I need a specific scientific study

[Guest guest]

Could somebody find the complete text of this publication/study?

H Schleibinger etal, " Occurrence of microbiologically produced

aldehydes and ketones from filter materials of HVAC systems – field

and laboratory experiments " , Practical Engineering for IAQ, Oct 22-24,

1995, Denver, CO American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air

Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Proceedings jointly published with US EPA

and DOE.

[Guest guest]

BranislavThis appears to be the same work published in Atmospheric Environment. It might be easier to obtain from this source. Ken WarnerMicrolab NorthwestTitre du document / Document titleAir filters from HVAC systems as possible source of volatile organic compounds (VOC) : laboratory and field assaysAuteur(s) / Author(s)SCHLEIBINGER H. (1) ; RÜDEN H. (1) ; Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)(1) Institute for Hygiene, Free University of Berlin, ALLEMAGNERésumé / AbstractThe

emission of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from air filters of HVAC

systems was to be evaluated. In a first study carbonyl compounds (14

aldehydes and two ketones) were measured by reacting them with

2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH). Analysis was done by HPLC and UV

detection. In laboratory experiments pieces of used and unused HVAC

filters were incubated in test chambers. Filters to be investigated

were taken from a filter bank of a large HVAC system in the centre of

Berlin. First results show that - among those compounds - formaldehyde

and acetone were found in higher concentrations in the test chambers

filled with used filters in comparison to those with unused filters.

Parallel field measurements were carried out at the prefilter and main

filter banks of the two HVAC systems. Measurements were carried out

simultaneously before and after the filters to investigate whether

those aldehydes or ketones arise from the filter material on site.

Formaldehyde and acetone significantly increased in concentration after

the filters of one HVAC system. In parallel experiments microorganisms

were proved to be able to survive on air filters. Therefore, a possible

source of formaldehyde and acetone might be microbes.Revue / Journal TitleAtmospheric environment

ISSN 1352-2310

Source / Source1999, vol. 33, no28, pp. 4571-4577 (22 ref.)Subject: I need a specific scientific studyTo: iequality Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2008, 2:51 AM

Could somebody find the complete text of this publication/ study?

H Schleibinger etal, "Occurrence of microbiologically produced

aldehydes and ketones from filter materials of HVAC systems – field

and laboratory experiments" , Practical Engineering for IAQ, Oct 22-24,

1995, Denver, CO American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air

Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Proceedings jointly published with US EPA

and DOE.

[Guest guest]

Ken,

Thank you for this abstract.

I am not sure if it is the same study I posted about because the title

and the year of publishing are different. If it is the same article,

then it's not what I expected to see. I thought the study would

enumerate several aldehydes and ketones that are the causative agents

of hypersensitivity reactions in mold sensitive people. As far as I

know formaldehyde is not one of them.

I found the original study on Dr Grace Ziem's site

(www.chemicalinjury.net) under " hazardous substances " - " Molds and

chronic illnesses " (word document).

In that article she says (I quote):

" The chemicals released by many mold species include (fat soluble or

lipophilic) neurotoxins: toluene, xylene, styrene, ketones26, as

well as aldehydes18,26 (water soluble or hydrophilic).19,26

Aldehydes are a well-known cause of chronic respiratory

illness19,20,21,22,26 and brain damage.26, Aldehydes have been

associated with illness symptoms including headache, eye and

respiratory irritation, sleep disturbance, and increased thirst in

workers with occupational exposure as well as people with certain

consumer products at exposure levels as low as 0.13 ppm.26 "

The reference number 26 is the study I cited in my first message (H

Schleibinger etal, " Occurrence of microbiologically produced

aldehydes and ketones from filter materials of HVAC systems – field

and laboratory experiments " .

In his text from 2004, The Vanilloid Receptor as a Putative Target of

Diverse Chemicals in Multiple Chemical Sensitivity) Pall says

that hydrophobic dialdehydes and triprenyl phenols that originate from

molds could be a possible cause of MCS-like sensitization, but he

bases this conclusion only on the ability of these compounds to act as

vanilloid agonists which was recorded in scientific literature. But

then, he kind of puts them in the same category as capsaicin and

eugenol (the active constituent of the clove essential oil).

Since most (all?) mold sensitive people have no problems whatever with

capsaicin and eugenol, I am not sure if the compounds really play any

significant part in mold sensitization.

Apart from the text of Grace Ziem's and Pall's work (The

Vanilloid Receptor as a Putative Target of Diverse Chemicals in

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity) are there any other studies in which

MVOCs are connected with the typical symptoms of exposure to mold

toxins? If these volatile compounds are truly the most common cause of

problems for mold sensitized people I find it a great mystery why no

one has researched them more thorougly and identified the real trouble

makers.

-Branislav

>

> Subject: I need a specific scientific study

> To: iequality

> Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2008, 2:51 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Could somebody find the complete text of this

publication/ study?

