UPDATE on: Re: Looking for ADVICE & SUGGESTIONS regarding Stachy testing...

[Guest guest]

Thanks , your reply was helpful. It makes me feel like I'm not

alone in the craziness of all of the " answers " that the " experts "

give.

I have another question for you. I suspect I know your answer. What

if one would be near a body of water that has a tide that comes and

goes, would that person be exposed to toxins when the tide is out and

it smells funny? Would the wind blow across it and blow it to them?

The doctors I've spoken with have thought it wouldn't be a problem,

but it seems kinda similar to mold plumes you've written about

encountering in the air.

Signed: Get Rid of Mold (G.R.o.M.)

>

> > This is a frustrating experience. I don't know what to do or

> believe.

> > I just want to get/be well. They definitely didn't seem too clued

> in to the toxin part of the mold issue and apparently testing for

> toxins is WAY more expensive than testing for mold spores. It

sounds

> like the fact that there really aren't any standards for how many

> spores are typical/normal makes it harder to interpret the test

> results and make sense of them.

> >

> > Signed: Get Rid of Mold

>

> Yes. That's the problem.

> The tests don't yield relevant information that can be used to act

> as a guide for action.

> This should be obvious to anyone with just a quick review of the

> characteristics of mycotoxin production.

> For example, when researchers tried to assess Stachy toxicity by

> isolating and culturing a strain, they found it was not toxic at

all.

> Turns out that Stachy doesn't even bother to produce toxins at all

> unless it senses the presence of a competitor.

> And of course, there is the complicating matter of potentiated

> toxin production according to different substrates.

> The bottom line is that even the same species of mold can produce

> spores of widely varying toxicity from the very same colony.

> And even if you DID find the most toxic ones and test those alone,

> it STILL wouldn't give you useful information about the ambient

> levels of the total spore burden.

> But even if you blanketed the entire structure to measure total

> mycotoxin load, it STILL wouldn't tell you anything about OTHER

> exposures.

> There can be no useful " standards " for toxicity measurements under

> these circumstances.

> That's why I've been spending all these years saying that these

> tests mean nothing to me and that if I had relied on the advice

> of " experts " who keep insisting that they have an comprehension of

> this problem, I'd still be sick as a dog.

> These " experts " aren't even close to understanding the

complexities

> involved, and their advice is not only insufficient to address the

> problems of people living at an extreme level of reactivity, their

> advice is actually counterproductive and misleading as well.

> It runs you around in circles until you wind up back where you

were,

> and still wondering why their advice doesn't make sense.

>

> It's because it doesn't.

> Think of the people who are reactive to peanuts that I mention in

> Mold Warriors. None of the conventional testing or concepts

> of " Where you will find peanuts " and " How much is enough to cause a

> reaction " applies to them.

> Same thing for people who are extreme mold responders.

>

> Well, " G.R.o.M " ,

> Sounds like you are starting to get a sense that " mold experts " are

> fairly clueless about your situation.

> Believe yourself! Your own perceptions must be your guide.

> -