Re: 2007 NEUROTOXICITY AND INFLAMMATION..DR. SUDAKIN PLEASE RESPOND

[Guest guest]

It's willful ignorance. Perhaps they can't admit they have even heard about

these problems because they make so much money testifying in court for the

defense about things that are contradicted by them?

If this is the case, they are probably just trying to extend the plausible

ignorance as long as they can. They might be able to pretend they don't know

for years more.. but it requires some serious avoidance of verifiable

notifications.. They might be expected to run from potential notification

situations.. (That would make a good movie!)

What are people's cuts on the science that seems to be getting deliberately

ignored?

I could make up a list of what I think are the papers that are on the

blackout list.

Is there any reason why someone couldn't 'notify' them in a way so that it

would be obvious if they try to avoid receiving it, maybe they could be

served with the relevant scientific papers by a process server?

Really, thats what should be done. to get it on the record that they had

been formally notified of them.

On 9/16/07, snk1955@... <snk1955@...> wrote:

>

>

> Quackadillan,

>

> You are right. However, you are off topic from my prior post. I want Dr.

> Sudakin, who has been a silent member of this board for quite some time

> and is

> an affiliated of VeriTox, the ACOEM Mold statement authors, to answer

> these

> questions for his fellow board members.

>

> How about it Dr. Sudakin?

>

>

> Perhaps you can explain to your fellow board members, how

> Dr.

> Pestka's study supports your writing for the government funded American

> College of Medical Toxicology paper, titled: American College of Medical

> Toxicology Comment: Institute of Medicine Report on Damp Indoor Spapces

> and Health.

> How does Dr. Pestka's study support this statement: " With respect to

> mycotoxins in indoor air, exposure modeling studies have concluded that

> even in

> moldy environments, the maximum inhalation dose of mycotoxins is generally

>

> orders of magnitude lower than demonstrated thresholds for adverse health

> effects.(3,7,8) "

> And why is it that the only other papers you were able to cite for your

> above writing, were authored by your own employer, VeriTox? One that you

> cite

> was outed on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, the other did not

> pass

> a Kelley ruling just two months before you cited it for the ACMT. Surely,

> as

> this is YOUR employer, YOU KNEW of this situation.

> The following are the references you cite in support of that erroneous

> statement.

> (3) American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Evidence

> Based Statement: Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the

>

> Indoor Environment. 2002.

> (7) Kelman BJ, Robbins CA, Swenson LJ, Hardin BD. Risk from inhaled

> mycotoxins in indoor office and residential environments. Int J Toxicol

> 2004

> January;23(1):3-10.

> (8) Islam Z, Harkema JR, Pestka JJ. Satratoxin G from the black mold

> Stachybotrys chartarum evokes olfactory sensory neuron loss and

> inflammation in

> the murine nose and brain. Environmental Health Perspectives. [online Feb

> 27,

> 2006]

> Instead of just lurking, perhaps it is time that you respond to those who

> are ill after excessive mold exposure and explain your " science " to your

> fellow

> board members.

> Sharon Kramer

>

> In a message dated 9/16/2007 6:18:50 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

> quackadillian@... <quackadillian%40gmail.com> writes:

>

> The lipopolysaccharide (LPS) priming and potentiation is one of the many

> things that you notice never get mentioned in any of their propaganda -

> along with inhalation toxicity being higher than dermal absorbtion,

> ingestion, or ip injection, fungal transport through buildings walls, the

> growing body of information on fungal fragments, etc. - (they only use

> spores.. as if spores were the whole story.)

>

> Again and again and again they leave out important pieces of information

> that have been discussed again and again..

> So anyone who has any doubt as to their willful and irresponsible

> 'implausible denial' is being intentionally blind themselves..

>

> There needs to be a law....

>

>

>