Guest guest Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 Sharon, I guess you haven’t been reading the American Bar Association’s “Toxic Mold Litigation†book by King, MD., JD. It is a fun read as a half inch thick paperback. The issue for this thread is an attempt to describe what is toxic mold and other terms that may apply to toxic mold, if any. The implications for describing mold is only one part of the story. Once you come up with an answer to what is toxic mold, how then do we quantify it scientifically?    I enjoy Wei’s comments including those of , Steve and . They are informative and cause me to rethink “what is the toxic mold issue?†Let me share with you a case I’m involved with: As an environmental professional I’m often asked about the presence of certain mold and whether or not they are toxic? I too don’t like the term toxic mold for describing building mold problems without having supportive science. As you know people respond faster to buzz words rather than scientific evidence. In a recent case, the toxic mold syndrome raised its ugly head putting us as environmental professionals and remediation contractors in an awkward position. For instance, while the some of the laboratory data in a case suggests: there are bio-markers (marker fungi) present such as Stachybotrys on surfaces and in air (which the mold remediation contractor is being accused for allowing after remediation), I am not willing take the side of the coin and state: there are toxic or toxigenic mold condition present. I don’t believe testing and laboratory science is there yet for me to quantitatively document the presence or absence of “toxic mold; and now that is there, determine levels of toxicity that can or is affecting building occupantsâ€. The opposing counsel asked in this case: · “Mr. Moffett, the laboratory identified mold spores and growth that under certain conditions can be toxic?†I replied Yes. · “Did you have those samples or other samples analyzed to determine their toxicity and health effects on the building, its environment and the occupants? My answer was no. · “Based on the laboratory data there are molds present that are known to be toxin producers?†I said, yes. · “Ok then, aren’t you telling me we still have a mold toxin problem in the recently remediation area?† I replied, I believe we have a condition where further exploratory investigation may identify a hidden reservoir of mold growth or that further cleaning may be helpful to reduce existing spore counts. · “So, are you saying the remediation contractor failed to achieve clearance because they left behind toxic mold.†I said, I don’t believe I agreed with you, the mold that was present before, during and after remediation were toxigenic including the current spores analyzed by the laboratory. Sharon, to answer you, I too would like to have a better scientific explanation about the terminology describing - [environmental caused] mold toxins? Once we come up with an agreeable answer, the next step I believe is supporting the hypothesis, do mold toxins actually exist in the case you are investigating?            From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@... Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 9:36 AM To: iequality Subject: Re: Re: toxic terminology Hi , In furthering the evidence that the mere use of the term " toxic mold " causes debate, I have some questions regarding your prior response before I can fully reply. First of all, what is it you are wanting to accomplish or understand from this discussion? Because that makes a difference as to the necessary level of proof of microbial indoor toxins causing symptoms of poisoning. It frames the whole discussion. So, are we addressing the goal of establishing a courtroom standard burden of proof in this discussion, or are we establishing the possibility of causation of illness that physicians should investigate when trying to diagnose and treat the ill? In other words, are we talking about the courtroom or the physicians' offices? Because these are (or should be anyway) two different subjects. I agree with your statement of, " A few spores or a few hundred spores of Stachybotrys in air samples is an indicator that exploratory investigation may identify a mold reservoir. It doesn’t mean we have a toxigenic mold exposure issue affecting building occupants... " I do not agree with this part of your statement: ....because that would be a leap of faith to hypothesize. " It would not be a leap of faith to hypothesize this when there are a few hundred spores of Stachy in air samples. But it would be a leap to concretely conclude this, based solely on Stachy spores in air samples. So what are we discussing? Courtroom or physician office? Sharon In a message dated 2/24/2008 7:50:43 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, patmoffett@... writes: Sharon, I don’t disagree with you. I am taking this mold toxin issue to the next step which is: How can one make mold toxin claims if they cannot agree on toxigenic sampling and analysis procedures? A few spores or a few hundred spores of Stachybotrys in air samples is an indicator that exploratory investigation may identify a mold reservoir. It doesn’t mean we have a toxigenic mold exposure issue affecting building occupants because that would be a leap of faith to hypothesize. Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 Hi Sharon, Thanks for sharing your experience, which I have no doubt that it is close to the reality. Perhaps, you should gather some data, write up some statistics and present it to those organizations. When I said "many", I didn't mean people who sued. I meant people who think they have been sicken by mold and call up a consultants to do investigation. Many (or some) of the complaints are actually caused by chemical agents or something else. Clearly, those are not the same cases that you experienced. I guessed that those medical professionals are trying to prevent those people to sue over an uncertain cause. Of course, I can be totally wrong about that. Wei QLabsnk1955@... wrote: Wei, That is some good writing! And I think you are absolutely right about people being sickened from Microbial Indoor Contaminant Exposure (will call this MICE) found in water damaged buildings (WDB's) and wrongfully assigning whatever symptom responses - be it allergic, irritant, infectious or poisoning - to the term "toxic mold". When in reality, "toxic" or even "mold" may not be the MICE causing their illness at all. So, another bad rap for the term "toxic mold". It's misuse helps to confuse and retard the understand of the whole issue. I take issue with this statement you wrote, though:" People don't want people to get sued by everybody who "think" they were sicken by mold. As we all know it, many of them are not." I have been doing this a long time now. I have spoken to hundreds, if not thousands of people claiming illness after MICE in WDBs. I can, almost without exception, tell you that it is an extreme rarity for people to falsely attribute the onset or advancement of these symptoms after MICE to MICE. And I can also tell you, that in my travels, I have never met a single person who has sued when intentionally and falsely claiming illness from MICE. (They may not be able to describe it correctly, but they are not liars because of that.) I am sure there are some out there who would love to use this issue to sue based on nothing, if they could. But to sue based on nothing over the mold issue is pretty near an impossibility. The reason being is that this is complex litigation. Plaintiff attorneys work on contingency, with a lot of costs up front. They can't afford to take these cases unless there is strong evidence of possible cause and liability for the illnesses. And even when they have that, these cases are tough for the reasons you noted prior regarding proof of causation. Not to mention there have been some goofy cases when it comes to assigning who is liable. The real situation is more in reverse of what you write. Some, who are really sick, can't get attorneys because of the complexity and costs involved in litigation. So the concept that there are mass amounts of people out here, causing mass amount of frivolous litigation while falsely claiming illness from MICE needs to go!!!!!! In reality, that doesn't happen. In fact, this is darn near an impossibility. Sharon In a message dated 2/24/2008 7:50:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, wtangQLABusa writes: Group, (1) Revised Mycotoxins are toxic (by definition).Mold may or may not be toxic. Mold producing mycotoxins is toxic if the toxin concentrations in biomass exceed defined level for target populations in the matrix (air, bulk, dust, etc.) referred. (2) Sensitized individuals vs general populations I believe those two "populations" need to be addressed seperately for those position statements. Yes, the concentrations of airborne mycotoxins detect in some indoor environments do not seem to pose a health risk to the general population. However, some of them forgot to also mention that it is possible for sensitized individuals to be affected by fungal cell components/byproducts in low level. Most people wouldn't die from eating peanuts. However, no one would call whoever is allergic to peanuts "crazy", right? Why is this happening to mold illness, then? (a) It is much more difficult to prove it than eating peanuts by the reasons that I posted earlier. ( People don't want people to get sued by eveybody who "think" they were sicken by mold. As we all know it, many of them are not. Wei Tang QLab Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living. Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003 Faxwww.QLabUSA.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 Another stupid lawyer who thinks only the toxigenic mold is the problem. Mold, toxigenic or not, need to be removed. Ask him: (1) "Toxic"? How do you define "Toxic"? (2) Is peanut butter sandwich toxic? (3) Why it's not allowed to bring it in some schools? Wei Tang QLab Pat Moffett wrote: Sharon, I guess you haven’t been reading the American Bar Association’s “Toxic Mold Litigation†book by King, MD., JD. It is a fun read as a half inch thick paperback. The issue for this thread is an attempt to describe what is toxic mold and other terms that may apply to toxic mold, if any. The implications for describing mold is only one part of the story. Once you come up with an answer to what is toxic mold, how then do we quantify it scientifically?    