Guest guest Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 I have just had a client diagnosed with parvovirus B17 (Fifth disease) Her home was water damaged and she was in hospital within weeks of the flood with collapsed lung. Really high levels of Aspergillus etc but I never tested for B17. She recently entered the home after contractors had said they had HEPA vaccumed the property and it was clean. Seems this disease is increasingly being associated with lupus, Lymes and CFS Jeff Charlton London From: snk1955@... Sent: 12 October 2011 00:11 To: iequality Subject: Re: Digest 1a. Re: question about TLV's Would have to agree with Dr. Temes. A real problem in this issue seems to be that too much weight gets put on what can be concluded from one piece of evidence. Its always a puzzle and various forms of evidence must be used together to form a reasonable conclusion. As a result of testing, exposure limits, etc, that were put into policy to protect the public, being misused to conclude facts that are beyond the true ability of the testing, -- science ends up getting bastardized (kind of like my English in this sentence) and used against the public. TLVs are a prime example of a method of risk assessment being held out as able to conclude far more than they were ever intended to do. Sharon In a message dated 10/11/2011 9:49:15 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, AirwaysEnv@... writes: Tony, Diagnoses are not made on the basis of air sampling. The tox and epi data are incomplete and do not apply to individuals. No matter how much you would like to believe (or have others believe) that you can demonstrate or rule out causation of illness by air sampling, it isn't proper health or medical science. All you can demonstrate with environmental sampling is estimated exposure or exposure potential. It is a common misconception (belief) among some safety professionals, who know how to take air samples and want to sell a health consulting service, that you can determine with air sampling whether an environment has not been, or will not be, the cause of symptoms or illness in actual occupants. Isn't that pretty much what ACGIH, itself, cautions about the use of its own TLVs with regard to determining causation of illness? And wouldn't improper use of TLVs by a CIH be a violation of the ABIH Code of Ethics? Steve Temes -----Original Message----- To: iequality <iequality > Sent: Tue, Oct 11, 2011 11:34 am Subject: Digest 1a. Re: question about TLV's Steve: Regarding: "But neither the exposure limit, nor the underlying tox and epi data, can be used to determine or rule out causation of symptoms in an individual, especially when the health effect is immunologic or neurologic." Response: Says who? Dr. Temes? How do think diagnoses are made if not based on tox and epi data? And they are developed on a statistical basis when possible (otherwise we wouldn't see p<0.05 in the journals). [And yes there can be immuno-based data available] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Parvovirus is transferred from dog to dog by contact. Never heard of it's transfer to humans? Sherryl Schultz ihspirit@... >I have just had a client diagnosed with parvovirus B17 (Fifth disease) > >Her home was water damaged and she was in hospital within weeks of the flood with collapsed lung. > >Really high levels of Aspergillus etc but I never tested for B17. > >She recently entered the home after contractors had said they had HEPA vaccumed the property and it was clean. > >Seems this disease is increasingly being associated with lupus, Lymes and CFS > >Jeff Charlton > >London > >---------------------------------------- > >From: snk1955@... > >Sent: 12 October 2011 00:11 > >To: iequality > >Subject: Re: Digest 1a. Re: question about TLV's > > > >Would have to agree with Dr. Temes. A real problem in this issue >seems to be that too much weight gets put on what can be concluded from one >piece of evidence. Its always a puzzle and various forms of evidence >must be used together to form a reasonable conclusion. > >As a result of testing, exposure limits, etc, that were put into >policy to protect the public, being misused to conclude facts that are beyond >the true ability of the testing, -- science ends up getting bastardized (kind of >like my English in this sentence) and used against the public. TLVs >are a prime example of a method of risk assessment being held out as able to >conclude far more than they were ever intended to do. > >Sharon > > >In a message dated 10/11/2011 9:49:15 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, >AirwaysEnv@... writes: > >Tony, > > >Diagnoses are not made on the >basis of air sampling. The tox and epi data are incomplete and do not >apply to individuals. > > >No matter how much you would like to believe (or >have others believe) that you can demonstrate or rule out causation of illness >by air sampling, it isn't proper health or medical science. All you can >demonstrate with environmental sampling is estimated exposure or exposure >potential. > > >It is a common misconception (belief) among some safety >professionals, who know how to take air samples and want to sell a health >consulting