Re: s Hopkins U, Mold Myths, Health Alert aka Litigation Defense Propaganda

May 30, 2008

In all seriousness I think we need a study concerning the health

effects, the loss of life inflicted by the stupidity of these " so-

called " experts. The stats I'm sure would be astronomical. I guess

some have a lower price (ethically that is)than others on selling

their soul to the highest bidder.

>

> And we wonder WHY people are not able to receive medical care for

these

> serious illnesses.

>

_http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts.com/reports/lung_disorders/2012-

1.html_

>

(http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts.com/reports/lung_disorders/2012-

1.html)

> Lung Disorders Special Report

>

> 9 Common Mold Myths

>

> Media reports have linked indoor mold exposure to everything from

asthma to

> headaches. But whatâ€™s the real scientific evidence that

exposure to mold in

> your home actually can cause physical symptoms? A recent review

of scientific

> literature about mold-related diseases found that, while mold can

cause

> certain health problems, many common claims just donâ€™t hold up

under scrutiny.

> Five allergists, including A. Wood, M.D., of the s

Hopkins

> University School of Medicine, set out to define what can and

canâ€™t be proved about

> mold exposure. Hereâ€™s what they found in their review:

> Toxic mold. Popular reports about the health effects of mold are

likely to

> include the term â€œtoxic mold.â€ But that term can be

misleading, the experts

> say. They point out that only certain mold spores produce toxins,

and only

> under certain circumstances. Just because a particular mold can

produce toxins

> doesnâ€™t mean it will. Even if the mold is producing toxins, a

person must

> breathe in a sufficient dose to be affected. It is highly unlikely

that you

> could inhale enough mold in your home or office to receive a

toxic dose.

> Mold and Asthma. While allergic responses to inhaling mold are a

recognized

> factor in lower airway disease such as asthma, studies show that

outdoor mold

> is more likely to cause problems for asthmatics than mold found

indoors. A

> better assessment of the effects of indoor mold on people with

asthma would

> require studies that follow people over a long period and take

into account

> factors that could affect the results, such as humidity and other

airborne

> allergens and irritants.

> Mold and Allergies. The link between mold and allergies is even

weaker, the

> experts say. Current research doesnâ€™t provide a persuasive case

that exposure

> to mold in the outdoor air plays a role in allergies, and studies

linking

> indoor molds to upper airway allergy are even less compelling.

> Mold and Skin Rashes. Exposure to molds doesnâ€™t contribute to

atopic

> dermatitis, or rashes.

> Mold and Sinusitis. Thereâ€™s no clear-cut evidence that

sensitivity to mold

> causes chronic sinusitis, nor are there conclusive data to show

that

> mold-killing antifungal drugs such as amphotericin, applied to

the nasal passages, are

> an effective treatment for sinusitis.

> Mold and Infection. Superficial fungal infections, such as

toenail fungus or

> jock itch, generally result from fungi that develop inside the

warm, moist

> environments found in shoes or tight garments. Thrush can develop

inside the

> mouths of people with weakened immune systems, such as those who

have AIDS or

> cancer. These infections generally are not the result of exposure

to mold in

> the home or workplace.

> Mold and Irritation. Mold found indoors, even inside damp

buildings, is not

> likely to cause irritation of the eyes or throat -- and if it

does, the

> effects are short-lived. Symptoms or signs persisting weeks after

exposure and

> those accompanied by complaints related to the nervous system,

brain, or whole

> body (such as those attributed to chronic fatigue) canâ€™t be

pinned on the

> irritant effects of mold exposure.

> Mold and Immune System Damage. There is no credible evidence to

suggest that

> environmental exposure to mold damages the immune system. The

experts warn

> against immune-based tests given to look for intolerance to mold

and other

> substances in the environmentâ€ " so-called multiple chemical

sensitivity. The

> authors specifically advise against using blood tests that look

for a wide range

> of non-specific changes in the immune system. They also discourage

using

> tests of autoantibodies, which are abnormal antibodies that the

body sometimes

> produces in reaction against its own tissues. These tests are

expensive and do

> not provide useful information that will help to diagnose or

manage diseases

> related to mold, they say.

> Mold and Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis. This uncommon inflammation

of the

> lungs, an example of which is Farmerâ€™s Lung, is caused by

exposure to an

> allergen, usually organic dust that may come from animal dander,

molds, or plants. A

> person generally develops this condition only after high-dose or

prolonged

> exposure, or both, to mold or other allergens.

> Much of the hoopla over mold exposure came in the wake of

Hurricane Katrina,

> the experts note in their report, which appeared in the Journal

of Allergy

> and Clinical Immunology. The flood-ravaged areas of the Gulf

Coast, sadly,

> have provided a natural laboratory, which enables medical

researchers to address

> lingering questions about the health effects of mold.

>

> Posted in _Lung Disorders_

> (http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts.com/reports/lung_disorders/)

on May 22, 2008

>

> **************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers.

Watch " Cooking with

> Tyler Florence " on AOL Food.

> (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4 & ?

NCID=aolfod00030000000002)

>

May 30, 2008

ALL: I attempted to obtain entrance to at the website indicated at the end of

this absolutely ignorant article, but found nothing to indicate that I could.

So, frustrated enough, I will attempt to counter it here. First, what this

propaganda and failed " research " does not state is far more important than what

it does state. I do not know if many of you were able to catch a short article I

authored a while ago regarding " allergens " as opposed to " pathogens, " but it is

worth reprinting:

Keep in mind that perhaps these looney so-called doctors of today must have been

too busy with the " party life " and learning how to cheat on medical school exams

than to buckle down on the sciences to understand the specifics of the

microorganisms crawling on and beneath their feet! Had they done this, the

popular idea that molds and bacteria are " allergens " would have been mute in

medicine. Hence, my previous article:

Let’s Talk Mold Exposures and Politics

By R. Haney (Author: “Toxic Mold! Toxic Enemy!”)

The Sacramento Bee recently printed a comment by Sandy McNeel, the California

Department of Public Health that states, “Science hasn’t established a direct

link between mold and specific illnesses.” This top-level so-called “scientist”

clearly is behind the times by at least a decade and has no excuse for her

deliberate lack of knowledge on the subject. Medical Mycology science, as well

as other more complex fields of research dedicated to the bio and molecular

sciences have unequivocally demonstrated both genetic mutations and cellular

toxicity that are emphatically connected to human cancers, neurological

disorders, and other serious debilitating diseases. Before proving this

particular scientist’s educational defects, it is important to realize that she

is not alone. There has been a concerted effort in both private industry and

government to literally quash the “Mold Is Gold” era of public health. What the

public has not yet caught onto is that unlike diseases caused by bacteria and

viruses, diseases caused by microfungi (i.e., molds and yeasts) are not

reportable by doctors, hospitals, and medical centers to monitoring agencies of

the state and federal government. Therefore, for instance, as long as molds and

yeasts are not accountable to anyone in the medical field can regard such

diseases as “idiopathic.” That is, “diseases of unknown origin, cause, and or,

cure in nature.” There are very logical and unscrupulous reasons for doing this,

and for keeping the American public ignorant of the facts; sorted reasoning

called, “money and greed.”

Before proving that obstacles of money, greed, and conflicts of interest are

motivators for sabotaging current scientific knowledge, it must be established

beyond a reasonable doubt, that “science” has in fact established that

(especially in relation to respiratory exposures) certain species of live-celled

microfungi can and do cause serious diseases in the human body. What is most

incredible is that this scientific proof is not hard to find at all. The

107-yearold Merck Medical Manual (17th Ed., 1999) a resource instrument for

health professionals states the following: “Opportunistic infections caused by

Aspergillus sp and inhaled as mold conidia, leading to hyphal growth and

invasion of blood vessels, hemorrhagic necrosis, infarction, and potential

dissemination to other sites in susceptible patients… Aspergillus sp are among

the most common environmental molds, found frequently in decaying vegetation

(compost heaps), on insulating materials (in walls or ceilings around steel

girders), in air conditioning or heating events, in operating pavilions and

patient rooms….”