I enjoy Wei’s comments including those of , Steve and . They are informative and cause me to rethink “what is the toxic mold issue?†Let me share with you a case I’m involved with: As an environmental professional I’m often asked about the presence of certain mold and whether or not they are toxic? I too don’t like the term toxic mold for describing building mold problems without having supportive science. As you know people respond faster to buzz words rather than scientific evidence. In a recent case, the toxic mold syndrome raised its ugly head putting us as environmental professionals and remediation contractors in an awkward position. For instance, while the some of the laboratory data in a case suggests: there are bio-markers (marker fungi) present such as Stachybotrys on surfaces and in air (which the mold remediation contractor is being accused for allowing after remediation), I am not willing take the side of the coin and state: there are toxic or toxigenic mold condition present. I don’t believe testing and laboratory science is there yet for me to quantitatively document the presence or absence of “toxic mold; and now that is there, determine levels of toxicity that can or is affecting building occupantsâ€. The opposing counsel asked in this case: · “Mr. Moffett, the laboratory identified mold spores and growth that under certain conditions can be toxic?†I replied Yes. · “Did you have those samples or other samples analyzed to determine their toxicity and health effects on the building, its environment and the occupants? My answer was no. · “Based on the laboratory data there are molds present that are known to be toxin producers?†I said, yes. · “Ok then, aren’t you telling me we still have a mold toxin problem in the recently remediation area?† I replied, I believe we have a condition where further exploratory investigation may identify a hidden reservoir of mold growth or that further cleaning may be helpful to reduce existing spore counts. · “So, are you saying the remediation contractor failed to achieve clearance because they left behind toxic mold.†I said, I don’t believe I agreed with you, the mold that was present before, during and after remediation were toxigenic including the current spores analyzed by the laboratory. Sharon, to answer you, I too would like to have a better scientific explanation about the terminology describing - [environmental caused] mold toxins? Once we come up with an agreeable answer, the next step I believe is supporting the hypothesis, do mold toxins actually exist in the case you are investigating?            From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955aolSent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 9:36 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Re: toxic terminology Hi , In furthering the evidence that the mere use of the term "toxic mold" causes debate, I have some questions regarding your prior response before I can fully reply. First of all, what is it you are wanting to accomplish or understand from this discussion? Because that makes a difference as to the necessary level of proof of microbial indoor toxins causing symptoms of poisoning. It frames the whole discussion. So, are we addressing the goal of establishing a courtroom standard burden of proof in this discussion, or are we establishing the possibility of causation of illness that physicians should investigate when trying to diagnose and treat the ill? In other words, are we talking about the courtroom or the physicians' offices? Because these are (or should be anyway) two different subjects. I agree with your statement of, "A few spores or a few hundred spores of Stachybotrys in air samples is an indicator that exploratory investigation may identify a mold reservoir. It doesn’t mean we have a toxigenic mold exposure issue affecting building occupants..." I do not agree with this part of your statement: ...because that would be a leap of faith to hypothesize." It would not be a leap of faith to hypothesize this when there are a few hundred spores of Stachy in air samples. But it would be a leap to concretely conclude this, based solely on Stachy spores in air samples. So what are we discussing? Courtroom or physician office? Sharon In a message dated 2/24/2008 7:50:43 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, patmoffettatt (DOT) net writes: Sharon, I don’t disagree with you. I am taking this mold toxin issue to the next step which is: How can one make mold toxin claims if they cannot agree on toxigenic sampling and analysis procedures? A few spores or a few hundred spores of Stachybotrys in air samples is an indicator that exploratory investigation may identify a mold reservoir. It doesn’t mean we have a toxigenic mold exposure issue affecting building occupants because that would be a leap of faith to hypothesize. Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living. Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003 Faxwww.QLabUSA.