Re: mold testing prior to purchase

[Guest guest]

I have to agree with you and Janet on this one. A common misperception in

most medical articles is that mold only affects those with a pre-existing

sensitivity.

Like many people, I went through many years allergy free before starting

to have a progressively worsening cough develop at age 47, following

prolonged exposure to some bio-aerosol in my work environment. Eventually,

it got to the point of severe coughing starting on my first breath in the

workplace. Interestingly, allergy testing failed to identify any allergen.

The cough subsided when away from the workplace for weekends and vacations,

and improved greatly with retirement. the sensitivity has lessened, but

still strikes occasionally with the right mold exposure, three years after

leaving the problem initiating site.

Such an act as proposed here may protect the seller, but will do nothing

to protect unsuspecting buyers who may not start having health problems for

a year or more.

Gil

Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 17:44:11 -0400

From: " Armstrong " <hobbflorida@...>

Subject: mold testing prior to purchase

Do any of you believe this suggestion -- to have your family tested for mold

allergies before you buy, to protect the seller? What about homes like many

of ours that don't initially have mold, but then develop the problem? Should

builders be let off the hook too?

Armstrong, President Florida Chapter HOBB www.hobb.org

" Sellers might want to consider a new real estate contingency: Buyers and

all prospective residents of a home should be required to obtain medical

tests within 10 days of making a purchase offer showing they are free and

clear of any significant adverse reactions to household mold, spores and

fungi. The failure to take such tests would automatically end any seller

liability for such conditions. And, if the test results are positive, seller

liability would again be terminated because the buyers have a previous

condition, know about the condition prior to closing, and are on notice

regarding the problem. "

_________________________________________________________________

FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!

http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

I have to agree with you and Janet on this one. A common misperception in

most medical articles is that mold only affects those with a pre-existing

sensitivity.

Like many people, I went through many years allergy free before starting

to have a progressively worsening cough develop at age 47, following

prolonged exposure to some bio-aerosol in my work environment. Eventually,

it got to the point of severe coughing starting on my first breath in the

workplace. Interestingly, allergy testing failed to identify any allergen.

The cough subsided when away from the workplace for weekends and vacations,

and improved greatly with retirement. the sensitivity has lessened, but

still strikes occasionally with the right mold exposure, three years after

leaving the problem initiating site.

Such an act as proposed here may protect the seller, but will do nothing

to protect unsuspecting buyers who may not start having health problems for

a year or more.

Gil

Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 17:44:11 -0400

From: " Armstrong " <hobbflorida@...>

Subject: mold testing prior to purchase

Do any of you believe this suggestion -- to have your family tested for mold

allergies before you buy, to protect the seller? What about homes like many

of ours that don't initially have mold, but then develop the problem? Should

builders be let off the hook too?

Armstrong, President Florida Chapter HOBB www.hobb.org

" Sellers might want to consider a new real estate contingency: Buyers and

all prospective residents of a home should be required to obtain medical

tests within 10 days of making a purchase offer showing they are free and

clear of any significant adverse reactions to household mold, spores and

fungi. The failure to take such tests would automatically end any seller

liability for such conditions. And, if the test results are positive, seller

liability would again be terminated because the buyers have a previous

condition, know about the condition prior to closing, and are on notice

regarding the problem. "

_________________________________________________________________

FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!

http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

What would those medical tests be? I'm not aware of any, other than

allergy tests for mold, and those are dependant on the species of

mold tested vs the species of the exposure, plus all combinations.

Which of the 100,000 or so tests are they willing to pay for? What if

the buyer tests negative to mold but has life threatening asthma

attacks to dust mites or cat dander? A better test would be one based

on all the hazards of the whole house rather than just one of many

potential hazards.

As a response to the IOM report, a columnist included this idiotic

proposal along with the statement that mold is no more dangerous than

ketcup. http://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/20040601_moldstudy.htm

What is equally ludicrous is that no matter what the test results

are, columnist says the seller will still be off the hook.

According to , the seller is off the hook if 1) the buyer

refuses to get tested, 2) the buyer tests negative because there is

no problem and 3) the buyer tests positive and therefore is informed.

So why test? What is Mr really saying? I think part of what we

can learn from him is that his ideas have no more relavence to the

subject than ketcup.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----------

> I have to agree with you and Janet on this one. A common

> misperception in

> most medical articles is that mold only affects those with a

> pre-existing sensitivity.

>

> Like many people, I went through many years allergy free before

> starting

> to have a progressively worsening cough develop at age 47, following

> prolonged exposure to some bio-aerosol in my work environment.

> Eventually, it got to the point of severe coughing starting on my

> first breath in the workplace. Interestingly, allergy testing failed

> to identify any allergen. The cough subsided when away from the

> workplace for weekends and vacations, and improved greatly with

> retirement. the sensitivity has lessened, but still strikes

> occasionally with the right mold exposure, three years after leaving

> the problem initiating site.

>

> Such an act as proposed here may protect the seller, but will do

> nothing

> to protect unsuspecting buyers who may not start having health

> problems for a year or more.

>

> Gil

>

>

> Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 17:44:11 -0400

> From: " Armstrong " <hobbflorida@...>

> Subject: mold testing prior to purchase

>

> Do any of you believe this suggestion -- to have your family tested

> for mold allergies before you buy, to protect the seller? What about

> homes like many of ours that don't initially have mold, but then

> develop the problem? Should builders be let off the hook too?

