Guest guest Posted December 31, 2007 Report Share Posted December 31, 2007 Is it pertainent to ones medical treatment(s) to: 1. Obtain the severity of exposure and (2). Length of exposure to (3). The type of Molds one has been exposed to? And if so, how would one go about gathering that info, when the employer has taken a position to involve denial and a cover-up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2007 Report Share Posted December 31, 2007 > > Is it pertainent to ones medical treatment(s) to: 1. Obtain the > severity of exposure and (2). Length of exposure to (3). The type of > Molds one has been exposed to? And if so, how would one go about > gathering that info, when the employer has taken a position to involve > denial and a cover-up? > I'm not sure how you would retroactively measure exposure. You could estimate potential I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2007 Report Share Posted December 31, 2007 I want to know, how are these people who are getting these diagoseses finding their doctors? Does anyone have any suggestions on how to get regular, family doctors WHO ARE LOCAL and covered by insurance up to speed on things like this? It is SO exhausting. > Is it pertainent to ones medical treatment(s) to: 1. Obtain the > severity of exposure and (2). Length of exposure to (3). The type of > Molds one has been exposed to? And if so, how would one go about > gathering that info, when the employer has taken a position to involve > denial and a cover-up? In my experience, many doctors emphatically don't know what to do with that kind of information. Ive thought in retrospect that it might have been better to play dumb because once they hear the word 'mold' its as if their brains switch off. Their eyes glaze over. They often tell you upfront, they just " don't have the time to learn anything new " . You become a problem patient to them. Public officials too. I do have toxin test results so I have personal experience on this. They were very bad but it made little difference except to make many of the officials I approached afraid of listening to what I had to say. They don't want to add to their workload, I guess. Still, I am glad that I have the test results because it shows that it was not imaginary. Once you show them toxin test results, even showing them specific toxin tests, then some doctors then want no part in your care, they want you to see a specialist. Anything to get you out of their office. There are exceptions to this, I think around 1/3 of my doctors have been GOOD and are willing to listen but the other 2/3 have been apathetic at best and hostile at worst. The hostile ones leave you in shock. When you get the hostile ones it really makes you feel violated. Don't expect to not have to pay their bills either, they will gladly charge you (or your insurance company) $$$$ (four figure sums) for a half hour of insulting your intelligence about things they know nothing about. perhaps its because they don't want to get involved in controversy or be attacked by powerful organizations, I doin't know, but they take it out on you and sometimes they are spiteful, evil people. I have become quite disenchanted with public officials too. Public officials often pretend they never received anything. If you can nail them down as having received things they tell you that they have not read anything you send. I don't know why, but this is what I have run into. Aggressive non-understanding. Hostility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2007 Report Share Posted December 31, 2007 It is absolutely necessary to obtain all possible exposure data even if you must do the environmental testing yourself. It doesn't mean you will find a good doctor willing to assist you. But if you do find a good doc, they cannot risk their licensure and insurance on trusting your word for having been poisoned. The good guys need the data in order to do a good job of treating you to the best of their ability while honestly representing their tests and procedures to insurers, disability companies, workers comp boards etc. We can't expect doctors to go out on the liability limb without such data. The bad docs won't do any worse with the data than they would without it. But with the exposure data, they are less likely to lie about your condition on paper (e.g. say you are a hypochondriac) and you have recourse if they do. Exposure data will also be the only means of anyone ever oompiling statistics for equating symptoms with environmental test results. It won't help our generation but it will the next. As I have written again and again, exposure data matters. If we bring environmental toxicology into the mainstream where it is accessible to all patients, then landlords, employers and neighbors won't be able to successfully lie about their activities or the state of their property when people are harmed. Barb Rubin ========================================================== --- In , LiveSimply <quackadillian@...> wrote: > > I want to know, how are these people who are getting these diagoseses > finding their doctors? > > Does anyone have any suggestions on how to get regular, family doctors > WHO ARE LOCAL and covered by insurance up to speed on things like this? 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.