Re: Clinical Neuropsychologist abstract

[Guest guest]

Excellent letter!

In a message dated 9/22/2006 2:31:59 PM Central Standard Time,

lori@... writes:

Hey I thought you might enjoy what I wrote. I sure enjoyed writing it. : )

Lori

Dear Doctors Sweet and Bauer,

I have read recently the abstract with the title: " Has the rolling uterus

finally gathered moss? Somatization and malingering

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

I am very confused by this abstract and especially by the title which

accompanies it. Six is a very small number of subjects to be printed in a

peer-reviewed journal such as yours. In addition, the title implies that these

were

all female subjects. Is this true? If so, why didn't the authors include male

subjects when making such conclusions? Certainly there are male patients who

claim neuropsychological effects from mold exposure.

It seems there is an incredible amount of bias in the selection of cases and

the literature review presented here. The authors seem to be quite obviously

using their own point of view to frame the basis of the discussion. Such a

biased presentation has no place in a peer-reviewed journal, unless you have

eschewed evidence-based articles in favor of editorials disguised as science.

Whether all six subjects were female or not, referring to the " rolling

uterus " is chauvinistic, offensive and shows a blatant misogynic tendency.

Shame

on you and your colleagues for allowing the article to be printed at all but

especially for coming up with such a title and printing it in your journal. I

hope you will consider all of this when you retract the article.

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

[Guest guest]

Excellent, Lori!

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/22/2006 1:34:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

lori@... writes:

Not such a polite response, in my humble opinion:

**************

Ms. Baur,

The online availability of our journal's table of contents and abstract in

advance of publication has never before caused any response from the public.

Since those responding today and yesterday to the same single article are

not our regular readers, I am left to wonder how and why your attention was

drawn to this out of the way website. It is regrettable that individuals with a

clear strong political viewpoint on a specific controversial topic, such as

toxic mold exposure, expect that scientific journals must share your

viewpoint. Also regrettable is that individuals with such strong emotional

responses

will inevitably make the focused neuropsychological case discussion of six

individuals, four of who presented invalid results when evaluated, into

something that the article does not claim to be.

Jerry Sweet

Co-Editor

That's it. I am going to have to buy it. " four of who presented invalid

results when evaluated " ?

[Guest guest]

Lori,

This is a classic trolling for business paper. Take a small foundation,

project it as a huge conclusion, call those who view it differently to be

practicing Junk Science, and then end with a self promotion of " and hey, I'm

available for these evaluations in defense litigation " .

Don't forget, these " esteemed Physicians " are from Harbor, UCLA. Home of

Saxon who brought us the ACOEM, AAAAI, US Chamber and a few others. The

guys makes an amazing amount of money....for the REGENTS OF UC, with each

testimony.

The conflict of interest in putting out a doc such as this lies within the

offices of the Regents of UC.

[Guest guest]

I have started reading the article and I am having a very hard time getting

through it. Now I AM reacting emotionally.

I do not purport at this time to have been exposed to toxic mold, although I

think I may have been in our previous apartment.

However, I do have fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue and irritable bowel syndrome.

I have had these for a long time and do not relate them to mold exposure

(although if I think about it, I'm not really sure. A lot of these additional

problems came around after a physician's assistant prescribed a mushroom

tincture for me years ago).

In any case, they call these somatic disorders and already I am having a hard

time reading this. These are all REAL disorders, as you all know. And perhaps,

maybe just possibly, people who have these disorders are MORE SUSCEPTIBLE to the

effects of mold. So the fact that these patients had other illnesses previously

does not mean they could not be affected by mold. If anything, all the immune

problems I have or any of us might have had before this would probably make mold

and other toxins more likely to affect us. Right?

Sheesh. It seems so obvious to me. And both my fibromyalgia and irritable

bowel syndrome were diagnosed by physicians, not by myself. As a matter of fact

with both of them I have long avoided the diagnoses because neither has a very

good prognosis and I'd rather try to be well with natural methods than think

about being sick with illnesses that don't have traditional treatments. (Easier

said than done)

But both were tested by objective measures. The IBS in particular was diagnosed

by a doctor who did my colonoscopy. He said that I showed many signs of

moderate to severe pain throughout the exam while I was completely knocked out

from anesthesia. He says this is quite unusual but shows objective signs of a

pathogenic pain response contributing to symptoms of IBS. I couldn't be

malingering or somatizing when I'm unconscious now, could I???

