest]

Lori,

I love your logical, calm approach. Wish I obsessed more of that trait.

The point is, to let them know, we do not just have the Vapors and that what

there are publishing is shear garbage that is hurting many. Not to mention it

is blatantly chauvinistic. They have shown their true colors with this one.

SO, UTERUSES, (or anyone who likes uteruses) MAKE CONTACT AND VOICE YOUR

DISTAIN!!!!

The contact info is:

M. Bauer at _rbauer@...@_ (mailto:rbauer@...)

Editor.

Jerry J. Sweet, Ph.D.

Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences

ENH Medical Group

Phone: (847) 425-6445

FAX: (847) 425-6408

E-Mail: _j-sweet@..._ (mailto:j-sweet@...)

As I said, wished I had your calm demeanor, but do not. So, as posted on

ToxLaw:

Re: Roll on, Uteruses! Contact AACN

Posted by _Sharon Kramer_

(http://counsel.net/cgi-bin/chatscripts/mailform.cgi?uid=kfc1955 & dmn=sgd.uge & nam\

e=Sharon+Kramer & subject=Re:+Roll+on,+Uteruses!+C

ontact+AACN) on 9/21/06

Hey Uteruses,

Those of you that have been negatively impacted by excessive

mold exposure (the Vapors), and do not appreciate the way you

have been treated by somatically induced Via gra candidates

with some letters behind their names, contact the current

President of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology

(AACN)to voice your concerns with their " scientific " findings.

The contact information is:

Jerry J. Sweet, Ph.D.

Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences

ENH Medical Group

Phone: (847) 425-6445

FAX: (847) 425-6408

E-Mail: j-sweet@...

This is by far the most outrageous paper to date. They took 6

medical exams done by defense court order and made the broad

conclusion we are all just a bunch of women (uteruses) that

need psychiatric help. Never mind what illnesses mold/mycotoxin

are well known to cause.

I think this is retaliatory because Saxon of Harbor UCLA has

been forced to disclose how much money he is generating as an

expert witness for the defense in mold litigation when he

writes within medical journals both here and in the UK, (which

BTW, is close to $70K for a single case!!!)

" Has The Rolling Uterus Finally Gathered Moss? Somatization and

Malingering of Cognitive Deficit in Six Cases of 'Toxic Mold'

Exposure. "

Stone DC, Boone KB, Back-Madruga C, Lesser IM

Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and Los Angeles Biomedical

Institute, Torrance, CA, USA.

This article reports six cases of litigants claiming

neuropsychiatric impairment due to toxic mold exposure. In

spite of recent growth in personal injury claims due to mold,

numerous reviews of the literature have failed to find

an association between environmental exposure to mold and

neuropsychiatric and/or neuropsychological damageWe report data

on six patients claiming harm, 4 of whom revealed a long

history of somatization by history and psychological testing,

and 2 of whom were shown to be malingering based on

multiple indicators of non-credible performance. Of the 6

patients, only the 2 somatoform patients who were also

depressed showed credible evidence of neuropsychological

dysfunction. We review two other studies that have

examined the link between mold exposure and cognitive

impairment and discuss their limitations in view of the

presenting behaviors of these 6 patients. Until the literature

has established a credible link between mold and

neuropsychiatric/neuropsychiatricneuropsychiatric/neuropsyc

hologichologic<WBR>alimpairment, jurists and clinicil harm

somatoform patients to multiple unwarranted medical

evaluations. Principles for forensic evaluations in this

special population are reviewed.

Roll on, Uteruses, Roll on!!!!

Sharon

In a message dated 9/21/2006 8:52:43 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

lori@... writes:

I think one way to address this is to point out that they did not report on

any patients who were NOT malingering or who did NOT have a history of

somatoform disorders. Certainly somatoform disorders do exist and there are

patients who malinger (lie about things) and it is possible these particular

patients were -- there are patients who make up every kind of illness from

cancer to

heart attacks, whatever you want. I am not saying they were, just that it's

possible -- BUT ...

But this is no study. It's just a not-so-random selection of cases and who

selected these cases? The authors, who obviously went into this with preformed

views. Why did they select all women? Do we even know what the genders of

the subjects were??? And they say 2 of 6 patients -- 33 percent, actually not

such a low number -- actually DID have evidence of neuropsychological

dysfunction, and those were NOT the supposedly malingering patients!