A list of fungal diseases on Page 1222, Chapter 158, Section 13, of the Merck

Manual, demonstrates clearly that 8 of the 11 fungal diseases presented are

primarily related to inhalation of various pathogenic molds. And what are some

of the fungal diseases identified in this document? The manual lists diseases

such as Aspergillosis (as most common), Blastomycosis, Candidiasis (invasive),

Coccidioidomycosis, Cryptococcosis, Histoplasmosis, Mucormycosis, etc., all of

which are potentially devastating to human health. The Merck Manual also states

directly to physicians that: “In immunocompetent patients, systemic mycoses

typically have a chronic course. Months or even years may elapse before medical

attention is sought or a diagnosis is made. Symptoms are rarely intense in such

chronic mycoses, but fever, chills, night sweats, anorexia, weight loss,

malaise, and depression may occur.”1 (The Merck Manual, 1999) Evidently, for

California scientists employed by the government reading the medical reference

manuals of the medical profession is not a forte, nor a requirement of the job.

Two aspects of microfungi are clearly evident in human fungal diseases

attributed to them. First, is the activity of mold colonization or physical

microfungi growth within vulnerable areas of the human body, and second, more

importantly, whether these colonies or growths are producing mycotoxins that are

poisonous to human cells over time. According to , J., and Klich, M.,

Department of Cell and Molecular Biology at Tulane University, “Mycotoxins are

secondary metabolites produced by micro fungi that are capable of causing

disease and death in humans and other animals.”2 (, J., Klitch, M., July

2003) Now, if that is not serious medical science, what is?

The most baffling foolery of those who oppose the thought that microfungi have

little or no scientific correlation to serious human disease is perhaps that the

medical field receives little, if any, formal medical training in the

environmental sciences throughout one’s medical career. It is quite interesting

that medical science will readily address a live-celled microorganism bacteria

as a pathogen, a genetic single or double strand of virus as a pathogenic

mutant, but yet constantly address a live-celled microorganism mold or yeast

simply as an “allergen.” People are “allergic” to mold allergens! What the

medical field fails to realize/recognize is that Botany research clearly

demonstrates that pathogenic microfungi are live eukaryotic cells (much smaller,

but structurally and chemically very similar to animal and human cells), unlike

prokaryotic pathogenic bacteria. All of these microbes are “live cells,” and as

people tend to think of “molds” as simply “allergens” or “plant-life” irritants

that come and go seasonally, they are not. As Professor Wong explains to

his students at the University of Hawaii, Department of Botany, in a class

lecture titled, Fungi as Human Pathogens: “The successful treatment of fungal

diseases is more difficult than those caused by bacteria. Because bacteria are

prokaryotes, the makeup of their cells are very different than our own

eukaryotic cells and pharmaceutical products, such as antibiotics, can

successfully destroy bacteria without harming our cells, tissues and organs.

However, because fungi are eukaryotes, finding a treatment that will kill the

fungus and not harm our own cells is more difficult.3”

Noted environmental researcher Harriet Ammann, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., a Sr.

Toxicologist with the State of Washington, and esteemed member of the Institute

of Medicine’s, National Academy of Scientists the explains in her article about

cytotoxic micro fungi and their secondary mycotoxins, “Is Indoor Mold

Contamination a Threat to Health4” about the health dangers of prolonged indoor

exposures: “Mycotoxins… are not essential to maintaining the life of the

microfungi cell in a primary way (at least in a friendly world), such as

obtaining energy or synthesizing structural components, informational molecules

or enzymes. They are products whose function seems to be to give microfungi a

competitive advantage over other microfungi species and bacteria. Mycotoxins

are nearly all cytotoxic, disrupting various cellular structures such as

membranes, and interfering with vital cellular processes such as protein, RNA

and DNA synthesis. Of course they are also toxic to the cells of higher plants

and animals, including humans. Mycotoxins vary in specificity and potency for

their target cells, cell structures or cell processes by species and strain of

the microfungi that produces them. Higher organisms are not specifically

targeted by mycotoxins, but seem to be caught in the crossfire of the

biochemical warfare among microfungi species and microfungi and bacteria vying

for the same ecological niche.”

The major consequence of not understanding this concept is that government

health officials and clever defense attorneys will continue to tell us that

pathogenic micro fungi exposed to home, school, and office environments is not

unhealthy for people with healthy immune systems. Aren’t these the very same

microbes found in hospital environments? It is interesting to note what

laboratory protocol medical students and students destined for future laboratory

work are being instructed on prior to working with micro fungi in university

laboratory settings. In her text, Introduction to Diagnostic Microbiology

(1997), Associate Professor and Director of Medial Laboratory Programs,

Dannessa Delost, M.S., M.T. (ASCP) of the Department of Allied Health, College

of Health and Human Services Youngstown State University5 writes, concerning the

health and safety of her students:

“Conidia and spores may remain dormant in the air or environment or may be

transported through the air to other locations. The spores of pathogenic molds

can be inhaled and enter the respiratory tract. This is a common rout of

infection, and because of this, it is imperative to practice good laboratory

safety when working in mycology. All work, including the preparation of slides,

plating and transferring cultures, and nay biochemical work, must be performed

in a biological safety cabinet. Because airborne conidia and spores are readily

released from a fungal culture, one should never smell a fungal culture.

Screw-cap test tubes should be used in place of test tubes with a cotton, metal,

or plastic lid. In addition, Petri plates must be sealed tightly with either an

oxygen-impermeable tape or Parafilm. As always, gloves should be worn and any

breaks or cuts in the skin covered to prevent the transmission of fungal

infection.”

The confusion over the health effects of long-term exposures to micro fungi

might more easily be dispelled in understanding the difference between molds and

yeasts that a person breathes in daily, and those species that can and do

influence human diseases. Pathogenic (or disease-causing) fungal species are

actively involved in releasing mycotoxins (meaning fungus-produced poisons) that

are close enough to animal and human cell chemistry to intoxicate these cells. A

good example of this activity is observed when a person drinks alcohol; a

fungal-yeast produced consumable mycotoxin. Alcohol is a naturally produced

product that within minutes after consumption changes neural activity, and

generates an adverse accumulative chemical effect on virtually every cell in the

human body as the person’s drinking progresses. If enough alcohol is consumed

over a short period of time “alcohol poisoning” could result causing a comatose

condition in the drinker, or even lead to death. Smoking or chewing of tobacco

is also a great example. According to a research study on tobacco released by E.

L. Maghraby and M. A. Abdel-Slater of the Botany Department, Faculty of Science

at Sohag University in Egypt, titled, Mycoflora and natural occurrence of

Mycotoxins in Tobacco from Cigarettes in Egypt6, the following facts relating to

tobacco state: “Forty-two species and 4 varieties belonging to 21 genera [of

fungal species] were collected from 40 tobacco samples…” The research continues

to report that among the many mold species were: Aspergillus, Penicillium,

Fusarium, Chaetomium, and Stachybotrys (the so called “Black Mold”) which has

been the mainstay of mold reports and civil litigation reported by assorted

national and local news media. What is very important as a result of this study

is the fact that: “Four samples (out of 40) had toxicity and four compounds of

mycotoxins were detected namely; aflatoxin B1, aflatoxin B2, zearalenone, and

T-2 toxin,” all of which are known to be associated with lung cancer, liver

cancer, birth defects, and other serious diseases.

Now, let’s review the definitions of what separate live cellular activity from

allergens.

Bacteria: Single-celled microorganisms which can exist either as independent

(free-living) organisms or as parasites (dependent upon another organism for

life). The term bacteria was devised in the 19th century by the German botanist

Ferdinand Cohn (1828-98) who based it on the Greek bakterion meaning a small rod

or staff. In 1853, Cohn categorized bacteria as one of three types of

microorganisms -- bacteria (short rods), bacilli (longer rods), and spirilla

(spiral forms). The term bacteria, was preceded in the 17th century by the

microscopic animalcules described by Antony van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723).

Mold: A very large group of microscopic fungi that live on plant or animal

matter. Most are filamentous organisms and produce spores that can be air-,

water-, or insect-borne.

Microorganisms: Live cell organisms (forms of life) requiring magnification to

see and resolve their structures. " Microorganism " is a general term that becomes

more understandable if it is divided into its principal types—bacteria, yeasts,

molds, protozoa, algae, and rickettsia—predominantly unicellular microbes.

Viruses are also included, although they cannot live or reproduce on their own.

