Re: Dr. Guidotti, President of ACOEM makes statement re: WSJ on the ACOEM Chatboard

[Guest guest]

So, what about skin absorbtion? It happens in biowar, but not in moldy

buildings, eh? What about ingestion from paticles that impact on the throat?

Esophagus? What about the ergot alkaloids produced by aspergillius species

that are hundreds of times more powerful than the mycotoxins you read about,

but only a few people seem to be researching?

What about the doses contained in the particle burden, not just the

identifiable spores? (These issue are all important!)

What about the inconvenient fact that cholestyramine makes people better? In

fact, what about all of Dr. Shoemaker's research which shows that mold

inflammation damages the leptin receptors and other parts of the brain? The

prefrontal cortex..etc. What about all the other doctors who have found

consistant neurological issues in a fairly predictable pattern (I am one of

the people who has experienced them..) What about the effects of mold-driven

inflammation on the brain and other parts of the body - the damage- hypoxia,

oxidative stress, apoptopsis.. etc?

What about the synergism of toxicity of multiple mold toxins with other

toxins commonly found in moldy buildings like LPS?

What about the documented long term effects of ochratoxin A on neurogenic

amines like dopamine and serotonin?

What about the animal studies that show that animals living in extremely

moldy environments get very ill and yes, die? What about the many people who

get mycoses of various kinds and many other illnesses when living in moldy

buildings.. (like all the people on who all have kidney and

liver issues..which would be a logical result of mycotoxin exposure..

One doesn't need to look far to see the holes in their logic..

..

>

> What is lost in the WSJ article is the technical accuracy of the

> statement.

> The contentious issue at hand is not damp spaces or the association of

> mold

> and mold spores with allergic, infectious, or irritating conditions. It is

>

> whether the metabolic products of mold known as mycotoxins, absorbed

> through

> biological particle inhalation in indoor air, is responsible for systemic

> human

> disease under conditions encountered in normal life, an unproven theory

> called " toxic mold " in the vernacular. The weight of evidence to date,

> despite

> years of investigation, does not support that it is and seems unlikely to

> shift

> with new findings.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

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?

snk1955@... wrote:

On 9 January 2006, the Wall Street Journal ran a front-page story on

the

ACOEM Statement on Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the

Indoor Environment. The College would like to address points raised in the three

or four postings to the List in response.

What is lost in the WSJ article is the technical accuracy of the statement.

The contentious issue at hand is not damp spaces or the association of mold

and mold spores with allergic, infectious, or irritating conditions. It is

whether the metabolic products of mold known as mycotoxins, absorbed through

biological particle inhalation in indoor air, is responsible for systemic human

disease under conditions encountered in normal life, an unproven theory

called “toxic mold†in the vernacular. The weight of evidence to date,

despite

years of investigation, does not support that it is and seems unlikely to shift

with new findings.

ACOEM is not alone in its interpretation of the evidence. For reasons that

are unclear, Mr. Armstrong, the WSJ reporter, chose to imply that the

ACOEM statement is at odds with the report of the Institute of Medicine, Damp

Indoor Spaces. (See below.) A careful reading of both will show that the two

are compatible, as are both with the recent statements of the American Academy

of Asthma, Allergy, and Immunology, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The reason that the ACOEM statement has attracted so much attention is that it

was issued relatively early and was put to use by litigants. The IOM, AAAI

and AAP statements are now probably cited in testimony as or more often.

The article includes an indirect quote attributed to me that “no disclosure

is needed because the paper represents the consensus of its membership and is

a statement of the society, not the individual authors.†That is a correct

description of the policy in force at the time the statement was released but

it has to be read in the context of what Mr. Armstrong, unfortunately, chose

to place much later in the article: the description of the formal and

accountable process by which the statement was prepared and fnally approved.

The statement was initiated by the College precisely because the topic is

important in environmental medicine. The lead author who was chosen (a retired

Assistant Surgeon General) had no conflict of interest at the time. The

statement was substantively revised four times, in a process closely managed by

the chair of our Council of Scientific Affairs. It then underwent three levels

of review (Council, Board committee, full Board) before finally being

approved by the elected representative governing body, the Board of Directors of

the

College.

Two correspondents stated that the membership had no opportunity to comment

on the statement. In fact, a notice was published on the front page of the

fall 2002 issue of ACOEM Report, a newsletter (now replaced by ACOEM eNews)

then distributed to all ACOEM members. A well-attended session on mold, which

featured the statement and the rationale behind it, was held at the 2003

American Occupational Health Conference, with lots of opportunity for open

discussion.