> Armstrong, President Florida Chapter HOBB www.hobb.org

>

> " Sellers might want to consider a new real estate contingency: Buyers

> and all prospective residents of a home should be required to obtain

> medical tests within 10 days of making a purchase offer showing they

> are free and clear of any significant adverse reactions to household

> mold, spores and fungi. The failure to take such tests would

> automatically end any seller liability for such conditions. And, if

> the test results are positive, seller liability would again be

> terminated because the buyers have a previous condition, know about

> the condition prior to closing, and are on notice regarding the

> problem. "

>

> _________________________________________________________________ FREE

> pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!

> http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

What would those medical tests be? I'm not aware of any, other than

allergy tests for mold, and those are dependant on the species of

mold tested vs the species of the exposure, plus all combinations.

Which of the 100,000 or so tests are they willing to pay for? What if

the buyer tests negative to mold but has life threatening asthma

attacks to dust mites or cat dander? A better test would be one based

on all the hazards of the whole house rather than just one of many

potential hazards.

As a response to the IOM report, a columnist included this idiotic

proposal along with the statement that mold is no more dangerous than

ketcup. http://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/20040601_moldstudy.htm

What is equally ludicrous is that no matter what the test results

are, columnist says the seller will still be off the hook.

According to , the seller is off the hook if 1) the buyer

refuses to get tested, 2) the buyer tests negative because there is

no problem and 3) the buyer tests positive and therefore is informed.

So why test? What is Mr really saying? I think part of what we

can learn from him is that his ideas have no more relavence to the

subject than ketcup.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----------

> I have to agree with you and Janet on this one. A common

> misperception in

> most medical articles is that mold only affects those with a

> pre-existing sensitivity.

>

> Like many people, I went through many years allergy free before

> starting

> to have a progressively worsening cough develop at age 47, following

> prolonged exposure to some bio-aerosol in my work environment.

> Eventually, it got to the point of severe coughing starting on my

> first breath in the workplace. Interestingly, allergy testing failed

> to identify any allergen. The cough subsided when away from the

> workplace for weekends and vacations, and improved greatly with

> retirement. the sensitivity has lessened, but still strikes

> occasionally with the right mold exposure, three years after leaving

> the problem initiating site.

>

> Such an act as proposed here may protect the seller, but will do

> nothing

> to protect unsuspecting buyers who may not start having health

> problems for a year or more.

>

> Gil

>

>

> Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 17:44:11 -0400

> From: " Armstrong " <hobbflorida@...>

> Subject: mold testing prior to purchase

>

> Do any of you believe this suggestion -- to have your family tested

> for mold allergies before you buy, to protect the seller? What about

> homes like many of ours that don't initially have mold, but then

> develop the problem? Should builders be let off the hook too?

> Armstrong, President Florida Chapter HOBB www.hobb.org

>

> " Sellers might want to consider a new real estate contingency: Buyers

> and all prospective residents of a home should be required to obtain

> medical tests within 10 days of making a purchase offer showing they

> are free and clear of any significant adverse reactions to household

> mold, spores and fungi. The failure to take such tests would

> automatically end any seller liability for such conditions. And, if

> the test results are positive, seller liability would again be

> terminated because the buyers have a previous condition, know about

> the condition prior to closing, and are on notice regarding the

> problem. "

>

> _________________________________________________________________ FREE

> pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!

> http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Wait a minute, lets' review 's credentials here -- this is a journali=

st who brought us such hard-hitting scoops such as " Monster Pets invade

Nation " , and " How America got it's first Christmas Tree " . Just because the=

man does not have any medical training, doesn't mean that he can't

participate in forwarding his transparently craven agendas. Huzzah!

You're right, Carl -- testing to check for a predisposition is probably not=

viable. I participated in a mold reactivity study at a major immunological=

research center last month. The intent was to determine the efficacy of a =

neutralizing agent on molds and mycotoxins, and subjects were to be skin

pricked with various antigens. My major environmental exposure was to Aspe=

rgillis and Pennicillium, and Aspergillis Hemolysis was the primary

" allergen " that was being tested. I was prepared to go anaphylactic, but w=

ould do so to prove a point, and get into further study.

You know what happened? Nothing. No reactivity whatsoever to the Aspegill=

is extract, though I had a predictable flare with the Histamine control

that they hit me with. I'm of the opinion that I am soley reactive to inha=

lent exposures, as I am still wildly reactive in what appear to be normal

environments.

The press around this study is despicable, though I agree with your earlier=

comments on the overall objectivity of the original IoM study statements.

=

>

> What would those medical tests be? I'm not aware of any, other than

> allergy tests for mold, and those are dependant on the species of

> mold tested vs the species of the exposure, plus all combinations.

> Which of the 100,000 or so tests are they willing to pay for? What if

> the buyer tests negative to mold but has life threatening asthma

> attacks to dust mites or cat dander? A better test would be one based

> on all the hazards of the whole house rather than just one of many

> potential hazards.

>

> As a response to the IOM report, a columnist included this idiotic

> proposal along with the statement that mold is no more dangerous than

> ketcup. http://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/20040601_moldstudy.htm

>

> What is equally ludicrous is that no matter what the test results

> are, columnist says the seller will still be off the hook.

> According to , the seller is off the hook if 1) the buyer

> refuses to get tested, 2) the buyer tests negative because there is

> no problem and 3) the buyer tests positive and therefore is informed.

> So why test? What is Mr really saying? I think part of what we

> can learn from him is that his ideas have no more relavence to the

> subject than ketcup.

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

> -----------

> > I have to agree with you and Janet on this one. A common

> > misperception in

> > most medical articles is that mold only affects those with a

> > pre-existing sensitivity.

> >

> > Like many people, I went through many years allergy free before

> > starting

> > to have a progressively worsening cough develop at age 47, following

> > prolonged exposure to some bio-aerosol in my work environment.

