Re: Interesting Article - leading to toxidenic fungi questions

[Guest guest]

Tony, for future reference, you may assume that when I use any word

at all, it is intended to reflect the accepted definition obtained

in a dictionary.

If mycologists intend to use an different meaning which disagrees

with the dictionary, the onus is upon them to provide an explanation

for their alternate usage.

You would not expect anyone to prejudicially project assumptions

that you are using a word incorrectly before you have done so.

It is not politic to do this to others.

Most people who have experienced adverse reactions to WDB's might

respond to assertions that their experience doesn't constitute

evidence because " the power and the qualities of the studies are

lacking " by agreeing - and calling for better studies.

I am surprised at your requirement for some specific percentage of

people with observable exposure/illness response as a prerequisite

for action. If one person makes the observation that a specific

location makes him ill, should he be advised of the particular

number of people who must also succumb before their problem can be

addressed?

I also believe you have your concept of American history a bit

turned around. This country was founded upon the protection of

inalienable indvidual rights. The idea that the individual should

be willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the collective

majority is not an American theme.

If you do not recognize an inherent difference in the inflammatory

response between dust and toxins, the explanation would take more

time than I have available.

Judging by the amount of honorifics you have appended to your name,

surely you must be aware that Trichothecenes qualify as a mycotoxin

from toxigenic mold. Is there any reason to go over basics and

question what we mean by " toxigenic " ?

Does your method of dealing with health complaints of individuals

in WDB's consist of dismissing them with verbose prevarication until

they concede? Is this really in everyone's best interest?

-

> >

> > (group also where applicable):

> >

> > 1. You stated:

> > in response to question #1, the answer is Yes, I can provide an

> > example of a mycotoxin that has been scientifically shown to

cause an

> > allergic or allergic-like reaction. For brevity, I refer you to

Dr

> > Shoemakers work on trichothecene induced activation of immune

> > complement factors, described in Mold Warriors.

> >

> >

> > Q1: An " immune complement factor " - a) what does that mean? and

> an inert (insoluble, non-reactive) dust can generate an direct

> immune-like response of inflammation - so what is the difference

> here?

> >

> > Q 2: Followup question. Can you cite anything in the peer

> reviewed literature?

> >

> > 2. You stated:

> >

> > or #2, in 1998, Cornell University conducted a study that found

> > significant amounts of toxigenic mold in roughly twenty percent

of

> > large buildings in a small sampling - along with occupants who

had SBS

> > complaints.

> >

> > Q 3: Does toxigenic mold mean that the mold can produce

> mycotoxins, was producing mycotoxins, did produce mycotoxins; and

if

> so what were the types and levels.

> >

> > Q4: How do you define toxigenic mold?

> >

> > 3. You also stated

> >

> > I only said that this is throwing the population into a quandary.

> > Anybody who doesn't have a completely closed-mind must be aware

of an

> > emerging number of sufferers of " Multiple Chemical Sensitivity " .

> >

> > Q5: Restated from my previous question - what is the emerging

> number of people (not buildings) affected from mycotoxins (not just

> the presence of fungi or toxigenic fungi).

> >

> > Comment A. You stated " in a small sampling " - how small, and

> where is this study able to to be viewed (Cornell 1998)?

> >

> > Comment B: On any given day one can find Stachybotrys,

> a " toxigenic " mold, in the outside air. My data on this goes back

> to at least 1942 on this. So the presence of a " toxgenic " mold

> without showing exposure or dose AND significant correlation with

> illness/disease is not sufficient to make a scientific case. This

> would be a question of reliability.

> >

> > FYI: I'm not trying to be a pain in the arse in this case

> (although I do on numerous occasions). I'm trying to match terms

> and show you a more objective perspective. If you want to prove

> something scientifically, you have to follow the scientific method:

> define terms, define the hypothesis, test the hypothesis, modify

the

> hypothesis, show repeatability by retesting independently, etc.

The

> level of testing is to be comensurate with the estimated risk.

> > Tony

>

>

> Tony, unless I use a word in a manner that implies incorrect

usage,

> do you have reason to believe that I am misusing the term, or any

> cause to raise a question regarding definitions?

>

> > The complement system is one of the most important humoral

systems

> mediating many reactivities that contribute to host defence and

> initiating and amplifying inflammation, even in the preimmune phase

> where specific antibodies and lymphocytes are not available.

> Therefore it is not surprising that the complement cascades can be

> initiated by multiple ways in addition to antibody-antigen

> reactions. Activation of the complement cascade leads to the

> fragmentation of C3, C4 and C5 into low-molecular-weight hormone-

like peptides, C3a, C4a, and C5a (111).

> ANAPHYLATOXINS - Peptides derived from C3, C4 and C5

Anaphylatoxins are low-molecular weight, biologically active

> peptides that are defined functionally by their actions on small

> blood vessels, smooth muscle, mast cells, and peripheral blood

> leukocytes (111). Several laboratory studies have been carried out

> to establish, conclusively, that low-molecular-weight peptides with

> anaphylatoxin activity can be generated enzymatically from C3, C4,

> and C5 (i.e., C3a, C4a, and C5a, respectively) (112 114). Analyses

> of the complete amino acid sequences of C3a, C4a, and C5a from man

> and from a variety of animal species have revealed striking

> similarities among these peptides, suggesting a common evolutionary

> origin. C3a was the first anaphylatoxin to have its complete

primary

> structure elucidated (115). C4a has a pentapeptide structure, and

> contracts smooth muscle, although it is approximately 500-fold less

> active in this respect than the C3a pentapeptide (116). C5a

> functions also as a chemoattractant, inducing the migration of

> leukocytes into an area of complement activation. These molecules

> induce smooth muscle contraction and enhance vascular permeability.

> They bind to specific receptors and induce the release of

vasoactive

> amines such as histamine from mast cells and basophils, and

> lysosomal enzyme release from granulocytes (particularly C3a and

> C5a) (117,118).<

>

> Toxins tend to get more immunological attention than dust.

> The difference is measurable and corresponds to the degree of

> inflammation. When C4a sets Anaphylatoxins into a cascade

> called " cytokine storm " , the effects can be quite profound.

Thanks to Dr Shoemaker, and the availability of objective

> measurements of proinflammatory cytokines by Quest diagnostics, a

> damaging immunological response to toxigenic molds in Water Damaged

> Buildings - WDB's can be established.

> Dr Shoemaker has done the testing that finally confirms the

> unbelieved anecdotal stories of sufferers.

> The numerous reports of sick buildings and schools are indicative

> of a significant and increasing mold problem. Is there any point

> about quibbling about the estimates of prevalence at this time? Is

the decision to act upon a cluster of illness in WDB's predicated

> upon societal prevalence of the problem?

>

> The intransigence of doctors, school authorities, and people in

> general to admit to the existence of biotoxin mediated illness has

> been reminiscent of a Three Stooges skit where Curly put his hands

> over his face and screams " I can't see! I can't see " , and when a

> concerned Moe asks " Why, What's wrong " , Curly laughs, " I got me

eyes

> covered. Nyuk Nyuk Nyuck " .

>

> I am also reminded of the response of a parent who grew alarmed at

> the sight of his children returning home ill from school every day,

> and was continually frustrated at the unwillingness of officials to

> take an objective perspective regarding an observable effect that

> anyone with common sense could plainly see.

> When confronted by authorities upon his lack of " scientific data "

> and " medical proof " , he responded " We can't wait for science!

> We have to act upon the evidence. "

>

> I wish I could be so eloquent.

> -

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> 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]