They are particles, not cells; they consist of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or

ribonucleic acid (RNA), but not both. Viruses invade living cells—bacteria,

algae, fungi, protozoa, plants, and animals (including humans)—and use their

hosts' metabolic and genetic machinery to produce thousands of new virus

particles. Some viruses can transform normal cells to cancer cells. Rickettsias

and chlamydiae are very small cells that can grow and multiply only inside other

living cells. Although bacteria, actinomycetes, yeasts, and molds are cells that

must be magnified in order to see them, when cultured on solid media that allow

their growth and multiplication, they form visible colonies consisting of

millions of cells. Many people think of microorganisms mainly in terms of

" germs " causing diseases, but some " germs " are beneficial to humans and the

environment. Disease causing (pathogenic) microorganisms need to be controlled,

and in many cases, beneficial microorganisms are also controlled in plant and

food production. For thousands of years, people had no concept or knowledge of

organisms invisible to the naked eye. In fact, it is only within the last

several hundred years that magnification systems (lenses, magnifiers,

microscopes) were developed that enabled scientists to observe microorganisms.

In 1673 Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, a linen merchant in Delft in the Netherlands,

was the first to observe and study microorganisms, using single lenses that

magnified objects fifty to three hundred times. The role played by

microorganisms was not clarified until the 1830s, when Theodor Schwann in

Germany demonstrated that yeasts were responsible for alcohol production in beer

and wine fermentations.

In 1854, Louis Pasteur in France found that spoilage of wines was due to

microorganisms (bacteria) that convert sugars to lactic acid, rather than the

alcohol produced by yeasts. He developed the process of " pasteurization, " in

which the temperature of food materials is raised to about 140 to 158°F (60 to

70°C), thereby killing many spoilage organisms. Pasteur also discovered that

certain bacteria are responsible for the souring of milk. Today, milk is

generally pasteurized to reduce its content of microorganisms, to extend its

keeping quality, and to protect against pathogenic microorganisms that may be

present. Pasteur also discovered that each type of fermentation, as defined by

the end products, is caused by specific microorganisms and requires certain

conditions of acidity or alkalinity. He discovered further that some

microorganisms, the aerobes, require oxygen and others, the anaerobes, grow only

in the absence of oxygen. The latter probably developed in the earliest days of

the earth when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. Microorganisms are

present in high populations in soil, and in varying numbers in the air we

breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat; they are on our skin and in

our noses, throats, mouths, intestinal tracts, and other bodily cavities. They

are everywhere in our environment.

Allergen: A substance that is foreign to the body and can cause an allergic

reaction in certain people. For examples, pollen, dander, mold. (Source:

MedicineNet.com at http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2194)

Now let’s observe separate live animal and mold/yeast (eukaryote) cell

structures as opposed to bacteria (prokaryote) structure. The virus is not a

live cellular structure, but strings of DNA/RNA that require a live human,

animal, mold, bacteria, tree, or plant cell to latch onto in order to formulate

life.

In the “Tree of Life,” note where live bacteria cells are recorded as opposed to

live mold/yeast cells. Many of animal cell traits are similar to those found in

and of microfungi cells. Bacteria could not be more distant from animal cells

whereas live fungi are right below animal cell development. It is no wonder why

mold and yeast cells are difficult to detect in blood and tissue, they have the

ability to mimic human cells and remain undetected in disease processes while

bacteria are readily detectable by human immune system chemistry.

Note below how close in chemical structure animal-produced cholesterol is in

correlation with microfungi-produced ergosterol. This demonstrates clearly how

nearly identical cellular chemistry is between and interactively in animal and

microfungi live cells.

With this said, let’s observe a direct process of microfungi

decomposing activity while a person is still alive. The following medical case

image directly relates the serious damaging rampage of certain Aspergillus

species in the Cerebral Cortex as observed in a formerly critically ill patient,

now deceased. (Source:

http://brighamrad.harvard.edu/Cases/bwh/hcache/334/full.html)

The question is, could this same health problem exist in a patient

who is considered immune competent, or otherwise considered physically healthy?

For that answer on your computer visit the following website address:

(http://www.ajnr.org/cgi/reprint/26/4/835.pdf)

Immune competent patients in hospital facilities where construction is in

progress, or where air ventilation systems are defective have been known

distribute pathogenic molds such as the Aspergillus fumigatus species that can

and do cause an immune competent patient to become seriously ill. This is called

a “nosocomial” (i.e., hospital caused) or related illness, and it happens quite

frequently, more so than previously thought less than a decade ago. Can

exposures of microfungi in the lungs lead to serious neurological (brain)

diseases and disorders? Most medical professionals will tell you that this

occurs primarily in patients that are diagnosed as critically ill already, but

without any requirements for state or federal mandated reporting of fungal

diseases it is anyone’s guess how great of a serious health threat this is. One

thing is absolutely sure with this photograph, and it is that this is clear

evidence that molds can and do, cause neurological diseases through exposures.

How else would a patient’s brain end up as in this picture without having been

exposed to microfungi in some specific manner? We do know that alcohol

consumption can lead to neurological and many other deadly disorders.

So, why would someone want to keep the general public misinformed as to the

prospects of serious diseases and microfungi? Let’s direct our attention to one

such company that has generated a great deal of interest to this regard, and

surprisingly who the research they generated was directed to, and for what

reasons.

A January 9, 2007, a front page Wall Street Journal article titled “Court of

Opinion: Amid Suits Over Mold, Experts Wear Two Hats” authored by

Armstrong rekindled a longstanding battle over the American College of

Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) society’s solicitation of a

document titled “Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the

Indoor Environment” authored by a former highly-ranked government health

official. People who have been suffering from what they say are health issues

caused by indoor mold exposures, and several of the medical doctors who treat

them are upset, indicating that this document, now used as the ACOEM’s “Position

Paper” is “seriously flawed.” Charges of manipulation of scientific research,

favoritism, and conflicts of interest, were just a few of the comments that

began to heat up many Internet “chat boards” such as “ToxLaw.com” and ’s,

“Sickbuildings”.

The noose was tightening for the ACOEM should any of the things these public

health watchdog were actively discussing prove true. It would literally spell

disaster for this society’s predominate association of Workman’s Compensation

Certified Medical Examiners boasting a membership of more than 5,000 physicians,

if the public were to lose faith in the quality of medical authority this

society claims to exemplify. An example of what is at stake is offered in an

article titled, “Texas Picks ODG over ACOEM”, authored by Jim Sams, Senior

Editor of an Internet news service provider, “WorkCompCentral.” This article

states that, “The state of Texas on September 1, 2006, selected the Work Loss

Data Institute’s (WLDI), “Official Disability Guidelines” over the guidelines

submitted by the ACOEM.” Work Loss Data Institute president, Phil Denniston

stated publicly that he believes, “Officials saw that the Work Loss Data

Institute—a private company—has the only set of guidelines that are adopted by

the federal government’s medical guideline clearing house.” Executive Director

of the ACOEM, Barry Eisenberg, immediately took issue with this. In a written

statement issued after Texas posted its proposed rule, Eisenberg states, “We

would hope that Texas would at a minimum allow physicians to use a set of

treatment guidelines developed by the medical profession rather than mandating

the exclusive use of guidelines developed for commercial purposes.” The

“WorkCompCentral” article continues, “But in California, proposed rules that

would make ACOEM the exclusive source of treatment guidelines were widely

criticized by medical specialists during an August 23 public hearing. They said

the ACOEM does not address chronic conditions and has many other gaps that cause

unnecessary disputes between physicians and insurance carriers.”

Quoting Steve Cattolica, Government Affairs Director for the California Society

of Industrial Medicine and Surgery, the article stated that, “…he hopes Texas’

decision will alert California DWC officials that they should look beyond

ACOEM.” California did not, and the history that followed accepted the ACOEM’s

guidelines. With huge potential revenue at the heart of this competitive

slugfest, a major violation of ethics or improprieties could be catastrophic.

In response to the Wall Street Journal article, on January 13, 2007, Tee L.

Guidotti, M.D., MPH, current President of the ACOEM issued the following

statement, “What is lost in the WSJ article is the technical accuracy of the

statement. The contentious issue at hand is not damp spaces or the association

of mold and mold spores with allergic, infectious, or irritating conditions. It

is whether the metabolic products of mold known as mycotoxins, absorbed through

biological particle inhalation in indoor air, is responsible for systemic human

disease under conditions encountered in normal life, an unproven theory called

“toxic mold” in the vernacular. The weight of evidence to date, despite years of

investigation, does not support that it is and seems unlikely to shift with new

findings.”

