Re: [occ-env-med-l] Symposium Announcement -- Mold: State of ...

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I think Dr. Fink does understand that allergy does not explain it all. If

you read the article, only the title is misleading. They acknowledge in their

study that 50% of these illnesses cannot be explained as allergic reactions.

Still, Dr. Fink is an allergist. He is not well versed in toxicity.

So who do they bring in to discuss toxicity at the " medical seminar " ? Joe

Fedoruk. Fedoruk not only works for the UC system, he works for a company

called Exponent. They are litigation defensors on many types of environmental

illnesses. Dr. Fedoruk frequently performs IME's for the defense in mold

litigation. What document does he rely on for his " could not be " stance? Yep.

The ACOEM Mold statement. He is also a member of ACOEM. I believe he was a

peer reviewer for the doc.

Harriet Burge is another one. It was her rodent study upon which the

authors of the ACOEM mold statement based their inaccurate and wrongfully

applied

extrapolations to deduce human illness was " highly unlikely at best " .

If you want to understand how Dr. Burge came into this issue, go back to

1995. You can find her name within the UCSF Tobacco Legacy Library under the

Center for Indoor Air Research. This was a front group for big tobacco. It

was forced to be disbanded in 1999. Her focus of study for CIAR was reactions

to dust mites and cock roaches. As the documents indicate, this area was

funded for research to take the heat off of second hand smoke as a cause of

respiratory illness.

This seminar is absolutely disgusting. They are offering CME credits for

this " Medical Seminar " . How is having a defense attorney, plaintiff attorney

and a judge related to medicine? This is merely an attempt to train a little

army of defensors.

Anyway, back to the original article:

Allergy Major Cause of 'Toxic Mold Syndrome'

" But the study also shows that many cases of mold-linked illness can't be

explained by allergic reactions. The report, by allergists A. Edmondson,

DO, Jordan N. Fink, MD, and colleagues at Medical College of Wisconsin,

appears in the February issue of ls of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. "

" Twenty-five percent of the patients had symptoms not compatible with

[allergy], " Edmondson and colleagues write. " [Mold]-mediated mechanisms may

account

for these symptoms. …The [cause] of these symptoms … remains unclear and

warrants further investigation. "

" Although certainly not proven, the suspect with the most fingerprints at

the scene seems to be mold components shed from fungal colonized construction

and finishing materials and furnishings, " he writes. " It is time now for data

rather than diatribe. "

[Guest guest]

-Sharon, what would we ever do without you? I was waiting for your

reply on this, i didn't even look it over because it was ucla. that

told me enough. hope they don't overwork thierselfs to hard. maybe

they will come out with 'the rolling uterus part 2'. cant wait to

read it.

-- In , snk1955@... wrote:

>

>

> Hi ,

>

> I think Dr. Fink does understand that allergy does not explain it

all. If

> you read the article, only the title is misleading. They

acknowledge in their

> study that 50% of these illnesses cannot be explained as allergic

reactions.

>

> Still, Dr. Fink is an allergist. He is not well versed in

toxicity.

>

> So who do they bring in to discuss toxicity at the " medical

seminar " ? Joe

> Fedoruk. Fedoruk not only works for the UC system, he works for a

company

> called Exponent. They are litigation defensors on many types of

environmental

> illnesses. Dr. Fedoruk frequently performs IME's for the defense

in mold

> litigation. What document does he rely on for his " could not be "

stance? Yep.

> The ACOEM Mold statement. He is also a member of ACOEM. I

believe he was a

> peer reviewer for the doc.

>

> Harriet Burge is another one. It was her rodent study upon which

the

> authors of the ACOEM mold statement based their inaccurate and

wrongfully applied

> extrapolations to deduce human illness was " highly unlikely at

best " .

>

> If you want to understand how Dr. Burge came into this issue, go

back to

> 1995. You can find her name within the UCSF Tobacco Legacy Library

under the

> Center for Indoor Air Research. This was a front group for big

tobacco. It

> was forced to be disbanded in 1999. Her focus of study for CIAR

was reactions

> to dust mites and cock roaches. As the documents indicate, this

area was

> funded for research to take the heat off of second hand smoke as a

cause of

> respiratory illness.

>

> This seminar is absolutely disgusting. They are offering CME

credits for

> this " Medical Seminar " . How is having a defense attorney,

plaintiff attorney

> and a judge related to medicine? This is merely an attempt to

train a little

> army of defensors.

>

> Anyway, back to the original article:

>

> Allergy Major Cause of 'Toxic Mold Syndrome'

>

> " But the study also shows that many cases of mold-linked illness

can't be

> explained by allergic reactions. The report, by allergists A.

Edmondson,

> DO, Jordan N. Fink, MD, and colleagues at Medical College of

Wisconsin,

> appears in the February issue of ls of Allergy, Asthma &

Immunology. "

>

> " Twenty-five percent of the patients had symptoms not compatible

with

> [allergy], " Edmondson and colleagues write. " [Mold]-mediated

mechanisms may account

> for these symptoms. …The [cause] of these symptoms … remains

unclear and

> warrants further investigation. "

>

>

> " Although certainly not proven, the suspect with the most

fingerprints at

> the scene seems to be mold components shed from fungal colonized

construction

> and finishing materials and furnishings, " he writes. " It is time

now for data

> rather than diatribe. "

>

>

>

>