Re: Feb ACOEM President Responds to Wall Street Journal & Rebutta...

[Guest guest]

Jim,

What you say makes much sense to me. But one thing that I am completely dumbfounded by, is that the ACOEM defensive position is being tooted by Dr. Tee Guidotti. I am not alone in this thought process. The man has a long time reputation of being a man of honor and integrity in his science. I can't tell you how many physicians and researchers have indicated surprise at "Tee's" words over the mold issue.

I almost feel sorry for the man. He must feel like he is in a position that on one hand he is knowingly promoting a concept that is not what he knows to be true as a scientist and man of medicine; yet on the other hand attempting to defend the organization he heads from possible retribution for their past grave errors. It's sad when one allows the truth to be stifled in the name of misguided honor. And it is sad to see a man with such a strong, ethical background come to a cross roads and choose the wrong path. The ACOEM Mold Statement may prove to be the destructive watershed for the careers of many. And that is a sad thing to witness.

Sharon

 Sharon

Re your Rebuttal to the statement of Dr. Tee Guidotti Regarding the ACOEM Mold Statement: I would like to make a few comments, covering quite a number of points. The points are:

1. The stages in any corporate person accepting the 'death' of a preconception are the same as the stages of our accepting the death of a loved one;

2. The state of understanding of the principles of good science are almost entirely missing in the medical field; and,

3. Most corporate lawyers counsel organizations to deny accusations even when they know that those charges are true.

The stages of dealing with death are:a) denial;

anger;

c) bargaining;

d) depression; ande) acceptance.

It is not only possible that we and they can cycle through some of the intermediate stages until we/they really deal with the loss of the loved one or the deeply-accepted concept/preconception.

This set of responses and cycling through intermediate stages is an essential set of defensive mechanisms for our egos. It takes great courage (and courage is a badly-understood and not-too-common reality in our society) to fully accept the loss and the many implications of the loss. I am sure that those who have denied the reality of non-allergenic reactions to mold, and the very wide range of responses to mold exposure (especially long-term exposure) are complex and painful indeed. Realizing (at even a minor level) that mold has been making their patients really sick, and that dealing with the exposure, not masking the symptoms, is the correct response, even by the medical community, is a painful realization that must be resisted by the egos of those involved. In joint building scientist & medical personnel meetings I was raged at when I suggested that the building could be sick and the occupant's health problems a symptom of that sickness. Some of the medical personnel that shouted at me went purple in the face and looked ready to have a heart attack or stroke; how could I dare make such suggestions?

When I read the postings that you provide I see a lot of that anger and denial, but very little bargaining until recently. There is no bargaining yet about toxic responses in addition to allergic ones. They have a long way to go.

Good science is possible when we understand what science does, and what it cannot do. By definition, science does not approach the definition of absolute truth, only the definition of a falsifiable hypotheses. We define models that explain what we see happening; models that must be stated in a way that they can be proven wrong if they are wrong. I have had the privilege of seeing that done in several fields, including mold and health. A good scientist will then help those who are driven to disprove the hypothesis because honesty and integrity demands that support for those driven to disprove new and threatening ideas, even when the others have ulterior motives. When an hypothesis ha been tested many times and no one can prove it wrong, it is then accepted as a good working law of science, but no one should ever state that it is absolutely true; it has just not been disproven (in spite of emotionally-driven attempts to disprove it). I see a lot of that emotionally-driven effort on both sides of the debate at the moment, but little ongoing good science, since it costs a lot to do good science and governments have resisted funding that needed work. Some interesting things are happening in Europe ands maybe some will happen in Canada if J. has his way, but big industry does not want it to happen and the great lie that industry is the engine of the economy is hard at work preventing good science here.

Finally, remember that there are many lawyers trying to buy time or even to forever pervert good science. Thanks to those on this IEquality site who showed that was now using their well-polished paths to prevent acceptance of mold as a real heath problem, now that they have almost completely lost their lying assertion that tobacco could not be a killer.

I apologize for this long post but I think that we must see the shape of what is going on in the mold and health debate; there is little truth or science and much ego-driven emotion. It will be a while before that changes. Old f**ts like me try to accept the delay as a normal part of the human condition. Sometimes I accept and sometimes I want to scream and throw things. I guess I am only too human even when I try to be a good scientist.

