Re: American College of Medical Toxicology Position Statement Mold

[Guest guest]

You ask how can they??? Money and Greed.... but that won't help them

at their hour of calling. And I pray to God..although God is

forgiving...I pray to him every night that he NOT forgive those who

put evil before the sick the hurt and helpless.

>

> Dear All,

>

> It has recently been brought to my attention that the American

College of

> Medical Toxicology (ACMT) has accepted the writings of Dr.

Sudakin and

> Dr. Kurt of the ACMT Practice Committee, to be their

position statement

> on mold. Dr. Sudakin and Dr. Kurt are both nationally recognized

prolific

> expert defense witnesses in mold litigation.

>

> The title of the ACMT Mold Position Statement is: " Institute of

Medicine on

> Damp Indoor Spaces and Health. " It may be read at

> _http://acmt.net/cgi/page.cgi?aid=12 & _id=52 & zine=show_

> (http://acmt.net/cgi/page.cgi?aid=12 & _id=52 & zine=show)

>

> A key finding of the document is: " 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) "

>

> The three references cited for the above statement are:

>

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

Evidence

> Based Statement: Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds

in the

> Indoor Environment. 2002.

_http://www.acoem.org/guidelines/article.asp?ID=52_

> (http://www.acoem.org/guidelines/article.asp?ID=52) Outed on the

front page of

> the WSJ for it's conflicts of interest and unscientific

methodology in

> determining the implausibility of toxicosis from indoor microbial

contaminents.

>

>

> (7) " Risk from inhaled mycotoxins in indoor office and residential

> environments. Int J Toxicol 2004 January;23 " Thrown out of court

in Ca April 14,

> 2006, as an unscientific " huge leap " when determining the

implausibility of

> human illness from indoor mycotoxin exposure. [note; this court

case was just two

> months prior to the drafting of this ACMT paper and the IOM Report

was the

> primary document used to discredit this study]

>

> (8) Satratoxin G from the black mold Stachybotrys chartarum

evokes

> olfactory sensory neuron loss and inflammation in the murine nose

and brain.

> Environmental Health Perspectives. A rodent study that was a

breakthrough in

> determining olfactory and cognitive difficulties caused by

mycotoxins. The study

> ends with the sentence, " Ultimately, all such information must be

framed against

> accurate quantitative assessments of human exposure to satratoxins

using

> both state-of-the-art sampling and analytical methods and relevant

biomarkers. "

> meaning, NOWHERE does this paper conclude that, " the maximum

inhalation dose

> of mycotoxins is generally orders of magnitude lower than

demonstrated

> thresholds for adverse health effects. " ...in humans.

> _http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/8854/8854.pdf_

(http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/8854/8854.pdf)

>

> NOWHERE does it acknowledge that " exposure modeling studies " cannot

be used

> by themselves when determining human health or that they are

simply

> addressing one hypothetical mycotoxitoxin exposure for one

hypothetical time. NOWHERE

> has this ever been considered accepted scientific methodology when

> determining human illness from mycotoxin exposure. NOWHERE has

this concept ever been

> reproduced except by Dr. Sudakin's employers in the two papers

cited above

> (references 3 & 7).

>

> SCIENTIFICALLY, EXPOSURE MODELING STUDIES HAVE " CONCLUDED " NOTHING

ABOUT

> HUMAN HEALTH FROM INDOOR MYCOTOXIN EXPOSURE.

>

>

> So here is my question: With so many people - children -

literally crying

> for help from serious illness brought on by exposure to microbial

contaminants

> in WDB's, what motivates some to promote the false concept that it

has been

> scientifically proven these serious illnesses indicative of

poisoning are not

> plausible to occur from exposure in WDB's? How can medical

professionals

> do such a horrid thing to their fellowman?

>

> Sharon Kramer

>

>

>

> **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL

Music.

> (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?

NCID=aolcmp003000000025

> 48)

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

This is all about money. Just like the healthcare debate,

its all about money and not wanting to spend it on poor people,

often poor people without jobs.

They are putting the wagons in a circle, so to speak.

On Feb 10, 2008 6:55 PM, <snk1955@...> wrote:

> The title of the ACMT Mold Position Statement is: " Institute of Medicine on

> Damp Indoor Spaces and Health. " It may be read at

> _http://acmt.net/cgi/page.cgi?aid=12 & _id=52 & zine=show_

> (http://acmt.net/cgi/page.cgi?aid=12 & _id=52 & zine=show)

>

> A key finding of the document is: " 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) "

>

> The three references cited for the above statement are:

>

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

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

> Indoor Environment. 2002.

> _http://www.acoem.org/guidelines/article.asp?ID=52_

> (http://www.acoem.org/guidelines/article.asp?ID=52) Outed on the front page

> of

> the WSJ for it's conflicts of interest and unscientific methodology in

> determining the implausibility of toxicosis from indoor microbial

> contaminents.

>

>

> (7) " Risk from inhaled mycotoxins in indoor office and residential

> environments. Int J Toxicol 2004 January;23 " Thrown out of court in Ca

> April 14,

> 2006, as an unscientific " huge leap " when determining the implausibility of

> human illness from indoor mycotoxin exposure. [note; this court case was

> just two

> months prior to the drafting of this ACMT paper and the IOM Report was the

> primary document used to discredit this study]

>

> (8) Satratoxin G from the black mold Stachybotrys chartarum evokes

> olfactory sensory neuron loss and inflammation in the murine nose and

> brain.

> Environmental Health Perspectives. A rodent study that was a breakthrough

> in

> determining olfactory and cognitive difficulties caused by mycotoxins. The

> study

> ends with the sentence, " Ultimately, all such information must be framed

> against

> accurate quantitative assessments of human exposure to satratoxins using

> both state-of-the-art sampling and analytical methods and relevant

> biomarkers. "

> meaning, NOWHERE does this paper conclude that, " the maximum inhalation

> dose

> of mycotoxins is generally orders of magnitude lower than demonstrated

> thresholds for adverse health effects. " ...in humans.

> _http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/8854/8854.pdf_

> (http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/8854/8854.pdf)

>

> NOWHERE does it acknowledge that " exposure modeling studies " cannot be used

> by themselves when determining human health or that they are simply

> addressing one hypothetical mycotoxitoxin exposure for one hypothetical

> time. NOWHERE

> has this ever been considered accepted scientific methodology when

> determining human illness from mycotoxin exposure. NOWHERE has this concept

> ever been

> reproduced except by Dr. Sudakin's employers in the two papers cited above

> (references 3 & 7).

>

> SCIENTIFICALLY, EXPOSURE MODELING STUDIES HAVE " CONCLUDED " NOTHING ABOUT

> HUMAN HEALTH FROM INDOOR MYCOTOXIN EXPOSURE.

>

>

> So here is my question: With so many people - children - literally crying

> for help from serious illness brought on by exposure to microbial

> contaminants

> in WDB's, what motivates some to promote the false concept that it has been

> scientifically proven these serious illnesses indicative of poisoning are

> not

> plausible to occur from exposure in WDB's? How can medical professionals

> do such a horrid thing to their fellowman?

>

> Sharon Kramer

>

> **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.

>

>

(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300000002\

5

> 48)

>

>