Unfortunately, Dr. Guidotti failed to comprehend the objective of the WSJ

article. It had little to do with scientific findings, and a great deal to do

with the perceived impression that the ACOEM in effect is using perceivably

contrived and distorted facts of “rat study” science as the ACOEM’s official

position on “mold exposures and illness.” The ACOEM official position on molds

and health is potentially full of alleged ethics violations, conflicts of

interest, and selective manipulation of science on a grand scale! It threatened

to destroy the integrity of the ACOEM and gravely harm many victims of such

exposures living and working in unhealthy mold infested and contaminated homes,

schools, and office buildings. For the president of the ACOEM to blatantly offer

that the science is not available to support current medical knowledge, is to

claim absolute ignorance of the facts. The facts are that apparently the medical

community has chosen to ignore the facts that hospital environments have been

failing to effectively diagnose and or treat and all but ignore for nearly 100

years of available scientific study.

On December 7, 2006 the California Division of Worker’s Compensation (DWC)

published several intended modifications for incorporation into the state’s

“Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) regulations. California

ultimately did elect to use the American College of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine’s (ACOEM’s) “Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines:

Evaluation and Management of Common Health Problems and Functional Recover in

Workers”, 2nd Ed., as its guideline for evaluating work-related illnesses and

injuries. What the ACOEM Board of Directors also elected to do prior to the

California endorsement of their guidelines is on October 27, 2002, commission

and accept a paper entitled “Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds

in the Indoor Environment” as the society’s “official position” on indoor mold

exposures and human health. This gives one great pause in wondering if the

California DWP didn’t level a “snow-job” on the unsuspecting California worker,

either by profound ignorance or simply through unscrupulous collusion! The fact

is that the supportive science data used as references for this supposedly

“peer-reviewed” document were intimately examined as one would expect from a

prestigious medical body claiming itself as a “College” academic entity. There

is little evidence for that matter, to indicate that this document was ever

adequately reviewed by the ACOEM “rank-and-file” as a whole. To ascertain why

this practice is wholly unacceptable, one needs only to understand the scope of

influence that exists between the ACOEM and government, and within the medical

community.

There are two extremely important proposed changes to California’s MTUS

regulations under §9992.20, the “Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule”, that

pose to significantly impact California workers facing the unfortunate prospects

of an illness or injury suffered while at work. The first statement that was

added changed: “(d) “Evidence—based” means based, at a minimum, on a systematic

review of literature published in medical journals included in MEDLINE.” From, a

now deleted statement: “(g) “Hierarchy of evidence” establishes the relative

weight that shall be given to scientifically based evidence.” At first glance

these two changes do not mean much. However, under further examination they

speak volumes as to “what stinks,” in the state of California! And that is

precisely what is happening! Simply stated, if “scientific evidence” is

eliminated in favor of a “systematic review” of literature published in assorted

medical journals, California’s workers might not be examined based on “facts of

medical science.” In some clinical situations this could spell disaster in

misdiagnoses, delayed critical medical treatment decisions, and the timely

distribution of appropriate workman’s compensation benefits. It is said, that

the proposed changes will resolve the conflict between the interpretation of

Labor Code 5307.27, mandating that any treatment guideline be “evidence based,

peer-reviewed, nationally recognized standards of care,” and the ACOEM

philosophy of majority-rules “consensus based” standards.

The ACOEM’s “consensus based” peer-reviewed study for example in determining

illnesses related to a single “rat study” associated with work-related mold

exposures could prove costly to American workers. To support this contention and

demonstrate more clearly how the ACOEM’s “consensus” on mold-related health

issues was attained, one needs only to follow how the authors of the “Adverse

Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the Indoor Environment” ACOEM

Position Paper were able to literally bypass scientific “peer-review” by the

ACOEM membership in producing a “consensus-approved” document.

To comprehensively understand why the ACOEM medical body might want or need a

report effectively denouncing mold exposures as a viable health problem in the

worker, we must revisit a 1994 medical research study conducted by the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at the Children’s and Baby’s Rainbow

Hospital in Cleveland, Ohio. In 1993, Dorr Dearborn, a pediatrics medical doctor

at Rainbow Hospital began to encounter an unusual outbreak of pulmonary

hemorrhage in several infants, all of which were less than six months of age.

The CDC dispatched two of its senior researchers, Ruth Etzel, M.D., PhD, and

Barbara Bowman, PhD to investigate. Researchers tied a dangerous mold identified

as Stachybotrys chartarum growing in the homes to the sick infants. This

incident increased public awareness of home/building molds to the degree that

the Learning Channel produced a documentary of the study. National news networks

began to report this story and soon this fungus began to surface as an

environmental health problem throughout the nation. By 1999, more than 11,000

litigation cases had been filed, and scores of people were flocking to attorneys

claiming to have been injured by indoor mold exposures.

In the “lessons-learned” category, Americans observed quickly in New Orleans

after hurricane Katrina all but destroyed the city, that the true purpose of

government agencies might not be designed so much as to protect humans and

preserve life as they are to protect and defend the American economy in times of

trouble. Perhaps this was the motive behind the CDC’s release of a Morbidity and

Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) on March 10, 2000 stating that, “A review within

CDC and by outside experts of an investigation of acute pulmonary

hemorrhage/hemosiderosis in infants has identified shortcomings in the

implementation and reporting of the investigation described in MMWR and detailed

in other scientific publications authored, in part, by CDC personnel. The

reviews led CDC to conclude that a possible association between acute pulmonary

hemorrhage/hemosiderosis in infants and exposure to molds, specifically

Stachybotrys chartarum, commonly referred to by its synonym Stachybotrys atra,

was not proven. This report describes the specific findings of these internal

and external reviews.”

This MMWR report sparked an immediate rebuttal from the original research team

including doctors Dearborn and Etzel, stating “…the internal and external review

reports summarized a great deal of thoughtful discussions by these two groups.

However, neither review group included any member of the initial study team and

neither review group visited Cleveland to see the buildings or talk to the

families, community groups, Cuyahoga County Health Officials and building

inspectors, nor the physicians at the Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital.” Dr.

Etzel was upset enough with this rebuttal that she left the CDC expressing her

displeasure in a July 26, 2000 interview with Mark Moran, MPH, then with WebMD,

“Tom Sinks, PhD, a CDC epidemiologist, says that when the agency responds to an

urgent request for an investigation, its mission is to rapidly assess a

situation, not to do long-term research. " We do not have the luxury in these

situations to do the most exquisite type of research, " he tells WebMD. " Our

purpose is not to start something we can't finish. "

Sinks says the CDC recognizes the link between mold and human health, and urges

people to take preventive action when there is water damage in the home. But

regarding a connection between stachybotrys and hemosiderosis, the evidence is

too weak to justify policymaking, he says.

That conclusion generated controversy about the way the CDC handled the case.

Ruth Etzel, MD, an epidemiologist formerly with the CDC who headed the original

study, says the agency's review of the work is " dead wrong " and that the CDC has

sought to bury the connection between mold and disease.

" Normally, when a new idea is presented, you do more work and test it further in

other places, " says Etzel, who says she left the CDC as a result of the

controversy and is now director of the division of epidemiology and risk

assessment at the food safety and inspection service of the USDA. " What happened

here was that instead of moving forward, a decision was made to put a stop to

our work. "

She says the current scientific consensus on the dangerous health effects of

mold stems largely from the Cleveland study. " Previously, most physicians

thought of mold as quite innocuous, " she tells WebMD. " We were able to focus on

mold in a way that the medical world had never done before. "

Since that report was published, several medical doctors who have been treating

patients for symptoms related to indoor molds have faced the scrutiny of state

Medical Boards with board efforts to revoke their medical license. One

California physician actually lost his medical license in 1998 as a result of

unfounded accusations that he had been illegally treating his patients

inconsistent with “standard medical practice” for non-existent fungal diseases.

In February 2005 this doctor’s medical license was reinstated and he was fully

exonerated. However this was too late, his medical practice was literally

ruined; his credibility was publicly crushed and he was outwardly humiliated;

and the accumulation of legal fees cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars.

How does this happen, one might ask? It is fairly easy actually. The state

Medical Board or the CMS receives an anonymous complaint, and under complete

confidentiality without disclosure of the person(s) who lodged a complaint. The

investigation is conducted because a complaint has been lodged. While the person

or corporation complained about is publicly scrutinized and humiliated as guilty

without trial, the person who lodged the complaint, whether meritorious or not,

throughout the investigation, hearing, or trial is never disclosed to the

defendant. Now sarcastically speaking, that is truly American justice at work!