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 There are different categories of science. You have, in essence highlighted the distinction between the biological and the physical sciences. Biological and immunological systems are much more varied and complex in the way they react to environmental agents because of genetics and a whole host of other things, including all prior exposures, as you noted. Stochastic chemistry will not explain the cause of individual immunogenic and neurogenic reactions. ================================================== This is a serious inquiry as to why people are seeking a novel definition for the term 'toxic'. There cannot be two different definitions which apply because one decides to speak about a specific mold versus a specific chemical like malathion. If you look at the definition, it does not require a particular end point. Adverse reactions which are imperceptible to the individual, still occur. Malathion is not 'nontoxic' prior to someone feeling sick due to exposure to it. It is a registered poison in legal terms. One does not have to die from exposure to an agent for it to qualify as being toxic. Basically, any substance which is incompatible with biochemistry and requires the body to put forth extraordinary effort to relieve itself of that 'toxic burden', qualifies for that term. Review of definition: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html defines poison as 1 : a substance that through its chemical action usually kills, injures, or impairs an organism 2 : a substance that inhibits the activity of another substance or the course of a reaction or process <a catalyst poison> The 'dose' argument does not hold up under the actual definition of the term poison. You can be exposed to small doses of toxic substances, perhaps without serious harm. But they are not non-toxic because they are small doses. Malathion is considered to be of relatively low toxicity. Its metabolite, maloxon, is very toxic. So one cannot productively refer to malathion without its inevitable consequence, maloxon, being factored into the points being made about its effects. When West Nile Spraying goes on using Anvil, and toxicity is discussed based upon the original EPA registration, such discussion is taking place without reference to the toxicity of the entire product. Anvil contains an added synergist (piperonyl butoxide), known to increase toxicity by as much as ten-fold. Any discussion which refers to the indoor air quality of a locale treated with malathion or Anvil must be based on the science pertaining to its real time toxicity issues, not the theoretical constructs of EPA registration. Some non-toxic items are toxic only after metabolizing them. For instance cruciferous vegetables contain sulfur. When you are metabolizing it, you wind up with sulfites that the body must transform into nontoxic sulphate form which is usable in the body. Some items are only toxic if taken into the body in amounts that sabotage the functioning of the body, such as water. You can die from drinking too much water. It does not make water toxic. It is an important point to determine in epistemology, before one alters the meaning of terms for common convenience (e.g. not spooking the populace, or making it legal to use certain substances in certain amounts in manufacturing). Basically, mathematics has certain advantages over other sciences in precision. However, much of chemistry and most of biology would have to be stochastic in nature because of multiple factors that will never be predictable. I call your attention to a recent study on DDT. Prior studies were claiming it was not a factor in breast cancer. Recent reports indicate it is a factor, dependent upon the age at which individuals are exposed and the inevitable chain of events that occurs in human physiology when a disruption of these types occur. http://www.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=612635 Full article: http://breast-cancer- research.com/content/pdf/bcr1862.pdf At what point did anyone ever consider DDT to be non-toxic at any dose? I understand the drive to determine if something is a carcinogen, versus a neurotoxin etc. However, the drive to alter the concept of 'poisonous' materials is something that requires serious review. The science of toxicology is being misused if its goal is to decide how much of a poison is 'safe'. It can never be 'safe', but an essential use of some toxic agent may be condoned if one knows most people can readily handle that additional stressor on their systems in concert with the typical, complex, environment. In fact, it is against federal law to call any pesticide 'safe' to use, even as directed on the label. How can any amount of chlopyrifos be considered non-toxic? It is labeled as a poison at all dosages, not just the ones deemed to be harmful by old standards. By new standards? It is now banned after decades of extremely broad usage (over 90 % of the population was showing metabolites in their urine, N>900 people). It lowers cholinesterase in people, who all have different starting levels of that essential enzyme, whether they are aware of it or not. Exposure means poisoning, because lowering that enzyme means shifts in