The CDC Document/ Who would like to help?

[Guest guest]

Hi Guys,

I have read the CDC doc. It has many holes and weazel words within it. The

biggest problem they have is the science. There is nothing to support that

what we are experiencing is not real. I have been asking around among many

professionals. The only two docs that say it is not plausible we are ill is

the ACOEM Mold Statement, which is based on mathematical extrapolations of

acute rat studies to deduce human illness- not current accepted scientific

evidence. And the other is that piece the ACAAI allergists just put out where

the

defense expert witness re-examined his own work and deduced he was right, not

taking into account the clinical findings of other physicians who examined

the same patients. It had no scientific data whatsoever to actually deny these

illnesses as real. It was a marketing piece. Then their buddies, who are

also allergists attempted to put a psychological spin to say this is all just

an

illness of litigation. Allergists are not psychologists. If I was a self

respecting member of the ACAAI - of which there are many - I would be

embarassed that this made it into the association journal as a scientific work

and was

then propagated as the Biblb of the ACAAI regarding mold induced illnesses.

So there is no legitimate science that says our illnesses are not plausible.

Yet there are a massive number of studies from various researchers and

clinicians from both the immunological and toxicological standpoint - that

indicate our illnesses can be substanciated, there is a world of anecdotal

information and numerous clinical findings that are easily documented.

Given these facts, if the CDC was acting in public interest, they would then

need to assume the illnesses are a threat to the public and act to

effectively warn the public. They have not done this.

We need to take that doc, split it up, and go down line by line to show the

shortcomings.

It is a 45 page doc of info. Not that tough as the majority of it is

accurate, yet stops short of giving complete information that assist people in

receiving effective and useful medical care.

Who would like to help?

I know how to split this up into several pdf's. Then put it back together

with our comments.

Sharon

_http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/mold/report/pdf/2005_moldreport.pdf_

(http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/mold/report/pdf/2005_moldreport.pdf)

It's getting better, but it is still weak and has quite a bit of double

speak as far as letting the public and the physicians know that neurological

and

cognitive dysfunctions may be caused by mold and toxin exposure.

Why did you not describe the symptoms of toxicity, given the fact that it is

known illness caused by being eaten or touched, and highly " suspected " from

being inhaled? You need emphasis on the cognitive and neurological impacts of

mold/toxins in this doc if it is really about public safety.

Why is your document slanted to imply inhaling toxicity from some mold

toxins is not probably, as opposed to erring on the side of public safety and

saying it is possible, has been reported and we just don't know?.

Are you aware of any doc that says it is not plausible besides the ACOEM

mold statement that was based on a single study of rats - high dose, acute?

You are putting out the same old thing.... people are going to experience

the neurotoxic and cognitive effects and be given prozac by an allergist.

How is this info going to the public and physicians?

Why does the CDC not recommend the UConn report like the EPA does?

I have read most of the document. Is there a way to cut and past

different paragraphs. I don't know how to do that on pdf format. It

is creepy how it tells the dangers of mold but then it doesn't. It

tells how dangerous the mold is but then there is no scientific data

bla bla bla. The bottom line is they still are not telling the truth

and many people are going to get very sick because they are protecting

their behinds. If I can cut and paste I could point out different

places that they go back and forth yes it is dangerous but there is no

scientific evidence type thing. But it does have alot of good info

and it is worth reading. Just about everything that is wrong with me is

in this document but the thing is I was very healthy before I had this

mold in my home. I got asthma, polyps, sinisititus, (spell), you name

it in a few months time. That is what they are not telling that mold

causes all of these illnesses.

,

I have read most of the document too, and totally agree with you!!! First

they tell you this and then they tell you something else, but the whole

time

they are dancing around trying not to tell you how serious it really

is!!!!!

It is absolutely amazing how they try to sugar coat it ,but in the same

sentence tell us that you should take great precautions around mold

cleanup!!! I

don't care what they say WE ALL KNOW THE TRUTH!!!!! I'm waiting for the

day

when they FINALLY admit the truth!! It just can't come soon enough for

sooooooo many!!!!!!

