RE: environmental working group (regarding rats and neuro effects)

[Guest guest]

, gary:

Wake up and smell some coffee.

You stated:

“2.) In rats you can't measure

headaches. Exposure is measured by bleeding out of the ears, death, and

other easily measured observations. It is no wonder

" scientific " studies of the effects of mold neurotoxins on rats find

that exposure levels required to elicit a response are much higher than we

typically see in mold contaminated houses.”

You apparent didn’t read my post on 1/18/07,

which was as follows:

From: iequality on behalf of Tony Havics [ph2@...]

Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007

9:42 PM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: re: ACOEM

Statement (my comments on neuro testing)

:

I caution you to investigate before you

speak out.

Yes, most standard tox testing does not

look for subtle neurotoxic effects. Pathology testing can reveal things

if done right. Certain characteristics of the animals can be strong

indicators (twitching, piloerection, licking habits, covering the nose during

whole body exposures, etc.).

But there are standard tests in animals

for these effects. Consider the two most common:

EPA Neurotoxicity Screening Battery

(OPPTS 870.6200)

Species/sample size: 40 & 40 rats (80)

Study Conduct (standardized tests):

Functional Observational Battery (FOB)

Motor Activity

Neuropathology

Positive Control Data

EPA Developmental Neurotoxicity Study (OPPTS 870.6300)

Species/sample size: 80 rats (dams) with about 1000 pups

Dosing period: gestation day 6 through end of lactation (day 21)

Study Conduct:

Dams

Observations (similar to FOB above)

Offspring (tested as weanling and adults)

Observations

Learning

Developmental landmarks Memory

Motor activity

Neuropathology

Auditory startle

Morphometrics

So it is possible, just not common, unless

indicated at higher doses.

Also, the species selected for these tests

can be important. A good deal of neuro testing is done on chicken because

of certain biopathways that are relevant and sensitive.

Tony

.......................................................................

" Tony " Havics,

CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

5250 E US

36, Suite 830

Avon, IN

46123

off

fax

cell

90% of Risk Management is knowing where to

place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%(SM)

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.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of gary rosen

Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007

5:28 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re:

environmental working group

About rat studies vs human mycotoxin exposure...

1.) In humans the most common neurological disorder

from mold toxin exposure is headache. Depending on the duration of the headache

and strength of the headache you can lose your job, flunk out of school

etc. Headaches can be a very big deal. Very little mycotoxin is

required to give a mold sensitive person a headache. On the other hand

many people are almost immune to mold exposure and even fairly high indoor

levels do not affect them.

2.) In rats you can't measure headaches.

Exposure is measured by bleeding out of the ears, death, and other easily

measured observations. It is no wonder " scientific " studies of

the effects of mold neurotoxins on rats find that exposure levels required to

elicit a response are much higher than we typically see in mold contaminated

houses.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: environmental working group concerns of ntp's

affiliation wit...

In a message dated 3/6/2007 2:36:43 P.M.

Pacific Standard Time, davidinlogix (DOT) com writes:

Thank you for contacting me by email.

To control spam, I only accept incoming email from senders that I have

specifically approved.

To add yourself to my list of approved senders, please follow the link below

and complete the short form. Once you do so, I will receive your original

message, and any future messages that you send will be delivered to me

automatically. I apologize for this one-time inconvenience.

Please follow this link to add yourself to my list:

http://confirminato

r.com/cvfr6vybc2 s3f54xuhp6u57kgt e6au3yf4tvfpb4

Who is at Inlogix.com and why does

he respond to EVERY email I send to IEQualiity? And worse yet, the guy

continually cannot stay on subject. He's got this hang up about always

complaining of spam. It would be like if everytime you all wrote something, I

responded with " The three men were specifically brought

into the “workers comp docs” organization to author the ACOEM Mold

Statement.

A key finding of the purported review paper states,

" Levels of exposure

in the indoor environment, dose-response data in animals, and dose-rate

considerations suggest that 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.”

Yet, when one examines the paper in detail, none

of the 83 papers supposedly being reviewed support the finding of the

implausibility of human illness from the situation. Only the authors themselves

make this conclusion. It is a concept that has served them and their

clients well in mold litigation.

There is no accepted scientific foundation for the conclusion that

levels of exposure in the indoor environment, dose response data in animals, or

dose-rate considerations suggest absence of human illness from mycotoxin/mold

exposure indoors. Only the defense expert witnesses/authors profess to

‘scientifically’ make the finding that human illness is not

plausible to occur from exposure within homes, schools or offices. These

locations could also be described as locations that are insured, sold, built,

owned or maintained by someone with a financial interest.

To accomplish their feat of scientific wonder establishing lack of

human illness from indoor mold/mycotoxin exposure, that no others before or

since have been able to replicate, the ACOEM authors simply borrowed data from

a single rodent study in which mold was forced into the trachea of rats.