nervous system function have occurred which harm the individual. The degree to which that occurs is variable (stochastic) and not always predictable. Hence, the precautionary principle which states poisons need to be studied for some degree of predictability and assurance of proper use prior to marketing. The assessment of indoor air quality as a science needs to be addressed separately from IAQ business issues. Discussions need to differentiate about the two - is the discussion about preserving health, or being able to reliably predict how sick one can make a person without it being detected or conferring liability upon an individual? The question of how to regard 'individual differences' in exposed populations is a red herring. When systematic observations of a relationship between exposures and human health effects include substances which alter nervous system functioning in all populations. We should then speak to the facts that individual differences don't apply to the definition of that substance as a neurotoxin. Only in the interesting question of why certain forms of damage occur in different factions in the population (one person gets MS and another Parkinsons and another loses a functional capacity such as subtraction and multi-tasking along with a layer of cortical cells). Sensitization effects, documented in many common chemicals on their MSDS sheets including a number of pesticides, formaldehyde etc., means that the effect of a given concentration of a chemical can have a different effect upon ANY given individual on any given day, We know little of the degrees of sensitization possibly because the population is discouraged from testing ambient air quality. We are told concentrations of VOCs, pesticides, mycotoxins etc, will be too small to 'matter'. We can never know what matters with that mindset of 'dose-response' relationship for toxic substances. Yes, dose will alter the magnitude of effects but never, does any dose, mean they have negligible effects upon human health. In fact, studies of amphibians indicate that low doses of pesticides are more harmful than large ones as these 'sneak under the radar' of immunological systems. Also, from personal experience, I know that mid and high level concentrations can result from testing ambient air via a number of different affordable methods. The banning of organophosphate pesticides, one by one, is an example of the torturous process of respecting biochemical facts of life - cholinesterase inhibitors do not belong in our environment. Many pharmaceuticals have this effect yet the physicians prescribing them never test for impairment based upon that operational mechanism. Back to mold, not an area of expertise for me by any means, I can understand that it is not always toxic. Are mycotoxins always toxic? Would that mean many molds, not in excessive amounts or of particularly hazardous types, are always toxogenic since mycotoxin producing organisms can stem from their presence? I hope that mixing science and business won't dilute the precision with which terminology is utilized and that goals (theoretical analysis versus working assumptions in business aims) are always understood from posts. Barbara Rubin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2008 Report Share Posted February 25, 2008 What I find fascinating is that in PI cases for motor vehicle accidents there is a well known, common and accepted diagnosis called, soft tissue injury. This injury does not show up on films or through any objective data that proof of this syndrome exists. This syndrome remains a subjective diagnosis and yet is fully accepted as a legally legitimate form of injury. The extent of damage to the vehicle is taken into consideration as to how severe an injury may have indeed been sustained though is not always the ultimate determinant to the extent of soft tissue injury. Settlements are awarded to parties based upon a diagnostic belief that soft tissue injury exists, as well as the fact that this injury was believed to be caused by the impact sustained in a collision. No problems with legal leaps of faith here..... When it comes to mold even if you do see it-it still does not exist. So the question remains why such a different set of legal standards for determining an illness exists let alone for determining causation? So many occupants are suffering needless while this mold ball gets thrown up into the air and like the hot potato it is-endlessly tossed around. Of course as long as this baby remains up in the air where the money is- will remain with defense. > > > , > > Okay, your last answer gives me your point of reference. That would put you > more in the Tony Havics category as to the required need for proof of > causation before action is taken, I think. Also, I think you are discussing more > of individual cases and a courtroom standard burden of proof. Don't mean to > interpret your words for you. Could be wrong with my understanding. That is > just how I am receiving your info. > > That isn't really the area I am interested in with regard to toxigenic > moulds. (if I am going to try to describe accurately, might as well spell it > accurately). I am more interested