> > Eventually, it got to the point of severe coughing starting on my

> > first breath in the workplace. Interestingly, allergy testing failed

> > to identify any allergen. The cough subsided when away from the

> > workplace for weekends and vacations, and improved greatly with

> > retirement. the sensitivity has lessened, but still strikes

> > occasionally with the right mold exposure, three years after leaving

> > the problem initiating site.

> >

> > Such an act as proposed here may protect the seller, but will do

> > nothing

> > to protect unsuspecting buyers who may not start having health

> > problems for a year or more.

> >

> > Gil

> >

> >

> > Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 17:44:11 -0400

> > From: " Armstrong " <hobbflorida@a...>

> > Subject: mold testing prior to purchase

> >

> > Do any of you believe this suggestion -- to have your family tested

> > for mold allergies before you buy, to protect the seller? What about

> > homes like many of ours that don't initially have mold, but then

> > develop the problem? Should builders be let off the hook too?

> > Armstrong, President Florida Chapter HOBB www.hobb.org

> >

> > " Sellers might want to consider a new real estate contingency: Buyers

> > and all prospective residents of a home should be required to obtain

> > medical tests within 10 days of making a purchase offer showing they

> > are free and clear of any significant adverse reactions to household

> > mold, spores and fungi. The failure to take such tests would

> > automatically end any seller liability for such conditions. And, if

> > the test results are positive, seller liability would again be

> > terminated because the buyers have a previous condition, know about

> > the condition prior to closing, and are on notice regarding the

> > problem. "

> >

> > _________________________________________________________________ FREE

> > pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!

> > http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Wait a minute, lets' review 's credentials here -- this is a journali=

st who brought us such hard-hitting scoops such as " Monster Pets invade

Nation " , and " How America got it's first Christmas Tree " . Just because the=

man does not have any medical training, doesn't mean that he can't

participate in forwarding his transparently craven agendas. Huzzah!

You're right, Carl -- testing to check for a predisposition is probably not=

viable. I participated in a mold reactivity study at a major immunological=

research center last month. The intent was to determine the efficacy of a =

neutralizing agent on molds and mycotoxins, and subjects were to be skin

pricked with various antigens. My major environmental exposure was to Aspe=

rgillis and Pennicillium, and Aspergillis Hemolysis was the primary

" allergen " that was being tested. I was prepared to go anaphylactic, but w=

ould do so to prove a point, and get into further study.

You know what happened? Nothing. No reactivity whatsoever to the Aspegill=

is extract, though I had a predictable flare with the Histamine control

that they hit me with. I'm of the opinion that I am soley reactive to inha=

lent exposures, as I am still wildly reactive in what appear to be normal

environments.

The press around this study is despicable, though I agree with your earlier=

comments on the overall objectivity of the original IoM study statements.

=

>

> What would those medical tests be? I'm not aware of any, other than

> allergy tests for mold, and those are dependant on the species of

> mold tested vs the species of the exposure, plus all combinations.

> Which of the 100,000 or so tests are they willing to pay for? What if

> the buyer tests negative to mold but has life threatening asthma

> attacks to dust mites or cat dander? A better test would be one based

> on all the hazards of the whole house rather than just one of many

> potential hazards.

>

> As a response to the IOM report, a columnist included this idiotic

> proposal along with the statement that mold is no more dangerous than

> ketcup. http://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/20040601_moldstudy.htm

>

> What is equally ludicrous is that no matter what the test results

> are, columnist says the seller will still be off the hook.

> According to , the seller is off the hook if 1) the buyer

> refuses to get tested, 2) the buyer tests negative because there is

> no problem and 3) the buyer tests positive and therefore is informed.

> So why test? What is Mr really saying? I think part of what we

> can learn from him is that his ideas have no more relavence to the

> subject than ketcup.

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

> -----------

> > I have to agree with you and Janet on this one. A common

> > misperception in

> > most medical articles is that mold only affects those with a

> > pre-existing sensitivity.

> >

> > Like many people, I went through many years allergy free before

> > starting

> > to have a progressively worsening cough develop at age 47, following

> > prolonged exposure to some bio-aerosol in my work environment.

> > Eventually, it got to the point of severe coughing starting on my

> > first breath in the workplace. Interestingly, allergy testing failed

> > to identify any allergen. The cough subsided when away from the

> > workplace for weekends and vacations, and improved greatly with

> > retirement. the sensitivity has lessened, but still strikes

> > occasionally with the right mold exposure, three years after leaving

> > the problem initiating site.

> >

> > Such an act as proposed here may protect the seller, but will do

> > nothing

> > to protect unsuspecting buyers who may not start having health

> > problems for a year or more.

> >

> > Gil

> >

> >

> > Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 17:44:11 -0400

> > From: " Armstrong " <hobbflorida@a...>

> > Subject: mold testing prior to purchase

> >

> > Do any of you believe this suggestion -- to have your family tested

> > for mold allergies before you buy, to protect the seller? What about

> > homes like many of ours that don't initially have mold, but then

> > develop the problem? Should builders be let off the hook too?

> > Armstrong, President Florida Chapter HOBB www.hobb.org

> >

> > " Sellers might want to consider a new real estate contingency: Buyers

> > and all prospective residents of a home should be required to obtain

> > medical tests within 10 days of making a purchase offer showing they

> > are free and clear of any significant adverse reactions to household

> > mold, spores and fungi. The failure to take such tests would

> > automatically end any seller liability for such conditions. And, if

> > the test results are positive, seller liability would again be

> > terminated because the buyers have a previous condition, know about

> > the condition prior to closing, and are on notice regarding the

> > problem. "

> >

> > _________________________________________________________________ FREE

> > pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!

