Open Letter to IEQuality & Sickbuildings

[Guest guest]

Open Letter to IEQuality and Sickbuildings

Dear Friends and Associates,

As we all know, issues of the indoor environment, including but not

limited to mold, have many aspects to it. We all try to do our best

in understanding what is occurring, how to respond and how to help

others. Through nobody's fault, we have recently begun experiencing a

slight contention caused by the differing approach and focus of the

Sickbuildings group and the IEQuality group.

Although both groups are interested in the common goal of moving both

the science and the public's understanding forward, the two groups

are sometimes like oil and water. We are both struggling with the

indoor environment but experiencing it from " different sides of the

elephant. "

IEQuality is composed largely of experts in building science,

exposure and assessment of sick buildings whose traditional methods

are successful for the majority of the population. Sickbuildings

group, on the other hand, is composed largely of people who have been

harmed by exposures in sick buildings but the traditional methods and

resources have not yet been successful in helping to solve their

problems.

Some members of Sickbuildings are suffering greatly, on disability,

and without other support. They are suddenly forced to seek technical

information but have not been technically trained. They often lack

the money, health and sufficient time to meet the immediate demands

of stopping exposures from indoor sources. Sometimes those concerns

overshadow the needs and respectful consideration of the experts they

turn to for remedies.

On the other hand, those that have the technical training and

expertise are often limited by contracts, regulations and an

insufficient body of science that precludes them from successfully

helping the severely impacted individuals. Focusing on helping the

hypersensitive individual and trying to maintain a business is not

always profitable. Also, there is little training on how to assess

and successfully assist the hypersensitive individual. Since this

focus on the science and engineering are generally for the majority

of the public, the impacted individuals are sometimes not adequately

helped.

Some members of IEQuality have been involved with Sickbuildings

supplying better information and understanding of the issues and

possibilities. Some members at Sickbuildings recently reached out to

IEQuality because they saw it as a more likely " safe haven " for

accurate information than they have received from the media and sales

sources. Their experience has included the realization that the

members of IEQuality are good people with the right intentions but

they also lack the resources to help the hypersensitive. On the other

hand, and despite severe disabilities, many from Sickbuildings are

willing to be a valuable resource by sharing their experience and

several are experts at finding the latest studies.

It would behoove both groups to acknowledge that our common concern

is united as to purpose but sometimes divided by methods and needs.

Our request is that both groups remain respectfully mindful of the

differences so all can continue to learn from each other and take

advantage of new information and methods without unnecessarily

disturbing the primary purpose of each.

Carl Grimes, grimes@...

KC ( Carstens), tigerpaw2c@...

[Guest guest]

Carl:

This is one of the best posts I have read on this or any other group.

I think we consultants are in this business to help people, and we get

our best rewards from providing that help. Some of those that need our

help cannot afford to pay the going rates for that help. Most of us have

to work at profitable projects with monetary rewards in order to sustain

any level of pro bono work. But we should take the time and make the

effort to balance the two kinds of potential rewards.

On the flip side, many experts (myself included) have a need to prove

their knowledge level, teach others, and, unfortunately, to point out

errors or limited understandings of others. We should try to curb the

excessive indulgence of these tendencies and be as gracious as possible

when we do indulge them.

Don Schaezler

Cibolo, Texas

[Guest guest]

" Carl E. Grimes " wrote:

Focusing on helping the hypersensitive individual and trying to

maintain a business is not always profitable. Also, there is little

training on how to assess and successfully assist the hypersensitive

individual. Since this focus on the science and engineering are

generally for the majority of the public, the impacted individuals

are sometimes not adequately helped.

>

Hypersensitive individuals are going to pose an increasing problem

to clearance testing which supports succesful contractual

remediation but does little to allievate the suffering of the

inhabitants.

Understanding the principles of a response that is not addressed by

conventional standards of inhalation exposure norms is the only

means to clarify the problems of an ongoing immunological

inflammatory response in genetically susceptible sufferers of

biotoxin mediated illnesses.

A " mold responder " who is continually troubled by contaminated

possessions is not likely to be satisfied with a spore count which

suggests that remediation was conducted to an acceptable standard.