I don't know anyway to cut and paste in the pdf form either. I printed out

the entire document (52 pages) and am highlighting some of their points and

am slowly typing them out. There is a summary of the Institute of Medicine's

Damp Indoor Spaces and Health Review at

http://www.cdc.gov/mold/iom_sum.htm

They do list as sufficient evidence of an association: cough, wheeze, and

asthma symptoms in sensitized persons with asthma.

On the 2nd page they list upper respiratory tract symptoms as nasal

congestion, rhinitis, allergic rhinitis, " hay fever " , runny or itchy nose,

sinusitis,

and sore throat.

The list of lower respiratory tract symptoms include cough with or without

production of phlegm, wheeze, chest tightness, and shortness of breath.

They also include hypersensitivity pneumonitis as sufficient evidence of an

association.

The following is a direct quote from the opening statement by Noreen M.

, Ph.D., the chairperson of the committee at a news conference in May,

2004: " What little scientific data there is on links between indoor dampness

and

other health problems, such as fatigue and difficulty in concentrating, does

not support an association. However, because of the dearth of

well-conducted studies and reliable data, the committee could not rule out the

possibility

that a link might exist. " This can be found at:

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/s0309091934?OpenDocument

This statement is on the 2nd page of the document. I have had almost

every health problem listed and then some, so I'm not trying to discredit anyone

elses' symptoms. I believe you. I had to quit my job as a teacher 2 years

ago and am still sick. Some things are better, but some are worse. My

sinustis got so bad that I now have osteitis (inflamation and infection in the

bon

e). Some days I can't even get out of bed. I'll just repeat what I told

Sharon. Somehow we need to make public the statements that do support our

symptoms. As it is, the media is focusing on the articles like the one that

Bardana wrote, and nobody is refuting it in the media. I do agree that the

CDC is reluctant to make some of this information public. But it does need to

be made public somehow.

ldelp84227 <ldelp84227@...> wrote:

I have read most of the document. Is there a way to cut and past

different paragraphs. I don't know how to do that on pdf format. It

is creepy how it tells the dangers of mold but then it doesn't. It

tells how dangerous the mold is but then there is no scientific data

bla bla bla. The bottom line is they still are not telling the truth

and many people are going to get very sick because they are protecting

their behinds. If I can cut and paste I could point out different

places that they go back and forth yes it is dangerous but there is no

scientific evidence type thing. But it does have alot of good info

and it is worth reading. Just about everything that is wrong with me is

in this document but the thing is I was very healthy before I had this

mold in my home. I got asthma, polyps, sinisititus, (spell), you name

it in a few months time. That is what they are not telling that mold

causes all of these illnesses.

Hi . Yes we can copy and paste a PDF document. It's quite easy. In

the toolbar there is a " select " button, click that on and use that to copy

and paste. I just had time to read the report (sorry, been swamped lately)

and found some really interesting data in this report that even inhalation

can cause diseases. Here are three cut and pastes from the document that I

found interesting.

Rosie

Fungal Infections

Infection with fungal species that contaminated buildings, building

constituents, and the

environment after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is an important concern. In

general, individuals

with impaired host defenses (especially if impaired because of cell-mediated

immunity or

neutropenia) suffer the most severe types of fungal infections (Table 3).

However, invasive

fungal infections can also occur in individuals with normal host defenses

and, in certain

situations, can even be life threatening (Table 4).

Individuals at greatest risk for developing invasive fungal infection from

heavy fungal

contamination after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are those with impaired host

defenses (Table 3).

Any impairment in cell-mediated immunity or neutropenia (e.g., human

immunodeficiency virus

[HIV] infection, leukemia, lymphoma, diabetes mellitus) increases risk for

many types of

invasive fungal infections. Severely immunosuppressed individuals, such as

solid-organ or stemcell

transplant recipients, or those receiving cancer chemotherapy agents,

corticosteroids, or

other agents inhibiting immune function are at much higher risk for these

infections: locally

invasive infections of the lungs, sinuses, or skin; and systemic infections.

Aspergillus species,

zygomycetes, and Fusarium species are particularly important problems. These

serious

infections are often fatal, even with aggressive antifungal therapy.