Jim H. White System Science Consulting

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]



Sharon

When I ran the Task Force on Material Emissions there were several really good persons there as representatives of industry associations. They were there to present the positions of their associations. Over time it became apparent to them that the association position was not reasonable, nor even honest/integrous. One died of a heart attack at about 40 years of age and a second developed inoperable cancer at about the same age.

Presenting the untruth, once you know it is not true, can have fatal consequences. Since much of society is based on lies, it is not unusual for those in positions of influence to be expected to present lies as the official position of the organization for which they work; but that can be very expensive to a person of integrity.

Jim

Re: Feb ACOEM President Responds to Wall Street Journal & Rebutta...

Jim,

What you say makes much sense to me. But one thing that I am completely dumbfounded by, is that the ACOEM defensive position is being tooted by Dr. Tee Guidotti. I am not alone in this thought process. The man has a long time reputation of being a man of honor and integrity in his science. I can't tell you how many physicians and researchers have indicated surprise at "Tee's" words over the mold issue.

I almost feel sorry for the man. He must feel like he is in a position that on one hand he is knowingly promoting a concept that is not what he knows to be true as a scientist and man of medicine; yet on the other hand attempting to defend the organization he heads from possible retribution for their past grave errors. It's sad when one allows the truth to be stifled in the name of misguided honor. And it is sad to see a man with such a strong, ethical background come to a cross roads and choose the wrong path. The ACOEM Mold Statement may prove to be the destructive watershed for the careers of many. And that is a sad thing to witness.

Sharon

 Sharon

Re your Rebuttal to the statement of Dr. Tee Guidotti Regarding the ACOEM Mold Statement: I would like to make a few comments, covering quite a number of points. The points are:

1. The stages in any corporate person accepting the 'death' of a preconception are the same as the stages of our accepting the death of a loved one;

2. The state of understanding of the principles of good science are almost entirely missing in the medical field; and,

3. Most corporate lawyers counsel organizations to deny accusations even when they know that those charges are true.

The stages of dealing with death are:a) denial;

anger;

c) bargaining;

d) depression; ande) acceptance.

It is not only possible that we and they can cycle through some of the intermediate stages until we/they really deal with the loss of the loved one or the deeply-accepted concept/preconception.

This set of responses and cycling through intermediate stages is an essential set of defensive mechanisms for our egos. It takes great courage (and courage is a badly-understood and not-too-common reality in our society) to fully accept the loss and the many implications of the loss. I am sure that those who have denied the reality of non-allergenic reactions to mold, and the very wide range of responses to mold exposure (especially long-term exposure) are complex and painful indeed. Realizing (at even a minor level) that mold has been making their patients really sick, and that dealing with the exposure, not masking the symptoms, is the correct response, even by the medical community, is a painful realization that must be resisted by the egos of those involved. In joint building scientist & medical personnel meetings I was raged at when I suggested that the building could be sick and the occupant's health problems a symptom of that sickness. Some of the medical personnel that shouted at me went purple in the face and looked ready to have a heart attack or stroke; how could I dare make such suggestions?

When I read the postings that you provide I see a lot of that anger and denial, but very little bargaining until recently. There is no bargaining yet about toxic responses in addition to allergic ones. They have a long way to go.

Good science is possible when we understand what science does, and what it cannot do. By definition, science does not approach the definition of absolute truth, only the definition of a falsifiable hypotheses. We define models that explain what we see happening; models that must be stated in a way that they can be proven wrong if they are wrong. I have had the privilege of seeing that done in several fields, including mold and health. A good scientist will then help those who are driven to disprove the hypothesis because honesty and integrity demands that support for those driven to disprove new and threatening ideas, even when the others have ulterior motives. When an hypothesis ha been tested many times and no one can prove it wrong, it is then accepted as a good working law of science, but no one should ever state that it is absolutely true; it has just not been disproven (in spite of emotionally-driven attempts to disprove it). I see a lot of that emotionally-driven effort on both sides of the debate at the moment, but little ongoing good science, since it costs a lot to do good science and governments have resisted funding that needed work. Some interesting things are happening in Europe ands maybe some will happen in Canada if J. has his way, but big industry does not want it to happen and the great lie that industry is the engine of the economy is hard at work preventing good science here.