They then applied mathematical calculations to the borrowed data to make the

leap that humans could not plausibly be exposed to enough mycotoxins within an

indoor environment to cause symptoms of ill health. There were no mycotoxins

even evaluated within the rodent data to which they added their math. Only mold

spores.

PhDs with backgrounds in toxicology and mathematics cannot

logically and ethically claim they ‘scientifically’ applied math to

data from a single mold rodent study to substantiate/ conclude anything of

relevance regarding human mycotoxin illness from an exposure indoors.

Furthermore, the rodent study to which the ACOEM authors chose to apply math,

ends with the sentence, “The

consequences of low-level chronic exposure remain to be investigated, as does

the relevance of the rodent data to human exposure.” The leap from limited rodent data to absence of human

illness is an unethical

non-sequitur, never replicated. The premise does

not fit the conclusion.

Yet, by being a finding within a position

paper of esteemed medical associations, it is portrayed to those less

knowledgeable (the courts) to be the scientific understanding of thousands of

physicians. It therefore carries much weight in the eyes of the courts.

The concept of the implausibility of human illness has been falsely portrayed

to the courts, medical communities and the American public as being based upon

legitimate science.....

Oh wait! I think I do always reply

with this. Wonder if I could set this up as an automatic reply?

PS

Dear at Inlogix.Com. ...You

are bugging me and many others. PLEASE have the courtesy to change

your automatic settings.

Thank you,

Sharon

AOL now offers free email to everyone.

Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

We won't tell. Get more

on shows

you hate to love

(and love to hate): Yahoo!

TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

[Guest guest]

Tony,

Do you do any mold remediation work? Do you come in contact with people living in water damaged homes? Everyone that does knows the issues.

Humans are much more complex than rats. Neurotoxins from molds can and do cause subtle problems in personality, visual contrast acuity, headaches, short term memory, and many others. Toxin binders can very often quickly reverse such changes.

Tests on rats DO NOT find these subtle changes.

Buy Shoemaker's book "Mold Warriors". If you haven't read it, you should not pooh pooh neurotoxic poisioning from mold. As someone with a daughter that had neurotoxic disorders from mold and is now 100% cured with a 4.0 average and on the track team ... I have researched this field exhaustively.

When I wake up in the morning I smell the coffee and then grab the bottle of Cholestyramine (toxin binder). I take one and give one to my daughter.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: environmental working group concerns of ntp's affiliation wit...

In a message dated 3/6/2007 2:36:43 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, davidinlogix (DOT) com writes:

Thank you for contacting me by email. To control spam, I only accept incoming email from senders that I have specifically approved.To add yourself to my list of approved senders, please follow the link below and complete the short form. Once you do so, I will receive your original message, and any future messages that you send will be delivered to me automatically. I apologize for this one-time inconvenience.Please follow this link to add yourself to my list:http://confirminato r.com/cvfr6vybc2 s3f54xuhp6u57kgt e6au3yf4tvfpb4

Who is at Inlogix.com and why does he respond to EVERY email I send to IEQualiity? And worse yet, the guy continually cannot stay on subject. He's got this hang up about always complaining of spam. It would be like if everytime you all wrote something, I responded with "The three men were specifically brought into the “workers comp docs” organization to author the ACOEM Mold Statement.

A key finding of the purported review paper states,

"Levels of exposure in the indoor environment, dose-response data in animals, and dose-rate considerations suggest that 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.”

Yet, when one examines the paper in detail, none of the 83 papers supposedly being reviewed support the finding of the implausibility of human illness from the situation. Only the authors themselves make this conclusion. It is a concept that has served them and their clients well in mold litigation.

There is no accepted scientific foundation for the conclusion that levels of exposure in the indoor environment, dose response data in animals, or dose-rate considerations suggest absence of human illness from mycotoxin/mold exposure indoors. Only the defense expert witnesses/authors profess to ‘scientifically’ make the finding that human illness is not plausible to occur from exposure within homes, schools or offices. These locations could also be described as locations that are insured, sold, built, owned or maintained by someone with a financial interest.

To accomplish their feat of scientific wonder establishing lack of human illness from indoor mold/mycotoxin exposure, that no others before or since have been able to replicate, the ACOEM authors simply borrowed data from a single rodent study in which mold was forced into the trachea of rats. They then applied mathematical calculations to the borrowed data to make the leap that humans could not plausibly be exposed to enough mycotoxins within an indoor environment to cause symptoms of ill health. There were no mycotoxins even evaluated within the rodent data to which they added their math. Only mold spores.

PhDs with backgrounds in toxicology and mathematics cannot logically and ethically claim they ‘scientifically’ applied math to data from a single mold rodent study to substantiate/ conclude anything of relevance regarding human mycotoxin illness from an exposure indoors. Furthermore, the rodent study to which the ACOEM authors chose to apply math, ends with the sentence, “The consequences of low-level chronic exposure remain to be investigated, as does the relevance of the rodent data to human exposure.” The leap from limited rodent data to absence of human

illness is an unethical non-sequitur, never replicated. The premise does not fit the conclusion.