:1. You seem to be unable to answer the questions.2. You stated: "accepted definition obtained in a dictionary." Then could you provide the definition and the citation for the dictionary for the terms: toxigenic and mycotoxins3. You stated: "and calling for better studies." - Agreed4. You stated: "This country was founded upon the protection of inalienable indvidual (sic) rights." Read the bills of rights - "pursuit of" is not "entitlement to"; and I don't see housing or health as guarantees. I also suggest reading the Federalist papers.5. you stated: "If you do not recognize an inherent difference in the inflammatoryresponse between dust and toxins, the explanation would take moretime than I have available" You appear to not understand the term toxin very well - until you do, discussion in this area is moot.6. You stated: "Surely you must be aware that Trichothecenes qualify as a mycotoxinfrom toxigenic mold. Is there any reason to go over basics andquestion what we mean by "toxigenic"?" Trichothecenes do qualify as mycotoxins. But you have yet to couple trichothecenes (or any other mycotoxin) with your adverse immune response effects (other than the opinion of Shoemaker). As a matter of fact, I don't recall you mentioning trichothecenes until now. We might actually bet getting somewhere. Secondly, you appear to throw around the term toxigenic without being able to define it, which suggests you don't know what it really means in your own mind. When you do, perhaps the discussion can move forward.7. You stated: A) "Does your method of dealing with health complaints of individualsin WDB's consist of dismissing them with verbose prevarication untilthey concede?"No. It means not making claims (that you have made) without supporting them with science, or alternatively, stating they are opinion based only. "Is this really in everyone's best interest?"Yes. Valuable resources expended on a lower risk could be more effectively applied elsewhere - like neonatal and prenatal care, or alcohol and drug treatment - to a much getter benefit to society. The government should be concerned with the general welfare, not succumb to every individual. Otherwise my sister (allergic to chocolate), should be permitted to require the banning of chocolate.Tony.......................................................................... "Tony" Havics, CHMM, CIH, PEpH2, LLCPO Box 34140Indianapolis, IN 46234 cell90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%â„ This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments (including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at . Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only of the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied or distributed without this statement.-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of erikmoldwarriorSent: Friday, June 02, 2006 11:14 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Interesting Article - leading to toxidenic fungi questionsTony, for future reference, you may assume that when I use any wordat all, it is intended to reflect the accepted definition obtainedin a dictionary.If mycologists intend to use an different meaning which disagreeswith the dictionary, the onus is upon them to provide an explanationfor their alternate usage. You would not expect anyone to prejudicially project assumptionsthat you are using a word incorrectly before you have done so. It is not politic to do this to others. Most people who have experienced adverse reactions to WDB's mightrespond to assertions that their experience doesn't constituteevidence because "the power and the qualities of the studies arelacking" by agreeing - and calling for better studies. I am surprised at your requirement for some specific percentage ofpeople with observable exposure/illness response as a prerequisitefor action. If one person makes the observation that a specificlocation makes him ill, should he be advised of the particularnumber of people who must also succumb before their problem can beaddressed? I also believe you have your concept of American history a bitturned around. This country was founded upon the protection ofinalienable indvidual rights. The idea that the individual shouldbe willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the collectivemajority is not an American theme. If you do not recognize an inherent difference in the inflammatoryresponse between dust and toxins, the explanation would take moretime than I have available.Judging by the amount of honorifics you have appended to your name,surely you must be aware that Trichothecenes qualify as a mycotoxinfrom toxigenic mold. Is there any reason to go over basics andquestion what we mean by "toxigenic"? Does your method of dealing with health complaints of individualsin WDB's consist of dismissing them with verbose prevarication untilthey concede? Is this really in everyone's best interest? - > >> > (group also where applicable):> >> > 1. You stated:> > in response to question #1, the answer is Yes, I can provide an> > example of a mycotoxin that has been scientifically shown tocause an> > allergic or allergic-like reaction. For brevity, I refer you toDr> > Shoemakers work on trichothecene induced activation of immune> > complement factors, described in Mold Warriors.> >> >> > Q1: An "immune complement factor" - a) what does that mean? and> an inert (insoluble, non-reactive) dust can generate an direct> immune-like response of inflammation - so what is the difference here?> >> > Q 2: Followup question. Can you cite anything in the peer> reviewed literature?> >> > 2. You stated:> >> > or #2, in 1998, Cornell University conducted a study that found> > significant amounts of toxigenic mold in roughly twenty percentof> > large buildings in a small sampling - along with occupants whohad SBS> > complaints.> >> > Q 3: Does toxigenic mold mean that the mold can produce> mycotoxins, was producing mycotoxins, did produce mycotoxins; andif> so what were the types and levels.> >> > Q4: How do you define toxigenic mold?> >> > 3. You also stated> >> > I only said that this is throwing the population into a quandary.> > Anybody who doesn't have a completely closed-mind must be awareof an> > emerging number of sufferers of "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity".> >> > Q5: Restated from my previous question - what is the emerging> number of people (not buildings) affected from mycotoxins (not just> the presence of fungi or toxigenic fungi).> >> > Comment A. You stated "in a small sampling" - how small, and> where is this study able to to be viewed (Cornell 1998)?> >> > Comment B: On any given day one can find Stachybotrys,> a "toxigenic" mold, in the outside air. My data on this goes back to> at least 1942 on this. So the presence of a "toxgenic" mold without> showing exposure or dose AND significant correlation with> illness/disease is not sufficient to make a scientific case. This> would be a question of reliability.> >> > FYI: I'm not trying to be a pain in the arse in this case> (although I do on numerous occasions). I'm trying to match terms and> show you a more objective perspective. If you want to prove something> scientifically, you have to follow the scientific method: define> terms, define the hypothesis, test the hypothesis, modifythe> hypothesis, show repeatability by retesting independently, etc.The> level of testing is to be comensurate with the estimated risk.> > Tony>>> Tony, unless I use a word in a manner that implies incorrectusage,> do you have reason to believe that I am misusing the term, or any> cause to raise a question regarding definitions?>> > The complement system is one of the most important humoralsystems> mediating many reactivities that contribute to host defence and> initiating and amplifying inflammation, even in the preimmune phase> where specific antibodies and lymphocytes are not available. Therefore> it is not surprising that the complement cascades can be initiated by> multiple ways in addition to antibody-antigen reactions. Activation of> the complement cascade leads to the fragmentation of C3, C4 and C5> into low-molecular-weight hormone-like peptides, C3a, C4a, and C5a (111).> ANAPHYLATOXINS - Peptides derived from C3, C4 and C5Anaphylatoxins are low-molecular weight, biologically active> peptides that are defined functionally by their actions on small blood> vessels, smooth muscle, mast cells, and peripheral blood leukocytes> (111). Several laboratory studies have been carried out to establish,> conclusively, that low-molecular-weight peptides with anaphylatoxin> activity can be generated enzymatically from C3, C4, and C5 (i.e.,> C3a, C4a, and C5a, respectively) (112 114). Analyses of the complete> amino acid sequences of C3a, C4a, and C5a from man and from a variety> of animal species have revealed striking similarities among these> peptides, suggesting a common evolutionary origin. C3a was the first> anaphylatoxin to have its completeprimary> structure elucidated (115). C4a has a pentapeptide structure, and> contracts smooth muscle, although it is approximately 500-fold less> active in this respect than the C3a pentapeptide (116). C5a functions> also as a chemoattractant, inducing the migration of leukocytes into> an area of complement activation. These molecules induce smooth muscle> contraction and enhance vascular permeability. They bind to specific> receptors and induce the release ofvasoactive> amines such as histamine from mast cells and basophils, and lysosomal> enzyme release from granulocytes (particularly C3a and> C5a) (117,118).<>> Toxins tend to get more immunological attention than dust. The> difference is measurable and corresponds to the degree of> inflammation. When C4a sets Anaphylatoxins into a cascade called> "cytokine storm", the effects can be quite profound.Thanks to Dr Shoemaker, and the availability of objective> measurements of proinflammatory cytokines by Quest diagnostics, a> damaging immunological response to toxigenic molds in Water Damaged> Buildings - WDB's can be established. Dr Shoemaker has done the> testing that finally confirms the unbelieved anecdotal stories of> sufferers.> The numerous reports of sick buildings and schools are indicative> of a significant and increasing mold problem. Is there any point> about quibbling about the estimates of prevalence at this time? Isthe decision to act upon a cluster of illness in WDB's predicated> upon societal prevalence of the problem?>> The intransigence of doctors, school authorities, and people in> general to admit to the existence of biotoxin mediated illness has> been reminiscent of a Three Stooges skit where Curly put his hands> over his face and screams "I can't see! I can't see", and when a> concerned Moe asks "Why, What's wrong", Curly laughs, "I got meeyes> covered. Nyuk Nyuk Nyuck".>> I am also reminded of the response of a parent who grew alarmed at> the sight of his children returning home ill from school every day,> and was continually frustrated at the unwillingness of officials to> take an objective perspective regarding an observable effect that> anyone with common sense could plainly see. When confronted by> authorities upon his lack of "scientific data" and "medical proof", he> responded "We can't wait for science! We have to act upon the> evidence.">> I wish I could be so eloquent.> ->>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIR USE NOTICE:>> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has notalways been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We aremaking such material available in our efforts to advanceunderstanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believethis constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material asprovided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordancewith Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site isdistributed without profit to those who have expressed a priorinterest in receiving the included information for research andeducational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to usecopyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that gobeyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyrightowner.>

[Guest guest]

Tony, I could simply cut and paste the definitions you ask for, but

I consider the request to be for purely for purposes of

prevarication.

Until I misuse these terms, do not presume that I " appear not to

understand the word toxin very well " .

I believe you are confusing the Bill of Rights with the Declaration

of Independence:

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created

equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain

unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the

pursuit of Happiness. "

To the best of my knowledge, " pursuit of " is not in the Bill of

Rights.

We are indeed getting somewhere in that you consider Dr Shoemakers

assessment protocols to be an " opinion " .

You say I " have yet to couple trichothecenes (or any other

mycotoxin) with your adverse immune response effects (other than the

opinion of Shoemaker) "

The literature upon this is so vast, that your demands that I

provide you with such information appears to be further pointless

prevarication. I refer you to Proceedings of the International

Conference, Saratoga Springs " Fungi and Bacteria in Indoor Air

Environments " .

If Quest Diagnostics assay of immune complement activation factors

indicate elevated levels post-exposure to T2 toxins, is that also

an " opinion " ? If you examined Dr Shoemakers tests and found they

have employed scientific methodology, would you still consider them

invalid until you hear this " opinion " from a source " other " than Dr

Shoemaker?

If your sisters reactivity is such that aerosolized particles of

chocolate induce a disabling response, do you think she might

feel " entitled " to ban it from her presence. Were she to insist that

chocolate exposure by uncaring co-workers was interfering with her

ability to work, would you tell her that valuable resources should

not be expended on her behalf, as they could be better utilized

elsewhere? Do you maintain that her reactivity be ignored until a

certain percentage of co-occupants share the same level of

sensitization to chocolate?