I will be very interested to read this paper when it is published -- is it

published yet? The title is the worst of it, and I don't know who came up with

that. What a ridiculous title. They're off their rockers.

Most of the better journals would not publish such an obviously biased case

report. What would be the best is if a doctor would write them a letter,

because that might actually get published.

Lori

But I will be writing an email to Dr. Sweet as well, although he may not be

the one who reviews these articles. Actually here is another contact for the

editor, which gives this man's name as well as Dr. Sweet's name and contact

info.

M. Bauer at _rbauer@...@_ (mailto:rbauer@...)

[Guest guest]

It is not that they are reporting on six cases that is the problem (although

would love to see the six cases, and what these people's treating physicians

had to say).

It is that they are reporting on six cases, yet within their title, they

make it sound like ALL who have uteruses and complain of cognitive difficulty

after mold exposure are liars, who just want to get money from the poor

insurance industry and are psychologically impaired, stupid women.Not to

mention the

derogatory implication from references a female body part within the doc. (I

would like to respond by calling them by a male body part, but will refrain)

Its scary to me that they would actually peer review publish something like

this. It indicates this mind set is prevalent and accepted within this

particular medical specialty. It feels like a gang rape by a bunch of

chauvinistic doctors to me. The image I get is of the males in New York who

were caught

on tape in Central Park attacking women as they went by. Ripping off their

clothese and such. They wouldn't do it own their own, but when all together,

they collectively change to a medical mob mentality. And a group hatred of

women comes out for the public to see. This is by far the most disgusting and

disturbing of " medical " writings on the subject to date. Does it seem this

way to anyone else?

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Thanks Sharon, I will work on getting a letter off sometime this weekend.

In a message dated 9/21/2006 8:47:54 PM Central Standard Time,

snk1955@... writes:

Hi ,

To contact the current President of the American Academy of Clinical

Neuropsychology (theAACN.org) the information is:

Jerry J. Sweet, Ph.D.

Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences

ENH Medical Group

909 Street, #160

ton, IL 60201

USA

Office Phone: (847) 425-6445

FAX Number: (847) 425-6408

E-Mail: _j-sweet@northwesterj-swe_ (mailto:j-sweet@...)

Status: Active Member

This is by far the most outrageous paper to date. They took 6 medical exams

done by defense court order and made the broad conclusion we are all just a

bunch of women (uteruses) that need psychiatric help. Never mind what

illnesses mold/mycotoxin are well known to cause.

I think this is retaliatory because Saxon of Harbor UCLA has been

forced to disclose how much money he is generating as an expert witness for

the

defense in mold litigation when he writes within medical journals both here

and in the UK, (which BTW, is up to $70K per case!!!)

Roll on, Uteruses, Roll on!!!!

Clin Neuropsychol.Clin Neuropsyc<WBClin

" Has the rolling uterus finally gathered moss? Somatization and malingering

of cognitive deficit in six cases of " toxic mold " exposure. "

Stone DC_ Boone KB_ Back-Madruga C Lesser IM

Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and Los Angeles Biomedical Institute, Torrance,

CA, USA.

This article reports six cases of litigants claiming neuropsychiatric

impairment due to toxic mold exposure. In spite of recent growth in personal

injury

claims due to mold, numerous reviews of the literature have failed to find

an association between environmental exposure to mold and neuropsychiatric

and/or neuropsychological damage. We report data on six patients claiming

harm,

4 of whom revealed a long history of somatization by history and

psychological testing, and 2 of whom were shown to be malingering based on

multiple

indicators of non-credible performance. Of the 6 patients, only the 2

somatoform

patients who were also depressed showed credible evidence of

neuropsychological dysfunction. We review two other studies that have

examined the link

between mold exposure and cognitive impairment and discuss their limitations

in

view of the presenting behaviors of these 6 patients. Until the literature

has

established a credible link between mold and

neuropsychiatric/neuropsychiatricneuropsychiatricn<WBR>neuropsychneurop<WBR><W

impairment, jurists and clinici

harm of exposing somatoform patients to multiple unwarranted medical

evaluations. Principles for forensic evaluations in this special population

are

reviewed.

PMID: 16980261 [PubMed - in process]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Guest guest]

You'll love this, two of them are women. Which is even worse. What were

they thinking? One, specializes in finding malangerer's. I would love to see

the source references for the doc. I will bet money it is the ACOEM, AAAAI,

Veritox 2004, ACMT. And probably the Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale. I might have

to actually break down and buy this one.

