Re: Could those who know please speak about causation?

[Guest guest]

Haley,

I'm not an expert on causation but let me give you a couple of

elementary starting points.

1. See my other post today on " Fungi and Sinusitis Study. " This is an

example where the disease is not " caused " directly by an exposure.

Rather, the exposure sets off a sequence of events that eventually

results in something diagnosable.

2. You'd think that finding the same foreign DNA in the tissue as in

the environment would be conclusive. But that could simply be an

arbitrary (hopeful?)selection of one possible cause out of many

others. A more thorough study would be needed to eliminate other

possible causes.

For example, causation of infections is well established by a

specific, precise sequence called Koch's Postulates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch's_postulates

1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms

suffering from the disease, but not in healthy organisms.

2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and

grown in pure culture.

3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced

into a healthy organism.

4. The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased

experimental host and identified as being identical to the original

specific causative agent.

There are some important changes in wording that has occurred, which

are discussed on the Wikipedia site, but the point remains the same.

Just because you are exposed doesn't mean you get sick. Just because

you find something doesn't mean it is the culprit. (Think of jury

trials for crimes - mere proximity isn't proof).

A connection is not the same as a cause. Going back to the infection

model again: If you isolated all molds and all bacteria in the

environment and all molds and all bacteria (plus virus) in the body,

you would find hundreds, if not thousands, in both locations. So

which one " caused " the illness? More investigation is needed to

eliminate the positive results that are actually false, and to find

what was originally the negative results that are true.

3. Next, there are different levels of " causastion. " The scientific

version as with Koch's Postulates is definitive. But it doesn't find

them all and is limited to only what we know how to find and

successfully culture. We could have the right organism but not the

correct method of re-introducing it into the healthy body. And so

forth.

Doctor's make clinical diagnosis all the time, which are not

definitive like the scientific one above. As victims, we make our own

conclusions with even less evidence. All we may need is to know we

feel sick in the house and better when we leave. That is sufficient

for us to do something. We should not - must not - wait for the

science to catch up to protect ourselves. BUT, that level of evidence

won't prove anything beyond your own experience to a doctor or

lawyer.

4. Another problem is Koch's Postulates is so ingrained in medicine

that they try to apply it to everything. They've learned it doesn't

work with allergies because most allergens can't be cultured. Cancer

is a different matter. Beyond that they often assume it is

psychological.

If a " new " type of disease is suspected it takes a long time to get

past current beliefs, develop new methods, and then convince the

authorities. In the meantime, those that are suffering are often

misdiagnosed, mistreated and neglected. In the meantime, it leaves

the victims vulnerable to misinformation from the other side, like

you are seeing with the ACOEM mess Sharon Kramer has exposed.

This isn't to excuse any of them, but to help understand that new

phenomena requires new methods, which takes time. We also need to be

more careful with the words we use, especially " mold 'caused' _____. "

I'm aware that there is much more to " causation " but I'm also aware

that I don't know enough to speak to it. Perhaps others on this group

will.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> I gather this is a tricky thing and I'd sure appreciate being able to

understand this better.

>

> What, exactly, would someone have to do to prove that exposure they had led

to sickness? If someone had mycotoxicosis, is matching the DNA from the

mycotoxin in a person's tissues to the DNA of the mold/mycotoxin found on the

premises sufficient to demonstrate that the indoor environment made the person

sick?

>

> Much appreciated,

>

>

> ~Haley

>

>