> > http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Gil, Janet & others,

Gil wrote------->A common misperception in most medical articles is

that mold only affects those with a pre-existing sensitivity.

The IOM report has a whole chapter on this:

Chapter 4 -- Toxic Effects of Fungi and Bacteria

" Although a great deal of attention has focused on the effects of

bacteria and fungi mediated by allergic responses, these

microorganisms also cause nonallergic responses. Studies of health

effects associated with exposure to bacteria and fungi show that

respiratory and other effects that resemble allergic responses occur

in nonatopic persons. " (page 109)

FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND RESEARCH NEEDS

" On the basis of its review of the papers, reports, and other

information presented in this chapter, the committee has reached

several findings and recommendations and has identified several

research needs regarding the nonallergic effects of molds and

bacteria found in damp indoor environments. " (page 142)

They then list a series of logical statements beginning with mold and

bacteria are know to produce toxins, there are animal studies but not

enough human studies to draw a conclusion. Among them:

" in vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated adverse

effects—including immunotoxic, neurologic, respiratory, and dermal

responses—after exposure to specific toxins, bacteria, molds, or

their products. (page 143).

" In vitro and in vivo research on Stachybotrys chartarum suggests

that effects in humans may be biologically plausible; these

observations require validation from more extensive research before

conclusions can be drawn. " (page 143).

They then suggest animal studies for inhalation of low level, long

term exposures " in order to generate information for risk assessment

that is not available from studies of acute, high-level exposures. "

(page 143).

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

Carl E.Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

grimes@...

303-671-9653

303-751-0416 fax

==================

[Guest guest]

Gil, Janet & others,

Gil wrote------->A common misperception in most medical articles is

that mold only affects those with a pre-existing sensitivity.

The IOM report has a whole chapter on this:

Chapter 4 -- Toxic Effects of Fungi and Bacteria

" Although a great deal of attention has focused on the effects of

bacteria and fungi mediated by allergic responses, these

microorganisms also cause nonallergic responses. Studies of health

effects associated with exposure to bacteria and fungi show that

respiratory and other effects that resemble allergic responses occur

in nonatopic persons. " (page 109)

FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND RESEARCH NEEDS

" On the basis of its review of the papers, reports, and other

information presented in this chapter, the committee has reached

several findings and recommendations and has identified several

research needs regarding the nonallergic effects of molds and

bacteria found in damp indoor environments. " (page 142)

They then list a series of logical statements beginning with mold and

bacteria are know to produce toxins, there are animal studies but not

enough human studies to draw a conclusion. Among them:

" in vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated adverse

effects—including immunotoxic, neurologic, respiratory, and dermal

responses—after exposure to specific toxins, bacteria, molds, or

their products. (page 143).

" In vitro and in vivo research on Stachybotrys chartarum suggests

that effects in humans may be biologically plausible; these

observations require validation from more extensive research before

conclusions can be drawn. " (page 143).

They then suggest animal studies for inhalation of low level, long

term exposures " in order to generate information for risk assessment

that is not available from studies of acute, high-level exposures. "

(page 143).

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

Carl E.Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

grimes@...

303-671-9653

303-751-0416 fax

==================

[Guest guest]

=

> Gil, Janet & others,

>

> " in vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated adverse

> effects—including immunotoxic, neurologic, respiratory, and dermal

> responses—after exposure to specific toxins, bacteria, molds, or

> their products. (page 143).

Good grief -- this is from the study that was summarized by the IoM panel w=

ith the following statement?

" The committee found very few studies that have examined whether mold or ot=

her factors associated with indoor dampness are linked to fatigue,

neuropsychiatric disorders, or other health problems that some people have =

attributed to fungal infestations of buildings. The little evidence that is =

available does not support an association, but because of the dearth of wel=

l conducted studies and reliable data, the committee could not rule out the =

possibility. "

The press releases that were internally generated by the IoM for this are l=

ooking increasingly inconsistant with the actual content of the study.

[Guest guest]

=

> Gil, Janet & others,

>

> " in vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated adverse

> effects—including immunotoxic, neurologic, respiratory, and dermal

> responses—after exposure to specific toxins, bacteria, molds, or

> their products. (page 143).

Good grief -- this is from the study that was summarized by the IoM panel w=

ith the following statement?

" The committee found very few studies that have examined whether mold or ot=

her factors associated with indoor dampness are linked to fatigue,

neuropsychiatric disorders, or other health problems that some people have =

attributed to fungal infestations of buildings. The little evidence that is =

available does not support an association, but because of the dearth of wel=

l conducted studies and reliable data, the committee could not rule out the =

possibility. "

The press releases that were internally generated by the IoM for this are l=

ooking increasingly inconsistant with the actual content of the study.

[Guest guest]

,

" in vitro " and " in vivo " studies are not human studies. What the

report is saying is that there is evidence in other types of studies

but not enough to be a conclusive causation for humans, There is

another section of the report that discusses why they can't use these

studies as a substitute for humans. Just think animal testing of

cosmetics or prescription drugs. How many of those are " safe " for

rats or rabbits but not for people? Or drugs that require different

dosages for infants, elderly, male, female, etc.

The defintions and word usage in the report are consistent with their

definitions, not deceptive.

Carl

------------> =

>

> > Gil, Janet & others,

> >

> > " in vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated adverse

> > effects—including immunotoxic, neurologic, respiratory, and dermal

> > responses—after exposure to specific toxins, bacteria, molds, or

> > their products. (page 143).