I suspect that she might take her questions of Risk Management to

one of the other 10% of consultants.

-

" Tony Havics " wrote:

>

> :

>

> 1. You seem to be unable to answer the questions.

>

> 2. You stated:

>

> " accepted definition obtained in a dictionary. "

>

> Then could you provide the definition and the citation for

the dictionary for the terms: toxigenic and mycotoxins

>

> 3. You stated:

>

> " and calling for better studies. " - Agreed

>

> 4. You stated:

>

> " This country was founded upon the protection of

inalienable indvidual (sic) rights. "

>

> Read the bills of rights - " pursuit of " is

not " entitlement to " ; and I don't see housing or health as

guarantees. I also suggest reading the Federalist papers.

>

> 5. you stated:

>

> " If you do not recognize an inherent difference in the

inflammatory

> response between dust and toxins, the explanation would take more

> time than I have available "

>

> You appear to not understand the term toxin very well -

until you do, discussion in this area is moot.

>

>

> 6. You stated:

>

> " Surely you must be aware that Trichothecenes qualify as a

mycotoxin

> from toxigenic mold. Is there any reason to go over basics and

> question what we mean by " toxigenic " ? "

>

> Trichothecenes do qualify as mycotoxins. But you have yet

to couple trichothecenes (or any other mycotoxin) with your adverse

immune response effects (other than the opinion of Shoemaker). As a

matter of fact, I don't recall you mentioning trichothecenes until

now. We might actually bet getting somewhere.

>

> Secondly, you appear to throw around the term toxigenic without

being able to define it, which suggests you don't know what it

really means in your own mind. When you do, perhaps the discussion

can move forward.

>

> 7. You stated:

>

> A) " Does your method of dealing with health complaints of

individuals

> in WDB's consist of dismissing them with verbose prevarication

until

> they concede? "

>

> No. It means not making claims (that you have made) without

supporting them with science, or alternatively, stating they are

opinion based only.

>

> " Is this really in everyone's best interest? "

>

> Yes. Valuable resources expended on a lower risk could be more

effectively applied elsewhere - like neonatal and prenatal care, or

alcohol and drug treatment - to a much getter benefit to society.

The government should be concerned with the general welfare, not

succumb to every individual. Otherwise my sister (allergic to

chocolate), should be permitted to require the banning of chocolate.

>

> Tony

>

>

> ...................................................................

........

> " Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

> pH2, LLC

> PO Box 34140

> Indianapolis, IN 46234

>

> cell

>

> 90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal

point...any consultant can give you the other 10%â„ 

>

> This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may

contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are

intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the

addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been

addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or

distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you

please delete this message and attachments (including all copies)

and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at .

Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other

than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive

confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views

only of the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may

not be copied or distributed without this statement.

>

> Re: Interesting Article - leading to

toxidenic fungi questions

>

>

> Tony, for future reference, you may assume that when I use any

word

> at all, it is intended to reflect the accepted definition obtained

> in a dictionary.

> If mycologists intend to use an different meaning which disagrees

> with the dictionary, the onus is upon them to provide an

explanation

> for their alternate usage.

> You would not expect anyone to prejudicially project assumptions

> that you are using a word incorrectly before you have done so. It

is not politic to do this to others. Most people who have

experienced adverse reactions to WDB's might

> respond to assertions that their experience doesn't constitute

> evidence because " the power and the qualities of the studies are

> lacking " by agreeing - and calling for better studies.

> I am surprised at your requirement for some specific percentage of

> people with observable exposure/illness response as a prerequisite

> for action. If one person makes the observation that a specific

> location makes him ill, should he be advised of the particular

> number of people who must also succumb before their problem can be

> addressed?

> I also believe you have your concept of American history a bit

> turned around. This country was founded upon the protection of

> inalienable indvidual rights. The idea that the individual should

> be willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the collective

> majority is not an American theme.

> If you do not recognize an inherent difference in the inflammatory

> response between dust and toxins, the explanation would take more

> time than I have available.

> Judging by the amount of honorifics you have appended to your name,

> surely you must be aware that Trichothecenes qualify as a mycotoxin

> from toxigenic mold. Is there any reason to go over basics and

> question what we mean by " toxigenic " ?

> Does your method of dealing with health complaints of individuals

> in WDB's consist of dismissing them with verbose prevarication

until

> they concede? Is this really in everyone's best interest? -

>

>

>

>

> > >

> > > (group also where applicable):

> > >

> > > 1. You stated:

> > > in response to question #1, the answer is Yes, I can provide an

> > > example of a mycotoxin that has been scientifically shown to

> cause an

> > > allergic or allergic-like reaction. For brevity, I refer you to

> Dr

> > > Shoemakers work on trichothecene induced activation of immune

> > > complement factors, described in Mold Warriors.

> > >

> > >

> > > Q1: An " immune complement factor " - a) what does that mean?

and

> > an inert (insoluble, non-reactive) dust can generate an direct

> > immune-like response of inflammation - so what is the difference

here?

> > >

> > > Q 2: Followup question. Can you cite anything in the peer

> > reviewed literature?

> > >

> > > 2. You stated:

> > >

> > > or #2, in 1998, Cornell University conducted a study that found

> > > significant amounts of toxigenic mold in roughly twenty percent

> of

> > > large buildings in a small sampling - along with occupants who

> had SBS

> > > complaints.

> > >

> > > Q 3: Does toxigenic mold mean that the mold can produce

> > mycotoxins, was producing mycotoxins, did produce mycotoxins; and

> if

> > so what were the types and levels.

> > >

> > > Q4: How do you define toxigenic mold?

> > >

> > > 3. You also stated

> > >

> > > I only said that this is throwing the population into a

quandary.

> > > Anybody who doesn't have a completely closed-mind must be aware

> of an

> > > emerging number of sufferers of " Multiple Chemical

Sensitivity " .

> > >

> > > Q5: Restated from my previous question - what is the emerging

> > number of people (not buildings) affected from mycotoxins (not

just

> > the presence of fungi or toxigenic fungi).

> > >

> > > Comment A. You stated " in a small sampling " - how small, and

> > where is this study able to to be viewed (Cornell 1998)?

> > >

> > > Comment B: On any given day one can find Stachybotrys,

> > a " toxigenic " mold, in the outside air. My data on this goes

back to

> > at least 1942 on this. So the presence of a " toxgenic " mold

without

> > showing exposure or dose AND significant correlation with

> > illness/disease is not sufficient to make a scientific case.

This

> > would be a question of reliability.

> > >

> > > FYI: I'm not trying to be a pain in the arse in this case

> > (although I do on numerous occasions). I'm trying to match

terms and

> > show you a more objective perspective. If you want to prove

something

> > scientifically, you have to follow the scientific method: define

> > terms, define the hypothesis, test the hypothesis, modify

> the

> > hypothesis, show repeatability by retesting independently, etc.

> The

> > level of testing is to be comensurate with the estimated risk.

> > > Tony

> >

> >

> > Tony, unless I use a word in a manner that implies incorrect

> usage,

> > do you have reason to believe that I am misusing the term, or any

> > cause to raise a question regarding definitions?

> >

> > > The complement system is one of the most important humoral

> systems

> > mediating many reactivities that contribute to host defence and

> > initiating and amplifying inflammation, even in the preimmune

phase

> > where specific antibodies and lymphocytes are not available.

Therefore

> > it is not surprising that the complement cascades can be

initiated by

> > multiple ways in addition to antibody-antigen reactions.

Activation of

> > the complement cascade leads to the fragmentation of C3, C4 and

C5

> > into low-molecular-weight hormone-

> like peptides, C3a, C4a, and C5a (111).

> > ANAPHYLATOXINS - Peptides derived from C3, C4 and C5

> Anaphylatoxins are low-molecular weight, biologically active

> > peptides that are defined functionally by their actions on small

blood

> > vessels, smooth muscle, mast cells, and peripheral blood

leukocytes

> > (111). Several laboratory studies have been carried out to

establish,

> > conclusively, that low-molecular-weight peptides with

anaphylatoxin

> > activity can be generated enzymatically from C3, C4, and C5

(i.e.,

> > C3a, C4a, and C5a, respectively) (112 114). Analyses of the

complete

> > amino acid sequences of C3a, C4a, and C5a from man and from a

variety

> > of animal species have revealed striking similarities among these

> > peptides, suggesting a common evolutionary origin. C3a was the

first

> > anaphylatoxin to have its complete

> primary

> > structure elucidated (115). C4a has a pentapeptide structure, and

> > contracts smooth muscle, although it is approximately 500-fold

less

> > active in this respect than the C3a pentapeptide (116). C5a

functions

> > also as a chemoattractant, inducing the migration of leukocytes

into

> > an area of complement activation. These molecules induce smooth

muscle

> > contraction and enhance vascular permeability. They bind to

specific

> > receptors and induce the release of

> vasoactive

> > amines such as histamine from mast cells and basophils, and

lysosomal

> > enzyme release from granulocytes (particularly C3a and

> > C5a) (117,118).<

> >

> > Toxins tend to get more immunological attention than dust. The

> > difference is measurable and corresponds to the degree of

> > inflammation. When C4a sets Anaphylatoxins into a cascade called

> > " cytokine storm " , the effects can be quite profound.