The WSJ article implies that there is an extensive scientific debate on this

topic. The reality is that there are rather few scientists who embrace the

theory of “toxic mold.†The mainstream of medical opinion does not. We stand

behind the conclusions of the statement while remaining open to new evidence

in the future.

Tee L. Guidotti, MD, MPH

President

American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Addendum

Summary of Findings [of the Institute of Medicine] Regarding the Association

Between Health Outcomes and the Presence of Mold or Other Agents in Damp

Indoor Environments. (Reformatted from Table ES-2 and slightly abridged.)

Sufficient Evidence of a Causal Relationship

(no outcomes met this definition)

Sufficient Evidence of an Association

Upper respiratory tract symptoms, asthma in a sensitized person,

hypersensitivity pneumonitis, wheeze, cough

Limited or Suggestive Evidence of an Association

Lower respiratory illness in otherwise-healthy children

Inadequate or Insufficient Evidence to Determine Whether an Association

Exists

Dyspnea, airflow obstruction (in otherwise-healthy person), mucous membrane

irritation syndrome, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, inhalation fevers

(nonoccupational exposures), lower respiratory illness in otherwise-healthy

adults, rheumatologic and other immune diseases, acute idiopathic pulmonary

hemorrhage in infants, skin symptoms, asthma development [other than

sensitization], gastrointestinal tract problems, fatigue, neuropsychiatric

symptoms,

cancer, reproductive effects

Note that the IOM’s summary does not apply to immunocompromised individuals,

who are susceptible to colonization and infection.

[Guest guest]

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 in

the area got to tell their employees to 'come to work', even though

they were still in the fallout zone, and firefighters and rescue

workers were forced to go on working in that toxic cloud even without

the proper protection for days or weeks until it arrived, and

America's image was 'untarnished'.. but at what cost in health for so

many people?

This denial mindset is not a good way to live, in fact, its dangerous.

People were talking about that for a long time and I think that it was

one of the factors that led to the extremely low level of trust that

people have now for the administration's kind of 'experts'.

So, why don't we think a bit about the implications of this kind of

'whitewash'? What might some people do the next time this (Sept 11)

happens, knowing what they know now about how they might be treated if

they end up with health issues? (and they lose their jobs and

insurance and then their familes end up going hungry even as the

country lauds them for their heroism.) Its not something we want or

can even tolerate and the fact that this reaction has its basis in an

unpleasnt fact points to disturbing problems at the core of the

system. (Some probably would say that increasingly, ours is a system

so heartless and myopic that it can end up betraying without a thought

even those who it lauds as heroes- WE DON'T WANT THAT...)

Its a similar situation with mold. If the institutions we rely on to

protect us end up being for sale to the highest bidder and betray the

missions that they are tasked with, it reflects very badly on the

legitimacy of the entire system. Really, we don't want that to happen.

That betrayal might save some money for a few special interests in the

short term but it comes at a huge cost. Because the truth will come

out. And these issues are SO much bigger than just a few bucks.

With that in mind, I don't think that an official who calls themselves

a scientist should ever make such a blanket statement as the ACOEM one

was, certainly not when the situation is as it is, and that is not

because of the other things I mentioned, before its because of the

simple fact that any real scientist can and will tell you - at every

possible opportunity - that the more we learn, the more we realize we

don't know. That applies to every branch of science, not just this

one. Science is continually evolving and very few questions of this

magnitude are served well by blanket statements.

They reek of politics and they stink.

[Guest guest]

> Note that the IOM’s summary does not apply to immunocompromised

individuals,

> who are susceptible to colonization and infection.

>

>

>exactly!

>

>

[Guest guest]

read about a hudge study where they were going to do testing with

10,000 pregnaunt wowan to see if toxins are transford through the

placenta. mycotoxins were listed as one they would be testing for.

no, not the u.s

>

> 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?

>

>

[Guest guest]

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 , LiveSimply <quackadillian@...>

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

in

> the area got to tell their employees to 'come to work', even though

> they were still in the fallout zone, and firefighters and rescue

> workers were forced to go on working in that toxic cloud even

without

> the proper protection for days or weeks until it arrived, and

> America's image was 'untarnished'.. but at what cost in health for

so

> many people?

>

> This denial mindset is not a good way to live, in fact, its

dangerous.

> People were talking about that for a long time and I think that it

was

> one of the factors that led to the extremely low level of trust that

> people have now for the administration's kind of 'experts'.

