American College of Medical Toxicology Position Statement on Mold

[Guest guest]

Sickbuildings,

I am carrying on a discussion of this matter on the IEQuality board, too.

From that discussion.

Sharon K

Steve,

What you say makes MUCH sense to me. I don't know about you all, but I am

not happy in the LEAST that my tax dollars are going to further a litigation

defense argument among those medical associations that are being government

funded to advance the understanding of environmental illnesses, not lie about

it for the sake of private interest money.

From fedspending.org: We have given ACMT over $1.3 million in the past 6

years. Who are these guys that we are funding? I am not impressed with what

they are promoting as science.

_Federal Assistance to Recipient(s) matching " american college of medical

toxicology " , FY 2000-2006, list of recipients_

(http://www.fedspending.org/faads/faads.php?recipient_name=american+college+of+m\

edical+toxicology & sortby=r & deta

il=0 & datype=T & reptype=r & database=faads & fiscal_year= & submit=GO)

And..below is a quote from a Gerberding letter, June 2007, referring

to CDC funding and telling an MCS group that ACMT is just the end all be all:

WHY IS THE CDC GOVERNMENT FUNDING AND PROMOTING AN UNSCIENTIFIC LITIGATION

DEFENSE ARGUMENT OVER THE MOLD ISSUE????????

Sharon

In a message dated 2/11/2008 9:30:39 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,

AirwaysEnv@... writes:

In a message dated 2/11/2008 10:14:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,

snk1955@... a message

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

The ACMT statement only refers to dose-response effects of inhaled

mycotoxins and irritant effects of MVOCs. It mentions ODTS and HP while

acknowledging

that the mechanisms of causation are poorly understood. Conspicuously

absent from the statement is an acknowledgment that individual sensitization to

bioaerosols and MVOCs can produce the symptoms that the authors say are not

produced by inhaled mycotoxins. This is what reading between the lines in the

ACMT statement should tell you.

The statement is blatantly a defense argument based on staying within the

parameters of classic toxicology and dose-response exposure relationships.

Where they do address allergic effects, they do not define or elaborate on what

constitutes an " allergic effect " . They minimize the significance of chemical

hypersensitivity reactions, which is what allergic effects are, after all.

My question is: " What is the ACMT's position on chemical sensitivities?

This will give you an idea of where they create the illusion that allergies

and chemical sensitivities are completely different things. They aren't. You

can't talk about ODTS and HP without getting into HOW -- NOT WHICH -- people

get these diseases. To say that these diseases only occur in farmers or

some other occupation and not in people in schools, homes and offices is pure

nonsense. School teachers do have a high incidence of HP and work-related

asthma as a recognized occupational hazard. What do the toxicologists say

about

that?

I think it's safe to say that toxicologists are definitely the wrong type of

professional to explain mold health effects because they can't seem to think

beyond dose-response. Anyone can see that when one or two people get sick

when a large number of people are similarly exposed, it isn't a dose-response

cause -- it is an individual reaction. Duh!

And for the plaintiff experts who say that because Asp/Pen or Stachy was

found, all health effects were caused by mycotoxins, they are expressing only

their unfounded beliefs. They are not even close to proffering a scientific

opinion.

New research should focus on the mechanisms of sensitization and resultant

sites of inflammation.

Since work-related or occupational asthma seems to be at the frontier of

medical science's accepting of microbial and chemical sensitization as a cause

of inflammatory reactions, this should be a good starting point for studying

other environmental sensitizing exposures.

_http://www.state.http://www.sthttp://www.shttp://www.stahttp://wwhtt_

(http://www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/survweb/wra/documents/wraguide.pdf)

Steve Temes

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

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

5

48)