And yes you are right about decorum. I spoke with Dr. Jerry today. He was

polite, but wary. He said he was not very fond of the name, either. I was

not his first call of the day. Nor his first email. He cut the conversation

very short. So I sent him an email requesting their COI's.

Sharon

I deal with doctors and medical journals on a daily basis in my job, so

that's why I come from that point of view. I think people should be angry about

this, I just know what works and what doesn't with these organizations and the

more logical and " scientific " you can be, the more they will listen to you.

Anything over the top may say to them in their chauvinistic little pea

brains, " Well, see, we were right, they're all nuts. "

It might be good to also get the contact info for these so-called doctors in

California and write to them as well.

Lori

[Guest guest]

-lol's Sharon, just had a funny picture in my mind. after a long day

of running a backhoe, me fainting on a chase lounge from the vapor's,

my corset must be to tight.-- In ,

snk1955@... wrote:

>

>

> Lori,

>

> I love your logical, calm approach. Wish I obsessed more of that

trait.

> The point is, to let them know, we do not just have the Vapors and

that what

> there are publishing is shear garbage that is hurting many. Not to

mention it

> is blatantly chauvinistic. They have shown their true colors with

this one.

>

> SO, UTERUSES, (or anyone who likes uteruses) MAKE CONTACT AND VOICE

YOUR

> DISTAIN!!!!

>

> The contact info is:

>

> M. Bauer at _rbauer@...@_ (mailto:rbauer@...)

> Editor.

>

> Jerry J. Sweet, Ph.D.

> Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences

> ENH Medical Group

>

> Phone: (847) 425-6445

> FAX: (847) 425-6408

> E-Mail: _j-sweet@..._ (mailto:j-sweet@...)

> As I said, wished I had your calm demeanor, but do not. So, as

posted on

> ToxLaw:

> Re: Roll on, Uteruses! Contact AACN

> Posted by _Sharon Kramer_

> (http://counsel.net/cgi-bin/chatscripts/mailform.cgi?

uid=kfc1955 & dmn=sgd.uge & name=Sharon+Kramer & subject=Re:+Roll+on,+Uterus

es!+C

> ontact+AACN) on 9/21/06

>

> Hey Uteruses,

> Those of you that have been negatively impacted by excessive

> mold exposure (the Vapors), and do not appreciate the way you

> have been treated by somatically induced Via gra candidates

> with some letters behind their names, contact the current

> President of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology

> (AACN)to voice your concerns with their " scientific " findings.

> The contact information is:

> Jerry J. Sweet, Ph.D.

> Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences

> ENH Medical Group

> Phone: (847) 425-6445

> FAX: (847) 425-6408

> E-Mail: j-sweet@...

> This is by far the most outrageous paper to date. They took 6

> medical exams done by defense court order and made the broad

> conclusion we are all just a bunch of women (uteruses) that

> need psychiatric help. Never mind what illnesses mold/mycotoxin

> are well known to cause.

> I think this is retaliatory because Saxon of Harbor UCLA has

> been forced to disclose how much money he is generating as an

> expert witness for the defense in mold litigation when he

> writes within medical journals both here and in the UK, (which

> BTW, is close to $70K for a single case!!!)

> " Has The Rolling Uterus Finally Gathered Moss? Somatization and

> Malingering of Cognitive Deficit in Six Cases of 'Toxic Mold'

> Exposure. "

> Stone DC, Boone KB, Back-Madruga C, Lesser IM

> Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and Los Angeles Biomedical

> Institute, Torrance, CA, USA.

> This article reports six cases of litigants claiming

> neuropsychiatric impairment due to toxic mold exposure. In

> spite of recent growth in personal injury claims due to mold,

> numerous reviews of the literature have failed to find

> an association between environmental exposure to mold and

> neuropsychiatric and/or neuropsychological damageWe report data

> on six patients claiming harm, 4 of whom revealed a long

> history of somatization by history and psychological testing,

> and 2 of whom were shown to be malingering based on

> multiple indicators of non-credible performance. Of the 6

> patients, only the 2 somatoform patients who were also

> depressed showed credible evidence of neuropsychological

> dysfunction. We review two other studies that have

> examined the link between mold exposure and cognitive

> impairment and discuss their limitations in view of the

> presenting behaviors of these 6 patients. Until the literature

> has established a credible link between mold and

> neuropsychiatric/neuropsychiatricneuropsychiatric/neuropsyc

> hologichologic<WBR>alimpairment, jurists and clinicil harm

> somatoform patients to multiple unwarranted medical

> evaluations. Principles for forensic evaluations in this

> special population are reviewed.