-

[Guest guest]

Carl and KC,

What a wonderful letter. You are both great gentlemen that we are all lucky to have involved in this issue.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Since this focus on the science and engineering are

generally for the majority of the public, the impacted individuals

are sometimes not adequately helped.

>

Hypersensitive individuals are going to pose an increasing problem

to clearance testing which supports succesful contractual

remediation but does little to allievate the suffering of the

inhabitants.

Understanding the principles of a response that is not addressed by

conventional standards of inhalation exposure norms is the only

means to clarify the problems of an ongoing immunological

inflammatory response in genetically susceptible sufferers of

biotoxin mediated illnesses.

A "mold responder" who is continually troubled by contaminated

possessions is not likely to be satisfied with a spore count which

suggests that remediation was conducted to an acceptable standard.

-

I guess we're all in agreement with this then. That's good.

It won't be good for remediators who make promises they can't live up to or for severely sensitized people who have unrealistic expectations of remediators. This is the stuff litigation is made of.

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

I guess we're all in agreement with this then. That's good.It won't be good for remediators who make promises they can't live up to or for severely sensitized people who have unrealistic expectations of remediators. This is the stuff litigation is made of.Steve Temes

Steve,

I'd say that pretty much sums it up. So the next questions would be:

1. What can be done so remediators are not the ones sometimes put in a position of having to make evaluations that they can't live up to?

2. So severely sensitized people don't have unrealistic expectations of remediators - Who should severely sensitized people turn to in order to receive appropraite advice?

3. And what can be done to make these appropriate advice givers materialize?

Sharon

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/3/2006 10:38:15 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, iequality writes:

take people on "The Mold Tour" and allow people to witness "Mycotoxin Clues" and indicators of ambient exposures so they can determine for themselves what personal level of discomfort and disability from normal ambient spore plumes dictates a commensurate response of avoidance and decontamination

, I really understand the discomfort part of what you are doing. But, what evidence do you collect to confirm that the 'clues' are 'mycotoxin' based? what ifthey are voc based, or some other source beside mold.

Seems you need some empirical data to support your inference.

ArmourArmour Applied Science, LLCGreen Building Healthy BuildingCleveland, OH

[Guest guest]

> , I really understand the discomfort part of what you are doing.

But, what evidence do you collect to confirm that the 'clues'

are 'mycotoxin' based? what if they are voc based, or some other

source beside mold.

> Seems you need some empirical data to support your inference.

>

>

> Armour

> Armour Applied Science, LLC

> Green Building Healthy Building

See Chapt 23 " Mold Warriors " by Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker:

" Mold at Ground Zero for CFS " .

http://www.moldwarriors.com/

-

[Guest guest]

It seems to me that doing clearance testing by doing spore counts is

almost bound to fail because a lot of the actual damage is caused by

mycotoxins and they are not tested by any method that seems to be in

wide use. For example, in my home, there is what appears to be a

longstanding problem with water intrusion that was repeatedly covered

up by painting, removing moldy sheetrock without any real remediation,

etc. This has led to the classic situation in which spore counts -

which only count active, sporulating colonies, would be expected to

understate the danger substantially. That is not so much a situation

that would only effect people with heightened mold sensitivity, as

mycotoxins that have been aerosolized really are no longer 'mold' in

the classic sense. However, they do make buildings sick, and they need

to be accounted for before a formerly mold-infested building can really

be considered to be safe. If that sounds like an unreasonable

proposition, consider this: A recent paper estimated that as much as

60% or the total mycotoxin load in a building was contained in

particles that could not be indentified as spores and so would not

register in air testing. In a building with longstanding mold

contamination, that was remediated with a focus on eliminating living

and recent, identifiable colonies, but in which areas that did not show

recent growth were allowed to remain hidden, there is a likelihood that

much mycotoxin-bearing material could be overlooked. So those buildings

might remain almost as toxic, mycotoxin wise, as they had been before

remediation, with the extra added danger that they had now been

declared 'safe'. Until mold testing used biological measures such as

cell cytotoxicity instead of microscopic examination of identifiable

spores, this problem is going to be fairly common, I'd guess,

especially in situations where the remediation is long overdue.

[Guest guest]

After I made the above post, I read back and saw the last few posts.

