Guest guest Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 MY OPINION: Who says the most dangerous man is Osmama..... Talk about a paid industry whore...... The aforemention comments were my opinion and if this *doctor* tries to litigate for libel he is sol.... Angel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:09:40 -0500 From: " Gots, E. " <REGots@...> Occ-Env-Med-L@... Subject: [OEM] Dear Mike, Bonnie and respondents to my posting: First, in response to Mike XXXXX question re my article. It was as I cited it: Multiple Chemical Sensitivities: Psychogenic or Toxicodynamic Origins, Gots and Pirages, International Journal of Toxicology, 18:393-400, 1999. (NOT Regulatory Toxicology...). Secondly, a comment about the three people in Bonnie's situation. If people are sick, they, not the environment, needs to be examined first. I gather that two of them have not permitted that. This story is quite reminiscent of one presented a number of years ago on 20/20 arising at Cornell University. Nothing worked. At the end the four employees wanted a new building built specifically for them. In other words, one can chase ghosts with more and more irrelevant and, ultimately, not satisfying, environmental tests. Dr. Hedge, Cornell, mentioned by a respondent and the coauthor of book with me (Keeping Buildings Health, Wiley and Son), investigated that group of people. Next, the CO2 concept is worth testing. It's easy to do and inexpensive, but it will probably be unrevealing. After all, these workers complain in every building and no one else is involved. They need to be treated with great sensitivity and understanding, but they also need to confront the need to deal behaviorally with their symptoms. Finally, a couple of brief comments regarding responses to my earlier posting. The term " all in your head " is a pejorative and should be banished. It serves no purpose but to inflame and disengage the patient. That said, the other comment about the need to eliminate this duality of causal notions because they are relevant only to the legal applications is equally flawed. I evaluated a senior executive of a major corporation-Ex VP of a $15 billion telecom company-who believed that the building was making him sick. This was expanding and in the very early stages of potential debilitation. After a negative investigation of the building, we embarked on a behavioral therapy program which salvaged the career of a man in his prime. Had I acceded to his pure somatic, toxicological attribution I personally would have been responsible for ending an illustrious professional life. The result was a happy one. He is doing very well. Lastly, though the legal aspects of cause separation, psychodynamic versus toxicodynamic have been derided, they are, like it or not, our responsibility. They contribute to decisions that affect lifelong employment, approaches to care and they also determine responsibility. Should anyone who doesn't feel well and believes that the workplace agents are the cause, be declared disabled and compensated for life. I don''t think so, but others may disagree.. E. Gots, M.D., Ph.D. --------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 > > > > MY OPINION: > > Who says the most dangerous man is Osmama..... > > Talk about a paid industry whore...... > > The aforemention comments were my opinion and if this *doctor* tries to > litigate for libel he is sol.... > > Angel > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:09:40 -0500 > From: " Gots, E. " <REGots@I...> > Occ-Env-Med-L@M... > Subject: [OEM] > > Dear Mike, Bonnie and respondents to my posting: > > First, in response to Mike XXXXX question re my article. It was as I > cited it: Multiple Chemical Sensitivities: Psychogenic or Toxicodynamic > Origins, Gots and Pirages, International Journal of Toxicology, 18:393-400, > 1999. (NOT Regulatory Toxicology...). Secondly, a comment about the three > people in Bonnie's situation. If people are sick, they, not the > environment, needs to be examined first. I gather that two of them have not > permitted that. This story is quite reminiscent of one presented a number > of years ago on 20/20 arising at Cornell University. Nothing worked. At the > end the four employees wanted a new building built specifically for them. > In other words, one can chase ghosts with more and more irrelevant and, > ultimately, not satisfying, environmental tests. Dr. Hedge, Cornell, > mentioned by a respondent and the coauthor of book with me (Keeping > Buildings Health, Wiley and Son), investigated that group of people. > Next, the CO2 concept is worth testing. It's easy to do and inexpensive, > but it will probably be unrevealing. After all, these workers complain in > every building and no one else is involved. They need to be treated with > great sensitivity and understanding, but they also need to confront the need > to deal behaviorally with their symptoms. > > Finally, a couple of brief comments regarding responses to my earlier > posting. The term " all in your head " is a pejorative and should be > banished. It serves no purpose but to inflame and disengage the patient. > That said, the other comment about the need to eliminate this duality of > causal notions because they are relevant only to the legal applications is > equally flawed. I evaluated a senior executive of a major corporation-Ex VP > of a $15 billion telecom company-who believed that the building was making > him sick. This