Yet, by being a finding within a position paper of esteemed medical associations, it is portrayed to those less knowledgeable (the courts) to be the scientific understanding of thousands of physicians. It therefore carries much weight in the eyes of the courts. The concept of the implausibility of human illness has been falsely portrayed to the courts, medical communities and the American public as being based upon legitimate science.....

Oh wait! I think I do always reply with this. Wonder if I could set this up as an automatic reply?

PS

Dear at Inlogix.Com. ...You are bugging me and many others. PLEASE have the courtesy to change your automatic settings.

Thank you,

Sharon

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

We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends.

[Guest guest]

:

1. You said:

“. I have researched this field exhaustively.”

Show me the science. Where is your data

if it’s so obvious?

2. As for:

Tests on rats DO NOT find these subtle changes.

Look at the Russian literature. You’re

wrong.

As for actually doing these tests, it is

not done as much as it should. That I’ll admit.

3. And a third question:

If the changes are so subtle, are they

significant?

Tony

.......................................................................

" Tony " Havics,

CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

5250 E US

36, Suite 830

Avon, IN

46123

off

fax

cell

90% of Risk Management is knowing where to

place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%(SM)

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.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of gary rosen

Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007

1:12 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re:

environmental working group (regarding rats and neuro effects)

Tony,

Do you do any mold remediation work? Do you come in

contact with people living in water damaged homes? Everyone that does

knows the issues.

Humans are much more complex than rats. Neurotoxins

from molds can and do cause subtle problems in personality, visual contrast

acuity, headaches, short term memory, and many others. Toxin binders

can very often quickly reverse such changes.

Tests on rats DO NOT find these subtle changes.

Buy Shoemaker's book " Mold Warriors " . If

you haven't read it, you should not pooh pooh neurotoxic poisioning from

mold. As someone with a daughter that had neurotoxic disorders from mold

and is now 100% cured with a 4.0 average and on the track team ... I have

researched this field exhaustively.

When I wake up in the morning I smell the coffee and

then grab the bottle of Cholestyramine (toxin binder). I take one and give

one to my daughter.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: environmental working group concerns of ntp's

affiliation wit...

In a message dated 3/6/2007 2:36:43 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

davidinlogix (DOT) com writes:

Thank you for contacting me by email.

To control spam, I only accept incoming email from senders that I have

specifically approved.

To add yourself to my list of approved senders, please follow the link below

and complete the short form. Once you do so, I will receive your original

message, and any future messages that you send will be delivered to me

automatically. I apologize for this one-time inconvenience.

Please follow this link to add yourself to my list:

http://confirminato

r.com/cvfr6vybc2 s3f54xuhp6u57kgt e6au3yf4tvfpb4

Who is at Inlogix.com and why does he respond to EVERY email

I send to IEQualiity? And worse yet, the guy continually cannot stay on

subject. He's got this hang up about always complaining of spam. It would be like if everytime you all

wrote something, I responded with " The three men were specifically brought

into the “workers comp docs” organization to author the ACOEM Mold

Statement.

A key finding of the purported review paper states,

" Levels of exposure

in the indoor environment, dose-response data in animals, and dose-rate

considerations suggest that 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.”

Yet, when one examines the paper in detail, none

of the 83 papers supposedly being reviewed support the finding of the

implausibility of human illness from the situation. Only the authors themselves

make this conclusion. It is a concept that has served them and their clients

well in mold litigation.

There is no accepted scientific foundation for the conclusion that

levels of exposure in the indoor environment, dose response data in animals, or

dose-rate considerations suggest absence of human illness from mycotoxin/mold

exposure indoors. Only the defense expert witnesses/authors profess to

‘scientifically’ make the finding that human illness is not

plausible to occur from exposure within homes, schools or offices. These

locations could also be described as locations that are insured, sold, built,

owned or maintained by someone with a financial interest.

To accomplish their feat of scientific wonder establishing lack of

human illness from indoor mold/mycotoxin exposure, that no others before or

since have been able to replicate, the ACOEM authors simply borrowed data from

a single rodent study in which mold was forced into the trachea of rats.

They then applied mathematical calculations to the borrowed data to make the

leap that humans could not plausibly be exposed to enough mycotoxins within an

indoor environment to cause symptoms of ill health. There were no mycotoxins

even evaluated within the rodent data to which they added their math. Only mold

spores.

PhDs with backgrounds in toxicology and mathematics cannot

logically and ethically claim they ‘scientifically’ applied math to

data from a single mold rodent study to substantiate/ conclude anything of

relevance regarding human mycotoxin illness from an exposure indoors.

Furthermore, the rodent study to which the ACOEM authors chose to apply math,

ends with the sentence, “The

consequences of low-level chronic exposure remain to be investigated, as does

the relevance of the rodent data to human exposure.” The leap from limited rodent data to absence of human

illness is an unethical

non-sequitur, never replicated. The premise does

not fit the conclusion.