>

> Good grief -- this is from the study that was summarized by the IoM

> panel w= ith the following statement?

>

> " The committee found very few studies that have examined whether mold

> or ot= her factors associated with indoor dampness are linked to

> fatigue, neuropsychiatric disorders, or other health problems that

> some people have = attributed to fungal infestations of buildings. The

> little evidence that is =

>

> available does not support an association, but because of the dearth

> of wel= l conducted studies and reliable data, the committee could not

> rule out the =

>

> possibility. "

>

> The press releases that were internally generated by the IoM for this

> are l= ooking increasingly inconsistant with the actual content of the

> study.

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

" in vitro " and " in vivo " studies are not human studies. What the

report is saying is that there is evidence in other types of studies

but not enough to be a conclusive causation for humans, There is

another section of the report that discusses why they can't use these

studies as a substitute for humans. Just think animal testing of

cosmetics or prescription drugs. How many of those are " safe " for

rats or rabbits but not for people? Or drugs that require different

dosages for infants, elderly, male, female, etc.

The defintions and word usage in the report are consistent with their

definitions, not deceptive.

Carl

------------> =

>

> > Gil, Janet & others,

> >

> > " in vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated adverse

> > effects—including immunotoxic, neurologic, respiratory, and dermal

> > responses—after exposure to specific toxins, bacteria, molds, or

> > their products. (page 143).

>

> Good grief -- this is from the study that was summarized by the IoM

> panel w= ith the following statement?

>

> " The committee found very few studies that have examined whether mold

> or ot= her factors associated with indoor dampness are linked to

> fatigue, neuropsychiatric disorders, or other health problems that

> some people have = attributed to fungal infestations of buildings. The

> little evidence that is =

>

> available does not support an association, but because of the dearth

> of wel= l conducted studies and reliable data, the committee could not

> rule out the =

>

> possibility. "

>

> The press releases that were internally generated by the IoM for this

> are l= ooking increasingly inconsistant with the actual content of the

> study.

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/8/04 8:57:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

ebmarsh2003@... writes:

>

> You know what really chaps my hide? Well, I will tell you anyway! LOL!

> The Army has Biological warfare manuals that deal with Tricothecenes, as

> well as other mycotoxins. They have had this information for years. How

> can another Government agency make a statement like;

> " In vitro and in vivo research on Stachybotrys chartarum suggests

> that effects in humans may be biologically plausible; these

> observations require validation from more extensive research before

> conclusions can be drawn. " (page 143).

>

> Why do you think the government hides me and eont help me since I became ill

in onme of their moldy basements??

Janet

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/8/04 8:57:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

ebmarsh2003@... writes:

>

> You know what really chaps my hide? Well, I will tell you anyway! LOL!

> The Army has Biological warfare manuals that deal with Tricothecenes, as

> well as other mycotoxins. They have had this information for years. How

> can another Government agency make a statement like;

> " In vitro and in vivo research on Stachybotrys chartarum suggests

> that effects in humans may be biologically plausible; these

> observations require validation from more extensive research before

> conclusions can be drawn. " (page 143).

>

> Why do you think the government hides me and eont help me since I became ill

in onme of their moldy basements??

Janet

[Guest guest]

The government uses mold for biowarfare. That is why as a federal employee

who got sick from a moldy basement, I was covered up and gotten rid of. I am now

having an EEO case pending discrimination because of disability as I was

forced to go on disability or they would terminate me. I wrote to the Chief of

Naval Operations at the Pentagon and he sent me to a place where I can make a

claim against the Navy for Damage, Injury, or Death. I HAVE FOUGHT THE

GOVERNMENT

SYSTEM for a year and a half now. I lose every which way I go. I have even

written the President three times. My senators would do nothing for me never

mind the nut jobs at workmen's comp calling me a liar.

THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS yet they had their own military doctors tell me I am

crazy, take my pills, be a good little girl and leave the Portsmouth Naval

Shipyard. I am INCENSED with the selfish, in competent lying agents of the

government.

Thank you for letting me stand on my soapbox.

Janet

[Guest guest]

The government uses mold for biowarfare. That is why as a federal employee

who got sick from a moldy basement, I was covered up and gotten rid of. I am now

having an EEO case pending discrimination because of disability as I was

forced to go on disability or they would terminate me. I wrote to the Chief of

Naval Operations at the Pentagon and he sent me to a place where I can make a

claim against the Navy for Damage, Injury, or Death. I HAVE FOUGHT THE

GOVERNMENT

SYSTEM for a year and a half now. I lose every which way I go. I have even

written the President three times. My senators would do nothing for me never

mind the nut jobs at workmen's comp calling me a liar.

THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS yet they had their own military doctors tell me I am

crazy, take my pills, be a good little girl and leave the Portsmouth Naval

Shipyard. I am INCENSED with the selfish, in competent lying agents of the

government.

Thank you for letting me stand on my soapbox.

Janet

[Guest guest]

You know what really chaps my hide? Well, I will tell you anyway! LOL!

The Army has Biological warfare manuals that deal with Tricothecenes, as

well as other mycotoxins. They have had this information for years. How

can another Government agency make a statement like;

" In vitro and in vivo research on Stachybotrys chartarum suggests

that effects in humans may be biologically plausible; these

observations require validation from more extensive research before

conclusions can be drawn. " (page 143).

without knowing about the Army documents? Please find attached *.pdf.

Brad Marsh

-----Original Message-----

From: Carl E. Grimes [mailto:grimes@...]

Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 9:10 PM

Subject: Re: [] RE: mold testing prior to purchase

Gil, Janet & others,

Gil wrote------->A common misperception in most medical articles is

that mold only affects those with a pre-existing sensitivity.

The IOM report has a whole chapter on this:

Chapter 4 -- Toxic Effects of Fungi and Bacteria

" Although a great deal of attention has focused on the effects of

bacteria and fungi mediated by allergic responses, these

microorganisms also cause nonallergic responses. Studies of health

effects associated with exposure to bacteria and fungi show that

respiratory and other effects that resemble allergic responses occur

in nonatopic persons. " (page 109)

FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND RESEARCH NEEDS

" On the basis of its review of the papers, reports, and other

information presented in this chapter, the committee has reached

several findings and recommendations and has identified several

research needs regarding the nonallergic effects of molds and

bacteria found in damp indoor environments. " (page 142)

They then list a series of logical statements beginning with mold and

bacteria are know to produce toxins, there are animal studies but not

enough human studies to draw a conclusion. Among them:

" in vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated adverse

effects—including immunotoxic, neurologic, respiratory, and dermal

responses—after exposure to specific toxins, bacteria, molds, or

their products. (page 143).

" In vitro and in vivo research on Stachybotrys chartarum suggests

that effects in humans may be biologically plausible; these

observations require validation from more extensive research before

conclusions can be drawn. " (page 143).

They then suggest animal studies for inhalation of low level, long

term exposures " in order to generate information for risk assessment

that is not available from studies of acute, high-level exposures. "

(page 143).

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

Carl E.Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

grimes@...

303-671-9653

303-751-0416 fax

==================

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]

You know what really chaps my hide? Well, I will tell you anyway! LOL!

The Army has Biological warfare manuals that deal with Tricothecenes, as

well as other mycotoxins. They have had this information for years. How

can another Government agency make a statement like;

" In vitro and in vivo research on Stachybotrys chartarum suggests

that effects in humans may be biologically plausible; these

observations require validation from more extensive research before

conclusions can be drawn. " (page 143).

without knowing about the Army documents? Please find attached *.pdf.

Brad Marsh

-----Original Message-----

From: Carl E. Grimes [mailto:grimes@...]

Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 9:10 PM

Subject: Re: [] RE: mold testing prior to purchase

Gil, Janet & others,

Gil wrote------->A common misperception in most medical articles is

that mold only affects those with a pre-existing sensitivity.

The IOM report has a whole chapter on this:

Chapter 4 -- Toxic Effects of Fungi and Bacteria

" Although a great deal of attention has focused on the effects of

bacteria and fungi mediated by allergic responses, these

microorganisms also cause nonallergic responses. Studies of health

effects associated with exposure to bacteria and fungi show that

respiratory and other effects that resemble allergic responses occur

in nonatopic persons. " (page 109)

FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND RESEARCH NEEDS

" On the basis of its review of the papers, reports, and other

information presented in this chapter, the committee has reached

several findings and recommendations and has identified several

research needs regarding the nonallergic effects of molds and

bacteria found in damp indoor environments. " (page 142)

They then list a series of logical statements beginning with mold and

bacteria are know to produce toxins, there are animal studies but not

enough human studies to draw a conclusion. Among them:

" in vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated adverse

effects—including immunotoxic, neurologic, respiratory, and dermal

responses—after exposure to specific toxins, bacteria, molds, or

their products. (page 143).

" In vitro and in vivo research on Stachybotrys chartarum suggests

that effects in humans may be biologically plausible; these

observations require validation from more extensive research before

conclusions can be drawn. " (page 143).

They then suggest animal studies for inhalation of low level, long

term exposures " in order to generate information for risk assessment

that is not available from studies of acute, high-level exposures. "

(page 143).

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

Carl E.Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

grimes@...

303-671-9653

303-751-0416 fax

==================

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]

Trying again with the attachment.

-----Original Message-----

From: Brad Marsh [mailto:ebmarsh2003@...]

Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 6:51 AM

Subject: RE: [] RE: mold testing prior to purchase

You know what really chaps my hide? Well, I will tell you anyway! LOL!

The Army has Biological warfare manuals that deal with Tricothecenes, as

well as other mycotoxins. They have had this information for years. How

can another Government agency make a statement like;

" In vitro and in vivo research on Stachybotrys chartarum suggests

that effects in humans may be biologically plausible; these

observations require validation from more extensive research before

conclusions can be drawn. " (page 143).

without knowing about the Army documents? Please find attached *.pdf.

Brad Marsh

-----Original Message-----

From: Carl E. Grimes [mailto:grimes@...]

Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 9:10 PM

Subject: Re: [] RE: mold testing prior to purchase

Gil, Janet & others,

Gil wrote------->A common misperception in most medical articles is

that mold only affects those with a pre-existing sensitivity.

The IOM report has a whole chapter on this:

Chapter 4 -- Toxic Effects of Fungi and Bacteria

" Although a great deal of attention has focused on the effects of

bacteria and fungi mediated by allergic responses, these

microorganisms also cause nonallergic responses. Studies of health

effects associated with exposure to bacteria and fungi show that

respiratory and other effects that resemble allergic responses occur

in nonatopic persons. " (page 109)

FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND RESEARCH NEEDS

" On the basis of its review of the papers, reports, and other

information presented in this chapter, the committee has reached

several findings and recommendations and has identified several

research needs regarding the nonallergic effects of molds and

bacteria found in damp indoor environments. " (page 142)

They then list a series of logical statements beginning with mold and

bacteria are know to produce toxins, there are animal studies but not

enough human studies to draw a conclusion. Among them:

" in vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated adverse

effects—including immunotoxic, neurologic, respiratory, and dermal

responses—after exposure to specific toxins, bacteria, molds, or

their products. (page 143).