> Thanks to Dr Shoemaker, and the availability of objective

> > measurements of proinflammatory cytokines by Quest diagnostics, a

> > damaging immunological response to toxigenic molds in Water

Damaged

> > Buildings - WDB's can be established. Dr Shoemaker has done the

> > testing that finally confirms the unbelieved anecdotal stories of

> > sufferers.

> > The numerous reports of sick buildings and schools are

indicative

> > of a significant and increasing mold problem. Is there any point

> > about quibbling about the estimates of prevalence at this time?

Is

> the decision to act upon a cluster of illness in WDB's predicated

> > upon societal prevalence of the problem?

> >

> > The intransigence of doctors, school authorities, and people in

> > general to admit to the existence of biotoxin mediated illness

has

> > been reminiscent of a Three Stooges skit where Curly put his

hands

> > over his face and screams " I can't see! I can't see " , and when a

> > concerned Moe asks " Why, What's wrong " , Curly laughs, " I got me

> eyes

> > covered. Nyuk Nyuk Nyuck " .

> >

> > I am also reminded of the response of a parent who grew alarmed

at

> > the sight of his children returning home ill from school every

day,

> > and was continually frustrated at the unwillingness of officials

to

> > take an objective perspective regarding an observable effect that

> > anyone with common sense could plainly see. When confronted by

> > authorities upon his lack of " scientific data " and " medical

proof " , he

> > responded " We can't wait for science! We have to act upon the

> > evidence. "

> >

> > I wish I could be so eloquent.

> > -

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > 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]

:

Sorry for the delayed response. I have a family to tend to.

1. You stated:

"I could simply cut and paste the definitions you ask for, butI consider the request to be for purely for purposes ofprevarication."

You've consumed more time with the your elusive responses than it would take to simply cut and paste.

2. You stated:

believe you are confusing the Bill of Rights with the Declarationof Independence:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are createdequal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certainunalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and thepursuit of Happiness." To the best of my knowledge, "pursuit of" is not in the Bill ofRights. My apologizes in part.

Yes and no.Your are correct in that the phrase "pursuit of" does come from the Declaration of Independence:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."However, this is not tied to the law of the land. Instead I chose a legal construct through the Bill of Rights, Amendement V:

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property"

““Rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are equivalent to the rights of life, liberty, and property. These are fundamental rights which can only be taken away by due process of law, and which can only be interfered with, or the enjoyment of which can only be modified, by lawful regulations necessary or proper for the mutual good of all. . . .â€â€ Slaughter––House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 116, 122 (1873) (Justice Bradley dissenting). [Emphasis added by Havics]

Sorry for the lack of a preamble to explain my intentions with the comment - I skip past a few things sometimes.

3. You stated:

"The literature upon this is so vast"

Apparently not, or you would have been able to cite it easily.

4. You still haven't answered the questions. And apparaently you can not or will not.

End of discussion. Wish you well.

Tony

........................................................................... "Tony" Havics, CHMM, CIH, PEpH2, LLCPO Box 34140Indianapolis, IN 46234 cell90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%â„ This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments (including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at . Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only of the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied or distributed without this statement. Re: Interesting Article - leading totoxidenic fungi questions>>> Tony, for future reference, you may assume that when I use anyword> at all, it is intended to reflect the accepted definition obtained in> a dictionary. If mycologists intend to use an different meaning which> disagrees with the dictionary, the onus is upon them to provide anexplanation> for their alternate usage.> You would not expect anyone to prejudicially project assumptions that> you are using a word incorrectly before you have done so. Itis not politic to do this to others. Most people who haveexperienced adverse reactions to WDB's might> respond to assertions that their experience doesn't constitute> evidence because "the power and the qualities of the studies are> lacking" by agreeing - and calling for better studies. I am surprised> at your requirement for some specific percentage of people with> observable exposure/illness response as a prerequisite for action. If> one person makes the observation that a specific location makes him> ill, should he be advised of the particular number of people who must> also succumb before their problem can be addressed?> I also believe you have your concept of American history a bit> turned around. This country was founded upon the protection of> inalienable indvidual rights. The idea that the individual should> be willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the collective> majority is not an American theme.> If you do not recognize an inherent difference in the inflammatory> response between dust and toxins, the explanation would take more> time than I have available.> Judging by the amount of honorifics you have appended to your name,> surely you must be aware that Trichothecenes qualify as a mycotoxin> from toxigenic mold. Is there any reason to go over basics and> question what we mean by "toxigenic"?> Does your method of dealing with health complaints of individuals> in WDB's consist of dismissing them with verbose prevaricationuntil> they concede? Is this really in everyone's best interest? -> >>> > > >> > > (group also where applicable):> > >> > > 1. You stated:> > > in response to question #1, the answer is Yes, I can provide an> > > example of a mycotoxin that has been scientifically shown to> cause an> > > allergic or allergic-like reaction. For brevity, I refer you to> Dr> > > Shoemakers work on trichothecene induced activation of immune> > > complement factors, described in Mold Warriors.> > >> > >> > > Q1: An "immune complement factor" - a) what does that mean?and> > an inert (insoluble, non-reactive) dust can generate an direct> > immune-like response of inflammation - so what is the differencehere?> > >> > > Q 2: Followup question. Can you cite anything in the peer> > reviewed literature?> > >> > > 2. You stated:> > >> > > or #2, in 1998, Cornell University conducted a study that found> > > significant amounts of toxigenic mold in roughly twenty percent> of> > > large buildings in a small sampling - along with occupants who> had SBS> > > complaints.> > >> > > Q 3: Does toxigenic mold mean that the mold can produce> > mycotoxins, was producing mycotoxins, did produce mycotoxins; and> if> > so what were the types and levels.> > >> > > Q4: How do you define toxigenic mold?> > >> > > 3. You also stated> > >> > > I only said that this is throwing the population into aquandary.> > > Anybody who doesn't have a completely closed-mind must be aware> of an> > > emerging number of sufferers of "Multiple ChemicalSensitivity".> > >> > > Q5: Restated from my previous question - what is the emerging> > number of people (not buildings) affected from mycotoxins (notjust> > the presence of fungi or toxigenic fungi).> > >> > > Comment A. You stated "in a small sampling" - how small, and> > where is this study able to to be viewed (Cornell 1998)?> > >> > > Comment B: On any given day one can find Stachybotrys,> > a "toxigenic" mold, in the outside air. My data on this goesback to> > at least 1942 on this. So the presence of a "toxgenic" moldwithout> > showing exposure or dose AND significant correlation with> > illness/disease is not sufficient to make a scientific case.This> > would be a question of reliability.> > >> > > FYI: I'm not trying to be a pain in the arse in this case> > (although I do on numerous occasions). I'm trying to matchterms and> > show you a more objective perspective. If you want to provesomething> > scientifically, you have to follow the scientific method: define> > terms, define the hypothesis, test the hypothesis, modify> the> > hypothesis, show repeatability by retesting independently, etc.> The> > level of testing is to be comensurate with the estimated risk.> > > Tony> >> >> > Tony, unless I use a word in a manner that implies incorrect> usage,> > do you have reason to believe that I am misusing the term, or any> > cause to raise a question regarding definitions?> >> > > The complement system is one of the most important humoral> systems> > mediating many reactivities that contribute to host defence and> > initiating and amplifying inflammation, even in the preimmunephase> > where specific antibodies and lymphocytes are not available.Therefore> > it is not surprising that the complement cascades can beinitiated by> > multiple ways in addition to antibody-antigen reactions.Activation of> > the complement cascade leads to the fragmentation of C3, C4 andC5> > into low-molecular-weight hormone-> like peptides, C3a, C4a, and C5a (111).> > ANAPHYLATOXINS - Peptides derived from C3, C4 and C5> Anaphylatoxins are low-molecular weight, biologically active> > peptides that are defined functionally by their actions on smallblood> > vessels, smooth muscle, mast cells, and peripheral bloodleukocytes> > (111). Several laboratory studies have been carried out toestablish,> > conclusively, that low-molecular-weight peptides withanaphylatoxin> > activity can be generated enzymatically from C3, C4, and C5(i.e.,> > C3a, C4a, and C5a, respectively) (112 114). Analyses of thecomplete> > amino acid sequences of C3a, C4a, and C5a from man and from avariety> > of animal species have revealed striking similarities among these> > peptides, suggesting a common evolutionary origin. C3a was thefirst> > anaphylatoxin to have its complete> primary> > structure elucidated (115). C4a has a pentapeptide structure, and> > contracts smooth muscle, although it is approximately 500-foldless> > active in this respect than the C3a pentapeptide (116). C5afunctions> > also as a chemoattractant, inducing the migration of leukocytesinto> > an area of complement activation. These molecules induce smoothmuscle> > contraction and enhance vascular permeability. They bind tospecific> > receptors and induce the release of> vasoactive> > amines such as histamine from mast cells and basophils, andlysosomal> > enzyme release from granulocytes (particularly C3a and> > C5a) (117,118).<> >> > Toxins tend to get more immunological attention than dust. The> > difference is measurable and corresponds to the degree of> > inflammation. When C4a sets Anaphylatoxins into a cascade called> > "cytokine storm", the effects can be quite profound.> Thanks to Dr Shoemaker, and the availability of objective> > measurements of proinflammatory cytokines by Quest diagnostics, a> > damaging immunological response to toxigenic molds in WaterDamaged> > Buildings - WDB's can be established. Dr Shoemaker has done the> > testing that finally confirms the unbelieved anecdotal stories of> > sufferers. The numerous reports of sick buildings and schools areindicative> > of a significant and increasing mold problem. Is there any point> > about quibbling about the estimates of prevalence at this time?Is> the decision to act upon a cluster of illness in WDB's predicated> > upon societal prevalence of the problem?> >> > The intransigence of doctors, school authorities, and people in> > general to admit to the existence of biotoxin mediated illnesshas> > been reminiscent of a Three Stooges skit where Curly put hishands> > over his face and screams "I can't see! I can't see", and when a> > concerned Moe asks "Why, What's wrong", Curly laughs, "I got me> eyes> > covered. Nyuk Nyuk Nyuck".> >> > I am also reminded of the response of a parent who grew alarmedat> > the sight of his children returning home ill from school everyday,> > and was continually frustrated at the unwillingness of officialsto> > take an objective perspective regarding an observable effect that> > anyone with common sense could plainly see. When confronted by> > authorities upon his lack of "scientific data" and "medicalproof", he> > responded "We can't wait for science! We have to act upon the> > evidence."> >> > I wish I could be so eloquent.> > -> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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 thatgo> beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright> owner.> >