Yet, by being a finding within a position paper of esteemed

medical associations, it is portrayed to those less knowledgeable (the courts)

to be the scientific understanding of thousands of physicians. It

therefore carries much weight in the eyes of the courts. The concept of the

implausibility of human illness has been falsely portrayed to the courts,

medical communities and the American public as being based upon legitimate

science.....

Oh wait! I think I do always reply with this. Wonder

if I could set this up as an automatic reply?

PS

Dear at Inlogix.Com. ...You are bugging me and many

others. PLEASE have the courtesy to change your automatic settings.

Thank you,

Sharon

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

free from AOL at AOL.com.

We won't tell. Get

more on shows you hate to love

(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo!

Mail for Mobile and

always

stay connected to friends.

[Guest guest]

Tony,

For a start please purchase a copy of the IOM Book on Damp Indoor Spaces. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11011 & page=R1

Reading the free to download synoposis that they call the managerial summary in the front of the book is not sufficient.

Next go to the Fungal Research Group (FRG) and buy the proceedings from the 2003 symposium. http://www.fungalresearchgroup.com/new%20books%20and%20publications.htm

Then read Mold Warriors by Shoemaker.

Tony, when you have a child that cannot concentrate on their homework and falls behind due to mold toxins in school ... that sort of subtle issue is certainly important to the parent and the child. I don't think the rat's mom or dad would be stressed out by such subtle issues.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Green-Buildings.org

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: environmental working group concerns of ntp's affiliation wit...

In a message dated 3/6/2007 2:36:43 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, davidinlogix (DOT) com writes:

Thank you for contacting me by email. To control spam, I only accept incoming email from senders that I have specifically approved.To add yourself to my list of approved senders, please follow the link below and complete the short form. Once you do so, I will receive your original message, and any future messages that you send will be delivered to me automatically. I apologize for this one-time inconvenience.Please follow this link to add yourself to my list:http://confirminato r.com/cvfr6vybc2 s3f54xuhp6u57kgt e6au3yf4tvfpb4

Who is at Inlogix.com and why does he respond to EVERY email I send to IEQualiity? And worse yet, the guy continually cannot stay on subject. He's got this hang up about always complaining of spam. It would be like if everytime you all wrote something, I responded with "The three men were specifically brought into the “workers comp docs” organization to author the ACOEM Mold Statement.

A key finding of the purported review paper states,

"Levels of exposure in the indoor environment, dose-response data in animals, and dose-rate considerations suggest that 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.”

Yet, when one examines the paper in detail, none of the 83 papers supposedly being reviewed support the finding of the implausibility of human illness from the situation. Only the authors themselves make this conclusion. It is a concept that has served them and their clients well in mold litigation.

There is no accepted scientific foundation for the conclusion that levels of exposure in the indoor environment, dose response data in animals, or dose-rate considerations suggest absence of human illness from mycotoxin/mold exposure indoors. Only the defense expert witnesses/authors profess to ‘scientifically’ make the finding that human illness is not plausible to occur from exposure within homes, schools or offices. These locations could also be described as locations that are insured, sold, built, owned or maintained by someone with a financial interest.

To accomplish their feat of scientific wonder establishing lack of human illness from indoor mold/mycotoxin exposure, that no others before or since have been able to replicate, the ACOEM authors simply borrowed data from a single rodent study in which mold was forced into the trachea of rats. They then applied mathematical calculations to the borrowed data to make the leap that humans could not plausibly be exposed to enough mycotoxins within an indoor environment to cause symptoms of ill health. There were no mycotoxins even evaluated within the rodent data to which they added their math. Only mold spores.

PhDs with backgrounds in toxicology and mathematics cannot logically and ethically claim they ‘scientifically’ applied math to data from a single mold rodent study to substantiate/ conclude anything of relevance regarding human mycotoxin illness from an exposure indoors. Furthermore, the rodent study to which the ACOEM authors chose to apply math, ends with the sentence, “The consequences of low-level chronic exposure remain to be investigated, as does the relevance of the rodent data to human exposure.” The leap from limited rodent data to absence of human

illness is an unethical non-sequitur, never replicated. The premise does not fit the conclusion.

Yet, by being a finding within a position paper of esteemed medical associations, it is portrayed to those less knowledgeable (the courts) to be the scientific understanding of thousands of physicians. It therefore carries much weight in the eyes of the courts. The concept of the implausibility of human illness has been falsely portrayed to the courts, medical communities and the American public as being based upon legitimate science.....

Oh wait! I think I do always reply with this. Wonder if I could set this up as an automatic reply?

PS

Dear at Inlogix.Com. ...You are bugging me and many others. PLEASE have the courtesy to change your automatic settings.

Thank you,

Sharon

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

We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends.

Never miss an email again!Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.

[Guest guest]

See Below

.......................................................................