It seems to me that there is a race on to develop commercial tests for

mycotoxins in building dust, from the literature I've seen on testing

mycotoxin levels and cytoxicity using microarrays, etc.

My guess is that there will be commercial tests within a few months or a year...

[Guest guest]

,

The word " mycotoxin " is a technical term with a very specific meaning, and

applies to only a small fraction of the substances a mold releases into the

environment.

I think it hurts our credibility as sensitized people to use the word

" mycotoxin " to refer to any non contact means of mold affecting human

metabolism. This is the tables-turned version of physician-allergists using the

term " allergy " very narrowly to mean an IgE mediated reaction while most

patients use it broadly to mean any environmentally triggered negative impact on

a person.

To go out on a limb, during the time 5-10 years ago when my family was learning

to cope with the seemingly unique MCS variant we developed from living in our

" sick house " , I concluded that our mold reaction could be to mVOCs, but more

likely was to the dispersal of water-soluble substances secreted by the mold to

digest its environment, by the drying of the moisture into which they had been

secreted. The literature at the time seemed amazingly to contain no information

on the chemistry of this basic biological process.

We'll find the answers to these sensitivities -- which quite frankly cannot

occur if one assumes the basic science underlying the practice of medicine today

is correct -- by finding the place where established science is treating an

approximation as an absolute truth, incorrectly.

Making a statement which is obviously technically incorrect will get us not just

ignored, but ridiculed by science. What we are looking for is the objective,

easily and cheaply reproduced, smoking gun experiment proving something about

our condition that contradicts accepted fact/assumption.

Steve Chalmers

stevec@...

Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:03:35 -0000

Subject: Re: Open Letter to IEQuality & Sickbuildings

I take people on " The Mold Tour " and allow people to

witness " Mycotoxin Clues " and indicators of ambient exposures so they

can determine for themselves what personal level of discomfort and

disability from normal ambient spore plumes dictates a commensurate

[Guest guest]

> ,

> Making a statement which is obviously technically incorrect will

get us not just ignored, but ridiculed by science. What we are

looking for is the objective, easily and cheaply reproduced, smoking

gun experiment proving something about our condition that

contradicts accepted fact/assumption.

>

> Steve Chalmers

> stevec@...

Steve,

I see nothing in this statement that is obviously technically

incorrect. Mycotoxin clues as opposed to inhalation of spores from

plumes, which may include mycotoxins.

-

> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:03:35 -0000

>

> Subject: Re: Open Letter to IEQuality & Sickbuildings

>

>

> I take people on " The Mold Tour " and allow people to

> witness " Mycotoxin Clues " and indicators of ambient exposures so

they can determine for themselves what personal level of discomfort

and disability from normal ambient spore plumes dictates a

commensurate

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve,

I would have to disagree with some (not all) of your assessment of the situation.

The word "mycotoxin" is a technical term with a very specific meaning, and applies to only a small fraction of the substances a mold releases into the environment.

True.

I think it hurts our credibility as sensitized people to use the word "mycotoxin" to refer to any non contact means of mold affecting human metabolism. This is the tables-turned version of physician-allergists using the term "allergy" very narrowly to mean an IgE mediated reaction while most patients use it broadly to mean any environmentally triggered negative impact on a person.

This is where I disagree. I don't believe it hurts one's credibility to acknowledge that the mycotoxins themselves are the root cause of much ill health. Are there other aspects such as MVOC's, pet dander, bacteria, cockroaches, Glade, etc that contribute to an unhealthly indoor air quality? Of course. Can these other unhealthy contributors cause allergic, immunologic and infection symptoms? Of course. But these facts do not discount the ill health effects caused by the molds and mycotoxins themselves.

To go out on a limb, during the time 5-10 years ago when my family was learning to cope with the seemingly unique MCS variant we developed from living in our "sick house", I concluded that our mold reaction could be to mVOCs, but more likely was to the dispersal of water-soluble substances secreted by the mold to digest its environment, by the drying of the moisture into which they had been secreted. The literature at the time seemed amazingly to contain no information on the chemistry of this basic biological process.

Maybe I am just not clear on the meaning of MVOC. What exactly are the components that make up MVOC's? I always thought that term meant a volitile combination of various microbes such as fungi, bacteria and viruses - that when mixed together create a compound that may cause ill health. From your definition, it appears to me that you are defining MVOC's as a byproduct of only mold.