[Guest guest]

:

Several points to ponder with respect to your response to Tony....

There are many forms of dictionaries, and no one dictionary is correct in

all circumstances. Therefore, when you state: " ...when I use any word at

all, it is intended to reflect the accepted definition obtained in a

dictionary. " Realize that what ever word it is, it may have multiple

definitions based on different dictionaries. Therefore, please define your

source.

Also, your analogy that this country was founded upon " the protection of

inalienable individual rights, " is a poor one. This country was founded on

Judo-Christian values, that there is a higher authority (i.e. GOD), that we

all have moral responsibilities to the society as a whole, and that any one

individual cannot tromp on the rights of others. Those rights are codified.

This Country was not founded on a premise of " individuality, " albeit, there

are those that wish believe it to be so. Moreover, if you were ever in the

military, YES, there are many sacrifices of individuals for the benefit of

the Company as a whole; some of those sacrifices were commanded, and others

were volunteered by heroes.

For what it is worth...

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KENTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

> Tony, for future reference, you may assume that when I use any word

> at all, it is intended to reflect the accepted definition obtained

> in a dictionary.

> If mycologists intend to use an different meaning which disagrees

> with the dictionary, the onus is upon them to provide an explanation

> for their alternate usage.

> You would not expect anyone to prejudicially project assumptions

> that you are using a word incorrectly before you have done so.

> It is not politic to do this to others.

> Most people who have experienced adverse reactions to WDB's might

> respond to assertions that their experience doesn't constitute

> evidence because " the power and the qualities of the studies are

> lacking " by agreeing - and calling for better studies.

> I am surprised at your requirement for some specific percentage of

> people with observable exposure/illness response as a prerequisite

> for action. If one person makes the observation that a specific

> location makes him ill, should he be advised of the particular

> number of people who must also succumb before their problem can be

> addressed?

> I also believe you have your concept of American history a bit

> turned around. This country was founded upon the protection of

> inalienable indvidual rights. The idea that the individual should

> be willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the collective

> majority is not an American theme.

> If you do not recognize an inherent difference in the inflammatory

> response between dust and toxins, the explanation would take more

> time than I have available.

> Judging by the amount of honorifics you have appended to your name,

> surely you must be aware that Trichothecenes qualify as a mycotoxin

> from toxigenic mold. Is there any reason to go over basics and

> question what we mean by " toxigenic " ?

> Does your method of dealing with health complaints of individuals

> in WDB's consist of dismissing them with verbose prevarication until

> they concede? Is this really in everyone's best interest?

> -

>

>

>

>

>>>

>>> (group also where applicable):

>>>

>>> 1. You stated:

>>> in response to question #1, the answer is Yes, I can provide an

>>> example of a mycotoxin that has been scientifically shown to

> cause an

>>> allergic or allergic-like reaction. For brevity, I refer you to

> Dr

>>> Shoemakers work on trichothecene induced activation of immune

>>> complement factors, described in Mold Warriors.

>>>

>>>

>>> Q1: An " immune complement factor " - a) what does that mean? and

>> an inert (insoluble, non-reactive) dust can generate an direct

>> immune-like response of inflammation - so what is the difference

>> here?

>>>

>>> Q 2: Followup question. Can you cite anything in the peer

>> reviewed literature?

>>>

>>> 2. You stated:

>>>

>>> or #2, in 1998, Cornell University conducted a study that found

>>> significant amounts of toxigenic mold in roughly twenty percent

> of

>>> large buildings in a small sampling - along with occupants who

> had SBS

>>> complaints.

>>>

>>> Q 3: Does toxigenic mold mean that the mold can produce

>> mycotoxins, was producing mycotoxins, did produce mycotoxins; and

> if

>> so what were the types and levels.

>>>

>>> Q4: How do you define toxigenic mold?

>>>

>>> 3. You also stated

>>>

>>> I only said that this is throwing the population into a quandary.

>>> Anybody who doesn't have a completely closed-mind must be aware

> of an

>>> emerging number of sufferers of " Multiple Chemical Sensitivity " .

>>>

>>> Q5: Restated from my previous question - what is the emerging

>> number of people (not buildings) affected from mycotoxins (not just

>> the presence of fungi or toxigenic fungi).

>>>

>>> Comment A. You stated " in a small sampling " - how small, and

>> where is this study able to to be viewed (Cornell 1998)?

>>>

>>> Comment B: On any given day one can find Stachybotrys,

>> a " toxigenic " mold, in the outside air. My data on this goes back

>> to at least 1942 on this. So the presence of a " toxgenic " mold

>> without showing exposure or dose AND significant correlation with

>> illness/disease is not sufficient to make a scientific case. This

>> would be a question of reliability.

>>>

>>> FYI: I'm not trying to be a pain in the arse in this case

>> (although I do on numerous occasions). I'm trying to match terms

>> and show you a more objective perspective. If you want to prove

>> something scientifically, you have to follow the scientific method:

>> define terms, define the hypothesis, test the hypothesis, modify

> the

>> hypothesis, show repeatability by retesting independently, etc.

> The

>> level of testing is to be comensurate with the estimated risk.

>>> Tony

>>

>>

>> Tony, unless I use a word in a manner that implies incorrect

> usage,

>> do you have reason to believe that I am misusing the term, or any

>> cause to raise a question regarding definitions?

>>

>>> The complement system is one of the most important humoral

> systems

>> mediating many reactivities that contribute to host defence and

>> initiating and amplifying inflammation, even in the preimmune phase

>> where specific antibodies and lymphocytes are not available.

>> Therefore it is not surprising that the complement cascades can be

>> initiated by multiple ways in addition to antibody-antigen

>> reactions. Activation of the complement cascade leads to the

>> fragmentation of C3, C4 and C5 into low-molecular-weight hormone-

> like peptides, C3a, C4a, and C5a (111).

>> ANAPHYLATOXINS - Peptides derived from C3, C4 and C5

> Anaphylatoxins are low-molecular weight, biologically active

>> peptides that are defined functionally by their actions on small

>> blood vessels, smooth muscle, mast cells, and peripheral blood

>> leukocytes (111). Several laboratory studies have been carried out

>> to establish, conclusively, that low-molecular-weight peptides with

>> anaphylatoxin activity can be generated enzymatically from C3, C4,

>> and C5 (i.e., C3a, C4a, and C5a, respectively) (112 114). Analyses

>> of the complete amino acid sequences of C3a, C4a, and C5a from man

>> and from a variety of animal species have revealed striking

>> similarities among these peptides, suggesting a common evolutionary

>> origin. C3a was the first anaphylatoxin to have its complete

> primary

>> structure elucidated (115). C4a has a pentapeptide structure, and

>> contracts smooth muscle, although it is approximately 500-fold less

>> active in this respect than the C3a pentapeptide (116). C5a

>> functions also as a chemoattractant, inducing the migration of

>> leukocytes into an area of complement activation. These molecules

>> induce smooth muscle contraction and enhance vascular permeability.

>> They bind to specific receptors and induce the release of

> vasoactive

>> amines such as histamine from mast cells and basophils, and

>> lysosomal enzyme release from granulocytes (particularly C3a and

>> C5a) (117,118).<

>>

>> Toxins tend to get more immunological attention than dust.

>> The difference is measurable and corresponds to the degree of

>> inflammation. When C4a sets Anaphylatoxins into a cascade

>> called " cytokine storm " , the effects can be quite profound.

> Thanks to Dr Shoemaker, and the availability of objective

>> measurements of proinflammatory cytokines by Quest diagnostics, a

>> damaging immunological response to toxigenic molds in Water Damaged

>> Buildings - WDB's can be established.

>> Dr Shoemaker has done the testing that finally confirms the

>> unbelieved anecdotal stories of sufferers.