" Tony " Havics,

CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

5250 E US

36, Suite 830

Avon, IN

46123

off

fax

cell

90% of Risk Management is knowing where to

place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%(SM)

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.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of gary rosen

Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 9:36

AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re:

environmental working group (regarding rats and neuro effects)

Tony,

For a start please purchase a copy of the IOM Book on Damp

Indoor Spaces. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11011 & page=R1

****I have a hardcopy (pre-ordered it

before it was out) and a PDF copy. Been there, done that. Show me

in the book where this obvious data is.

See for instance page 162, “Human

susceptibility is not well established.” And they go on to talk

about animal testing that does detect effects. Amazing huh?

Reading the free to download synoposis that they call the

managerial summary in the front of the book is not sufficient.

Next go to the Fungal Research Group (FRG) and buy the

proceedings from the 2003 symposium. http://www.fungalresearchgroup.com/new%20books%20and%20publications.htm

**** Perhaps I will

Then read Mold Warriors by Shoemaker.

**** No thanks, not until you show some

better data, as I can see from your statements that you haven’t yet.

Tony, when you have a child that cannot concentrate on

their homework and falls behind due to mold toxins in school ... that sort of

subtle issue is certainly important to the parent and the child. I don't think

the rat's mom or dad would be stressed out by such subtle issues.

****

1. That’s not subtle (but I’ll admit it is difficult to

discern in a statistical manner)

2. Did you look at confounding factors?

3. ,

you seem to have a good income stream and influence, why weren’t you able

to secure a clean environment to begin with? Any if it was

“clean” then it’s ubiquitous and not an issue caused by poor

maintenance or construction, but only aggravated.

4. You co-authored a book with an MD. It’s been out for

awhile, so where is the clinical data that could have been published by now?

5. You still haven’t defined mold toxins, toxic mold, nor shown its

prevalence, the exposure by route, causal relationship, methodological

underpinnings, etc.

You have a Doctorate in Philosophy, perhaps you

should apply that in the scientific methodology to support your

statements. Otherwise, it’s sociology at best.

****

By the way

I do work on mold remediation. I started doing mold AND bacteria work

back in 1993. (what were you doing then?).

I investigate, I write specs, I remediated by own house, I do analysis

(non-culturable), I study, I study, I study, I listen to others and hold on to

what it true or worthy.

I submitted a response 2 days ago regarding my expert witness work over the

past 14 years, D = Defendant (29.4%), P =

Plaintiff (66.6%), Other as noted (3.0%) [3rd party, amicus]

I ‘m done ranting (my apologies to those you who had to

listen).

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Green-Buildings.org

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: environmental working group concerns of ntp's

affiliation wit...

In a message dated 3/6/2007 2:36:43 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

davidinlogix (DOT) com writes:

Thank you for contacting me by email.

To control spam, I only accept incoming email from senders that I have

specifically approved.

To add yourself to my list of approved senders, please follow the link below

and complete the short form. Once you do so, I will receive your original

message, and any future messages that you send will be delivered to me

automatically. I apologize for this one-time inconvenience.

Please follow this link to add yourself to my list:

http://confirminato

r.com/cvfr6vybc2 s3f54xuhp6u57kgt e6au3yf4tvfpb4

Who is at Inlogix.com and why does he respond to EVERY email

I send to IEQualiity? And worse yet, the guy continually cannot stay on

subject. He's got this hang up about always complaining of spam. It would be like if everytime you all

wrote something, I responded with " The three men were specifically brought

into the “workers comp docs” organization to author the ACOEM Mold

Statement.

A key finding of the purported review paper states,

" Levels of exposure

in the indoor environment, dose-response data in animals, and dose-rate

considerations suggest that 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.”

Yet, when one examines the paper in detail, none

of the 83 papers supposedly being reviewed support the finding of the implausibility

of human illness from the situation. Only the authors themselves make this

conclusion. It is a concept that has served them and their clients well

in mold litigation.

There is no accepted scientific foundation for the conclusion that

levels of exposure in the indoor environment, dose response data in animals, or

dose-rate considerations suggest absence of human illness from mycotoxin/mold

exposure indoors. Only the defense expert witnesses/authors profess to

‘scientifically’ make the finding that human illness is not

plausible to occur from exposure within homes, schools or offices. These

locations could also be described as locations that are insured, sold, built,

owned or maintained by someone with a financial interest.

To accomplish their feat of scientific wonder establishing lack of

human illness from indoor mold/mycotoxin exposure, that no others before or

since have been able to replicate, the ACOEM authors simply borrowed data from

a single rodent study in which mold was forced into the trachea of rats.

They then applied mathematical calculations to the borrowed data to make the

leap that humans could not plausibly be exposed to enough mycotoxins within an

indoor environment to cause symptoms of ill health. There were no mycotoxins

even evaluated within the rodent data to which they added their math. Only mold

spores.

PhDs with backgrounds in toxicology and mathematics cannot

logically and ethically claim they ‘scientifically’ applied math to

data from a single mold rodent study to substantiate/ conclude anything of

relevance regarding human mycotoxin illness from an exposure indoors.