" In vitro and in vivo research on Stachybotrys chartarum suggests

that effects in humans may be biologically plausible; these

observations require validation from more extensive research before

conclusions can be drawn. " (page 143).

They then suggest animal studies for inhalation of low level, long

term exposures " in order to generate information for risk assessment

that is not available from studies of acute, high-level exposures. "

(page 143).

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

Carl E.Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

grimes@...

303-671-9653

303-751-0416 fax

==================

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]

Trying again with the attachment.

-----Original Message-----

From: Brad Marsh [mailto:ebmarsh2003@...]

Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 6:51 AM

Subject: RE: [] RE: mold testing prior to purchase

You know what really chaps my hide? Well, I will tell you anyway! LOL!

The Army has Biological warfare manuals that deal with Tricothecenes, as

well as other mycotoxins. They have had this information for years. How

can another Government agency make a statement like;

" In vitro and in vivo research on Stachybotrys chartarum suggests

that effects in humans may be biologically plausible; these

observations require validation from more extensive research before

conclusions can be drawn. " (page 143).

without knowing about the Army documents? Please find attached *.pdf.

Brad Marsh

-----Original Message-----

From: Carl E. Grimes [mailto:grimes@...]

Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 9:10 PM

Subject: Re: [] RE: mold testing prior to purchase

Gil, Janet & others,

Gil wrote------->A common misperception in most medical articles is

that mold only affects those with a pre-existing sensitivity.

The IOM report has a whole chapter on this:

Chapter 4 -- Toxic Effects of Fungi and Bacteria

" Although a great deal of attention has focused on the effects of

bacteria and fungi mediated by allergic responses, these

microorganisms also cause nonallergic responses. Studies of health

effects associated with exposure to bacteria and fungi show that

respiratory and other effects that resemble allergic responses occur

in nonatopic persons. " (page 109)

FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND RESEARCH NEEDS

" On the basis of its review of the papers, reports, and other

information presented in this chapter, the committee has reached

several findings and recommendations and has identified several

research needs regarding the nonallergic effects of molds and

bacteria found in damp indoor environments. " (page 142)

They then list a series of logical statements beginning with mold and

bacteria are know to produce toxins, there are animal studies but not

enough human studies to draw a conclusion. Among them:

" in vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated adverse

effects—including immunotoxic, neurologic, respiratory, and dermal

responses—after exposure to specific toxins, bacteria, molds, or

their products. (page 143).

" In vitro and in vivo research on Stachybotrys chartarum suggests

that effects in humans may be biologically plausible; these

observations require validation from more extensive research before

conclusions can be drawn. " (page 143).

They then suggest animal studies for inhalation of low level, long

term exposures " in order to generate information for risk assessment

that is not available from studies of acute, high-level exposures. "

(page 143).

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

Carl E.Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

grimes@...

303-671-9653

303-751-0416 fax

==================

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]

Well, since I can't attach the file, here is the link to all the military

NBC (nuclear biological and chemical warfare) documentation.

http://www.nbc-med.org/SiteContent/HomePage/WhatsNew/MedAspects/contents.htm

l

-----Original Message-----

From: Brad Marsh [mailto:ebmarsh2003@...]

Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 7:19 AM

Subject: RE: [] RE: mold testing prior to purchase

Trying again with the attachment.

-----Original Message-----

From: Brad Marsh [mailto:ebmarsh2003@...]

Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 6:51 AM

Subject: RE: [] RE: mold testing prior to purchase

You know what really chaps my hide? Well, I will tell you anyway! LOL!

The Army has Biological warfare manuals that deal with Tricothecenes, as

well as other mycotoxins. They have had this information for years.

How

can another Government agency make a statement like;

" In vitro and in vivo research on Stachybotrys chartarum suggests

that effects in humans may be biologically plausible; these

observations require validation from more extensive research before

conclusions can be drawn. " (page 143).

without knowing about the Army documents? Please find attached *.pdf.

Brad Marsh

-----Original Message-----

From: Carl E. Grimes [mailto:grimes@...]

Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 9:10 PM

Subject: Re: [] RE: mold testing prior to purchase

Gil, Janet & others,

Gil wrote------->A common misperception in most medical articles is

that mold only affects those with a pre-existing sensitivity.

The IOM report has a whole chapter on this:

Chapter 4 -- Toxic Effects of Fungi and Bacteria

" Although a great deal of attention has focused on the effects of

bacteria and fungi mediated by allergic responses, these

microorganisms also cause nonallergic responses. Studies of health

effects associated with exposure to bacteria and fungi show that

respiratory and other effects that resemble allergic responses occur

in nonatopic persons. " (page 109)

FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND RESEARCH NEEDS

" On the basis of its review of the papers, reports, and other

information presented in this chapter, the committee has reached

several findings and recommendations and has identified several

research needs regarding the nonallergic effects of molds and

bacteria found in damp indoor environments. " (page 142)

They then list a series of logical statements beginning with mold and

bacteria are know to produce toxins, there are animal studies but not

enough human studies to draw a conclusion. Among them:

" in vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated adverse

effects—including immunotoxic, neurologic, respiratory, and dermal

responses—after exposure to specific toxins, bacteria, molds, or

their products. (page 143).

" In vitro and in vivo research on Stachybotrys chartarum suggests

that effects in humans may be biologically plausible; these

observations require validation from more extensive research before

conclusions can be drawn. " (page 143).

They then suggest animal studies for inhalation of low level, long

term exposures " in order to generate information for risk assessment

that is not available from studies of acute, high-level exposures. "

(page 143).