> Roll on, Uteruses, Roll on!!!!

> Sharon

>

>

> In a message dated 9/21/2006 8:52:43 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

> lori@... writes:

>

>

>

>

> I think one way to address this is to point out that they did not

report on

> any patients who were NOT malingering or who did NOT have a history

of

> somatoform disorders. Certainly somatoform disorders do exist and

there are

> patients who malinger (lie about things) and it is possible these

particular

> patients were -- there are patients who make up every kind of

illness from cancer to

> heart attacks, whatever you want. I am not saying they were, just

that it's

> possible -- BUT ...

>

> But this is no study. It's just a not-so-random selection of cases

and who

> selected these cases? The authors, who obviously went into this

with preformed

> views. Why did they select all women? Do we even know what the

genders of

> the subjects were??? And they say 2 of 6 patients -- 33 percent,

actually not

> such a low number -- actually DID have evidence of

neuropsychological

> dysfunction, and those were NOT the supposedly malingering

patients!

>

> I will be very interested to read this paper when it is published -

- is it

> published yet? The title is the worst of it, and I don't know who

came up with

> that. What a ridiculous title. They're off their rockers.

>

> Most of the better journals would not publish such an obviously

biased case

> report. What would be the best is if a doctor would write them a

letter,

> because that might actually get published.

>

> Lori

>

> But I will be writing an email to Dr. Sweet as well, although he

may not be

> the one who reviews these articles. Actually here is another

contact for the

> editor, which gives this man's name as well as Dr. Sweet's name

and contact

> info.

>

> M. Bauer at _rbauer@...@_ (mailto:rbauer@...)

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/22/2006 1:30:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

lori@... writes:

What is COI?

Conflict of Interest

[Guest guest]

I deal with doctors and medical journals on a daily basis in my job, so that's

why I come from that point of view. I think people should be angry about this,

I just know what works and what doesn't with these organizations and the more

logical and " scientific " you can be, the more they will listen to you. Anything

over the top may say to them in their chauvinistic little pea brains, " Well,

see, we were right, they're all nuts. "

It might be good to also get the contact info for these so-called doctors in

California and write to them as well.

Lori

[Guest guest]

Two of the authors are women??? LOLOL. What WERE they thinking?

Maybe one person could buy the article and split the cost and send it to

everyone else since I think these are super expensive, no?

What is COI?

Lori

[Guest guest]

I had to do a doubletake when I was scanning the

posts. I can't believe they were so arrogant and

stupid to even publish something like that. It seems

that they should get some kind of censure from the AMA

or whatever governing body they have. Actually, the

whole thing seemed pretty absurd, the title was so

demeaning to women and sexist, and the study was so

feeble and slanted to add insult to injury. They

shouldn't be able to get away with this. Maybe class

action suit material.

Judi

--- snk1955@... wrote:

> It is not that they are reporting on six cases that

> is the problem (although

> would love to see the six cases, and what these

> people's treating physicians

> had to say).

>

> It is that they are reporting on six cases, yet

> within their title, they

> make it sound like ALL who have uteruses and

> complain of cognitive difficulty

> after mold exposure are liars, who just want to get

> money from the poor

> insurance industry and are psychologically impaired,

> stupid women.Not to mention the

> derogatory implication from references a female body

> part within the doc. (I

> would like to respond by calling them by a male

> body part, but will refrain)

>

>

> Its scary to me that they would actually peer review

> publish something like

> this. It indicates this mind set is prevalent and

> accepted within this

> particular medical specialty. It feels like a gang

> rape by a bunch of

> chauvinistic doctors to me. The image I get is of

> the males in New York who were caught

> on tape in Central Park attacking women as they went

> by. Ripping off their

> clothese and such. They wouldn't do it own their

> own, but when all together,

> they collectively change to a medical mob

> mentality. And a group hatred of

> women comes out for the public to see. This is by

> far the most disgusting and

> disturbing of " medical " writings on the subject to

> date. Does it seem this

> way to anyone else?

>

> Sharon

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

>

>

__________________________________________________