Furthermore, the rodent study to which the ACOEM authors chose to apply math,

ends with the sentence, “The

consequences of low-level chronic exposure remain to be investigated, as does

the relevance of the rodent data to human exposure.” The leap from limited rodent data to absence of human

illness is an unethical

non-sequitur, never replicated. The premise does

not fit the conclusion.

Yet, by being a finding within a position paper of esteemed

medical associations, it is portrayed to those less knowledgeable (the courts)

to be the scientific understanding of thousands of physicians. It

therefore carries much weight in the eyes of the courts. The concept of the

implausibility of human illness has been falsely portrayed to the courts,

medical communities and the American public as being based upon legitimate

science.....

Oh wait! I think I do always reply with this. Wonder

if I could set this up as an automatic reply?

PS

Dear at Inlogix.Com. ...You are bugging me and many

others. PLEASE have the courtesy to change your automatic settings.

Thank you,

Sharon

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

free from AOL at AOL.com.

We won't tell. Get

more on shows you hate to love

(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and

always stay connected to friends.

Never

miss an email again!

Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.

Check it out.

[Guest guest]

Tony said ...,

3. you seem to have a good income stream and influence, why weren’t you able to secure a clean environment to begin with? Any if it was “clean” then it’s ubiquitous and not an issue caused by poor maintenance or construction, but only aggravated.

4. You co-authored a book with an MD. It’s been out for awhile, so where is the clinical data that could have been published by now?

Good questions.

#3. She got sick in school. She is in a new school. I now test her classrooms twice a year. She's doing well.

#4. Read Shoemaker. He is the source of much clinical data. My book on mold toxins is based on his work. I would strongly recommend that anyone interested in mold toxins reference Mold Warriors it is the bible.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: environmental working group concerns of ntp's affiliation wit...

In a message dated 3/6/2007 2:36:43 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, davidinlogix (DOT) com writes:

Thank you for contacting me by email. To control spam, I only accept incoming email from senders that I have specifically approved.To add yourself to my list of approved senders, please follow the link below and complete the short form. Once you do so, I will receive your original message, and any future messages that you send will be delivered to me automatically. I apologize for this one-time inconvenience.Please follow this link to add yourself to my list:http://confirminato r.com/cvfr6vybc2 s3f54xuhp6u57kgt e6au3yf4tvfpb4

Who is at Inlogix.com and why does he respond to EVERY email I send to IEQualiity? And worse yet, the guy continually cannot stay on subject. He's got this hang up about always complaining of spam. It would be like if everytime you all wrote something, I responded with "The three men were specifically brought into the “workers comp docs” organization to author the ACOEM Mold Statement.

A key finding of the purported review paper states,

"Levels of exposure in the indoor environment, dose-response data in animals, and dose-rate considerations suggest that 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.”

Yet, when one examines the paper in detail, none of the 83 papers supposedly being reviewed support the finding of the implausibility of human illness from the situation. Only the authors themselves make this conclusion. It is a concept that has served them and their clients well in mold litigation.

There is no accepted scientific foundation for the conclusion that levels of exposure in the indoor environment, dose response data in animals, or dose-rate considerations suggest absence of human illness from mycotoxin/mold exposure indoors. Only the defense expert witnesses/authors profess to ‘scientifically’ make the finding that human illness is not plausible to occur from exposure within homes, schools or offices. These locations could also be described as locations that are insured, sold, built, owned or maintained by someone with a financial interest.

To accomplish their feat of scientific wonder establishing lack of human illness from indoor mold/mycotoxin exposure, that no others before or since have been able to replicate, the ACOEM authors simply borrowed data from a single rodent study in which mold was forced into the trachea of rats. They then applied mathematical calculations to the borrowed data to make the leap that humans could not plausibly be exposed to enough mycotoxins within an indoor environment to cause symptoms of ill health. There were no mycotoxins even evaluated within the rodent data to which they added their math. Only mold spores.

PhDs with backgrounds in toxicology and mathematics cannot logically and ethically claim they ‘scientifically’ applied math to data from a single mold rodent study to substantiate/ conclude anything of relevance regarding human mycotoxin illness from an exposure indoors. Furthermore, the rodent study to which the ACOEM authors chose to apply math, ends with the sentence, “The consequences of low-level chronic exposure remain to be investigated, as does the relevance of the rodent data to human exposure.” The leap from limited rodent data to absence of human

illness is an unethical non-sequitur, never replicated. The premise does not fit the conclusion.

Yet, by being a finding within a position paper of esteemed medical associations, it is portrayed to those less knowledgeable (the courts) to be the scientific understanding of thousands of physicians. It therefore carries much weight in the eyes of the courts. The concept of the implausibility of human illness has been falsely portrayed to the courts, medical communities and the American public as being based upon legitimate science.....

Oh wait! I think I do always reply with this. Wonder if I could set this up as an automatic reply?

PS

Dear at Inlogix.Com. ...You are bugging me and many others. PLEASE have the courtesy to change your automatic settings.

Thank you,

Sharon

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

We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends.