>

>

>

> H Schleibinger etal, " Occurrence of microbiologically produced

>

> aldehydes and ketones from filter materials of HVAC systems – field

>

> and laboratory experiments " , Practical Engineering for IAQ, Oct 22-24,

>

> 1995, Denver, CO American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air

>

> Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Proceedings jointly published with US EPA

>

> and DOE.

>

[Guest guest]

> It's because researchers are not working with sensitized people and their > environments. They have mostly been looking for mycotoxins with dose-response > negative health effects and concluding that "mold toxins" (by their definitions) > are not high enough to cause toxic end points based on toxicological studies. > Toxicologists are the wrong people to be investigating health effects from > environmental exposures to bioaerosols, despite what defense attorneys would > have you believe. Neurobiologists (like Pall) and doctors who specialize in > chemical sensitivities (like Ziem) understand that these effects are > immunologically and neurologically mediated.I had hoped I would find a study which clearly shows what exact volatile compound produced by mold or bacteria can cause and perpetuate the kind of sensitivity that is usually called "mold toxicity". So far I have not found any study that enumerates these compounds, one by one, by their chemical names, CAS numbers and gives complete stuctural formulas. I agree that people like Pall and Ziem understand these sensitivities far better than anybody else, but IMO they are also only guessing what volatile compounds of microbial orgin are the main culprits. When they mention which MVOCs affect people, they also refer to older studies whose main goal was not to discover what compounds affect mold sensitized people. Do you agree with me about that? I mean - their evidence is cirumstantial at best.Millions of people experience on a daily basis the horrendous effects of these volatile compounds, and yet nobody has ever tried to identify them. It is not enough to say "hydrocarbons, aldehydes, ketones, alcohols and phenols" (It would be like trying to tell someone about formaldehyde by saying "one of the aldehydes". That is simply too vague.) I have handled various representatives of all of these compouns without any adverse effects.In my opinion, until someone performs a well-prepared study whose main aim would be to determine which exact volatile chemicals produced by molds and bacteria are toxic to sensitized people, we will unfortunately stay in the dark.Btw. just a few weeks ago I let some food spoil and get moldy. I did it on purpose. Of course, there was a musty, characteristic odor of mold and the mold was visible, but it didn't give me any hits. It didn't affect my health adversely at all. On the other hand, when the AC units in a building near my building were broken last year, the volatile compounds coming from them made me VERY ill. Could it be that I react only to certain mold MVOCs, or perhaps only to certain bacterial MVOCs?> There is something very non-scientific about how the terms "mycotoxin" and > "allergic effect" are described or defined by different groups of people who use > these terms. Just ask a toxicologist about pharmaceutical side effects and > then about allergies or sensitivities to environmental chemicals or > biochemicals.I agree. According to my recent observations the chemical I am sesitized to is at least partially volatile. If mycotoxins are not volatile at all, that would mean I am not reacting to mycotoxins at all. That probably holds true for most mold sensitized people because all of them agree that the offending substance behaves like "radiation" (meaning it offgasses and can hit them from far away objects).People who perpetuate the notion that solely myocotoxins are the main culprit and cause of the mold toxicity illness are doing a disfavour to themselves and to mold sensitized people. -Branislav

[Guest guest]

>

>

> > I have compelling evidence that Pall and Grace Ziem

retain a

> > huge gap in their understanding of this problem.

> > Both of them treated my story of " Mold at Ground Zero for CFS "

with

> > utter disdain and disinterest.

> > Disinterest in the direct-mold-experience of a person who was

> > present at the inception of " Chronic Fatigue Syndrome " would be

> > highly inconsistent with cognition and comprehension of the

relevance

> > of this association.

>

>

> Can you provide us with this compelling evidence?

>

>

> You seem to hold only Dr Shoemaker in high regard. It is somewhat

> understandable because he does seem to have understanding for mold

> sensitized people. And after all, you appear in his book. But, ask

> yourself these questions:

>

> 1) Apart from prescribing cholestyramine, which can alleviate

chronic

> fatigue in some patients, did Dr Shoemaker actually help any

person who

> has become sensitive to mold toxins? By help I mean cured him/her

> completely so that that person isn't sensitive to mold toxins

anymore?

>

> Are you cured by the ideas of Dr Shoemaker?

>

> 2) If the treatment in most cases comes down to prescribing the

> inexpensive CSM, why does the treatment cost about $6000? All those

> diagnostic tests are absolutely worthless as far as the treatment

of the illness is concerned.

>

>

> -Branislav

>

Branislav, actually - as I said in Mold Warriors, I am not a patient

of Dr Shoemakers and have not done his treatments.

What distinguished Dr Shoemaker from all other doctors is that he

was the only one in the world to take an interest in the story of a

prototype for a syndrome who simply wanted to talk about a specific

clue that was present at the inception of " Chronic Fatigue Syndrome " .

