Guest guest Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 Thanks for this link. The site also points to a MedScape link with an interesting title and conclusion to a study. " Chronic Rhinosinusitis May Be an Immune Disorder. " Part of the conclusion reads " fungi (may be) important in causing an immune response that promotes chronic sinusitis. " Notice how it doesn't say fungi " causes " chronic sinusitis. Rather, fungi causes " an immune response. " The next step of the sequence is it " promotes " chronic sinusitis. Understanding the difference between direct causation and triggering a sequence that leads to a condition or illness may help us to better communicate with doctors and others. Why? Because claims of direct causation makes them defensive and they can easily refute it (whether it's the truth or not). How we use words is just as important as how they respond. In fact, some recent reading I've done discusses the concept that the message we convey (inadvertantly) is revealed as the response we get back. If we want a different response we may need to say or write it differently. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- They have done some research about > allergic fungal sinusitis. To read about it, look at this link... > > sinuseducation.org/studies/ponikau_74_99.pdf - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 I totally agree with you Carl. I do have major sinus issues and some have been cultured as fungal and some as bacteria. Here are 2 things I have said to doctors and the responses: Me: I have mold in my home and the mold is causing my sinus infection and me to be sick. Doctor: Mold may not be causing the sinus infection, it may be cause from a virus. Here is the other example: Me: I have mold in my house, could the mold be causing my sinus infection? Doctor: Yes, mold can make you sick. In one visit I told the doctor mold was making me sick and the other visit I asked the doctor if the mold was making me sick so in how one uses words does make a difference in responses and treatment. Besides, we need to treat the doctors with respect and as the professionals they are schooled as. If we go to a doctor with the attitude that we know more than they, this sets up a bad patient/doctor relationship. --- " Carl E. Grimes " <grimes@...> wrote: > Thanks for this link. The site also points to a > MedScape link with an > interesting title and conclusion to a study. > " Chronic Rhinosinusitis > May Be an Immune Disorder. " Part of the conclusion > reads " fungi (may > be) important in causing an immune response that > promotes chronic > sinusitis. " > > Notice how it doesn't say fungi " causes " chronic > sinusitis. Rather, > fungi causes " an immune response. " The next step of > the sequence is > it " promotes " chronic sinusitis. > > Understanding the difference between direct > causation and triggering > a sequence that leads to a condition or illness may > help us to better > communicate with doctors and others. Why? Because > claims of direct > causation makes them defensive and they can easily > refute it (whether > it's the truth or not). > > How we use words is just as important as how they > respond. In fact, > some recent reading I've done discusses the concept > that the message > we convey (inadvertantly) is revealed as the > response we get back. If > we want a different response we may need to say or > write it > differently. > > Carl Grimes > Healthy Habitats LLC > > ----- > They have done some research about > > allergic fungal sinusitis. To read about it, look > at this link... > > > > sinuseducation.org/studies/ponikau_74_99.pdf - > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________\ ____ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 Sharon, It seems as if there are literally thousands of personal stories (and scientific papers in web-accessible scientific databases, places like PubMed, for example) that show how the many patterns and ways illness from mold exposure and illness repeatedly happen. The body of those thousands of familes' experiences, as laid out in similar news story after news story, and those many scientific papers, is so compelling, based on people's repeated experience, and the aggressive ACOEM, etc. disinformation campaign also speaks loudly to show the legitimacy of the claims that people who have been made sick have. (If they were not legitimate, why would they go to SO much trouble and risk their whole credibility as scientific and civic organizations trying to shout them down?) Clearly, the financial motive that the naysayers have to squelch these legitimate claims make the ever raising of the bar that they seem to be spinning their stories to ask people to jump over suspect as well. Why are they putting so much effort into all of this spin? They must be spending an awful lot of money on their PR campaign because it is very good. But it can't cover up the many broken lives forever. Mold is ALSO recognized as causing disease going back to the Bible. That does hold weight when you look at it in the context of people's experiences. Literally thousands of years of experience at this point. I know that powerful interests are trying to turn back the clock to make it seem like the illness caused by mold is doubtful on some level but it doesn't pass the smell test, AT ALL. Its not the 1950s anymore. The standard for civil lawsuits is that it is *probable* that mold caused an illness. Of course, for people who have lived in a building and felt what the mold was doing when they were there vs. when they were not, there is no reasonable doubt for them. But the court can't read their mind and extract the whole story pictorially (yet) The 'beyond a reasonable doubt' criteria would be for the criminal case part of a situation, when there is also a criminal lawsuit going on. The two are separate. Sort of like the OJ Simpson lawsuit/criminal prosecution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 Sharon, I'll grant you that. But the problem in proving " this exposure is the most probable " means all other possibilities have been eliminated. Until they are the argument can always be offered that something else did it. If we claim mold, they will say how do you know it wasn't the laundry detergent? If we claim it was the laundry detergent, they will say how do you know it wasn't the mold? How do you know it isn't psychological? How do we answer if the range of possibilites have not been checked and eliminated? This is actually why hypothesis challanging is so important. For example, my hypothesis is mold is making me sick. So I challenge that hypothesis by trying to disprove it. If I can disprove it then I was wrong. If I can't disprove it then I have a much stronger argument - at least until it is disproven later or by someone else. For those of you interested, check out " Causality and the Interpretation of Epidemiologic Evidence " by Kundi Environmental Health Perspectives o VOLUME 114 | NUMBER 7 | July 2006. The abstract is at: http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2006/8297/abstract.html You can download the full PDF from that page. FYI, Dr Shoemaker references this paper in his study. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- > > Hey Carl, > > I see what you are saying about the dangers of designating a specific > environmental exposure as the cause as opposed to a contributing factor of > significance. But, when one is in litigation over exposure to microbial contaminants > that are found within water damaged buildings in conjunction with > understanding symptoms of ill health, isn't only necessary to prove that this exposure > is the most probable cause of the onset or drastic increase in symptoms? > > Sharon > > In a message dated 12/30/2007 10:28:31 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > grimes@... writes: > > > > > Thanks for this link. The site also points to a MedScape link with an > interesting title and conclusion to a study. " Chronic Rhinosinusitis > May Be an Immune Disorder. " Part of the conclusion reads " fungi (may > be) important in causing an immune response that promotes chronic > sinusitis. " > > Notice how it doesn't say fungi " causes " chronic sinusitis. Rather, > fungi causes " an immune response. " The next step of the sequence is > it " promotes " chronic sinusitis. > > Understanding the difference between direct causation and triggering > a sequence that leads to a condition or illness may help us to better > communicate with doctors and others. Why? Because claims of direct > causation makes them defensive and they can easily refute it (whether > it's the truth or not). > > How we use words is just as important as how they respond. In fact, > some recent reading I've done discusses the concept that the message > we convey (inadvertantly) is revealed as the response we get back. If > we want a different response we may need to say or write it > differently. > > Carl Grimes > Healthy Habitats LLC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.