Never miss an email again!Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.

Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.

[Guest guest]

,

I have Mold Warriors (not read it yet)

although I hear a lot about Shoemaker. But to raise any book as equal to the

BIBLE is a stretch (even if its sound data).

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of gary rosen

Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:39

PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re:

environmental working group (regarding rats and neuro effects)

Tony said ...,

3. you seem to have a good income stream

and influence, why weren’t you able to secure a clean environment to

begin with? Any if it was “clean” then it’s ubiquitous

and not an issue caused by poor maintenance or construction, but only

aggravated.

4. You co-authored a book with an MD. It’s been

out for awhile, so where is the clinical data that could have been published by

now?

Good

questions.

#3.

She got sick in school. She is in a new school. I now test her classrooms

twice a year. She's doing well.

#4.

Read Shoemaker. He is the source of much clinical data. My book on mold toxins

is based on his work. I would strongly recommend that anyone interested

in mold toxins reference Mold Warriors it is the bible.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: environmental working group concerns of ntp's

affiliation wit...

In a message dated 3/6/2007 2:36:43 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

davidinlogix (DOT) com writes:

Thank you for contacting me by email.

To control spam, I only accept incoming email from senders that I have

specifically approved.

To add yourself to my list of approved senders, please follow the link below

and complete the short form. Once you do so, I will receive your original

message, and any future messages that you send will be delivered to me

automatically. I apologize for this one-time inconvenience.

Please follow this link to add yourself to my list:

http://confirminato

r.com/cvfr6vybc2 s3f54xuhp6u57kgt e6au3yf4tvfpb4

Who is at Inlogix.com and why does he respond to EVERY email

I send to IEQualiity? And worse yet, the guy continually cannot stay on

subject. He's got this hang up about always complaining of spam. It would be like if everytime you all

wrote something, I responded with " The three men were specifically brought into

the “workers comp docs” organization to author the ACOEM Mold

Statement.

A key finding of the purported review paper states,

" Levels of exposure

in the indoor environment, dose-response data in animals, and dose-rate

considerations suggest that 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.”

Yet, when one examines the paper in detail, none

of the 83 papers supposedly being reviewed support the finding of the

implausibility of human illness from the situation. Only the authors themselves

make this conclusion. It is a concept that has served them and their

clients well in mold litigation.

There is no accepted scientific foundation for the conclusion that

levels of exposure in the indoor environment, dose response data in animals, or

dose-rate considerations suggest absence of human illness from mycotoxin/mold

exposure indoors. Only the defense expert witnesses/authors profess to

‘scientifically’ make the finding that human illness is not

plausible to occur from exposure within homes, schools or offices. These

locations could also be described as locations that are insured, sold, built,

owned or maintained by someone with a financial interest.

To accomplish their feat of scientific wonder establishing lack of

human illness from indoor mold/mycotoxin exposure, that no others before or

since have been able to replicate, the ACOEM authors simply borrowed data from

a single rodent study in which mold was forced into the trachea of rats.

They then applied mathematical calculations to the borrowed data to make the

leap that humans could not plausibly be exposed to enough mycotoxins within an

indoor environment to cause symptoms of ill health. There were no mycotoxins

even evaluated within the rodent data to which they added their math. Only mold

spores.

PhDs with backgrounds in toxicology and mathematics cannot

logically and ethically claim they ‘scientifically’ applied math to

data from a single mold rodent study to substantiate/ conclude anything of

relevance regarding human mycotoxin illness from an exposure indoors.

Furthermore, the rodent study to which the ACOEM authors chose to apply math,

ends with the sentence, “The

consequences of low-level chronic exposure remain to be investigated, as does

the relevance of the rodent data to human exposure.” The leap from limited rodent data to absence of human

illness is an unethical

non-sequitur, never replicated. The premise does

not fit the conclusion.

Yet, by being a finding within a position paper of esteemed

medical associations, it is portrayed to those less knowledgeable (the courts)

to be the scientific understanding of thousands of physicians. It

therefore carries much weight in the eyes of the courts. The concept of the

implausibility of human illness has been falsely portrayed to the courts,

medical communities and the American public as being based upon legitimate

science.....

Oh wait! I think I do always reply with this. Wonder

if I could set this up as an automatic reply?

PS

Dear at Inlogix.Com. ...You are bugging me and many

others. PLEASE have the courtesy to change your automatic settings.

Thank you,

Sharon

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

free from AOL at AOL.com.

We won't tell. Get

more on shows you hate to love

(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and

always stay connected to friends.

Never miss an email again!

Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.

Don't get soaked. Take a

quick peek at the forecast

with theYahoo!

Search weather shortcut.

[Guest guest]

Gray:

#3.

She got sick in school. She is in a new school. I now test her classrooms

twice a year. She's doing well.

*** I’m genuinely glad she is well.

#4.

Read Shoemaker. He is the source of much clinical data. My book on mold toxins

is based on his work. I would strongly recommend that anyone interested

in mold toxins reference Mold Warriors it is the bible.