That is enough to make Dr Shoemaker " one of a kind " .

Virtually all other doctors and researchers heard my story

about " Mold at Ground Zero for CFS " and fled, sometimes even

abandoning public forums simply because I joined.

I cannot show you their posts unless you join these groups,

but I can show you mine.

-MW

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/cfs_research/?yguid=225293294

CFS Research: Subject " Shoemaker Lacks Science " .

Ok, I'll try again and see if anyone is interested this time.

You might notice that I make NO APOLOGIES for my recovery, as some

people seem to want - as if somehow that fact that I crawled out of

this Hellhole deprives me of the right to speak out about CFS.

I'm still going to stick to my story without changing it.

And let's see just how much science Dr Shoemaker lacks!

-

cfs_research

" Shoemaker Lacks Science " Message List

Reply | Forward Message #14128 of 23006 < Prev | Next >

Oct 21 2003

Re: " Shoemaker Lacks Science "

I'm a survivor of the 1985 Incline Village CFS epidemic and one of

the people Dr Cheney and Dr used to demonstrate that CFS was

not chronic EBV.

I was back in Dr s ampligen screening program in 1998 when I

was at my absolute lowest point and was once again diagnosed as " The

Perfect Case of CFS " but I couldn't afford the ampligen.

I had been complaining about an extraordinary reactivity to specific

mycotoxins from the first time I walked into Dr Cheney and Dr

s office during the Incline Village epidemic. With no access

to ampligen and no other options that seemed likely to help, I

decided to try to exploit the knowledge that high levels of

mycotoxins were devastating to me and see if I could avoid low levels

as well to minimize the deleterious effect.

Within six months of following a strategy of extreme mycotoxin

avoidance, I returned to Dr s office with pictures of myself

after climbing Mt. Whitney, the highest mountain within the

contiguous 48 states in the USA.

I have spent the years since then controlling my symptoms through

extreme mycotoxin avoidance and being discounted by every researcher,

doctor and PWC I tell my story to.

There are dozens of people on this list that I have backchanneled

about my experience. They find nothing of significance in my story.

Dr Shoemaker describes my situation perfectly in his book " Desperation

Medicine " and an approach to my illness as being " neurotoxin mediated "

has restored my ability to go mountain climbing, lead an active

lifestyle and avoid an incomprehensible level of misery. I learned to

take advantage of an effect I observed over years of suffering.

My experience doesn't conflict with HHV6 concepts but rather adds to

it since my " sudden onset " was identified by Dr as HHV6a and

as I said in message 13684, " I have no reason to doubt it " .

If the researchers believe that no one clinically diagnosed with CFS,

especially a person who was used to define the parameters of the

syndrome has improved significantly by taking advantage of concepts

that are in accordance with Dr Shoemakers ideas, it is because they

refused to listen when I told them about it.

-

[Guest guest]

I am puzzled as to why there is a need to equate the effects of mold and mycotoxin exposure with that of other chemical exposures. Looking at the specialists under discussion, they have very different emphases in their approaches.

Chemical exposures comprise the main focus of Dr. Zeim's medical practice. She is a clinician who has honed a diagnostic and treatment protocol (still in progress) based upon decades of research and experience. Her diagnostic procedures all have relevance to treatment and/or an understanding of underlying mechanisms of impairment.

Dr. Pall is a researcher, not a clinician, whose theories center around secondary effects of toxic exposures (no specific form emphasized) and disease. The sequelae of inflammatory processes initiated by disease and injury may indeed have marked similarities and lead to some common needs across patients. However, this does not make primary assaults by microbial or chemical exposures uniform in their actions across patients or guide their treatment. in those initial stages. More specific points in this theory remain to be tested before implementation of strategies to manage nitric oxide concentrations can be assessed pre and post intervention.

Given that mold related illnesses appear to have both an immunological and neurotoxic aspect to them, I see no reason to presume that either of the above parties would have, or claim to have, comfort and expertise in dealing with it. By rejecting existing theories regarding this illness, they are not rejecting patient experiences per se. However, if they have no sound basis upon which to offer a directed treatment plan, they have a responsibility to say so and act accordingly.

Dr. Shoemaker is also a clinician who is also open to working with environmentally induced illnesses and fills a very empty niche in his concentration upon mold exposure. His diagnostic protocols seem to be heavily aimed at excluding other conditions in addition to the applicable mold related exposure inquiries.

