Re: Toxic Organisms - close the case

[Guest guest]

,

I think I lived in one of those houses in Louisiana. The Hells

Angles left in a hurry and we rented it immediately after. Strange things would

happen in that house.

Bob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of healthyhouse@...

Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 4:35

PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Toxic

Organisms - close the case

Many moons ago I think I started this

discussion. Or added to it or something.

Thanks to all who have added their 2

cents. It's been worth thousands. I hope no one has taken anything I

said to be personal.

But, I think you all have it quite wrong.

And I believe I can prove it.

I have a series of 3 cases. All involving

unspecified hazards, all involving complex yet hard to pin down symptoms; all

with little medical evidence of actual disease. All with little physical

evidence of an actual hazard in the home.

However, interestingly enough, all three

had one thing and one thing only in common! (aside from the fact the

complainants were generally angry, frustrated, and often a tad batty).

All three had claims of supernatural

activity, in fact the claims were stronger and more clear than the claims of

hazardous chemicals. One even had a third party confirm the presence of an evil

spirit(s) in the home.

I therefore conclude, with a reasonable

degree of scientific certainty and professional confidence, that 100% of the

time (3 of 3 cases had it), the cause of building related illness is demonic

possession.

Case closed.

S

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and

advice on AOL Money Finance.

[Guest guest]

Sharon has lost her sense of humor. I think a minor poltergeist stole it!

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance.

[Guest guest]

Sharon has lost her sense of humor. I think a minor poltergeist stole it!

,

Just a minor poltergeist? Oh contraire! I have witnessed some pretty major exhibits of scary science over this issue that could only be attributed to supernatural...... political influence .

But, who ya gonna call? Lobbyist-busters?

SharonCreate a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

[Guest guest]

Hello ,

I have several meth lab Clients that have issues similar to those you describe. They are clueless to the workings of the real world and what it takes to get things done.

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of healthyhouse@...Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 11:09 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Toxic Organisms - close the case

Sharon has lost her sense of humor. I think a minor poltergeist stole it!

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance.

[Guest guest]

,

Whether joking or not, your post reflects the bias and ignorance of

far too many people, including yourself. The sensitivity of this

issue in regard to those experiencing mold related illness as being

called malingerers, mentally ill, demonically possessed or simply

mistaken as to what is causing their illness, is not something that

any professional should be feeding into on a public site or

otherwise. Though there are certainly some occupants who are mentally

ill and may have jumped upon the mold exposure bandwagon, the

majority of those affected by this issue are legitimate and have

suffered many losses. Many have had extensive testing done and have

spent a small fortune on specialists who have confirmed the findings

of mold induced illness.

What gets lost is the fact that people are seriously harmed by

indoor exposure to molds. Spending time and energy deciding what

politically correct terminology to use to identify the molds that are

responsible for causing serious illness in occupants is one more

diversion away from the critical issues at hand that need to be

addressed.

So in essence whether we are talking about " damp and moldy

environments " versus " water damaged buildings " , versus " mold

exposure " or " building contaminants " , or disputing what part of the

molds are responsible for causing harm, or disputing whether

toxigenic types of molds are even toxigenic, or how to label these

molds, is all like moving the deck chairs on the Titanic to the other

side of the ship.

For those that truly understand the gravity of this issue and for

those who have lost ones health, home, belongings and life savings

due to having lived in damp and moldy environments- to see these deck

chairs moved back and forth by the very professionals that should be

focusing on a means for handing out life preservers- is extremely

frustrating to say the least.

>

> Sharon has lost her sense of humor. I think a minor poltergeist

stole it!

>

>

>

>

>

> **************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL

Money &

> Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)

>

[Guest guest]

" bobbinsbiomed " wrote:

> So in essence whether we are talking about " damp and moldy

> environments " versus " water damaged buildings " , versus " mold

> exposure " or " building contaminants " , or disputing what part of the

> molds are responsible for causing harm, or disputing whether

> toxigenic types of molds are even toxigenic, or how to label these

> molds, is all like moving the deck chairs on the Titanic to the

other side of the ship.