*** A.

I thought You researched it, and thus You could cite the critical basis.

B. The question on

the clinical data then is: Why is Shoemaker’s data not published in

a peer reviewed journal? Has he submitted it? If he has a book

worth, then there should be several papers in there.

C. I’m

still looking for your definition of “toxic mold” and “mold

toxins”.

.......................................................................

" Tony " Havics,

CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

5250 E US

36, Suite 830

Avon, IN

46123

off

fax

cell

90% of Risk Management is knowing where to

place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%(SM)

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.

From:

iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of gary rosen

Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:39

PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re:

environmental working group (regarding rats and neuro effects)

Tony said ...,

3. you seem to have a good income stream

and influence, why weren’t you able to secure a clean environment to

begin with? Any if it was “clean” then it’s ubiquitous

and not an issue caused by poor maintenance or construction, but only

aggravated.

4. You co-authored a book with an MD. It’s been

out for awhile, so where is the clinical data that could have been published by

now?

Good

questions.

#3.

She got sick in school. She is in a new school. I now test her classrooms

twice a year. She's doing well.

#4.

Read Shoemaker. He is the source of much clinical data. My book on mold toxins

is based on his work. I would strongly recommend that anyone interested

in mold toxins reference Mold Warriors it is the bible.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: environmental working group concerns of ntp's

affiliation wit...

In a message dated 3/6/2007 2:36:43 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

davidinlogix (DOT) com writes:

Thank you for contacting me by email.

To control spam, I only accept incoming email from senders that I have

specifically approved.

To add yourself to my list of approved senders, please follow the link below

and complete the short form. Once you do so, I will receive your original

message, and any future messages that you send will be delivered to me

automatically. I apologize for this one-time inconvenience.

Please follow this link to add yourself to my list:

http://confirminato

r.com/cvfr6vybc2 s3f54xuhp6u57kgt e6au3yf4tvfpb4

Who is at Inlogix.com and why does he respond to EVERY email

I send to IEQualiity? And worse yet, the guy continually cannot stay on

subject. He's got this hang up about always complaining of spam. It would be like if everytime you all

wrote something, I responded with " The three men were specifically brought

into the “workers comp docs” organization to author the ACOEM Mold

Statement.

A key finding of the purported review paper states,

" Levels of exposure

in the indoor environment, dose-response data in animals, and dose-rate

considerations suggest that 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.”

Yet, when one examines the paper in detail, none

of the 83 papers supposedly being reviewed support the finding of the

implausibility of human illness from the situation. Only the authors themselves

make this conclusion. It is a concept that has served them and their

clients well in mold litigation.

There is no accepted scientific foundation for the conclusion that

levels of exposure in the indoor environment, dose response data in animals, or

dose-rate considerations suggest absence of human illness from mycotoxin/mold exposure

indoors. Only the defense expert witnesses/authors profess to

‘scientifically’ make the finding that human illness is not

plausible to occur from exposure within homes, schools or offices. These

locations could also be described as locations that are insured, sold, built,

owned or maintained by someone with a financial interest.

To accomplish their feat of scientific wonder establishing lack of

human illness from indoor mold/mycotoxin exposure, that no others before or

since have been able to replicate, the ACOEM authors simply borrowed data from

a single rodent study in which mold was forced into the trachea of rats.

They then applied mathematical calculations to the borrowed data to make the

leap that humans could not plausibly be exposed to enough mycotoxins within an

indoor environment to cause symptoms of ill health. There were no mycotoxins

even evaluated within the rodent data to which they added their math. Only mold

spores.

PhDs with backgrounds in toxicology and mathematics cannot

logically and ethically claim they ‘scientifically’ applied math to

data from a single mold rodent study to substantiate/ conclude anything of

relevance regarding human mycotoxin illness from an exposure indoors.

Furthermore, the rodent study to which the ACOEM authors chose to apply math,

ends with the sentence, “The

consequences of low-level chronic exposure remain to be investigated, as does

the relevance of the rodent data to human exposure.” The leap from limited rodent data to absence of human

illness is an unethical

non-sequitur, never replicated. The premise does

not fit the conclusion.

Yet, by being a finding within a position paper of esteemed

medical associations, it is portrayed to those less knowledgeable (the courts)

to be the scientific understanding of thousands of physicians. It

therefore carries much weight in the eyes of the courts. The concept of the

implausibility of human illness has been falsely portrayed to the courts,

medical communities and the American public as being based upon legitimate

science.....

Oh wait! I think I do always reply with this. Wonder

if I could set this up as an automatic reply?

PS

Dear at Inlogix.Com. ...You are bugging me and many

others. PLEASE have the courtesy to change your automatic settings.

Thank you,

Sharon

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

free from AOL at AOL.com.

We won't tell. Get

more on shows you hate to love

(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and

always stay connected to friends.

Never miss an email again!

Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.

Don't get soaked. Take a

quick peek at the forecast

with theYahoo!

Search weather shortcut.