Sorry I'm going way off topic here but geez. I'm glad these authors are not my

doctors, that's all I can say.

Lori

[Guest guest]

This is an old post but since when is toxic mold

a political issue?

--- Lori Baur <lori@...> wrote:

Dear Ms Baur,

>

> The online availability of our journal's table

> of contents and abstract in advance of

> publication has never before caused any

> response from the public.

>

> Since those responding today and yesterday to

> the same single article are not our regular

> readers, I am left to wonder how and why your

> attention was drawn to this out of the way

> website. It is regrettable that individuals

> with a clear strong political viewpoint on a

> specific controversial topic, such as toxic

> mold exposure, expect that scientific journals

> must share your viewpoint.

[Guest guest]

For them its political because the clinical neuropsychologist

community is receiving " political " pressure to come up with the

" result " that toxic mold is " harmless " and that everyone who is being

made sick by mold is either faking it or crazy..and that every doctor

who tries to get to the root of this is dangerous..

This isn't just happening with mold, there is a war going on over *all

science that shows - or could potentially show* that business

practices need to change in any and every area..

Environmental science is the front line of the fight, because it has

been, and is threatening to further show in millions of ways that a

lot of longtime industry practices are significantly hurting people in

very substantial ways. And they DON'T like it.

This awareness started in the 50s but it really began in earnest ithe

60s with the publication of Carson's book " Silent Spring "

Rather than change, the businesses are instead, devoting huge amounts

of resources to paying for opinions, lobbying, vote buying, smear

campaigns, greenwashing, political contributions to candidates, etc. A

war... And the various guardians of the status quo, including many

allegedly professional organizations, are the primary benifiicary of

that war in tems of money through various channels. Their biggest

reasons for existence seem to be fighting the environmental movement.

Mold is just one issue they are trying to obscure the truth on.

At least that is how this situation often seems to me..

[Guest guest]

It wasn't 'political' when and Bush, when they were

living in the Texas governors mansion, spent over a million dollars

having it remediated for mold.. quietly..

[Guest guest]

Hate to bust the bubble of a lot of people here but:

Both of the Bush's have chemcially injury in additional to mold....here

are the obvious fcts:

Bush is the FIRST first lady that is not throwing constant white

house dinner parties....ever watch george during a speech when he LOSES

track of what he is saying....that infamous DEER IN THE HEADLIGHTS GLAZED

LOOK? Well, be around those who are chemcially injured and WATCH the same

thing....misprouncing words, mixing up sentences...he has it and the press

is covering it...those who are injured see themselves in his

characterizations.....why no one is pushing it is beyond all of us.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, LiveSimply wrote:

> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:25:41 -0400

> From: LiveSimply <quackadillian@...>

> Reply-

>

> Subject: Re: [] Clinical Neuropsychologist abstract

>

> It wasn't 'political' when and Bush, when they were

> living in the Texas governors mansion, spent over a million dollars

> having it remediated for mold.. quietly..

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Angel,

The symptoms you just described are the ones I have gotten with

a " good mold hit " . What I get when I get nailed by chemicals

(perfume, etc.) is my throat closes up alot, I have a hard time

swollowing and I lose my voice sometimes for several days. My lungs

fill up with fluid and I will be coughing up, what looks to me like

water, for the next several months. Naturally after my throat

relaxes.

Sharon

>

> > Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:25:41 -0400

> > From: LiveSimply <quackadillian@...>

> > Reply-

> >

> > Subject: Re: [] Clinical Neuropsychologist abstract

> >

> > It wasn't 'political' when and Bush, when they were

> > living in the Texas governors mansion, spent over a million

dollars

> > having it remediated for mold.. quietly..

> >

> >

> >

> > FAIR USE NOTICE:

> >

> >

> >