RE : Re: Dr. Shoemaker's submission to the National Toxicology Program - a PDF worth downloading and saving

[Guest guest]

I find it interesting that only after the 'school was tested and toxins found,'

were you tested - sounds like a pretty routine but unacceptable way of doing

business. It was 2 years before tests from my classroom reduced to writing that

I could present to my doctors.

The classroom is the last place where any person should be sick. The

purported safe haven of society. Not only is it political, there is much riding

on policy changes. The same hazards from my classrooms were enumerated in the

Geneva Convention of 1924 as banned as bio agents of warfare.

Sadly, the patient is on the defensive as to the catalogue of symptoms, and

the burden of proof of illness remains on the patient instead of the doctor.

It is a failure to diagnose in the building context that America's medical

professionals, that is putting the testing of the site of infection/exposure

before the diagnosis of the patient.

©

agasaya <agasaya@...> a écrit :

So please understand when those on this list

> reference contaminants creating " mold illness " in relationship to

> mycotoxins and mold in general. This is done with the intention

to

> keep politically focused, not to deny the dangers from the other

> contaminants involved with WDBs.

===========================================================

Unfortunately, the political focus is dependent upon economics which

drives politics and fills campaign war chests. When defendants

answer a complaint about any form of mold illness or chemical injury

(usually intertwined since people get equally damaged from bad mold

remediation efforts using biocides), each defendant gets to claim,

" You can't prove it was exposure to my ______, since this party was

also exposed to ______ in six other places and had a medical history

of ___________ from when they were six months old. " And so on...

The mulitiplicity of issues is very pertinent to those seeking

treatment, since the effects of biocides are different from that of

various other contaminants, and also because the measurement of

contaminants is highly limited to what is easy to get done quickly

and economically.

As Carl mentioned, it is a matter of obtaining proper exposure

data. This is the major stopping point for all of us with

environmentally induced illnesses, regardless of the cause.

Environmental illness is widely accepted today as being very

common. Until you get it. Then you become a financial liability in

the making. Environmental illness is only allowed to exist in the

abstract for that reason. The specifics aren't acknowledged because

of the dearth of testing labs working with individuals versus

corporations. The expenses involved, the difficulty in determining

collection procedures and narrowing the scope of inquiry to make it

possible and affordable ends the matter for most people. Yet the

legislation of politics is based upon proving the need via

unambiguous proofs of exposure and 1:1 correspondence of injuries

with the exposure data.

Catch 22.

Only when the science of toxicology becomes a mainstream part of

medicine, will we see enough economic inducement for people to

market products and build homes properly. Doctors need to be able

to prescribe (for reimbursement) environmental testing as an adjunct

to medical testing. Only after I tested my school building and

found multiple, neurotoxic pesticides there (which everyone denied

applying), were my doctors willing to order the proper tests for me.

Those tests allowed visualization and quantification testing for my

brain injury. But I borrowed $450 to do that environmental testing

and most people don't know what to look for or how to pay for doing

so.

Barb Rubin

---------------------------------

Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers