Re: Re: Dr. Guidotti, President of ACOEM makes statement re: ...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/15/2007 6:54:52 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

jeaninem660@... writes:

Why don't the mainstream doctors/orgs fund a random study of the

general population vs. people like us to determine if mycotoxins are

elevated? do you think they might find some evidence?

Janine,

I think you just answered your own question. That is the correct answer.

They like the numbers the have been able to make magically appear based on a

rat study. It is saving insurers and others billions of dollars.

It is not really the rat study that is of relevance. It is only their math.

Tellingly, there is absolutely no one else in the entire world that

professes to be able to make the findings the ACOEM authors do regarding this

point.

(besides some security guard guy in Colorado, I am told).

What they did is not even close to scientific when determining human illness

(or lack there of) from

mycotoxin exposure within an indoor environment.

It's not now. It never has been. And it never will be.

It's junk meant to limit financial liability for stakeholders of water

damaged buildings.

These boys got caught with their pants down. And now they are trying to

explain why their findings are just like everyone elses...only they are not like

just everyone else's.

They are pushing REAL HARD to try and vamboozle one into believing that

absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence.

All will acknowledge that there is much to be learned... absence of

evidence... more research is needed.

But only ACOEM professes to prove the negative... evidence of absence... not

plausible.

It's pure junk and they know it!

It is absolutely amazing to me that they are STILL trying to pass that junk

off as science!

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Note that the primary issues brought up in the article, that the position

papers were based on a slanted view of the issue and that they were being

used to deny a lot people with legitimate environmental health problems

justice, was not rebutted.

Like the doctor who was quoted said, people are losing their homes and their

jobs because of legal decisions based on this so-called 'evidence-based'

statement.' but the 'evidence' is not clearly so one sided at all. They are

keeping the lid on this through intimidation!

Also, several of the authors cited in the position paper disagreed with the

final version and thought it was biased.

Thats pretty clear.. But they couldn't really address those issues at all,

prefrring to flail away at the already discredited point.... If you ask me

their rebuttal is based on pretty flimsy arguments..

" Its this way.. because we're the experts and we say so "

On 1/15/07, snk1955@... <snk1955@...> wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 1/15/2007 6:54:52 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

> jeaninem660@... <jeaninem660%40sbcglobal.net> writes:

>

> Why don't the mainstream doctors/orgs fund a random study of the

> general population vs. people like us to determine if mycotoxins are

> elevated? do you think they might find some evidence?

>

> Janine,

>

> I think you just answered your own question. That is the correct answer.

>

> They like the numbers the have been able to make magically appear based on

> a

> rat study. It is saving insurers and others billions of dollars.

>

> It is not really the rat study that is of relevance. It is only their

> math.

>

> Tellingly, there is absolutely no one else in the entire world that

> professes to be able to make the findings the ACOEM authors do regarding

> this point.

> (besides some security guard guy in Colorado, I am told).

> What they did is not even close to scientific when determining human

> illness

> (or lack there of) from

> mycotoxin exposure within an indoor environment.

> It's not now. It never has been. And it never will be.

> It's junk meant to limit financial liability for stakeholders of water

> damaged buildings.

> These boys got caught with their pants down. And now they are trying to

> explain why their findings are just like everyone elses...only they are

> not like

> just everyone else's.

> They are pushing REAL HARD to try and vamboozle one into believing that

> absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence.

> All will acknowledge that there is much to be learned... absence of

> evidence... more research is needed.

> But only ACOEM professes to prove the negative... evidence of absence...

> not

> plausible.

> It's pure junk and they know it!

> It is absolutely amazing to me that they are STILL trying to pass that

> junk

> off as science!

> Sharon

>

>

[Guest guest]

We heard and still hear the same thing from New Orleans after Katrina!!

They say everything is fine because they want everyone to come back to live and

especially work. The first thing I remember them talking about were the

casinos! Big bucks there even if they were covered with mold, they would NEVER

say they were unsafe for people to work and spend their money in!!

If you saw the movie Fahrenheit 911....the next time our government

officials tell everyone that it's " safe " , those government officials

should be the first ones to arrive on-site to take care of the

cleanup.

--- In _@ic_ (mailto: )

, LiveSimply <quackadillian@qua>

wrote:

>

> Remember after September 11 when Christie Whitman stood in front ot

TV

> cameras and told everyone that the area around Ground Zero

was 'safe'

> when it was already known to be laden with toxics? Sure, businesses