If we were to quiz every medical doctor or scientist who has ever studied

certain species of live-celled gram-negative and positive bacteria or various

viruses to any degree as to whether studies behind the health issues related to

these microbes are considered “junk science”, the answer would certainly be, “Of

course not! There is solid scientific evidence to support their pathogenicity as

fact.” Yet, we have pathogenic micro fungi (live cellular pathogens), clearly

observed as environmentally, physically, and subtly much more diverse and

destructive than many other microbes, and suddenly because there is so much more

economically and politically at stake, the research involving the health issues

behind indoor exposures in a court of law are made out by the defense experts as

“junk science!”

Our involvement in the study of the “brave new frontier” of Molecular Science

has been active for nearly 35 years, and with the current genetic studies of

various micro fungi are being realized medically as much more frightening to

deal with. Unlike bacteria, micro fungi are much more diverse as pathogens and

are “primary” decomposers. These microbes are far superior to bacteria and

viruses in their physical composition and how they perform metabolically to

conform to, and destroy, any prey in their quest to survive in a hostile world.

We allege that if there is any “junk science” relative to the study of micro

fungi and their physiologic connection with animal and human illness, it belongs

to the illogical antics by defense experts. Which brings us back to the focus of

this article as it relates to California’s proposed MTUS acceptance of the ACOEM

Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines in the evaluation and management ill

or injured workers.

Recalling Dr. Ruth Etzel’s parting shot that, “The CDC has sought to bury the

connection between mold and disease…” is extremely important! Why? Because Dr.

Etzel’s statement offers a direct link to one of the primary “defense experts”

of VeriTox, Inc., Hardin, PhD, who along with Bruce Kelman, PhD, in

conjunction with Saxon, M.D., of the UCLA Medical Center authored the

ACOEM’s Position Paper. Dr. Saxon’s connection with government is that he

receives grants from federal entities such as the National Institutes of Health,

which the CDC falls under.

According to information on the VeriTox, Inc. website (a company with litigation

experts known for their defense antics in providing expert testimony for the

purpose of dissuading juries from accepting the idea that exposures to indoor

molds infestations and contaminants lead to serious human health problems), one

of its principals and an author of said paper Hardin, PhD, FATS, " …was

commissioned into the US Public Health Service and began his public health

career with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in

1972, where he served in research, policy, and management roles, culminating as

Deputy Director of NIOSH and Assistant Surgeon General in the Public Health

Service.” To say that Dr. Hardin does not have intimate connections at high

levels of government including the CDC, would be a grave misstatement. To

believe for an instant that many of the medical doctors most influential in the

ACOEM position paper do not also have similar political connections, would also

fail a scrutiny test.

How was this position endorsed if the voting membership of the medical college

that is not a true college were not given a proper chance to review the research

behind it? That is in itself an interesting story, and is the “primary” reason

that a “consensus” philosophy over a “scientific evidence” philosophy as

promoted by the California Worker’s Compensation Institute, would not be

feasible in evaluating the health and injury guidelines of ACOEM, guiding

Qualified Medical Examiners (QMEs) as currently managed. Another manner in

which to address this is how can California trust an ACOEM society of medical

doctors to set guidelines for one of the most important entrustments between

employee and employer, if the California DWC approves “unscientific” and

“shabby” medical science for implementation as part of its guidelines covering

various work-related illnesses and injuries nationwide? The California Workman’s

Compensation system would greatly injure the California worker should this

unwise indiscretion occur. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and

Immunology (AAAAI) recently received major complaints from alert members who are

keenly aware of the misgivings of the VeriTox, Inc., authored report as it was

proposed for the AAAAI Position Paper in response to indoor mold exposures and

health.

To provide credibility for this Guest Editorial article, on May 1, 2006 in

Harold v. California Casualty Insurance Company in Sacramento Superior Court,

Case No. 02AS04291, Judge P. Kenny, in ruling on the “/Frye”

admissibility of scientific merit and admissibility of testimony by Coreen A.

Robbins, PhD, MHS, CIH, on in behalf of VeriTox, Inc., as one of its defense

experts and corporate principals, an inadmissibility ruling was rendered.

The purpose for a New York state-based, -Frye hearing is to allow the judge

acting as a “gatekeeper” for the integrity of the court and or trial process, to

preclude any “non-science” or “junk science” based testimony or evidence from

being introduced into the trial proceedings as evidence. In the “Harold” case,

the objective of Judge Kenny’s “-Frye” hearing was to rule as to the

admissibility of a “single rat clinical study” addressing the “dose-response”

relating the findings of this study to indoor mold hazards and human illness.

Judge Kenny decided not to allow Dr. Robbin’s testimony based on his review of

the following documents:

1) “Risk from Inhaled Mycotoxins in Indoor Office and Residential Environments”

International Journal of Toxicology 2004; 23: 3-10. Authors: C.A. Robbins, L.J.

Swenson, and B.D. Hardin.

2) “Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the Indoor

Environment” Journal of ACOEM 2003. ACOEM “Mold Position Statement” Authors:

B.J. Kelman, B.D. Hardin, and A.J. Saxon.

3) “The Medical Effects of Mold Exposure” American Academy of Allergy, Asthma

and Immunology (AAAAI) “Mold Position Paper”. Authors: R.K. Bush, J. Portnoy, A.

Terr, A.J. Saxon and R.A. Wood

Judge Kenney ruled to preclude any reference or testimony relative to these

published documents during the “Harold” trial by reasoning in his words, that:

“When I reviewed the DHS report from April of 2005, DHS, Department of Health

Services was talking about the fact that they were unable to establish personal

exposure levels at this point in time based on a lack of sufficient information,

and yet Dr. [Coreen] Robbins [a Principal of VeriTox, Inc.] is asking to take an

even greater step and go beyond establishing, for example, a personal exposure

level and jump to modeling, which is far more tenuous and far more unreliable

even in establishing something that is as hard as a personal exposure level. So

those are the difficulties I’m having with Dr. Robbins’ testimony.”

Judge Kenney further commented that:

1) “…He is familiar with the use of animal studies and derivative models for

humans and that such models are commonly accepted in the scientific community”

Also, “…I am not sure such models for mycotoxin exposure would pass a -Frye

test for admissibility.”

2) “My fundamental problem is in looking at it from a Frye standpoint I

just didn’t see kind of acceptance in the scientific community with regard to

what she [referencing, Dr. Coreen Robbins] that would allow it to be sort of

presented as such.”

3) “Modeling has severe limitations, and one of the difficulties I was having

here was this reliance upon animal studies to jump to a modeling conclusion

generally with—again, I’m speaking from my own experience because there is

nothing here in this transcript—generally one will use the data that one can

receive either from animal exposure studies or other information to then input

in a model to make a determination with some degree of reliability.” Further,

“Here I am not hearing any of those things. I’m hearing essentially this jump

from literature review to a postulated model to a no harm result.”

If a Superior Court judge was wise enough to see through the “unacceptable”

scientific merit of a single “rat study,” why then didn’t the officers of the

ACOEM, a supposed “College” of a “Society” composed of over 5,000 highly-trained

medical doctors? The answer lies in politics and not medicine. A great deal is

at stake both medically speaking, and in the realm of pure economics.

There are few products supported by bacteria or viruses. However, there are

literally thousands of products that either include fungal-produced mycotoxins

used for flavor, scent, or other characteristics and attributes that are

unhealthy to humans over time. There are molds and mycotoxins that are not

healthy for human consumption but cannot be extracted or controlled by current

scientific methods. If the American public actually grasped the enormity of this

fact, and that of mold species implications in “idiopathic” (or, of “unknown

cause or unknown cure”) diseases, the research and effective counter-treatments

costs alone, would be prohibitive. The human populations most adversely affected

by mold exposures are infants under the age of two and people over the age of

fifty. It is not a secret that the success of Health Maintenance Organizations

(HMO), and similar health plans depends on “preventive medicine” as opposed to

“treatment and/or therapeutic medicine.” As long as diseases related to mold

exposures do not have to be recognized or recorded medically, there is virtually

little or no liability; not in medicine… not in food processing… not in real

estate… not in much of anything commercially!

In accepting the “Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the

Indoor Environment” report as the authority for the ACOEM position on indoor

mold exposures authored by B.J. Kelman, B.D. Hardin, principals of VeriTox,

Inc., in conjunction with Dr. A.J. Saxon, of the UCLA Medical Center, one has

only to peer through the veil of ACOEM membership solicitation to understand its

objective for producing an anti-mold exposure aversely affecting human illness,

position statement.” The ACOEM is involved in assisting government in

establishing “National Policy.” For one to belong to this vast organization is

prestigious enough, but to be brought into this “society” of medical doctors for

the specific purpose of authoring a medical “Position Statement” is huge! For

once accepted as gospel, this unorthodox document would have far-reaching and

extremely strong political and fiscal implications at its core. A former

Assistant Surgeon General with NIOSH/CDC, Hardin, PhD, then a Principal of

GlobalTox, Inc. (renamed as VeriTox, Inc.) was asked by ACOEM administration to

draft a Position Statement for consideration by the college. Knowing that any

author of an ACOEM Position Paper should accordingly be a member of the ACOEM,

in February 2002 Dr. Hardin was provided with a free membership in the ACOEM. It

is alleged that this perk served as an “advanced thank you” for writing the

ACOEM Position Statement. Prior to Dr. Hardin’s acceptance for membership into

the ACOEM, this organization was open to “physicians only” after his induction,

this so-called “College” is now open to practically anyone with who is able to

pay its membership dues.

A memo written to member Dean Grove, with copies also sent to J.

Bernacki, M.D, MPH, Barry S. Eisenberg, ACOEM Executive Director, and ACOEM

President J. Key, M.D., MPH, FACOEM, by Borak, M.D., FACOEM,

Chairman of the ACOEM Committee on Scientific Affairs stressing the significance

of the Position Paper stated, “Dean et al: I am having quite a challenge in

finding an acceptable path for the proposed position paper on mold. Even though

a great deal of work has gone in, it seems difficult to satisfy a sufficient

spectrum of the College, or at least those concerned enough to voice their

views.

“I have received several sets of comments that find the current version, much

revised, to still be a defense argument. On the other hand, Hardin and

his colleagues are not willing to further dilute the paper. They have done a

lot, and I ma concerned that we will soon have to either endorse or let go. I

do not want this to go to the BOD and then be rejected. That would be an

important violation of —I have assured him that if we do not use it he can

freely make whatever other use he might want to make. If we “officially” reject

it, then we turn his efforts into garbage.

“As this was an effort that you, Dean, asked me to initiate I thought that you

might have a good idea about what might be done.

“The problem is the same as when this began. Mold is a litigation mine field.

Everybody involved in the topic has a strong view and there is little middle

ground. If we have a statement that deals only with science, we will be accused

of ignoring the “Public Health” issues. If we embrace the Public Health, then we

will be regarded as not scientific.

“I have not previously been involved in an ACOEM issue that raised provoked

emotions among member peer reviewers. My own feeling is that it may not be

worth the disruptive effects that might result from forcing the issue. Also, I

think that the authors are not willing to let this just sit for awhile. They

have done a lot of work and want to see it in print.

“For your interests, I have attached the latest version.

”

This memo tends to observe that a few of the decision-makers within the ranks of

the ACOEM were concerned primarily with Dr. Hardin and the position

paper’s other authors, and not with the quality of medical care of working

public.

One of the three documents submitted for evidence to Judge Kenny observed as

based upon inadequate scientific study was titled, “The Medical Effects of Mold

Exposure” authored by J. Portnoy, A. Terr, A.J. Saxon and R.A. Wood. What is not

publicly discussed by administrative members of the AAAAI about this document

(the association’s adopted position on mold exposures) called the “Bush” paper,

is that it generated a massive response from people with intimate knowledge

about the realities of mold exposures and illness. After a series of complaints

demanding its retraction as published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical

Immunology (JACI), one of its authors, Dr. Portnoy, pulled his name from

“co-authorship” in protest against the abuse of academic process by the

remaining authors. Dr. Saxon, one of the primary authors of the ACOEM

position paper was intimately involved in the AAAAI document.

In a rebuttal statement to the initial AAAAI position statement titled “Rigor,

Transparency Disclosure Needed in Mold Illness Position Paper” published in the

September 2006 issue of the JACI, co-authored by noted physician Ritchie

Shoemaker, M.D., Harriett Amman, Ph.D., DABT (a distinguished member of the

National Academy of Sciences), Lipsey, PhD, and W. Montz, Jr.,

PhD, CIHQP, the integrity of scientific research was discussed. The rebuttal

states, “Over 100 MDs and PhDs from the mold community, demands proper

disclosure of conflict of interest and thoroughness from papers written by

defense-hired physicians. Both the ACOEM “opinion” and the AAAAI statement show

no such rigor, transparency, and disclosure. One should wonder how such junk

science, as labeled in a California ruling (Harold v. California Casualty No.

02AS04291), based on bizarre leaps from one study of acute, high-dose exposure

to unknown mycotoxins in rats to and even more bizarre conclusion about absence

of human illness associated with chronic, low-dose exposure to water-damaged

buildings, cited repeatedly by a small cadre of non-treating physicians {two of

the three authors of the ACOEM position paper are PhDs and are not physicians}

for possible financial gain, could ever be considered by anyone as acceptable.”

In summary, until the ACOEM strives to rely on factual medical science how can

anything this supposed “college” sets as guidelines in evaluating medicine be

relied upon to any degree in California? What the ACOEM guidelines might perhaps

suggest to California workers is that the California Workman’s Compensation

system is not truly concerned for the health, safety, and personal welfare of

the worker inasmuch as it is in ensuring that the economic status of California

continues to prosper irregardless of what is factual or not within the realm of

medical science.

The California worker pays some of the highest taxes in the nation for its

legislators. The question here is, with the lack of government scrutiny in

accepting ACOEM guidelines as demonstrated in this article, what are taxpayers

actually paying for? Until the ACOEM regain an acceptable status of reliable

public trust and credibility, California is encouraged to eliminate its use of

the guidelines set-forth by the ACOEM. There is far more to this story than one

could possibly cover in a condensed article. However, with what has been

offered, the challenge is for California government to reinvestigate this matter

much more thoroughly, and deal with the findings to the full satisfaction of the

public at large.

References:

Merck Manual, The. 17th Ed. (1999) “Systemic Fungal Diseases” (Systemic

Mycoses). Chapter 158, Page 1210.

, J. W., Klich M. (July 2003). Mycotoxins. Clinical Microbiology Reviews,

Vol. 16. No. 30893-8512/03. American Society for Microbiology (p. 497-516)

Retrieved October 26, 2004 at http://www.cmr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/16/3/497

Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary (1988). Page 783.

land Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, Community Health Administration

(1999). Guidelines for Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Pulmonary

Aspergillosis. Retrieved August 9, 2005 at

http://edcp.org/guidelines/aspers2.html

Delost, D. M. (1997). Introduction to Medical Mycology. Introduction to

Diagnostic Microbiology: A Text and Workbook. Mosby, St. Louis, MO. 358

Ammann, H.M. (February 2001, Updated September 2003). Is Indoor-Mold a

Threat to Human Health. Washington State Department of Health, Office of

Environmental Assessments. Retrieved March 14, 2004 from

http://www.allergyconsumerreview.com/mold-and-mildew-allergy.html

National Academy of Sciences (May 25, 2004). News Release: “Indoor Mold,

Building Dampness Linked to Respiratory Problems and Require Better Prevention;

Evidence Does Not Support Links to Wider Array of Illnesses”. Retrieved on

August 10, 2005, from

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309091934?OpenDocument

MedicineNet.com at http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13954

MedicineNet.com at http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4416

Moran, M. (July 26, 2000). Environmental Health Watch: Healthy House. WebMD

Medical News. Retrieved on April 16, 2003 from

http://www.ehw.org/Healthy_House/HH_Toxic_Mold.htm

ACOEM (October 27, 2002). Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in

the Indoor Environment. ACOEM Evidence-based Statement. American College of

Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Retrieved on August 10, 2005, from

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

Cockrill, B. A., Hales, C. A. (February 1999). Allergic Bronchopulmonary

Aspergillosis. Annual Review of Medicine, Vol. 50: 303-316 (Volume publication

date February 1999) (doi:10.1146/annurev.med.50.1.303), Pulmonary and Critical

Care Unit, Partner's Asthma Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard

Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02114. Retrieved on August 10, 2005 from

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.med.50.1.303?journal\

Code=med

, G.M., Perfect, J.R. (October 31, 2003). Fungal Sinusitis. Uptodate Patient

Information. Retrieved on August 10, 2005, from

http://patients.uptodate.com/topic.asp?file=fung_inf/5646

Lacey, J., Dutkiewicz J., (March 1994). Bioaerosols and Occupational Lung

Disease. Institute of Arable Crops Research, Rothamsted Experimental Station.

Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol. 25. No. 8, Page 1371

Jarvis, B. (1995). Mycotoxins in the Air: Keep Your Buildings Dry or the

Bogeyman Will Get You. International Conference: Fungi and Bacteria in Indoor

Environments, Health Effects, Detection and Remediation. Eckardt Johanning, Chin

S. Yang, editors. Saratoga Springs, NY

Ecohealth Environmental Change and Our Society: Glossary. Retrieved July 28,

2005 at http://www.ecohealth101.org/glossary.html

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth

Retrieved on July 28, 2005 at

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BiobookglossE. html

Retrieved on July 28, 2005 at

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BiobookglossPQ. html

Retrieved on July 28, 2005 at

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/butterfly/glossary/indexed.shtml

Margulis, L., Sagan, D. (1996). Microbial Microcosm. Retrieved July 28, 2005 at

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC34/Margulis.htm

Fox S.W. (May 12, 1997). My Scientific Discussion of Evolution for the Pope and

His Scientists. Retrieved July 28, 2005 at

file://C:\DOCUME~1\DOUGLA~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\9BY8TCYV.htmADDITIONAL IN RESPONSE TO

THE JOHNS HOPKINS ARTICLE: " Mold Myths "

1. Challenge: Name the " common molds " that do not hold up under scrutiny?

Answer is: Approximately 400 molds are known to have some definite interaction

with animals and humans involving anything from being irritants to cancer

causing. More common molds often observed indoors, such as variants of the

Penicillium species fall into that category, as do species of Alternaria,

Aspergillus, Rhizopus, Fusarium, Stachybotrys, or many others mentioned in my

book, " Toxic Mold! Toxic Enemy! " View the section below for others: (I'm

definitely not afraid to name some of them.)

FUNGI: HEALTH INFORMATION

NOTE: 1) Common Disease Causing 38 Species (Underlined)

2) Allergy Causing 21 Species (marked as “++”)

*Counts of species are based on the genome only (i.e., Aspergillus (only a few

of the over 180 are listed herein), Penicillium, Fusarium, etc., many of these

genome have multiple subspecies that may cause equal or severe health problems

through skin contact, inhalation, and food intake. It is estimated that over

300 such subspecies exist affecting human health.

Fungi Descriptions And Health Concerns

The following descriptions represent the most common fungi species found in

buildings and in which may be found in animals and humans exposed to

environmental fungi contamination. This does not represent a comprehensive

listing of all fungi genera or the secondary chemicals (mycotoxins) they produce

and excrete.

Absidia sp. - Reported as an allergenic pathogen. This species is known to

cause mucormycosis (infection of invaded tissue) in immune compromised persons.

Infection may have multiple sites. Infection sites are: brain, eye, lung, nasal

sinus, and skin.

Acremonium sp. (Cephalosporium) - Reported as an allergenic pathogen and is the

asexual state of Emericellopsis sp., Chaetomimum sp., and Nectripsis sp. This

fungus is observed to cause mycetomas (cornea and nail infections). Can produce

Trichothecene mycotoxins if inhaled or ingested. High-level exposure can cause

diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting.

Alternaria sp.- Alternaria is a common allergenic pathogen often found in

carpets, textiles, and on horizontal surfaces of building interiors, and in

window frames. Spores from this species normally are deposited in the nose,

mouth, and upper respiratory tract. Alternaria is associated with Baker’s asthma

and hypersensitivity pneumonitis.

Alternaria alternaria sp. – A variant of Alternaria sp. that is capable of

producing Tenuazonic Acid and other mycotoxin metabolites associated with animal

and human disease. It is known as a common cause of extrinsic asthma

intermediate-type hypersensitivity (Type 1). Acute symptoms: bronchia spasms,

edema, and in chronic cases the development of pulmonary emphysema.

Aspergillus sp. – Many of the Aspergillus species produce several secondary

chemical mycotoxins that are associated with diseases in animals and humans

(e.g., various cancers, liver disease, splenomegaly, etc.). Mycotoxin (esp.

Aflatoxins) production is dependent upon the species or a strain within a

species and the nutritional source particular for the specific fungal species.

Currently, there exist over 200 subspecies of this genera type. This species is

also reported to be the cause of extrinsic asthma (immediate, or acute-type

hypersensitivity [Type I]). Acute symptoms include edema (joint or tissue

swelling), and bronchia spasms (chest pain). In chronic cases, pulmonary

emphysema (major bronchial/lung damage) is often presented.

Aspergillus caesiellus sp.– A species occasionally pathogenic in animals and

humans.

Aspergillus candidus sp. – A species associated with respiratory complaints.

Can produce Patulin, a mycotoxin associated with disease in both animals and

humans.

Aspergillus clavatus sp. – A species that is normally not found indoors but is

found in soil and animal manure. It is known to produce Patulin, a mycotoxin

associated with disease in animals and humans.

Aspergillus deflectus sp. – A species occasionally pathogenic in animals and

humans.

Aspergillus flavus sp. – A species that is known to produce highly carcinogenic

Aflatoxin mycotoxins when inhaled or ingested affecting both animals and humans.

It may also result in occupational disease via inhalation. It is tetraogenic

and mutagenic, and highly toxic to the liver. It is known to be allergenic,

with its presence often associated with asthma and other forms of respiratory

ailments. This species is strongly associated with aspergillosis of the lungs

and or disseminated aspergillosis (diseases of multi-species of the Aspergillus

fungi). It occasionally is known to cause corneal, otomycotic (fungal ear), and

nasoorbital (nasal cavity) infections. In indoor environments it often is found

in water-damaged carpets. The production of its mycotoxins is dependent on the

growth conditions conducive to its terrain and the substrate (nutrients) used as

food sources.

Aspergillus fumigatus sp. – A species identified as a major cause of

aspergillosis that is both allergenic and invasive and is known to be pathogenic

in both immune-competent and immune compromised persons. It is often found in

outdoor compost piles and on some breakfast cereals.

Aspergillus glaucus sp. – A species that is observed as a common outdoor fungus

in the winter. It is known to be allergenic and occasionally pathogenic to both

animals and humans. This species is also known to contaminate leather, and can

grow at low moisture levels on grains, sugary food products, meat and wool

products.

Aspergillus nidulans sp. – A species normally found in mild to warm soils and on

slowly decaying plants that is observed as occasionally pathogenic to animals

and humans. It can produce the mycotoxin Sterigmatocystin, that is observed to

cause kidney and liver damage in laboratory animals. It is associated with

aspergillosis of the lungs and or disseminated aspergillosis.

Aspergillus niger sp. – This is a species identified by a strong musty odor

associated with pulmonary disease in immune compromised persons. It is also

known to cause some forms of skin infection.

Aspergillus ochracus sp. – This species is found in grains, soil and salted food

products. It is known to produce the mycotoxin Ochratoxin A, which affects the

kidneys (also known as Balkan neuropathy). Ochratoxin is also is produced by

other Aspergillus Sp. and Penicillium Sp. Other mycotoxins that can be produced

by this fungus include Penicillic Acid, Xanthomegnin and Viomellein. All of

these mycotoxins are known kidney and liver toxins.

Aspergillus oryzae sp. – This species is considered an occasional pathogen.

Aspergillus parasiticus sp. – There is limited evidence suggestive that this

mycotoxin is carcinogenic to both animals and humans, and is poisonous primarily

by ingestion. Laboratory experiments indicate that it is both teratogenic and

mutagenic at molecular cell levels. Its production is dependent on growth

conditions and nutrient sources.

Aspergillus pencilloides sp. – A species that is not considered as being any

danger to animals or humans, but is found in areas with low water activity such

as house dust and in various foods. As in all fungi species this type can be

allergenic to some people.

Aspergillus restrictus sp. – This species is considered as occasionally

pathogenic to animals and humans.

Aspergillus sydowi sp. – A species that is considered only occasionally

pathogenic. It is associated with aspergillosis of the lungs, otomycosis (ear

infection), and onchomycosis (infection of the fingers and toes). It produces

the mycotoxins Patulin and Citrinin associated with animal and human diseases.

Aspergillus terreus sp. – This species is normally found in warmer soil, grains,

straw, cotton, and decomposing vegetation. It is known to produce the

mycotoxins Patulin and Citrinin, which are associated with disease in animals

and humans. This fungus is associated with aspergillosis of the lungs and or

disseminated aspergillosis. It is found as an isolate from otomycosis (ear

infection) and onychomycosis (infections of the fingers and/or toes).