Preventing Adverse Health Effects From Environmental Fungal

Contamination After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita

People should strive to reduce their exposure to molds as much as possible,

especially people

with underlying or induced immunosuppressed conditions or diseases caused by

immune

sensitization to fungal constituents present in mold growth. If exposure to

heavily moldcontaminated

materials is unavoidable, refer to Chapter 4, " Personal Protective

Equipment " and

Chapter 6, " Public Health Strategies and Recommendations " regarding proper

selection of

administrative, engineering, and personal protection controls. Because an

individual's likelihood

of developing adverse health effects from mold exposure depends on the type

of exposure and on

individual susceptibility, precautionary measures need to be customized. On

the basis of

experience and published study results, a reasonable approach to preventing

these conditions is

proposed in Chapter 6. In large part, these recommendations are based on

professional judgment

rather than on scientific evidence. For example, no research studies have

evaluated the

effectiveness of personal protective equipment in preventing illness from

mold exposure. Total

avoidance is suggested for individuals with specific underlying conditions

such as profound

immunosuppression. Respiratory protection, dermal protection, and occlusive

eye protection

recommendations are customized to various populations and

exposure-associated activities. It is

reasonable to assume that repeated or prolonged exposure poses a greater

health risk than do

28

exposures of a similar intensity, but short duration. Preventive precautions

are therefore

especially important for people who expect to be highly exposed for a long

time.

Health-Outcome Surveillance and Follow Up

State and local public health agencies do not generally collect information

on the conditions

related to mold exposure. Because of the large number of flooded and

mold-contaminated

buildings in New Orleans and the repopulation of those once-flooded areas, a

large number of

people are likely to be exposed to potentially hazardous levels of mold and

other microbial

agents.

Efforts to determine the health effects of these exposures and the

effectiveness of

recommendations to prevent these adverse health effects require a

surveillance strategy.

Developing such a strategy requires that federal and local health agencies

work together to

monitor trends in the incidence or prevalence of mold-related conditions

throughout the recovery

period.

Health outcomes that might be related to mold exposure include those listed

in Chapter 5.

Monitoring trends in these conditions will require substantial human and

financial resources and

will face several challenges. Health outcomes that may be attributed to mold

exposure fall into

several broad categories. Some potential health outcomes are rare, difficult

to diagnose, and

relatively specific for fungal exposure (e.g., blastomycosis). Other health

outcomes are relatively

easy to diagnose, but they have numerous etiologic factors and are difficult

to attribute

specifically to mold exposure (e.g., asthma exacerbations). Tracking

different health outcomes

that may be caused by mold exposure requires different surveillance methods.

In some cases,

follow-up research will be needed to verify that surveillance findings and

health outcomes are

the result of mold exposure. For some conditions, difficulties in

interpreting trends and in

relating the outcome to mold exposure may suggest that surveillance is not

an appropriate public

health approach.

Results of surveillance and follow-up activities will help CDC to refine the

guidelines for

exposure avoidance, personal protection, and cleanup. In addition, these

activities should assist

health departments to identify currently unrecognized hazards.

Surveillance

Public health agencies should consider collecting health outcome information

from health care

facilities to monitor the incidence or prevalence of selected conditions.

State or local agencies

should determine the feasibility of this approach and consider the required

resources available or

attainable to accomplish this goal. Institutions from which data could be

collected include

hospitals, emergency departments, clinics, and (for some outcomes) specific

subspecialty

providers. Surveillance will require the establishment of case definitions

and reporting sources;

I have not finished the document yet. I am on my old computer righ

now while others are sleeping. You know when you get up in the middle

of the night with this sleeping disorder that I have also since this

nightmare. Anyway I can't see why this isn't criminal that the proper

information is not being given out during such a critical time with

all this flooding out there. It is like they are going to wait and see

if people get ill when they know they will. The same approach that is

used for everything let the disaster happen and then mass groups of

people are screwed. It looks like they will do the same thing for the

bird flu they are trying to scare us with now. Do nothing and wait

and see if people get sick. I guess if they just keep saying there

isn't any scientific evidence regarding mold they can just keep

looking the other way. I can't imagine in all these years and the

billions they claim insurance has paid that no one has bothered to do

any research when they really know that this illness can be so

devestating to so many lives. Sometimes I just can't believe this is

America. Unfortunately I have learned so much since I got this

illness.