We'll find the answers to these sensitivities -- which quite frankly cannot occur if one assumes the basic science underlying the practice of medicine today is correct -- by finding the place where established science is treating an approximation as an absolute truth, incorrectly.

True. And what makes me of the opinion that molds and mycotoxins are the root cause of the serious illnesses are:

1. It is well documented that molds can elicit these symptoms. (HP - farmers, ABPA, CFS)

2. It is well documented that mycotoxins can elicit these symptoms.(Blastamycosis)

3. People become better when treated with antifungals and/or mycotoxin eliminating measures.

4. Antibiotics sometimes actually increase the symptoms of illness - because when one kills bacteria that keep fungi in check, the fungi love it and flourish.

But again, maybe I am just not understanding your definition of MVOC's. Would antifungals and antitoxins (new word) also kill MVOC's?

Making a statement which is obviously technically incorrect will get us not just ignored, but ridiculed by science. What we are looking for is the objective, easily and cheaply reproduced, smoking gun experiment proving something about our condition that contradicts accepted fact/assumption.

I would have to completely disagree with this statement. It looks like an oxymoron to me: "proving something about our condition that contradicts accepted fact/assumption" I would argue that much more is known about illnesses caused specifically by molds and mycotoxins than what is known about illnesses caused by MVOC's.

Even if in fact, MVOC's may cause illness, there is vastly much more known about illnesses from the molds and the mycotoxins themselves. And effective treatment protocols specifically designed to deter symptoms for these two specific entities has proven itself time and time again to be effective.

While one can say illnesses may also be caused by pets, roaches, Glade, gas, lead, TCE, Chromium 6, MVOC's, etc. One cannot say that the mold and mycotoxins are not the specific root cause of many illnesses. Based on what I know anecdotally of those who have gotten better with treatment, I would argue that mold and mycotoxins are indeed the primary root of severe illness after exposure to a water damaged, moldie building.

So what exactly is the definition of MVOC? What are the components of the compound?

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

MVOC's are chemical compounds. SO are mycotoxins, but they ae

chemically different and illicite different responses.

An MVOC is a Thiol or an alcohol (usually). A different MVOC may be

produced by a different mold (or bacteria, etc.) but thay are VOC's of

micro(orgamism) origin. The MVOC's I think are " early warning system to

get away " kind of thing. Some of the MVOC's tast great, Rum, Beer,

wine. It is a byproduct ofrom metabolism process of mold. I also like

shitaki mushroom broth and soups, again some flavor is imparted by the

mvoc that is peculiar to shitaki mushrooms. (As with any large fruting

body do not eat the mature ones ie the ones where the gills are darker

or black, this means it is sporilating and spores are NOT " Good Eats " ,

some MVOC's are good.

Mycotoxins are a series of specific chemical compounds that ate toxic

(killers of other molds, and defenders of food source) are poisionous to

the offenbding organism. The toxins run the scope of regular toxins we

use for warfare but are natural origin and produced by molds ang d

fungi.

Point being these are 2 seperate chemical compounds with entirely

different chemistry, receptor points and responses. For example, a

person may have an IgG reaction (hallmark of the immune response of an

allergic reaction), but that is not the same type of receptor for

mycotoxins, wich will (usually) attack a whole system such as rubratoxin

B attacking the liver.

Different chemicals, different symtoms, different assessment for health,

however for the remediation both still require source removal of mold

and water.

[Guest guest]

My exact words were:

" I take people on " The Mold Tour " and allow people to

witness " Mycotoxin Clues " and indicators of ambient exposures so they

can determine for themselves what personal level of discomfort and

disability from normal ambient spore plumes dictates a commensurate

response of avoidance and decontamination. "

I accompany people through spore plumes - and compare our response to

mycotoxins associated with spore inhalation.

And I have people check their response against contaminated items

which have been cleaned and should presumably not be throwing off a

significant cloud of conidia, hyphae, fragments or toxic detritus -

yet seem to have adsorbed sufficient " Mycotoxin contamination " to

elicit a response anyway: " Mycotoxin Clues " .

I made no comment concerning VOC's whatsoever.

Is there anything technically incorrect here?

