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

[Guest guest]

Thanks Sharon, but that was Jane asking, not me.

>

>

> 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

>

>

>

>