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

Carl E.Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

grimes@...

303-671-9653

303-751-0416 fax

==================

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]

Well, since I can't attach the file, here is the link to all the military

NBC (nuclear biological and chemical warfare) documentation.

http://www.nbc-med.org/SiteContent/HomePage/WhatsNew/MedAspects/contents.htm

l

-----Original Message-----

From: Brad Marsh [mailto:ebmarsh2003@...]

Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 7:19 AM

Subject: RE: [] RE: mold testing prior to purchase

Trying again with the attachment.

-----Original Message-----

From: Brad Marsh [mailto:ebmarsh2003@...]

Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 6:51 AM

Subject: RE: [] RE: mold testing prior to purchase

You know what really chaps my hide? Well, I will tell you anyway! LOL!

The Army has Biological warfare manuals that deal with Tricothecenes, as

well as other mycotoxins. They have had this information for years.

How

can another Government agency make a statement like;

" In vitro and in vivo research on Stachybotrys chartarum suggests

that effects in humans may be biologically plausible; these

observations require validation from more extensive research before

conclusions can be drawn. " (page 143).

without knowing about the Army documents? Please find attached *.pdf.

Brad Marsh

-----Original Message-----

From: Carl E. Grimes [mailto:grimes@...]

Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 9:10 PM

Subject: Re: [] RE: mold testing prior to purchase

Gil, Janet & others,

Gil wrote------->A common misperception in most medical articles is

that mold only affects those with a pre-existing sensitivity.

The IOM report has a whole chapter on this:

Chapter 4 -- Toxic Effects of Fungi and Bacteria

" Although a great deal of attention has focused on the effects of

bacteria and fungi mediated by allergic responses, these

microorganisms also cause nonallergic responses. Studies of health

effects associated with exposure to bacteria and fungi show that

respiratory and other effects that resemble allergic responses occur

in nonatopic persons. " (page 109)

FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND RESEARCH NEEDS

" On the basis of its review of the papers, reports, and other

information presented in this chapter, the committee has reached

several findings and recommendations and has identified several

research needs regarding the nonallergic effects of molds and

bacteria found in damp indoor environments. " (page 142)

They then list a series of logical statements beginning with mold and

bacteria are know to produce toxins, there are animal studies but not

enough human studies to draw a conclusion. Among them:

" in vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated adverse

effects—including immunotoxic, neurologic, respiratory, and dermal

responses—after exposure to specific toxins, bacteria, molds, or

their products. (page 143).

" In vitro and in vivo research on Stachybotrys chartarum suggests

that effects in humans may be biologically plausible; these

observations require validation from more extensive research before

conclusions can be drawn. " (page 143).

They then suggest animal studies for inhalation of low level, long

term exposures " in order to generate information for risk assessment

that is not available from studies of acute, high-level exposures. "

(page 143).

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

Carl E.Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

grimes@...

303-671-9653

303-751-0416 fax

==================

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]

" Brad Marsh " <ebmarsh2003@y...> wrote:

> The Army has Biological warfare manuals that deal with

Tricothecenes, as well as other mycotoxins.

Funny you should refer to that.

When I realized the nature of my response to mycotoxins and

recognized that it was comparable to battlefield nerve agent attacks,

I responded by using the CBR warfare training I received as a Nuclear

Missile Launcher specialist.

It was reponding to my training in nerve agents that made the

difference between being overpowered by exposure and taking control

of my symptoms.

However, the highly distinctive lack of response from " mold experts "

and MCS specialists in my story indicates that they would rather rely

on herbs and medicines to counter what is essentially a scenario of

controlling nerve agent exposure.

The reported results of these approaches suggest that they are

somewhat less than effective.

-

[Guest guest]

" Brad Marsh " <ebmarsh2003@y...> wrote:

> The Army has Biological warfare manuals that deal with

Tricothecenes, as well as other mycotoxins.

Funny you should refer to that.

When I realized the nature of my response to mycotoxins and

recognized that it was comparable to battlefield nerve agent attacks,

I responded by using the CBR warfare training I received as a Nuclear

Missile Launcher specialist.

It was reponding to my training in nerve agents that made the

difference between being overpowered by exposure and taking control

of my symptoms.

However, the highly distinctive lack of response from " mold experts "

and MCS specialists in my story indicates that they would rather rely

on herbs and medicines to counter what is essentially a scenario of

controlling nerve agent exposure.

The reported results of these approaches suggest that they are

somewhat less than effective.

-

[Guest guest]

Carl --

Again, thanks for the clarification.

I will obviously have to go through the original document to get the proper=

context. The introductory statements are not serving my understanding.

=

> >

> > > Gil, Janet & others,

> > >

> > > " in vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated adverse

> > > effects—including immunotoxic, neurologic, respiratory, and dermal

> > > responses—after exposure to specific toxins, bacteria, molds, or

> > > their products. (page 143).

> >

> > Good grief -- this is from the study that was summarized by the IoM

> > panel w= ith the following statement?

> >

> > " The committee found very few studies that have examined whether mold

> > or ot= her factors associated with indoor dampness are linked to

> > fatigue, neuropsychiatric disorders, or other health problems that

> > some people have = attributed to fungal infestations of buildings. The

> > little evidence that is =

> >

> > available does not support an association, but because of the dearth

> > of wel= l conducted studies and reliable data, the committee could not

> > rule out the =

> >

> > possibility. "

> >

> > The press releases that were internally generated by the IoM for this

> > are l= ooking increasingly inconsistant with the actual content of the

> > study.

> >

> >