-

[Guest guest]

It's important to remember that the term 'toxin' - which I would

broadly interpret as meaning a poisonous substance - is pretty broad

in *how* those many thousands of known toxins work. So even though

many mycotoxins are pretty classic poisons in that they kill cells

they come into contact with above a certain concentration, others may

do other things like mimic sex hormones, cut off blood supply, cause

oxidative injuries leading to DNA damage, etc.

[Guest guest]

From 's post: "...a secondary metabolite or simply an organic by-product of unintended toxicity?" ---- Fungal organic "by-products"/"waste" with or without "intended" toxicity are both secondary metabolites. It has nothing to do with “intentions”. EVERYTHING they produce and can live fine without are secondary metabolites. Those that they necessarily have to produce in order to grow and reproduce are called primary metabolites. "a deliberately configured chemical weapon against competing microbes" ---- No such thing. Even higher organisms like us can't design our own metabolisms before gene therapy was invented. Unfortunately, it's late and I will have to explain the so-called “intentions" of secondary metabolites tomorrow. Wei Tang QLABerikmoldwarrior wrote: AirwaysEnv@... wrote:> ,

> Not to speak for , but I have the same question he asked. How do you know that your observed effects are caused by mycotoxins and not some other component of microbial contamination. This is not to deny in any way that it might be caused by mycotoxins -- just looking for some strong evidence that it is, in fact, due to exposure to mycotoxins and not certain MVOCs, for example. And then the next question, of course, would be "which (Stachybotrys) mycotoxin(s)?".> Steve Proximity testing to a sample of Stachy.With total disinterest, contradiction and intransigence from doctors and researchers, I don't know which subclass of toxin.If an mVOC produced by a mold has toxic effects, how on Earth could one fail to classify it as a "myco-toxin" regardless of whether it is a secondary metabolite or simply an organic by-product of unintended toxicity?I think this "lay person" would tend to think that a

toxic waste product of mold would still be a "mycotoxin" and that a deliberately configured chemical weapon against competing microbes would be a "mycotoxin secondary metabolite", but both toxins are still from mold.Both are still mycotoxins to my uneducated way of thinking. -FAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for

research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

[Guest guest]

My concern is that you are expressing a very real phenomenon -- an immediate reaction to low level exposure on the part of a sensitized person, but expressing it in a way that jumps from the observable (if subjective) fact of people reacting to the presence of low levels of mold, to a very precise scientific description of the mechanism by which that reaction is taking place. The very precise scientific description is, to a knowledgeable reader, simply and obviously incorrect.

In scientific circles, a single obviously incorrect statement made publicly invalidates the entire message of the person speaking, reduces their credibility, and reduces the credibility of anyone else advocating a similar position. It's very, very harsh.

Sharon,

Please try very hard to understand what Steve C. is explaining so very well.

And Steve,

Thank you very much for trying to help Sharon to understand. I have tried on- and off-list multiple times to no avail (hence, my frustration). If she can ever finally get it right, everyone will benefit greatly from her activism and I will gladly back her efforts.

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

Thank you very much for trying to help Sharon to understand. I have tried on- and off-list multiple times to no avail (hence, my frustration). If she can ever finally get it right, everyone will benefit greatly from her activism and I will gladly back her efforts.Steve Temes

lol. I have not had time to read all the posts on this thread. I am trying to absorb the link Stacey sent. Excellent! It is probably going to take me a couple of days to research the background research on this doc. Thanks, Stacey. I think this is the doc that will open up much info for me on mVOC's.

But du huh, Steve! Talk about a back handed compliment on this post. Sometimes I think you all give me more credit for intelligence than I deserve, and sometimes I think you give me less than I deserve...and sometimes you do both in the same sentence!

I know a bit about ill health symptoms from mold. I know a bit about ill health symptoms from mycotoxins. I am just now starting to comprehend some of the mVOC's.

Please bare with me. I am quite certain I will have some really dumb questions for you soon.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

I recognise that fungal toxins are not defined as mycotoxins, but if

the specific metabolite implicated as a driving force in my reaction

is to Satratoxin H or G, then my reference to "mycotoxins" would

still an accurate statement and not obviously incorrect.