>

> So, why don't we think a bit about the implications of this kind of

> 'whitewash'? What might some people do the next time this (Sept 11)

> happens, knowing what they know now about how they might be treated

if

> they end up with health issues? (and they lose their jobs and

> insurance and then their familes end up going hungry even as the

> country lauds them for their heroism.) Its not something we want or

> can even tolerate and the fact that this reaction has its basis in

an

> unpleasnt fact points to disturbing problems at the core of the

> system. (Some probably would say that increasingly, ours is a system

> so heartless and myopic that it can end up betraying without a

thought

> even those who it lauds as heroes- WE DON'T WANT THAT...)

>

> Its a similar situation with mold. If the institutions we rely on to

> protect us end up being for sale to the highest bidder and betray

the

> missions that they are tasked with, it reflects very badly on the

> legitimacy of the entire system. Really, we don't want that to

happen.

> That betrayal might save some money for a few special interests in

the

> short term but it comes at a huge cost. Because the truth will come

> out. And these issues are SO much bigger than just a few bucks.

>

> With that in mind, I don't think that an official who calls

themselves

> a scientist should ever make such a blanket statement as the ACOEM

one

> was, certainly not when the situation is as it is, and that is not

> because of the other things I mentioned, before its because of the

> simple fact that any real scientist can and will tell you - at every

> possible opportunity - that the more we learn, the more we realize

we

> don't know. That applies to every branch of science, not just this

> one. Science is continually evolving and very few questions of this

> magnitude are served well by blanket statements.

>

> They reek of politics and they stink.

>

[Guest guest]

Thats not the way research works.. not the way things get funding..

argggh...

On 1/15/07, jane mosher <janeannmosher@...> wrote:

>

> 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?

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

ya right, they just get in there long enough to get thier picture

taken, than split. reminds me of 2 days I spent sandbagging, risking

my life in floods and after the water started going down in came the

bosses, put on a vest, and grabbed a sandbag to get thier picture

taken. what a joke.

> >

> > 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

> in

> > the area got to tell their employees to 'come to work', even

though

> > they were still in the fallout zone, and firefighters and rescue

> > workers were forced to go on working in that toxic cloud even

> without

> > the proper protection for days or weeks until it arrived, and

> > America's image was 'untarnished'.. but at what cost in health

for

> so

> > many people?

> >

> > This denial mindset is not a good way to live, in fact, its

> dangerous.

> > People were talking about that for a long time and I think that

it

> was

> > one of the factors that led to the extremely low level of trust

that

> > people have now for the administration's kind of 'experts'.

> >

> > So, why don't we think a bit about the implications of this kind

of

> > 'whitewash'? What might some people do the next time this (Sept

11)

> > happens, knowing what they know now about how they might be

treated

> if

> > they end up with health issues? (and they lose their jobs and

> > insurance and then their familes end up going hungry even as the

> > country lauds them for their heroism.) Its not something we want

or

> > can even tolerate and the fact that this reaction has its basis

in

> an

> > unpleasnt fact points to disturbing problems at the core of the

> > system. (Some probably would say that increasingly, ours is a

system

> > so heartless and myopic that it can end up betraying without a

> thought

> > even those who it lauds as heroes- WE DON'T WANT THAT...)

> >

> > Its a similar situation with mold. If the institutions we rely on

to

> > protect us end up being for sale to the highest bidder and betray

> the

> > missions that they are tasked with, it reflects very badly on the

> > legitimacy of the entire system. Really, we don't want that to

> happen.

> > That betrayal might save some money for a few special interests

in

> the

> > short term but it comes at a huge cost. Because the truth will

come

> > out. And these issues are SO much bigger than just a few bucks.

> >

> > With that in mind, I don't think that an official who calls

> themselves

> > a scientist should ever make such a blanket statement as the

ACOEM

> one

> > was, certainly not when the situation is as it is, and that is not

> > because of the other things I mentioned, before its because of the

> > simple fact that any real scientist can and will tell you - at

every

> > possible opportunity - that the more we learn, the more we

realize

> we

> > don't know. That applies to every branch of science, not just this

> > one. Science is continually evolving and very few questions of

this

> > magnitude are served well by blanket statements.

> >

> > They reek of politics and they stink.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

oh, sorry live, thier not going to expose them to toxins they are

going to test them for toxins in thier system than test the babies

after thier borne to see if they have the same in thier system. urine

and blood tests. and it was 300,000 woman not 10,000. I'll send you a

copy.

> > >

> > > 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?

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

this statement to me is just wierd and advasive. toxic mold? first

thing I learned when I started researching is the correct term is

toxic fungi, fungal toxins, fungal infections, ect. at that time

there really wasn't much that could be found under toxic mold. and

than to use the word vernacular in the same sentence, to me is just

wierd.

and why would this be used to win cases, wheres the voc's ect. that

can be involved in a sick building. seems if thier going to write a

position statement on indoor mold exposure it should cover everything.

they are playing a very cruel game.