in the standard of proof before symptoms > indicative of poisoning from (microbial indoor contaminant exposure) MICE in WDB > are considered by physicians as a possible cause of illness. And then are > either treated or ruled out. > > You wrote, " ....do mold toxins actually exist in the case you are > investigating... " which I assume means has there been a 100% proof of their existence > in the specific WDB. This is where the difference is from my perspective and > my area of interest. I think there is enough information that even without > 100% absolute proof the toxins in WDB's are present within an individual, > specific building; poisoning from exposure should at least be considered by the > medical community when diagnosing and treating ill patients if they have been > spending time in a WDB and are exhibiting symptoms known to be indicative of > poisoning. We all know that toxins are sometimes present in WDB. We all > know that toxins poison. We all know many people are complaining of symptoms > of poisoning after a MICE in a WDB. > > Merely one paper that discusses this: Characterization of Airborne Molds, > Endotoxins, and Glucans in Homes in New Orleans after Hurricanes Katrina and > Rita > Carol Y. Rao,1* Margaret A. Riggs,1 Ginger L. Chew,2 L. > Muilenberg,3 S. Thorne,4 Van Sickle,1 H. Dunn,5 and Clive Brown5 > _http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/73/5/1630_ > (http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/73/5/1630) > > So, why is the burden of proof so high for these illnesses before people are > able to obtain medical care? No one checks my biomarkers before prescribing > antibiotics if the most logical cause of my illness is bacterial. > Why aren't microbial toxins even considered by physicians when they are the > most logical cause of the symptoms in a given situation? > > BTW, this is a point that drives me nuts over the " toxic mold " issue. We > are wasting so much money and so many lives because the courtroom standard > burden of proof is being misapplied in the doctors' offices of America. Besides > the obvious of increased financial liability for building stakeholders when > these illnesses indicative of poisoning go unaddressed and are therefore > allowed to become severe, we are wasting tons on useless medical tests such as > MRIs, CTs, HIV tests, autoimmune testing, etc. And no one is even being asked by > the doctors if they have experienced a MICE. Worse yet, even if the poisoned > patient tells the doctor of a MICE, the doctors still don't consider it as > the cause of poisoning. > > But if the physicians were trained and these illnesses were caught early, > the treatment would most likely consist merely of the advice of " Get Out Now " . > Simple and dirt cheap in most cases. > > Does that make sense? > > WR, > Sharon > > > In a message dated 2/24/2008 3:11:54 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > patmoffett@... writes: > > > > > > Sharon, > I guess you haven’t been reading the American Bar Association’s “Toxic Mold > Litigation†book by King, MD., JD. It is a fun read as a half inch > thick paperback. The issue for this thread is an attempt to describe what is > toxic mold and other terms that may apply to toxic mold, if any. The > implications for describing mold is only one part of the story. Once you come up with > an answer to what is toxic mold, how then do we quantify it scientifically? > I enjoy Wei’s comments including those of , Steve and . They are > informative and cause me to rethink “what is the toxic mold issue?†Let me > share with you a case I’m involved with: > As an environmental professional I’m often asked about the presence of > certain mold and whether or not they are toxic? I too don’t like the term toxic > mold for describing building mold problems without having supportive science. > As you know people respond faster to buzz words rather than scientific > evidence. In a recent case, the toxic mold syndrome raised its ugly head putting > us as environmental professionals and remediation contractors in an awkward > position. For instance, while the some of the laboratory data in a case > suggests: there are bio-markers (marker fungi) present such as Stachybotrys on > surfaces and in air (which the mold remediation contractor is being accused for > allowing after remediation)As you know people respond faster to buzz words > rather than scientific evidence. In a recent case, the toxic > I don’t believe testing and laboratory science is there yet for me to > quantitatively document the presence or absence of “toxic mold; and now that is > there, determine levels of toxicity that can or is affecting building occupants†> . The opposing counsel asked in this case: > · “Mr. Moffett, the laboratory identified mold spores and growth that > under certain conditions can be toxic?†I replied Yes. > · “Did you have those samples or other samples analyzed to determine > their toxicity and health effects on the building, its environment and the > occupants? My answer was no. > · “Based on the laboratory data there are molds present that are > known to be toxin producers?