Absolutely, , and your reaction would be due to your hypersensitivity or immunologic response to the mycotoxin. It would not be a "toxic effect", per se (just toxic to you).

Just the same, there are some individuals who react in the extreme to other components of microbial contamination. I have a client whose exposure to MVOCs in her former residence triggered a severe asthmatic response (multiple ambulance rides on oxygen). Many people report headache, brainfog and severe fatigue from exposure to the MVOCs. Glucans have also been associated with sensitizaton and HP. Any protein can be a sensitizer. I have a client who went into anaphylactic shock and almost died from breathing microbial contamination outdoors. Some components may be more sensitizing to a greater number of people but the phenomenon is a function of genetic predisposition.

There may be a mycotoxin connection to many of the hypersensitivity reactions, but it is not due to their toxicity based upon the way toxicity for the substance is defined.

As for the way no one believed you. I often hear from clients that I am the only one who understands their sensitivity reaction and that everyone thinks they are crazy. Denial of the phenomenon by those who don't have any frame of reference for it is very common. I don't really understand what it is like to have the medical condition myself, though, and the information you can provide about what it is like to live with is very important for us all to appreciate.

Steve

[Guest guest]

I know a bit about ill health symptoms from mold. I know a bit about ill health symptoms from mycotoxins. I am just now starting to comprehend some of the mVOC's.

Sharon,

Let me know when you know a bit about the individual hypersensitivity and immunologic reactions to each of the above. Then you will be on the right track to helping the people who need the most help.

And please read Steve Chalmers' post a few more times. I tried to tell you the same thing but couldn't get through.

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

I accept the toxicological definition of mycotoxins as opposed to

fungal toxins.

My understanding of mycotoxins is that they are " secondary " in the

sense that they are deliberately configured as organic biological

weapons against microbial competitors. This " intent " or application

separates this type of toxin from waste by-products, toxic or

otherwise, resulting from normal metabolic function essential to

sustain viability and reproduction of the fungi.

The isolation of Stachybotrys for study in which it apparently

doesn't undertake the complex and energy intensive chemical

conversion of various toxin potentiating substrates into " secondary

metabolites " without the presence and stimulation of competition

speaks to the ability of fungi to sense and adapt to its environment

complicates the clinical picture enormously - if indeed this

phenomenon has been correctly reported.

To my knowledge, I have not had any problem with fungal mVOC's as

you can see by my years of posting on sickbuildings in which I tell

people not to direct their attention to the mere presence of benign

species of mold.

Despite the " rather arbitrary " sounding taxonomic classification, I

recognise that fungal toxins are not defined as mycotoxins, but if

the specific metabolite implicated as a driving force in my reaction

is to Satratoxin H or G, then my reference to " mycotoxins " would

still an accurate statement and not obviously incorrect.

The identification of Stachybotrys in locations which initiated

specific trichothecene associated complaints among myself and others

seeemed to serve as a good starting point for further research to

attempt to " Get my butt out of this mess " .

I had hoped for scientific and medical cooperation but instead faced

decades of " That's impossible " and " You can't prove it " .

This experience has been quite the learning process, both about

mold, and even more about human epistemology.

-

[Guest guest]

Then you will be on the right track to helping the people who need the most help.

Steve,

I tried to politely indicate in my last post, that I felt your responses to me have been a bit harsh lately. I am trying to educate myself. I do know alittle bit about the hypersensitivity and immunological responses. I have been the mother of a child with Cystic Fibrosis and ABPA for 22 years. Believe it or not, there may actually be a few things I understand that you don't. Do I diss you, or say that until you know what I know, you are not on the right track? No, I don't. So please do not do that to me.

I am trying to better educate myself on a very complicated issue. I don't just receive information from you. I am asking physicians and researchers that deal with the health effects. I know you may find this hard to believe, but not all professionals in this issue think exactly like you do. Does that make them not on the right track also? I think that just the fact that I am trying to understand all points of view, already puts me on the right track.