service, that you can determine with air sampling whether an >environment has not been, or will not be, the cause of symptoms or illness in >actual occupants. Isn't that pretty much what ACGIH, itself, cautions >about the use of its own TLVs with regard to determining causation of >illness? And wouldn't improper use of TLVs by a CIH be a violation of >the ABIH Code of Ethics? > > >Steve Temes > >-----Original >Message----- > > > >To: iequality ><iequality > > >Sent: Tue, Oct 11, 2011 11:34 >am > >Subject: Digest 1a. Re: question about TLV's > > > > >Steve: > > >Regarding: > > > " But neither the exposure limit, nor the >underlying tox and epi data, can be > > >used to determine or rule out >causation of symptoms in an individual, > >especially when the health effect >is immunologic or neurologic. " > > >Response: > > >Says who? Dr. >Temes? > > >How do think diagnoses are made if not based on tox and epi >data? > >And they are developed on a statistical basis when possible >(otherwise we > >wouldn't see p<0.05 in the journals). > > >[And yes >there can be immuno-based data >available] > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Jeff, Consider that the viral infection potentiates the innate immune system to create a receptor mechanism for the "foreign invaders" in the body it associates with the infection. When the adaptive immune system mistakenly creates receptors for "self", it is termed autoimmune disease. When it creates a receptor (hapten) for a solvent it is termed chemical sensitivity, when it creates an IgE antibody for an antigenic protein it is called an allergy. The common theme is that the immune system genes that create the receptors must be upregulated before the immunity or acquired allergy or hypersensitivity is induced. Steve Temes Digest 1a. Re: question about TLV's Steve: Regarding: "But neither the exposure limit, nor the underlying tox and epi data, can be used to determine or rule out causation of symptoms in an individual, especially when the health effect is immunologic or neurologic." Response: Says who? Dr. Temes? How do think diagnoses are made if not based on tox and epi data? And they are developed on a statistical basis when possible (otherwise we wouldn't see p<0.05 in the journals). [And yes there can be immuno-based data available] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 Viruses cannot grow in the environment. How would water damage cause a viral illness? Are you saying the mold makes the individual more susceptible to infectionof any kind? From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of Steve TemesSent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:36 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: parvovirus Jeff,Consider that the viral infection potentiates the innate immune system to create a receptor mechanism for the " foreign invaders " in the body it associates with the infection. When the adaptive immune system mistakenly creates receptors for " self " , it is termedautoimmune disease. When it creates a receptor (hapten) for a solvent it is termed chemical sensitivity, when it creates an IgE antibody for an antigenic protein it is called an allergy. The common theme is that the immune system genes that create the receptorsmust be upregulated before the immunity or acquired allergy or hypersensitivity is induced.Steve Temes Digest 1a. Re: question about TLV's Steve:Regarding: " But neither the exposure limit, nor the underlying tox and epi data, can beused to determine or rule out causation of symptoms in an individual, especially when the health effect is immunologic or neurologic. " Response:Says who? Dr. Temes?How do think diagnoses are made if not based on tox and epi data?And they are developed on a statistical basis when possible (otherwise wewouldn't see p<0.05 in the journals).[And yes there can be immuno-based data available] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 No Alice, that is not at all what I am saying. I am saying that a viral infection, or any other potentiator of the innate immune system, increases the potential for the adaptive immune system to create a receptor mechanism to recognize the non-self "foreign invaders"in the body at the time, including mold allergens and MVOCs. The creation of an immune receptor for these non-self substances IS induction of sensitization. Thereafter the reaction is an immune or neuroimmune reaction, not a "toxic" reaction. Certainly, anything that reduces the effective functioning of the immune system can increase the potential for invasive infection. But that isn't what I was refering to at all. Steve Temes Digest 1a. Re: question about TLV's Steve: Regarding: "But neither the exposure limit, nor the underlying tox and epi data, can be used to determine or rule out causation of symptoms in an individual, especially when the health effect is immunologic or neurologic." Response: Says who? Dr. Temes? How do think diagnoses are made if not based on tox and epi data? And they are developed on a statistical basis when possible (otherwise we wouldn't see p<0.05 in the journals). [And yes there can be immuno-based data available] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.