†I said, yes. > · “Ok then, aren’t you telling me we still have a mold toxin problem > in the recently remediation area?†I replied, I believe we have a condition > where further exploratory investigation may identify a hidden reservoir of > mold growth or that further cleaning may be helpful to reduce existing spore > counts. > · “So, are you saying the remediation contractor failed to achieve > clearance because they left behind toxic mold.†I said, I don’t believe I > agreed with you, the mold that was present before, during and after remediation > were toxigenic including the current spores analyzed by the laboratory. > Sharon, to answer you, I too would like to have a better scientific ex > planation about the terminology describing - [environmental caused] mold toxins? > Once we come up with an agreeable answer, the next step I believe is supporting > the hypothesis, do mold toxins actually exist in the case you are > investigating? > > > > > > > > > > > > **************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. > (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel- campos-duffy/ > 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2008 Report Share Posted February 25, 2008 , That is well said. Never mind the courtroom standard burden of proof, how did the standard of the burden of proof become set so high before people are even able to get medical treatment? And I hate to keep harping on this (well, not really), but it all goes back to ACOEM and the US Chamber of Commerce intentionally marketing throughout the medical communities, government and industry that these illnesses are not plausible (aka could not be) caused by inhaled mycotoxins...which really means in eyes of most, microbial contaminants found within water damaged buildings. If people can't even agree on the term "toxic mold", how in the world are the going to understand that the term "inhaled mycotoxins" doesn't mean proof of absence of poisoning from the toxic components of microbial contaminents found within a water damaged building? Where ever I go over this issue, all the twisted roads seem to lead back to the doctors and the public being misinformed. If people did not get so sick, there would be far, far less to litigate over, for the most part. Sharon What I find fascinating is that in PI cases for motor vehicle accidents there is a well known, common and accepted diagnosis called, soft tissue injury. This injury does not show up on films or through any objective data that proof of this syndrome exists. This syndrome remains a subjective diagnosis and yet is fully accepted as a legally legitimate form of injury. The extent of damage to the vehicle is taken into consideration as to how severe an injury may have indeed been sustained though is not always the ultimate determinant to the extent of soft tissue injury. Settlements are awarded to parties based upon a diagnostic belief that soft tissue injury exists, as well as the fact that this injury was believed to be caused by the impact sustained in a collision. No problems with legal leaps of faith here..... When it comes to mold even if you do see it-it still does not exist. So the question remains why such a different set of legal standards for determining an illness exists let alone for determining causation?So many occupants are suffering needless while this mold ball gets thrown up into the air and like the hot potato it is-endlessly tossed around. Of course as long as this baby remains up in the air where the money is- will remain with defense.>> > ,> > Okay, your last answer gives me your point of reference. That would put you > more in the Tony Havics category as to the required need for proof of > causation before action is taken, I think. Also, I think you are discussing more > of individual cases and a courtroom standard burden of proof. Don't mean to > interpret your words for you. Could be wrong with my understanding. That is > just how I am receiving your info.> > That isn't really the area I am interested in with regard to toxigenic > moulds. (if I am going to try to describe accurately, might as well spell it > accurately). I am more interested in the standard of proof before symptoms > indicative of poisoning from (microbial indoor contaminant exposure) MICE in WDB > are considered by physicians as a possible cause of illness. And then are > either treated or ruled out. > > You wrote, "....do mold toxins actually exist in the case you are > investigating..." which I assume means has there been a 100% proof of their existence > in the specific WDB. This is where the difference is from my perspective and > my area of interest. I think there is enough information that even without > 100% absolute proof the toxins in WDB's are present within an individual, > specific building; poisoning from exposure should at least be considered by the > medical community when diagnosing and treating ill patients if they have been > spending time in a WDB and are exhibiting symptoms known to be indicative of > poisoning. We all know that toxins are sometimes present in WDB. We all > know that toxins poison. We all know many people are complaining of symptoms > of poisoning after a MICE in a WDB.