Finally, remember that there are many lawyers trying to buy time or even to forever pervert good science. Thanks to those on this IEquality site who showed that was now using their well-polished paths to prevent acceptance of mold as a real heath problem, now that they have almost completely lost their lying assertion that tobacco could not be a killer.

I apologize for this long post but I think that we must see the shape of what is going on in the mold and health debate; there is little truth or science and much ego-driven emotion. It will be a while before that changes. Old f**ts like me try to accept the delay as a normal part of the human condition. Sometimes I accept and sometimes I want to scream and throw things. I guess I am only too human even when I try to be a good scientist.

Jim H. White System Science Consulting

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]



Sharon

When I ran the Task Force on Material Emissions there were several really good persons there as representatives of industry associations. They were there to present the positions of their associations. Over time it became apparent to them that the association position was not reasonable, nor even honest/integrous. One died of a heart attack at about 40 years of age and a second developed inoperable cancer at about the same age.

Presenting the untruth, once you know it is not true, can have fatal consequences. Since much of society is based on lies, it is not unusual for those in positions of influence to be expected to present lies as the official position of the organization for which they work; but that can be very expensive to a person of integrity.

Jim

Re: Feb ACOEM President Responds to Wall Street Journal & Rebutta...

Jim,

What you say makes much sense to me. But one thing that I am completely dumbfounded by, is that the ACOEM defensive position is being tooted by Dr. Tee Guidotti. I am not alone in this thought process. The man has a long time reputation of being a man of honor and integrity in his science. I can't tell you how many physicians and researchers have indicated surprise at "Tee's" words over the mold issue.

I almost feel sorry for the man. He must feel like he is in a position that on one hand he is knowingly promoting a concept that is not what he knows to be true as a scientist and man of medicine; yet on the other hand attempting to defend the organization he heads from possible retribution for their past grave errors. It's sad when one allows the truth to be stifled in the name of misguided honor. And it is sad to see a man with such a strong, ethical background come to a cross roads and choose the wrong path. The ACOEM Mold Statement may prove to be the destructive watershed for the careers of many. And that is a sad thing to witness.

Sharon

 Sharon

Re your Rebuttal to the statement of Dr. Tee Guidotti Regarding the ACOEM Mold Statement: I would like to make a few comments, covering quite a number of points. The points are:

1. The stages in any corporate person accepting the 'death' of a preconception are the same as the stages of our accepting the death of a loved one;

2. The state of understanding of the principles of good science are almost entirely missing in the medical field; and,

3. Most corporate lawyers counsel organizations to deny accusations even when they know that those charges are true.

The stages of dealing with death are:a) denial;

anger;

c) bargaining;

d) depression; ande) acceptance.

It is not only possible that we and they can cycle through some of the intermediate stages until we/they really deal with the loss of the loved one or the deeply-accepted concept/preconception.

This set of responses and cycling through intermediate stages is an essential set of defensive mechanisms for our egos. It takes great courage (and courage is a badly-understood and not-too-common reality in our society) to fully accept the loss and the many implications of the loss. I am sure that those who have denied the reality of non-allergenic reactions to mold, and the very wide range of responses to mold exposure (especially long-term exposure) are complex and painful indeed. Realizing (at even a minor level) that mold has been making their patients really sick, and that dealing with the exposure, not masking the symptoms, is the correct response, even by the medical community, is a painful realization that must be resisted by the egos of those involved. In joint building scientist & medical personnel meetings I was raged at when I suggested that the building could be sick and the occupant's health problems a symptom of that sickness. Some of the medical personnel that shouted at me went purple in the face and looked ready to have a heart attack or stroke; how could I dare make such suggestions?

When I read the postings that you provide I see a lot of that anger and denial, but very little bargaining until recently. There is no bargaining yet about toxic responses in addition to allergic ones. They have a long way to go.