>> The numerous reports of sick buildings and schools are indicative

>> of a significant and increasing mold problem. Is there any point

>> about quibbling about the estimates of prevalence at this time? Is

> the decision to act upon a cluster of illness in WDB's predicated

>> upon societal prevalence of the problem?

>>

>> The intransigence of doctors, school authorities, and people in

>> general to admit to the existence of biotoxin mediated illness has

>> been reminiscent of a Three Stooges skit where Curly put his hands

>> over his face and screams " I can't see! I can't see " , and when a

>> concerned Moe asks " Why, What's wrong " , Curly laughs, " I got me

> eyes

>> covered. Nyuk Nyuk Nyuck " .

>>

>> I am also reminded of the response of a parent who grew alarmed at

>> the sight of his children returning home ill from school every day,

>> and was continually frustrated at the unwillingness of officials to

>> take an objective perspective regarding an observable effect that

>> anyone with common sense could plainly see.

>> When confronted by authorities upon his lack of " scientific data "

>> and " medical proof " , he responded " We can't wait for science!

>> We have to act upon the evidence. "

>>

>> I wish I could be so eloquent.

>> -

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> 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:

> :

Several points to ponder with respect to your response to Tony....

There are many forms of dictionaries, and no one dictionary is

correct in all circumstances. Therefore, when you state: " ...when I

use any word at all, it is intended to reflect the accepted

definition obtained in a dictionary. " Realize that what ever word

it is, it may have multiple definitions based on different

dictionaries. Therefore, please define your source.

>

> Also, your analogy that this country was founded upon " the

protection of inalienable individual rights, " is a poor one. This

country was founded on Judo-Christian values, that there is a higher

authority (i.e. GOD), that we all have moral responsibilities to the

society as a whole, and that any one individual cannot tromp on the

rights of others. Those rights are codified. This Country was not

founded on a premise of " individuality, " albeit, there are those

that wish believe it to be so. Moreover, if you were ever in the

military, YES, there are many sacrifices of individuals for the

benefit of the Company as a whole; some of those sacrifices were

commanded, and others were volunteered by heroes.

>

> For what it is worth...

> --

> Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

> President

> KENTEC Industries, Inc.

> Bakersfield, California

> www.kerntecindustries.com

If members of this board are using definitions for terms that are

incongruent with the context, then perhaps they should be the ones

to state which dictionary they are using.

Until I betray some misuse of a term, I should not be prejudicially

singled out for pre-emptive interrogation not required of others.

When someone senses that the meaning that others attach to a term

is not the same as theirs, perhaps they should present their variant

definitions so that the confusion may be resolved.

Your argument that my reference our country was founded upon the

concept of inalienable rights is a poor one is disputed by our own

statement " that any one individual cannot tromp on the rights of

others. Those rights are codified. "

The codified rights which protect others are not " group rights "

or " majority rights " which do not apply to a single person.

They are individual rights. An individual cannot stomp on the

rights of others, nor may others stomp on his, outnumbered though he

may be - protected under provisions of the Constitution.

And yes, I was in the military: RA SP4 2nd Fire Team B

3/79FA 15D10 Lance Tactical Battlefield Nuclear Missile Launcher

Specialist 42nd Group V corps USAREUR, and to the best of my

knowledge, suicide missions cannot be commanded, but must be

voluntary - in keeping with Constitutional law which protects the

right to life.

We seem to have digressed from the very simple point from which

this discussion originated: " Mycotoxin reactivity has assumed the

aspect of Peanut Allergy " , by which I mean that some people are

severely afflicted, while others are completely unaffected - and

that this puts society in a quandary as to how to deal with the

situation.

I did not make, nor did I imply any proposals regarding mandating

standards suitable for sensitized people.

-

[Guest guest]

We seem to have digressed from the very simple point from which

this discussion originated: "Mycotoxin reactivity has assumed the

aspect of Peanut Allergy", by which I mean that some people are

severely afflicted, while others are completely unaffected - and

that this puts society in a quandary as to how to deal with the

situation.

I agree with the very simple point is making and understood what he meant the first time he posted it. Peanut allergies seem to be common knowledge and politically acceptable (probably because of a perception that "innocent young children" are at higher risk) and so are severe reactions to penicillin (the doctors always ask -- for their own protection, of course), whereas discussions of some other allergies or hypersensitivity reactions such as those to mold/bioaerosols or perfumes seem to "get weird" and be politically charged and considered scientifically controversial. The science isn't exact and often can't prove or disprove anything with regard to many individual "side effects". There is little doubt, however, that many individuals in our population have allergies and chemical hypersensitivities. Most of these people don't rely on any diagnostic tests to tell them when they are affected -- they figure it out for themselves because their quality of life (maybe even their life, itself) depends on it.

BTW, I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" this weekend. I recommend seeing it.

Steve Temes

(A Tomato-Allergic American. Anybody got a problem with that?)

[Guest guest]

Steve,

How dare you be an aboration of nature in that you are a self-acclaimed as being 'tomato intolerant! What's next? Peanut intolerance? What about apples permemadited with alar or diesel fume filled busses the school bus spread via an 'open crankshafts? What about MCS? Where does the ignorance begin and end?

Is these 'rhetorical' questions where science is concerned? You damn right it is!

Re: Re: Interesting Article - leading to oxygenic fungi questions

We seem to have digressed from the very simple point from which this discussion originated: "Mycotoxin reactivity has assumed the aspect of Peanut Allergy", by which I mean that some people are severely afflicted, while others are completely unaffected - and that this puts society in a quandary as to how to deal with the situation.I agree with the very simple point is making and understood what he meant the first time he posted it. Peanut allergies seem to be common knowledge and politically acceptable (probably because of a perception that "innocent young children" are at higher risk) and so are severe reactions to penicillin (the doctors always ask -- for their own protection, of course), whereas discussions of some other allergies or hypersensitivity reactions such as those to mold/bioaerosols or perfumes seem to "get weird" and be politically charged and considered scientifically controversial. The science isn't exact and often can't prove or disprove anything with regard to many individual "side effects". There is little doubt, however, that many individuals in our population have allergies and chemical hypersensitivities. BTW, I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" this weekend. I recommend seeing it.Steve Temes(A Tomato-Allergic American. Anybody got a problem with that?)

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> Steve,

> How dare you be an aboration of nature ...being 'tomato intolerant!

Are you sure this is an aberration? (rather than a natural

response?). Does that mean it is not natural? Hmmmm....

And even we accept it as a " minority " rather than an abberation, the

growth rate seems to be increasing rather than shrinking.

So I return to 2 previous questions that no one has answered: How do

we identify them? How do we respond?

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Steve,

>

> How dare you be an aboration of nature in that you are a

> self-acclaimed as being 'tomato intolerant! What's next? Peanut

> intolerance? What about apples permemadited with alar or diesel fume

> filled busses the school bus spread via an 'open crankshafts? What

> about MCS? Where does the ignorance begin and end?

>

> Is these 'rhetorical' questions where science is concerned? You damn

> right it is!

>

>

>

>

> Re: Re: Interesting Article - leading to

> oxygenic fungi questions

>

>

> In a message dated 6/5/2006 10:35:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> erikmoldwarrior@... writes:

>

> We seem to have digressed from the very simple point from which

> this discussion originated: " Mycotoxin reactivity has assumed the

> aspect of Peanut Allergy " , by which I mean that some people are

> severely afflicted, while others are completely unaffected - and

> that this puts society in a quandary as to how to deal with the

> situation.

>

> I agree with the very simple point is making and understood

> what he meant the first time he posted it. Peanut allergies seem to

> be common knowledge and politically acceptable (probably because of

> a perception that " innocent young children " are at higher risk) and

> so are severe reactions to penicillin (the doctors always ask -- for

> their own protection, of course), whereas discussions of some other

> allergies or hypersensitivity reactions such as those to

> mold/bioaerosols or perfumes seem to " get weird " and be politically

> charged and considered scientifically controversial. The science

> isn't exact and often can't prove or disprove anything with regard

> to many individual " side effects " . There is little doubt, however,

> that many individuals in our population have allergies and chemical

> hypersensitivities. BTW, I saw " An Inconvenient Truth " this

> weekend. I recommend seeing it.

>

> Steve Temes

> (A Tomato-Allergic American. Anybody got a problem with that?)

>

[Guest guest]

So I return to 2 previous questions that no one has answered: How do we identify them? How do we respond?Carl GrimesHealthy Habitats LLC

Hi Carl,

I know you all like to analyze and understand in detail aspects I can't even spell. But, to me I don't think it needs to be real complicated. Maybe it is because I am an old wife and think sometimes a little "chicken soup" is all that is needed.

So you asked:

"How do we identify them?"

Identify who? If someone has been hanging out in a moldie building and they are exhibiting symptoms indicative of excessive mold/mycotoxin exposure, and... their symptoms change when they are away from the moldie building, then I'd say they are pretty much identified. (Simplistic answer, of course other sources of known illness causing substances within the building also need to be investigated and ruled out)

"How do we respond?"

Get them away from the substance that is causing their symptoms (meaning move them or rid the building of the substance) and train the physicians how to recognize, diagnose and treat this stuff.

I got this card about 5 months ago from a teacher, who had moved into a moldie rental. She was having respiratory, cognitive, etc symptoms. She was seeing all kinds of doctors that were giving her inhalers, steroids, suggesting antidepressants.