> > Merely one paper that discusses this: Characterization of Airborne Molds, > Endotoxins, and Glucans in Homes in New Orleans after Hurricanes Katrina and > Rita> Carol Y. Rao,1* Margaret A. Riggs,1 Ginger L. Chew,2 L. > Muilenberg,3 S. Thorne,4 Van Sickle,1 H. Dunn,5 and Clive Brown5> _http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/73/5/1630_ > (http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/73/5/1630) > > So, why is the burden of proof so high for these illnesses before people are > able to obtain medical care? No one checks my biomarkers before prescribing > antibiotics if the most logical cause of my illness is bacterial.> Why aren't microbial toxins even considered by physicians when they are the > most logical cause of the symptoms in a given situation?> > BTW, this is a point that drives me nuts over the "toxic mold" issue. We > are wasting so much money and so many lives because the courtroom standard > burden of proof is being misapplied in the doctors' offices of America. Besides > the obvious of increased financial liability for building stakeholders when > these illnesses indicative of poisoning go unaddressed and are therefore > allowed to become severe, we are wasting tons on useless medical tests such as > MRIs, CTs, HIV tests, autoimmune testing, etc. And no one is even being asked by > the doctors if they have experienced a MICE. Worse yet, even if the poisoned > patient tells the doctor of a MICE, the doctors still don't consider it as > the cause of poisoning. > > But if the physicians were trained and these illnesses were caught early, > the treatment would most likely consist merely of the advice of "Get Out Now". > Simple and dirt cheap in most cases.> > Does that make sense?> > WR,> Sharon> > > > > > > > > Sharon, > I guess you haven’t been reading the American Bar Association’s “Toxic Mold > Litigation†book by King, MD., JD. It is a fun read as a half inch > thick paperback. The issue for this thread is an attempt to describe what is > toxic mold and other terms that may apply to toxic mold, if any. The > implications for describing mold is only one part of the story. Once you come up with > an answer to what is toxic mold, how then do we quantify it scientifically? > I enjoy Wei’s comments including those of , Steve and . They are > informative and cause me to rethink “what is the toxic mold issue?†Let me > share with you a case I’m involved with: > As an environmental professional I’m often asked about the presence of > certain mold and whether or not they are toxic? I too don’t like the term toxic > mold for describing building mold problems without having supportive science. > As you know people respond faster to buzz words rather than scientific > evidence. In a recent case, the toxic mold syndrome raised its ugly head putting > us as environmental professionals and remediation contractors in an awkward > position. For instance, while the some of the laboratory data in a case > suggests: there are bio-markers (marker fungi) present such as Stachybotrys on > surfaces and in air (which the mold remediation contractor is being accused for > allowing after remediation)As you know people respond faster to buzz words > rather than scientific evidence. In a recent case, the toxic > I don’t believe testing and laboratory science is there yet for me to > quantitatively document the presence or absence of “toxic mold; and now that is > there, determine levels of toxicity that can or is affecting building occupantsâ€Â> . The opposing counsel asked in this case: > · “Mr. Moffett, the laboratory identified mold spores and growth that > under certain conditions can be toxic?†I replied Yes. > · “Did you have those samples or other samples analyzed to determine > their toxicity and health effects on the building, its environment and the > occupants? My answer was no. > · “Based on the laboratory data there are molds present that are > known to be toxin producers?†I said, yes. > · “Ok then, aren’t you telling me we still have a mold toxin problem > in the recently remediation area?†I replied, I believe we have a condition > where further exploratory investigation may identify a hidden reservoir of > mold growth or that further cleaning may be helpful to reduce existing spore > counts. > · “So, are you saying the remediation contractor failed to achieve > clearance because they left behind toxic mold.†I said, I don’t believe I > agreed with you, the mold that was present before, during and after remediation > were toxigenic including the current spores analyzed by the laboratory. > Sharon, to answer you, I too would like to have a better scientific ex> planation about the terminology describing - [environmental caused] mold toxins? > Once we come up with an agreeable answer, the next step I believe is supporting > the hypothesis, do mold toxins actually exist in the case you are > investigating? > > > > > > > > > > > > **************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. > (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/> 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)> Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living. 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.