Not to toot my own horn, but I have worked very hard (at absolutely zero pay). I have already helped many people by increasing the awareness that these illnesses are indeed real. That many are suffering. I don't appreciated the condesending tone you have been using with me lately, nor do I deserve it. I am finding your words to be unnecessarily hurtful. Please stop.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

:

Your points are well placed. However, I have a conceptual issue with

defining (mincing) terms here; and hope to spark some dialog. If mycotoxins

are " deliberately configured " as biological weapons, and this " intent " is

what separates a mycotoxin from a waste by-product that just happens to be

toxic...Then I ask, how do we know what the " intent " or " deliberate action "

of a fungi is? They can't communicate! Educate me please. Moreover,

Stachybotrys for example, produces different metabolites depending upon the

substrate it is growing on. (I am a soil microbiologist by training and in

my undergraduate studies we grew all sorts of fungi on all sorts of

different substrates, and we saw a large variety of responses and/or

behavior, not too mention metabolites. I never thought of separating

metabolites as intentional biological weapons versus " just another toxic

waste by-product. " ) If a fungi was deliberately producing a chemical with

intent to be a biological weapon against other microorganisms, why would it

not be consistent in its actions; or is it? I saw a lot of inconsistency.

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KENTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

> I accept the toxicological definition of mycotoxins as opposed to

> fungal toxins.

> My understanding of mycotoxins is that they are " secondary " in the

> sense that they are deliberately configured as organic biological

> weapons against microbial competitors. This " intent " or application

> separates this type of toxin from waste by-products, toxic or

> otherwise, resulting from normal metabolic function essential to

> sustain viability and reproduction of the fungi.

> The isolation of Stachybotrys for study in which it apparently

> doesn't undertake the complex and energy intensive chemical

> conversion of various toxin potentiating substrates into " secondary

> metabolites " without the presence and stimulation of competition

> speaks to the ability of fungi to sense and adapt to its environment

> complicates the clinical picture enormously - if indeed this

> phenomenon has been correctly reported.

> To my knowledge, I have not had any problem with fungal mVOC's as

> you can see by my years of posting on sickbuildings in which I tell

> people not to direct their attention to the mere presence of benign

> species of mold.

> Despite the " rather arbitrary " sounding taxonomic classification, I

> recognise that fungal toxins are not defined as mycotoxins, but if

> the specific metabolite implicated as a driving force in my reaction

> is to Satratoxin H or G, then my reference to " mycotoxins " would

> still an accurate statement and not obviously incorrect.

> The identification of Stachybotrys in locations which initiated

> specific trichothecene associated complaints among myself and others

> seeemed to serve as a good starting point for further research to

> attempt to " Get my butt out of this mess " .

> I had hoped for scientific and medical cooperation but instead faced

> decades of " That's impossible " and " You can't prove it " .

> This experience has been quite the learning process, both about

> mold, and even more about human epistemology.

> -

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been

> specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material

> available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political,

> human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

> We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as

> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title

> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit

> to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included

> information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted

> material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use',

> you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

>

[Guest guest]

Geyer wrote:

> :

> Your points are well placed. However, I have a conceptual issue

with defining (mincing) terms here; and hope to spark some dialog.

If mycotoxins are " deliberately configured " as biological weapons,

and this " intent " is what separates a mycotoxin from a waste by-

product that just happens to be toxic...Then I ask, how do we know

what the " intent " or " deliberate action "

> of a fungi is? They can't communicate! Educate me please.

> Q. Dr. Gareis may entertain this question. I was struck by your

discussion on how the substrate may affect the mycotoxin development

and would you know of any information that may pertain to artificial

man-made substrates like binders and adhesives that may be used in

fiber board and insulation.

A. Manfred Gareis: This is a general observation everyone who

has worked with mycotoxins and fungi has made. If you culture

toxigenci fungi over weeks on agar plates the fungi will lose their

ability to produce mycotoxins. The mycotoxins are ecologic

metabolites; they use these metabolites as " chemical weapons. "

These " chemical weapons " are not necessary; they are used on

competitors. They do not produce the mycotoxins on culture plates

because they " cost " too much to produce and there are no

competitors.

In every natural environment you will find that the fungi begins

again to produce mycotoxins. <

PROCEEDINGS of the International Conference

Saratoga Springs, New York

Oct 6-7 1994

" Fungi and Bacteria in Indoor Air Environments "

Health Effects, Detection and Remediation

Editors Eckardt Johanning, MD.,M.S,c.

Chin S. Yang, Ph.D.