Somebody told her to call me. We talked for a little bit. I would never tell someone what they should do, but I will tell them what I would do. All I told her was that I would go away for a couple of weeks and see if I felt better. I would go get a lot of fresh air at the beach. I would go on a mold free diet. I would flush the steroids down the toilet because all they do is mask the body's natural alarms of illness. Told her it could be mold, but maybe not. Trial and error situation.

So this is what she wrote to me about 6 months after my "old wife" advice:

"Sharon,

I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to talk to me about mold, asthma, etc... It has been a long journey but I am doing well now. It seems that I cannot drink coffee or tea anymore (except mild tea such as green tea).

I am back running and painting and doing all of the things I enjoy. I still have a bit of a tough day once in a while, but all in all I'm back.

I think your information helped me recover from such a long order. For that reason, I am thankful to have met you - even if only by phone.

Take care,

Caroline"

So how do you identify them?

They're sick and the building they are in is moldie.

How do we respond?

Get them away from what is making them sick or get what is making them sick away from them.

If I can make such a tremendous impact in a person's life with just one phone conversation, no prescriptions, and just plain common sense, then why aren't the doctors being trained to do this?

Sharon

[Guest guest]

If I can make such a tremendous impact in a person's life with just one phone conversation, no prescriptions, and just plain common sense, then why aren't the doctors being trained to do this?

Doctors are trained to treat the symptoms that a person brings to him/her. Had the lady in reference brought an evaluation of here home, office, car, ...the prescription may have been different .

Successfully working with the medical field from an IAQ standpoint is drawing the line up front. " I deal in the environment that your patient lives in, and can provide you with that which they cannot bring to your office. It is up to you to judge the relevance of that information." With that understood a viable relationship of shared knowledge begins.

PS. If you choose this particular type of client . I would highly recommend you buy a good

microscope and camera to document your findings and take triplicate tests. One for the

lab report , one for your micro photographs, and one sealed for future problems.

The patient just can't bring this. However a doctor might say...mold, mites, hmmm. could be a problem here.

Valin ( just a contractor)

Oh ..its a tape lift from a bed

[Guest guest]

Hello everyone,I have a question. Under what circumstances is evidence admissable in court? Is there a general reference somewhere on how mold evidence (not evidence on mold health issues, mold sampling) can be admitted to a court or not?

If someone has collected samples themself and tried to document the situation the best they could, under extremely difficult circumstances, and could not afford 'professionals' - does that person has a chance of getting their evidence admitted - especially if it is consistant with lots of other, 'professionally' obtained evidence.. and documented photographically..

I am sort of pondering a moral and legal quandary tonight.. It seems as if they keep raising the bar higher and higher with the effect of making almost nobody able to win these cases in court.. except the very rich..

[Guest guest]

Doctors are trained to treat the symptoms that a person brings to him/her. Had the lady in reference brought an evaluation of here home, office, car, ...the prescription may have been different .

No, I am sorry, but that is not correct. The woman DID tell the doctors that the home she had been renting had flooded and she was concerned of mold. I heard Dr. Shoemaker say before the staff of about 16 US Senators that the average patient he sees has been sick for and average of four years and has seen about 15 doctors. I know of several other successful mold physicians that will tell you the same thing.

You ask any mold victim and they will tell you that when they mention mold as a possible source of their unique and varied symptoms, they are treated with great distain by the medical community. They automatically become someone who has been subjected to media hype and hysteria. And of course, they are automatic liars are whinners who just want to scam money from insurers and employers.

Here is what the doctors are being told:

ACOEM

The Occupational and Environmental Physicians that evaluated injured workers on behalf of insurers and employers:"...delivery by the inhalation route of a toxic dose of mycotoxins in the indoor environment is highly unlikely at best, even for the hypothetically most vulnerable subpopulations."

Source: Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2003

ACAAI Allergist: "In fact," the investigators write, "when the entire history and objective evidence were scrutinized, a number of well-established and plausible diagnoses emerged that explained many, if not all, the complaints." In a commentary in the journal, Dr. Abba I. Terr from UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco contends that toxic mold disease is "the latest in a series of environmentally related pseudo-illnesses" that include multiple chemical sensitivity, also known as idiopathic environmental intolerance, and chronic fatigue syndrome, which was attributed at one time to infection with Epstein-Barr virus.

"Since these authors have determined that the patients they describe do not have a mold-related disease but are nevertheless seeking compensation for presumed illness through a legal process that has defined it in those terms, toxic mold disease is truly a diagnosis of litigation," Terr concludes. Source: ls of Allergy Asthma and Immunology, September 2005. Reuters, MSNBC, PubMed, NIH.

AAAAI, Allergists:"Currently available studies do not conclusively prove that exposure to outdoor airborne molds plays a role in allergic rhinitis, and studies on the contribution of indoor molds to upper airway allergy are even less compelling."

"Patients with suspected mold allergy should be evaluated by means of an accepted method of skin or blood testing for IgE antibodies to appropriate molds" [in other words, if your toxicity does not show up as a classic Type I allergy, then you must just be lying]

“Calculations for both acute and subacute exposures on the basis of the maximum amount of mycotoxins found per mold spore for various mycotoxins and the levels at which adverse health effects are observed make it highly improbable that home or office mycotoxin exposures would lead to a toxic adverse health effects.1, 29 [#1 just got thrown out in court as junk science. # 29 is the ACOEM Mold Statement, also authored by Saxon]

Thus we agree with the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine evidence-based statement and the Institute of Medicine draft, which conclude that the evidence does not support the contention that mycotoxin-mediated disease (mycotoxicosis) occurs through inhalation in nonoccupational settings."

Source: American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) Mold Position 2006 Bush RK, Terr A., Saxon AJ and Wood RA.

Manhattan Institute, US Chamber, Realtors, NAB, NMA and the Insurers:

“Thus the notion that ‘toxic mold’ is an insidious secret ‘killer’ as so many media reports and trial lawyers would claim is ‘Junk Science’ unsupported by actual scientific study.â€

Source: A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold. Robbins, Kelman, Hardin, Saxon 2003

There are MANY more of these types of "review papers". I could cite for you approximately 100 of these catch phrases that are not based on state of the art science. But you don't need to see all those.

Here is a hint how to know the conclusion of these types of studies without even reading them. Just look for these names: Robbins, Hardin, Kelman, Saxon, Terr, Bardana, Gots, Lees-Haley, Fox, Sudakin. Actual research studies written by just about anyone else will most likely be vastly different from these "state of the art" review papers.

Wonder what these guys do when they are not writing "state of the art" review papers? Wonder how many mold victims they have successfully treated?

Wonder if any of the above have had any lab experience whatsoever with molds and mycotoxins.

(I already know the answer to the prior three questions).

FYI, the newest Government authoritative doc:

Feb 2006, California Research Bureau, Indoor Mold, A General Guide to Health Effects, Prevention and Remediation

http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/06/01/06-001.pdf

Pg 79, Reference 37 "..but in general, the question of plausibility, at a minimum, appears settled".

Sharon

[Guest guest]

You may find an an answer here , or at least a glimmer.

Litigation Forum

Success would depend on things like :

Photos on film with negatives or digital.

Samples on a MEA plate from home depot "NO" or bagged bulk , given to a third party and obtained in front of creditable witnesses .

Is this over construction defects or personal health?

How much $ are you willing to invest?

Chances of winning a court case with he said she said evidence is not in your favor.

Even if you are morally right.

Valin

[Guest guest]

Hi Sharon

Please re read my post.

If you were ( you may be) a medical professional presented with a photo documented report showing mold , frass, mites.... do you think that might expand your thinking beyond the realm of Media Hype?

Valin

[Guest guest]

Live Simply,

Generally the easier path to follow is to show the building defect(s) that created the mold growth and building material deterioration. This is typically done in conjunction with moisture testing by someone who has a wide knowledge of the building science and building defect and discovery process. This is typically much easier to define without falling into the black hole of possible mold related heath issues. We will do limited mold testing to verify what we are calling potential mold, really is.

If you do not have legal representation, and can not afford the "experts", if there really is such a person(s), consider mediation if it is available in your area.

Wayne Shellabarger

Principal/Engineer

Acuity Engineers, Inc.

www.acuityengineers.com

Re: Re: Interesting Article - leading to toxidenic fungi questions

Hello everyone,I have a question. Under what circumstances is evidence admissable in court? Is there a general reference somewhere on how mold evidence (not evidence on mold health issues, mold sampling) can be admitted to a court or not? If someone has collected samples themself and tried to document the situation the best they could, under extremely difficult circumstances, and could not afford 'professionals' - does that person has a chance of getting their evidence admitted - especially if it is consistant with lots of other, 'professionally' obtained evidence.. and documented photographically.. I am sort of pondering a moral and legal quandary tonight.. It seems as if they keep raising the bar higher and higher with the effect of making almost nobody able to win these cases in court.. except the very rich..

[Guest guest]

BEFORE I GET CRUCIFIED ...DON'T USE A DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPH !!

GEORGE

[Guest guest]

The answer to your question really depends on the Judge. If the Judge is willing to have the evidence presented then it will be presented. Conversely, if the Judge is not willing to have the evidence presented then he/she will shut it down very quickly. "Good" attorneys will stand ready to have evidence presented or not as the case may be.