> whether the metabolic products of mold known as mycotoxins,

absorbed through

> biological particle inhalation in indoor air, is responsible for

systemic human

> disease under conditions encountered in normal life, an unproven

theory

> called “toxic mold†in the vernacular.

The weight of evidence to date, despite

> years of investigation, does not support that it is and seems

unlikely to shift

> with new findings.

>

> ACOEM is not alone in its interpretation of the evidence. For

reasons that

> are unclear, Mr. Armstrong, the WSJ reporter, chose to imply

that the

> ACOEM statement is at odds with the report of the Institute of

Medicine, Damp

> Indoor Spaces. (See below.) A careful reading of both will show

that the two

> are compatible, as are both with the recent statements of the

American Academy

> of Asthma, Allergy, and Immunology, and the American Academy of

Pediatrics.

> The reason that the ACOEM statement has attracted so much

attention is that it

> was issued relatively early and was put to use by litigants. The

IOM, AAAI

> and AAP statements are now probably cited in testimony as or more

often.

>

> The article includes an indirect quote attributed to me that “no

disclosure

> is needed because the paper represents the consensus of its

membership and is

> a statement of the society, not the individual authors.†That is

a correct

> description of the policy in force at the time the statement was

released but

> it has to be read in the context of what Mr. Armstrong,

unfortunately, chose

> to place much later in the article: the description of the formal

and

> accountable process by which the statement was prepared and fnally

approved.

>

> The statement was initiated by the College precisely because the

topic is

> important in environmental medicine. The lead author who was

chosen (a retired

> Assistant Surgeon General) had no conflict of interest at the

time. The

> statement was substantively revised four times, in a process

closely managed by

> the chair of our Council of Scientific Affairs. It then underwent

three levels

> of review (Council, Board committee, full Board) before finally

being

> approved by the elected representative governing body, the Board

of Directors of the

> College.

>

> Two correspondents stated that the membership had no opportunity

to comment

> on the statement. In fact, a notice was published on the front page

of the

> fall 2002 issue of ACOEM Report, a newsletter (now replaced by

ACOEM eNews)

> then distributed to all ACOEM members. A well-attended session on

mold, which

> featured the statement and the rationale behind it, was held at the

2003

> American Occupational Health Conference, with lots of opportunity

for open

> discussion.

>

> The WSJ article implies that there is an extensive scientific

debate on this

> topic. The reality is that there are rather few scientists who

embrace the

> theory of “toxic mold.†The mainstream of medical opinion does

not. We stand

> behind the conclusions of the statement while remaining open to

new evidence

> in the future.

>

> Tee L. Guidotti, MD, MPH

> President

> American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

>

> Addendum

>

> Summary of Findings [of the Institute of Medicine] Regarding the

Association

> Between Health Outcomes and the Presence of Mold or Other Agents

in Damp

> Indoor Environments. (Reformatted from Table ES-2 and slightly

abridged.)

>

> Sufficient Evidence of a Causal Relationship

> (no outcomes met this definition)

>

> Sufficient Evidence of an Association

> Upper respiratory tract symptoms, asthma in a sensitized person,

> hypersensitivity pneumonitis, wheeze, cough

>

> Limited or Suggestive Evidence of an Association

> Lower respiratory illness in otherwise-healthy children

>

> Inadequate or Insufficient Evidence to Determine Whether an

Association

> Exists

> Dyspnea, airflow obstruction (in otherwise-healthy person), mucous

membrane

> irritation syndrome, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,

inhalation fevers

> (nonoccupational exposures), lower respiratory illness in

otherwise-healthy

> adults, rheumatologic and other immune diseases, acute idiopathic

pulmonary

> hemorrhage in infants, skin symptoms, asthma development [other

than

> sensitization], gastrointestinal tract problems, fatigue,

neuropsychiatric symptoms,

> cancer, reproductive effects

>

> Note that the IOM’s summary does not apply to immunocompromised

individuals,

> who are susceptible to colonization and infection.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Well put! I agree!

--- In , LiveSimply <quackadillian@...>

wrote:

>

> > they are playing a very cruel game.

>

> Yes, and in my opinion, they are also gambling with their scientific

> credibility...as an organization.

>

> They may not realize it or maybe they think they are so powerful

and above

> the law that they can get away with it but they wont and its

incredibly

> stupid.

>

> One has to wonder WHY they are doing this and

> WHO is telling them (ordering them?) to do this.

>

> They must be very powerful and also very EVIL.

>

> Science doesn't work like that. maybe it does for a while, but

history is

> full of stories like this.. (look at Galileo and the pope...) and

> it never works..

>

>

>