Good science is possible when we understand what science does, and what it cannot do. By definition, science does not approach the definition of absolute truth, only the definition of a falsifiable hypotheses. We define models that explain what we see happening; models that must be stated in a way that they can be proven wrong if they are wrong. I have had the privilege of seeing that done in several fields, including mold and health. A good scientist will then help those who are driven to disprove the hypothesis because honesty and integrity demands that support for those driven to disprove new and threatening ideas, even when the others have ulterior motives. When an hypothesis ha been tested many times and no one can prove it wrong, it is then accepted as a good working law of science, but no one should ever state that it is absolutely true; it has just not been disproven (in spite of emotionally-driven attempts to disprove it). I see a lot of that emotionally-driven effort on both sides of the debate at the moment, but little ongoing good science, since it costs a lot to do good science and governments have resisted funding that needed work. Some interesting things are happening in Europe ands maybe some will happen in Canada if J. has his way, but big industry does not want it to happen and the great lie that industry is the engine of the economy is hard at work preventing good science here.

Finally, remember that there are many lawyers trying to buy time or even to forever pervert good science. Thanks to those on this IEquality site who showed that was now using their well-polished paths to prevent acceptance of mold as a real heath problem, now that they have almost completely lost their lying assertion that tobacco could not be a killer.

I apologize for this long post but I think that we must see the shape of what is going on in the mold and health debate; there is little truth or science and much ego-driven emotion. It will be a while before that changes. Old f**ts like me try to accept the delay as a normal part of the human condition. Sometimes I accept and sometimes I want to scream and throw things. I guess I am only too human even when I try to be a good scientist.

Jim H. White System Science Consulting

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

Sharon,From what I have read on the Internets.. /;-\ he also is on the record saying some quite inaccurate and misleadingly dangerous things about lead in water supplies in DC. (this was written up in Salon a few years ago)

He's involved in some kind of high level right wing effort to limit environmental rulemaking in the name of economics (in which corporate profits are exalted in a perverse way without any guarantee of that 'borrowed' life equity is EVER being sent to the communities of those whose health is stolen to lubricate them.)

They lie, we die..

[Guest guest]

Oops.. That didn't come out right. I am not railing against

economics.. *laugh* or common sense economics-based approaches to

rulemaking. What I am against is when people who should know better

make paternalistic decisions that end up hurting a LOT of people for

the benefit of a few who probably squirrel all their money away in the

Cayman Islands and don't even hire anyone locally anyway.. You get my

drift.. If people are being asked to get sick, and possibly die from

known carcinogens, etc, they themselves should see some economic

benefit from this.

Hmm.. that didn't sound very good either..

But hopefully, you get my drift..

[Guest guest]

Oops.. That didn't come out right. I am not railing against

economics.. *laugh* or common sense economics-based approaches to

rulemaking. What I am against is when people who should know better

make paternalistic decisions that end up hurting a LOT of people for

the benefit of a few who probably squirrel all their money away in the

Cayman Islands and don't even hire anyone locally anyway.. You get my

drift.. If people are being asked to get sick, and possibly die from

known carcinogens, etc, they themselves should see some economic

benefit from this.

Hmm.. that didn't sound very good either..

But hopefully, you get my drift..

[Guest guest]

Jim and Quackadillian,

ACOEM and Tee Guidotti. Someday I am going to write a paper as to why the physicians of ACOEM are NOT the organization to be setting Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) guidelines for anything. They are conflicted just by the nature of who they are. A large percentage ACOEM is made up of workers' comp doctors. Many, actually work for Fortune 500 companies. Many run occ/env clinics. Their sister organization AOEC is partially gov't funded by the toxic disease registry and NIOSH.

So, although I think there are many fine members of ACOEM, as a group they, probably more than another other medical association out there, constantly serve two masters - their Hippocratic oath and the company employer they work for. If one is setting protocol for pure science of what is the appropriate manner in which to treat the sick, then the cost to a corporation should not enter into pure science. Science is science and money is money.

It's a fine line anyway - when and when not to use the precautionary principle. The waters do not need to be muddied any further with those who have a strong incentive to do what right by corporate America, as opposed to the sick, writing treatment protocols. Just too much opportunity for the fox to hold the keys to the hen house. In my opinion, where ACOEM physicians could actually do some real good, is in establishing protocols within the workplace that minimize the risks and hazards that cause injury to workers. They should be writing preventative measures for companies to follow and nothing more.

SharonAOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

At the risk of beating a dead horse.. they don't have ANY credibility with me until they set realistic standards for moldthat will prevent people from getting sick like I am.This glaring lack of intelligence to me calls the entire organization into question.

What they are doing is not science, its propaganda.On 2/28/07, snk1955@... <

snk1955@...> wrote:

Jim and Quackadillian,

ACOEM and Tee Guidotti. Someday I am going to write a paper as to why the physicians of ACOEM are NOT the organization to be setting Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) guidelines for anything. They are conflicted just by the nature of who they are. A large percentage ACOEM is made up of workers' comp doctors. Many, actually work for Fortune 500 companies. Many run occ/env clinics. Their sister organization AOEC is partially gov't funded by the toxic disease registry and NIOSH.

So, although I think there are many fine members of ACOEM, as a group they, probably more than another other medical association out there, constantly serve two masters - their Hippocratic oath and the company employer they work for. If one is setting protocol for pure science of what is the appropriate manner in which to treat the sick, then the cost to a corporation should not enter into pure science. Science is science and money is money.

It's a fine line anyway - when and when not to use the precautionary principle. The waters do not need to be muddied any further with those who have a strong incentive to do what right by corporate America, as opposed to the sick, writing treatment protocols. Just too much opportunity for the fox to hold the keys to the hen house. In my opinion, where ACOEM physicians could actually do some real good, is in establishing protocols within the workplace that minimize the risks and hazards that cause injury to workers. They should be writing preventative measures for companies to follow and nothing more.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

I don't want to be accused of being on an ego-trip (gosh being on an

ego-trip would never happen on this forum !) but let me quote

myself and re-ask a question.

[from a previous unanswered post]

Can somebody enlighten me? I gather that AAEM and ACOEM are the two

main organizations in terms of environmental medicine?

However when I go over to ABMS - American Board of Medical

Specialties, I see organizations that I recognize like American Board

of Surgery, American Board of Internal Medicine, American Board of

Anesthesiology, American Board of Plastic Surgery, American Board of

Dermatology, et cetra that determine who is and who is not a board

certified MD. But I don't see any reference to AAEM nor ACOEM.

Now don't get me wrong, nobody has a monopoly on truth and you should

worry about those that say they do.

My question is this, is there a parent organization(s) above AAEM and

ACOEM, or did these two organizations just create themselves and

certify themselves into existance?

[end of previous post]

Ie., where is the oversight? The fact that there is no such thing as

a board certified environmental physician, to me as a consumer, does

NOT fill me with confidence. Why should I trust somebody as an

authority when there are no definitions as to who is an authority?

Thanks a bunch,

Ken

>

> Jim and Quackadillian,

>

> ACOEM and Tee Guidotti. Someday I am going to write a paper as to

why the

> physicians of ACOEM are NOT the organization to be setting Evidence

Based

> Medicine (EBM) guidelines for anything. They are conflicted just

by the nature

> of who they are. A large percentage ACOEM is made up of workers'

comp

> doctors. Many, actually work for Fortune 500 companies. Many run

occ/env clinics.

> Their sister organization AOEC is partially gov't funded by the

toxic disease

> registry and NIOSH.

>

> So, although I think there are many fine members of ACOEM, as a

group they,

> probably more than another other medical association out there,

constantly

> serve two masters - their Hippocratic oath and the company

employer they work

> for. If one is setting protocol for pure science of what is the

appropriate

> manner in which to treat the sick, then the cost to a corporation

should not

> enter into pure science. Science is science and money is money.

>

> It's a fine line anyway - when and when not to use the

precautionary

> principle. The waters do not need to be muddied any further with

those who have a

> strong incentive to do what right by corporate America, as opposed

to the

> sick, writing treatment protocols. Just too much opportunity for

the fox to hold

> the keys to the hen house. In my opinion, where ACOEM physicians

could

> actually do some real good, is in establishing protocols within

the workplace that

> minimize the risks and hazards that cause injury to workers. They

should be

> writing preventative measures for companies to follow and nothing

more.

>

> Sharon

> <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now

offers free

> email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at

> http://www.aol.com.

>