Exclusionary assessments are a large part of addressing toxicologically based illnesses simply because public health agencies and TPTB have long refused to assess environments for the realistic amounts of toxicants present in them or begun to address the cocktail effect among them. This often means a diagnosis by exclusion. When you fail to find A through X, you can start making assumptions about Z unless you have a very resourceful patient who can tell you more about mitigating evironmental factors. Primary causation of illness is not a popular model due to issues of liability which may be inferred. Instead, discussion of predisposing factors predominates as if it is normal to be exposed to concentrated amounts of microbial organisms in sealed environments or to inhale formaldehyde 24/7. Biochemistry should be accommodated by the environment. It must not be redefined or manipulated in order to suit the arbitrary introduction of

toxicants into the environment. The concept of measuring suitable 'lifetime' limits of exposure has a very unpleasant philosophy beind it - someone owns that life and has the right to impose those exposures. Few have the opportunity to offer informed consent regarding their exposures.

Citing neurotoxin mediated damage would not refer to a single avenue of causation since there are very large numbers of neurotoxic substances to which we are daily exposed, singly and in combinations. In fact, the CDC page on CFIDS states a high co-morbidity with evidence of chemical intolerance/sensitization.

Obviously the practice of avoidance of exposure is the hallmark of ANY treatment protocol.

I fail to see Branislov's point that the endpoint of treatment is to eradicate sensitivities. That is not a 'cure' as much as it is creation of some new human, impervious to substances which are incompatible with biochemistry in terms of their nature or the amounts we are forced to 'tolerate' in our surroundings. I would welcome further explanation of management for an environmentally induced illness versus a cure for it. It would appear that treatment of the environment would be required to effect a cure for the injured, once physiological factors had been controlled.

But that is what draws many of us to IAQ lists to study :-)

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

Disinterest in the direct-mold-experience of a person who was

present at the inception of "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome"

would be highly inconsistent with cognition and comprehension of the

relevance of this association.---Branislove asked, Are you cured by the ideas of Dr Shoemaker?

[Guest guest]

" Branislav " wrote:

> I know you are not a patient of Dr Shoemaker's.

> But I bet if he had a definite cure for our illness, you would be,

eh?

>

>

> Of course that a doctor has to have an open mind and be willing to

> listen. However, the most important quality that every doctor should

> have is that he/she can actually cure or at least alleviate one's

> illness.

>

> It appears that you hold Dr Shoemaker in high esteem mostly because

his

> work has given you a kind of scientific proof and satisfaction that

your

> own previous hypotheses about mold were true. But again, his

treatment

> wouldn't make much (if any) difference for your health.

>

> CSM offers only transient and partial relief. It may be helpful for

> relatively mild cases, but for more sensitive people I think it is

not

> good. What's worse, in my experience, it can even increase one's

> sensitivity to mold toxins over time. It is possible that CSM

removes

> the inflammatory products that the body produces in response to the

> offending substance (that is how it works), and if one takes CSM

for too

> long, his/her immune system might start " forgeting " how to do that

job

> on its own.

>

> On the other hand, I heard Dr Shoemaker works on new, different

> approaches regarding the treatment of mold sensitive people, and I

am

> looking forward to it.

>

>

> -Branislav

>

If an original prototype for a syndrome presents clues that are

pertinent to development of the medical-syndromic-entity

and attempts to present it, adherence to the " scientific method "

dictates that such evidence be given due consideration.

Dr Shoemaker responded with the interest that should be normally be

considered customary in such a circumstance.

Despite my personal satisfaction at being validated, my experience

has unveiled a possibly even more bizarre phenomenon:

" The Disinterest Response " .

All other researchers declined to give this evidence any

consideration whatsoever, saying " You have no peer reviewed proof " ,

which of course, would be impossible to have until AFTER some kind of

investigation is performed.

You do not find anything curiously lacking or possibly worriesome

about the peculiar methodology of an entire profession which

overlooked the mycotoxin connection to CFS for the amazing reason

that their reliance on prior peer reviewed literature put initiation

of an investigation outside their conceptual framework?

-MW

[Guest guest]

A complete cure for 1) may never be found - although I keep myfingers crossed all the time. However, I am hopeful that more efficient ways to identify, detect,prevent and eradicate the most offending sensitizers will be found inthe future.

BR replies:

I agree with you if you refer only to sensitizers which are nontoxic. I believe allergy used to refer to adverse, immunologically mediated responses to substances which are benign to most people. I cannot agree to add toxicants to the class of sensitizing agents for which a cure may be found. Nor can I agree that allergic sensitizers (e.g. mold) can be considered nontoxic in abnormally large concentrations found in some settings. That is where the research on microbial illnesses is important.

Basically, I do not like toxicity reactions mistaken for sensitization reactions. Benzene is not mold. Organophosphates are poisons and their sensitization effects are also secondary to their harmful properties and may even be a misuse of the term. Of course an individual will have stronger reactions to them if they are repeating their exposures following a reduction in cholinesterase and paroxonase reserves. That is not an immunological issue.

Regards,Barbara Rubin

P.S.May I have your permission to forward our discussion to others (no one else's comments included of course).