You have to understand that Judges are just people with the same quirks and misplaced predispositions that we in the general population possess. Egotistical Judges are gods in their courtroom and there are plenty of them out there (you know the story about absolute power). Conscientious Judges on the other hand will consider the probability of having their decisions countered on appeal and there are plenty of conscientious Judges out there as well.

Most honest people who have experience in the court system will tell you that "it’s always a crap shoot" when going into the courtroom and that is why so many cases get settled out of court even as the jury is being selected in the next room. If you look closely you will find that the only people who actually end up in front of a Judge are those with absolutely nothing or everything to loose…all others typically choose to settle their differences before it gets that far. How many times has your various insurance providers cut a check to make a "problem" go away even when you (the insured) were absolutely in the right?

While I may find the practical reality of our legal system to be somewhat nauseating on a certain level, I would not trade it for any other system of justice in the world and I remain willing to hang my hat on it. I have, at this point in my life, resigned myself to accept the good with the bad and I remain the skeptical optimist (which means I am ultimately a realist).

Now that I am through venting on the personal level lets get specific to your question…By all means, gather as much information/evidence by any mean necessary in the off chance that you end up in court and score a Judge willing to accept it! In the face of blind justice/total ignorance, the party with the best documentation is likely to win the day regardless of the source! Keep in mind however that winning the day is not equivalent to winning the war and some struggles are eternal.

Stojanik

Re: Re: Interesting Article - leading to toxidenic fungi questions

Hello everyone,I have a question. Under what circumstances is evidence admissable in court? Is there a general reference somewhere on how mold evidence (not evidence on mold health issues, mold sampling) can be admitted to a court or not? If someone has collected samples themself and tried to document the situation the best they could, under extremely difficult circumstances, and could not afford 'professionals' - does that person has a chance of getting their evidence admitted - especially if it is consistant with lots of other, 'professionally' obtained evidence.. and documented photographically.. I am sort of pondering a moral and legal quandary tonight.. It seems as if they keep raising the bar higher and higher with the effect of making almost nobody able to win these cases in court.. except the very rich..

[Guest guest]

I have a question.

Under what circumstances is evidence admissable in court? Is there a

general reference somewhere on how mold evidence (not evidence on mold

health issues, mold sampling) can be admitted to a court or not?

The case facts dictate the evidence needed to support or argue those

facts.

If someone has

collected samples themself and tried to document the situation the best

they could, under extremely difficult circumstances, and could not afford

'professionals' - does that person has a chance of getting their evidence

admitted - especially if it is consistant with lots of other,

'professionally' obtained evidence.. and documented photographically..

Such information could tried to be entered as evidence. The court

usually decides what can be entered. But, a lawyer worth his or her

salt would know ahead of time what could make it or not. Your

photographic evidence has a better shot than any samples collected.

Sampling data could be shredded by so many different arguments, such as

qualifications of the person collecting the information and sample

continuity. Not being able to use sample evidence then puts the

photographic evidence into question. Who's to say that the black

stuff in your pictures isn't some kind of stain rather than

mold.

If you are going to sue, I recommend not cutting corners by trying to do

the professional's work yourself. It is just not worth the

savings. On the other hand, when you hire a professional, make sure

he or she understands the case and knows what needs to be done to prove

or disprove your case. By saying prove or disprove, I mean that a

professional is supposed to be a neutral party in the proceedings.

The results he or she comes up with might not be to your liking because

they don't favor your case. Having a walk-through consult to see if

your case might have validity could save thousands. Also make sure

that you hire the right professional(s). Sometimes (many times),

the case is not just about the mold.

I have found that the most successful cases begin with hiring a

competent, sharp lawyer who really knows your type of case. Then,

let he or she handle what needs to be done. That doesn't mean sit

back and not be involved. You should be informed by your lawyer

what he or she plans to do, be able to discuss those actions and have

input on them, and then have final say on whether they proceed.

Remember that the lawyer works for you, not vice versa.

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

If what is written looks too stupid to be written by me, I disclaim

it. On

the other hand, if it is brilliant, then I have no one to blame but

myself.

Otherwise, whether you choose to accept my opinion is up to you.

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

K. Klein, PE ME, MBA

Indoor Air Quality Solutions, Inc.

2523 SR 133

Bethel, OH 45106-0007

VOICE:

FAX: (with notice)

E-mail: mkklein68@...

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

Wouldn't it be nice if common sense were really common?

[Guest guest]

Hi Sharon

Please re read my post.

If you were ( you may be) a medical professional presented with a photo documented report showing mold , frass, mites.... do you think that might expand your thinking beyond the realm of Media Hype?

Valin

Thanks ,

I did read it and I understand what you are saying. But to answer your question, I don't think so. I know of MANY who have taken documentation of mold spore counts, etc. to physicians. But, the doctors are not trained in this stuff by and large. Its pretty much Greek to most GP's. And add to that, the fact that they have been heavily subjected to the ole "media hype, hysteria, trial lawyers" mantra and building documentation gets one nowhere. Plus, many are HMO doctors. They only have 15 minutes for their patients. If they take any longer, a trap door opens and they fall through the floor. (I have never actually witnessed this, so don't take that as the gospel.)

BTW, this is a whole tangential but closely related issue. Do you all realize some of the severe pressure from industry that many of our physicians are being forced to operate under these days? Not just regarding mold, but from many aspects.

Will cite just one of many references for this statement: .California Medical Association—A Report, July 2005. Hostile to Physicians, Harmful to Patients. The Workers’ Compensation…Reform? http://www.cmanet.org/upload/cma_workers_comp_report_102705.pdf

Guess what medical association wrote these guidelines that are reeking such havoc for physicians and the injured. Hint: Ain't Concerned Of Everyday Man

At best, GP's might send one to an allergist. But the allergists are being told mold only causes IgE mediated responses. Everyone else either needs prozac or lie detector test.

Please don't misunderstand. I think very highly of physicians. I just think by and large they are being duped and squeezed just as much as everyone else in this age of "political science". Here is another hint: If you see the phrase "blank Reform", that means some industry's money interest just took precedence over your rights.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

During our sick house incident 10 years ago, we worked with a very skilled

physician toxicologist who was part of our HMO, in the occupational health

department. Let's just say it took sufficient intelligence gathering and

persuasive skill to learn that he existed and get the referral that a typical

HMO member would not get access.

One of his earliest pieces of advice to us was to get out of the house wearing

only the clothes on our backs, buy some swimsuits, and go someplace sunny for a

week or two.

His other big piece of advice was that when we evacuated we should take nothing

with us to our interim apartment, and in particular we should not take our

mattresses.

So yes, the correct very narrow subspecialty of medicine is capable of exactly

what you recommend. That branch just isn't accessible. Oh, and when all the

testing identified no toxin to work with, and the tests on us (well, the adults,

that specialty isn't allowed to treat children) found nothing, even he gave the

" don't get into a learned behavior here " lecture and sent us on our way.

Steve Chalmers

---------------------------

So how do you identify them?

They're sick and the building they are in is moldie.

How do we respond?

Get them away from what is making them sick or get what is making them sick

away from them.

If I can make such a tremendous impact in a person's life with just one

phone conversation, no prescriptions, and just plain common sense, then why

aren't the doctors being trained to do this?

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Sharon hi from Naples

We actually agree on most points but view from different angles .

I can only bash engineers,HVAC, and building contractors on a level playing field .

I always bear in mind that 50% of all people graduated at the lower 50% of their class . That includes doctors.

Re: Re: Interesting Article - leading to toxidenic fungi questions

Hi Sharon

Please re read my post.

If you were ( you may be) a medical professional presented with a photo documented report showing mold , frass, mites.... do you think that might expand your thinking beyond the realm of Media Hype?

Valin

Thanks ,

I did read it and I understand what you are saying. But to answer your question, I don't think so. I know of MANY who have taken documentation of mold spore counts, etc. to physicians. But, the doctors are not trained in this stuff by and large. Its pretty much Greek to most GP's. And add to that, the fact that they have been heavily subjected to the ole "media hype, hysteria, trial lawyers" mantra and building documentation gets one nowhere. Plus, many are HMO doctors. They only have 15 minutes for their patients. If they take any longer, a trap door opens and they fall through the floor. (I have never actually witnessed this, so don't take that as the gospel.)

BTW, this is a whole tangential but closely related issue. Do you all realize some of the severe pressure from industry that many of our physicians are being forced to operate under these days? Not just regarding mold, but from many aspects.

Will cite just one of many references for this statement: .California Medical Association—A Report, July 2005. Hostile to Physicians, Harmful to Patients. The Workers’ Compensation…Reform? http://www.cmanet.org/upload/cma_workers_comp_report_102705.pdf

Guess what medical association wrote these guidelines that are reeking such havoc for physicians and the injured. Hint: Ain't Concerned Of Everyday Man

At best, GP's might send one to an allergist. But the allergists are being told mold only causes IgE mediated responses. Everyone else either needs prozac or lie detector test.

Please don't misunderstand. I think very highly of physicians. I just think by and large they are being duped and squeezed just as much as everyone else in this age of "political science". Here is another hint: If you see the phrase "blank Reform", that means some industry's money interest just took precedence over your rights.

Sharon

Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.