>

> For those that truly understand the gravity of this issue and for

those who have lost ones health, home, belongings and life savings

due to having lived in damp and moldy environments- to see these deck

chairs moved back and forth by the very professionals that should be

focusing on a means for handing out life preservers- is extremely

frustrating to say the least.

>

>

Frustrating, indeed.

Seems that we've steamed through these frigid, iceberg waters before.

-MW

\Re: Publishing Re: Veritox 2004 Review Paper &

Kell... IEQuality Message List June 15 2006

Reply | Forward | Delete Message #7320 of 15864 < Prev | Next >

Publishing Re: Veritox 2004 Review Paper & Kell...

" Mark Doughty " wrote:

> I have watched this conversation for a long time now and can say

that it is the same old whine to the same crowd. I doubt you have

convinced the scientist on this list of anything for the reasons that

Tony has so patiently laid forth. Just because something seems

obvious to you does not make it science. You can't throw Koch's

postulate out the window because it is inconvenient or because you

don't think it matters.

> Mark Doughty

MW replies:

When something IS obvious and reproducible to those who are " in the

thick of it " , the phenomenon HAS overwhelmingly fulfilled Koch's

postulates.

Saying that it hasn't is interpreted by sufferers as an indication

that science simply hasn't done the research yet - and refuses to do

so on the grounds that empirical evidence should not be used to

challenge A Priori knowledge, in the same way that medical science saw

no need to test Barry Marshalls H Pylori concepts on the basis that it

has long been known that " stress is the cause of ulcers " .

This epistemological dichotomy is exemplified by the expression on

parents faces when the authorities assure them that the school has

been scientifically tested, is perfectly safe, and that their children

are not being made ill by exposure.

Parents who cannot discard their observations and the authorities who

insist that they cannot ignore science arrive at an irreconciliable

impasse.

From the parents point of view, the science clearly has not caught

up with the evidence, and authorities are attempting to use lack of a

known scientific explanation as evidence that the observable effects

do not exist and do not need further investigation.

Once this point is reached, witnesses to mycotoxin mediated illness

acquire the conviction that no matter how intelligent one may

otherwise appear, or how many " machines that go ping " they possess,

they are blinded by their own technology and unable to empirically

verify mundane matters elucidated by common sense, and that their

opinions can no longer be trusted, as such people are dogmatically

guided by a logical fallacy.

It is fascinating that those who dismiss observations citing " lack of

scientific data " firmly believe their views have logically prevailed,

when the reality is they have undermined their own " evidence based "

credibility to such an extent, that, as I said on the old IAQ

board, " Parents wouldn't believe anything they said now even if they

were to assert that the Pope really IS Catholic and that wild bear DO

crap in the woods " .

-MW

[Guest guest]

Mark,

I think YOU have misinterpreted Tony's words. As I understand it, Tony can take the same set of data, reproduce the same numbers as VeriTox did when establishing a threshold level for ONE inhaled mycotoxin at a time. But what Tony would never C-O-N-C-L-U-D-E is that these numbers are in any way, shape or form proof of the implausibility of human toxicity brought on by the microbial toxins that are found in water damaged buildings.

Its not the calculations of VeriTox that are irreproducible. It is the C-O-N-C-L-U-S-I-O-N based on these calculations that are irreproducible. What did the VeriTox authors C-O-N-C-L-U-D-E based on these calculations? In their own words as written as a lay translation for the US Chamber of Commerce, "Thus the notion that ‘toxic mold’ is an insidious secret ‘killer’ as so many media reports and trial lawyers would claim is ‘Junk Science’ unsupported by actual scientific study.â€

While it is perfectly acceptable science to say that more research is needed. It is not acceptable science to intentionally used limited data and profess to C-O-N-C-L-U-D-E a negative. Gets your facts straight before you attempt to erroneously support your position while citing Koch's postulate theory.

Am I right, Tony?

Sharon

Publishing Re: Veritox 2004 Review Paper & Kell... "Mark Doughty" wrote:> I have watched this conversation for a long time now and can saythat it is the same old whine to the same crowd. I doubt you haveconvinced the scientist on this list of anything for the reasons thatTony has so patiently laid forth. Just because something seemsobvious to you does not make it science. You can't throw Koch'spostulate out the window because it is inconvenient or because youdon't think it matters.> Mark Doughty

Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.