was expanding and in the very early stages of potential > debilitation. After a negative investigation of the building, we embarked > on a behavioral therapy program which salvaged the career of a man in his > prime. Had I acceded to his pure somatic, toxicological attribution I > personally would have been responsible for ending an illustrious > professional life. The result was a happy one. He is doing very well. > Lastly, though the legal aspects of cause separation, psychodynamic versus > toxicodynamic have been derided, they are, like it or not, our > responsibility. They contribute to decisions that affect lifelong > employment, approaches to care and they also determine responsibility. > Should anyone who doesn't feel well and believes that the workplace agents > are the cause, be declared disabled and compensated for life. I don''t > think so, but others may disagree.. > > E. Gots, M.D., Ph.D. > > --------- Gee I guess that's why I ended up in a psychiatric hospital when I had cancer and was exposed to mold. I was so anemic from bleeding and the mold was making me vomit so they figured I I must have an eating disorder.... 47 days in two hospitals and I night in the emergency room between hospitals. Oh, and went into a " new age " pharmacy the other day I noticed that they had a list of poisonous plants. It said that it is a myth that poinsettias are dangerous to cats-- " that they are only a little bit toxic. Right. Like mold is only a little bit toxic. Who thinks of these things??? Lori and Meow Cat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted December 17, 2004 > > > > MY OPINION: > > Who says the most dangerous man is Osmama..... > > Talk about a paid industry whore...... > > The aforemention comments were my opinion and if this *doctor* tries to > litigate for libel he is sol.... > > Angel > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:09:40 -0500 > From: " Gots, E. " <REGots@I...> > Occ-Env-Med-L@M... > Subject: [OEM] > > Dear Mike, Bonnie and respondents to my posting: > > First, in response to Mike XXXXX question re my article. It was as I > cited it: Multiple Chemical Sensitivities: Psychogenic or Toxicodynamic > Origins, Gots and Pirages, International Journal of Toxicology, 18:393-400, > 1999. (NOT Regulatory Toxicology...). Secondly, a comment about the three > people in Bonnie's situation. If people are sick, they, not the > environment, needs to be examined first. I gather that two of them have not > permitted that. This story is quite reminiscent of one presented a number > of years ago on 20/20 arising at Cornell University. Nothing worked. At the > end the four employees wanted a new building built specifically for them. > In other words, one can chase ghosts with more and more irrelevant and, > ultimately, not satisfying, environmental tests. Dr. Hedge, Cornell, > mentioned by a respondent and the coauthor of book with me (Keeping > Buildings Health, Wiley and Son), investigated that group of people. > Next, the CO2 concept is worth testing. It's easy to do and inexpensive, > but it will probably be unrevealing. After all, these workers complain in > every building and no one else is involved. They need to be treated with > great sensitivity and understanding, but they also need to confront the need > to deal behaviorally with their symptoms. > > Finally, a couple of brief comments regarding responses to my earlier > posting. The term " all in your head " is a pejorative and should be > banished. It serves no purpose but to inflame and disengage the patient. > That said, the other comment about the need to eliminate this duality of > causal notions because they are relevant only to the legal applications is > equally flawed. I evaluated a senior executive of a major corporation-Ex VP > of a $15 billion telecom company-who believed that the building was making > him sick. This was expanding and in the very early stages of potential > debilitation. After a negative investigation of the building, we embarked > on a behavioral therapy program which salvaged the career of a man in his > prime. Had I acceded to his pure somatic, toxicological attribution I > personally would have been responsible for ending an illustrious > professional life. The result was a happy one. He is doing very well. > Lastly, though the legal aspects of cause separation, psychodynamic versus > toxicodynamic have been derided, they are, like it or not, our > responsibility. They contribute to decisions that affect lifelong > employment, approaches to care and they also determine responsibility. > Should anyone who doesn't feel well and believes that the workplace agents > are the cause, be declared disabled and compensated for life. I don''t > think so, but others may disagree.. > > E. Gots, M.D., Ph.D. > > --------- Gee I guess that's why I ended up in a psychiatric hospital when I had cancer and was exposed to mold. I was so anemic from bleeding and the mold was making me vomit so they figured I I must have an eating disorder.... 47 days in two hospitals and I night in the emergency room between hospitals. Oh, and went into a " new age " pharmacy the other day I noticed that they had a list of poisonous plants. It said that it is a myth that poinsettias are dangerous to cats-- " that they are only a little bit toxic. Right. Like mold is only a little bit toxic. Who thinks of these things??? Lori and Meow Cat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.