Aspergillus ustus sp. – A species considered as occasionally pathogenic to

animals and humans in triggering allergenic reactions.

Aspergillus versicolor sp. – This species is occasionally considered as

pathogenic, and is commonly found in soil, hay, cotton, and dairy products. It

produces the mycotoxins Sterigmatocystin and Cyclopiaxonic Acid.

Sterigmatocystin is reported to be a carcinogen. These mycotoxins can cause

diarrhea and upset stomach and are reported to be kidney and liver carcinogens

(cancer-causing).

Aspergillus Wentii sp. – This fungus is considered allergenic and occasionally

pathogenic. It is associated with Otitis media (middle-ear

inflammation/infections), burns, and infections.

Aureobasidium sp. – Commonly considered as contaminants found in multiple

habitats. However this fungi genus is often responsible for invasion by other

fungi contaminants.

Basidiobolus sp. – Etiologic agent of Entomophthoromycosis basidiobelae

(cutaneous Zygomycosis) a chronic inflammatory lesion forming disease generally

restricted to the limbs, chest, and back.

Basidiomycetes sp.++ – Consist of fungal spores from mushrooms that are not

identifiable on a culture plate, which are considered at times to be allergenic

to both animals and humans.

Basidiospores sp. – These are generally referred to as “mushrooms,” and are very

common with many genera types. Most Basidiomycetes will not fruit on laboratory

media and form sterile mycelia (seeds). Growth indoors is usually associated

with “dry rot” in nutrient materials that destroy the structural integrity of

wood in buildings. Many genera types are known allergens and few types are able

to cause rare opportunistic infections.

Beauveria sp. – These are considered contaminants, are known pathogens in some

animals/insects, but rarely adversely affect humans.

Bipolaris sp. – A fungus with large spores that normally present in the upper

respiratory tract. This species is known to produce the mycotoxin

Sterigmatocystin that can damage the kidneys and liver.

Blastomyces sp. – This species is observed as a known pathogen commonly found in

soil. It is a dimorphic filamentous fungus (capable of existing as a yeast or

fungi under certain environmental conditions) that is known to cause

blastomycosis, a chronic infection characterized by pus-forming and possibly

chronic lesions in any part of the body. The ailment usually begins in the

lungs and disseminates to the skin and bones.

Botrytis sp.++ – This fungal species is observed as a known contaminant

affecting soft fruit and decaying plant/vegetation life. It is a known allergen

mainly observed in skin test reactions and can cause asthma attacks.

Candida sp. – Part of the normal flora of the mouth and other mucous membranes

in the body. Thrush and other diseases caused by Candida albicans usually occur

after prolonged treatment with antibiotics or steroids. The environment is not

a likely source of exposure for this (yeast-like and mostly opportunistic

pathogenic) fungi species, and its cells are usually not observed as airborne.

These species are allergenic, and in pathogenic form present as a rash,

intertrigo (skin irritations on opposing surfaces), yeast infection, and thrush

(dryness usually of throat/mouth).

Cephalosporium sp. – (Refer to Acremonium sp.)

Chaetomium sp.++ – A large ascomycetous (multi-celled) fungus producing

perithecia (flask-shaped body through which ascospore [asexual spore] escape)

commonly found in indoor environments. It is commonly found in a variety of

substrata containing abundant cellulose, including paper and plant compost. It

is observed as an allergen and in rare instances, can cause infection.

Chrysosporium sp. – A species observed as contaminants that can cause animal and

human disease in rare instances.

Cladosporium sp. (Hormodendrum sp.) – This species is the most common species of

any fungus found in indoor environments with indoor counts less than outdoor

counts. It can fluctuate greatly from day-to-day, and is observed in higher

numbers during the summer months and in reduced numbers during the winter

months. Indoor species of Cladosporium sp. often differ from outside species.

It is commonly observed on the surface of fiberglass duct lining in HVAC systems

and in the interior of supply ducts. Most species are commonly considered

contaminants that colonize on dead organic matter. A wide variety of plants are

nutrient sources for this fungi species found in foods, paints, dead plants,

soil, straw, woody plants, and textiles. It is observed to cause mycosis

(fungal disease) and acute symptoms of extrinsic asthma (immediate-type

hypersensitivity Type I). Acute symptoms of high-level exposure to these

species include edema (fluid buildup) and bronchia spasms and, in some cases,

the development of pulmonary emphysema (chronic obstructive disease of the

lungs).

Cladosporium fulvum sp. (Fulvia fulva) – Found on the leaves of tomatoes and can

be allergenic to both animals and humans.

Cladosporium herbarum sp. – Observed as contaminants and allergens. Found on

paint, dead plants, soil, straw, woody plants, and textiles.

Cladosporium macrocarpum sp. – Observed as contaminants and allergens. Found on

paint, dead plants, soil, straw, woody plants, and textiles.

Cladosporium sphaerospermum sp. – Observed as contaminants and allergens. This

species is normally a secondary invader of foods, soil, paints, plants, and

textiles.

Coccidiodes sp. – Observed to cause Coccicioidmycosis, a disease carried on

wind-blown dust particles and inhaled by animals and humans. Normally endemic

in hot, dry regions, it starts with the symptoms of a mild cold influenza, then

after a brief remission returns marked by a constant low-grade fever, anorexia,

and possible weight loss. Other critical symptoms such as cyanosis (bluish

discoloration of the skin caused by deoxygenated blood or structured defect in

the hemogloblin molecule), dyspnea (distressed breathing), hemoptysis (coughing

up of blood from the respiratory tract), focal skin lesions (localized skin

boil, rash, sore, or wound) resembling erythema nodosum (hypersensitive reaction

or redness that is sensitive to the touch), and arthritic pain in bones/joints

may also present.

Conidobolus sp. – Observed to cause entomophthoromycosis, a chronic inflammatory

disease of the nasal mucosa.

Cryptococcus sp. – A yeast-like fungi genus, normally found in pigeon feces,

generally observed as non-pathogenic with the exception of medical cases

involving severely immunosuppressed patients. Cryptococcus neoformans species

is known to present lung and brain infections in susceptible patients.

Cryptostroma corticale sp.++ – Observed as possibly allergenic to animals and

humans, but non-pathogenic. Normally this species is found on the bark of maple

and sycamore trees and on stored burning logs.

Cunninghamella sp. – Observed to cause disseminated (dispersed or spread out, as

in and organ or the entire body) and pulmonary (lungs or respiratory) infections

in immune compromised persons.

Cuvularia sp. – Observed as allergenic to animals and humans, this species can

cause corneal (eye) infections, mycetoma (a severe fungal infection involving

subcutaneous [skin] tissue, fascia [fibrous connective tissue], and bone tissue)

in immune compromised persons.

Dreschlera sp. – Observed to cause corneal infection of the eyes. Normally

found on decaying foods, grains, and grasses.

Dust/Dust Mite – Observed as inorganic or organic viable (live) microbe dusts.

Any fine particulate dry matter or microbes capable of causing respiratory or

asthmatic health problems in animals and humans.

Epicoccum sp.++ – Observed as contaminants in dead plant materials but also

found in air samples, these fungi species are known allergens. They are

commonly found in grains, paper products, plants, soil, and textiles.

Epidermophyton sp. – This species is observed as being able to cause infections

of the skin and finger and toe nails.

Fusarium sp. – Observed as a common soil fungus it is often found in humidifiers

and are normally induced into the body by inhalation of contaminated particulate

materials or spore. Several species of this genus are highly allergenic and

known to produce potent tricothecene mycotoxins. These mycotoxins can adversely

affect the circulatory, nervous systems, and cause skin problems and are

observed to cause toxic aleukia (a marked reduction or complete absence of white

blood cells/blood platelets) in animals and humans. Symptoms of toxic exposures

include dermatitis (inflamed skin lesions), diarrhea, hemorrhagic syndrome

(major internal bleeding), nausea, and vomiting in all animal types tested and

in humans. This is a very dangerous fungi species with mycotoxin links in

several cancer research studies (especially liver, kidney, and breast cancers).

Fusarium solani sp. – Observed to produce trichothecenes mycotoxins that can

cause severe illnesses in animals and humans (refer to Fusarium sp. above).

Geotrichum sp. – Observed as a common contaminate of dairy products, fruits,

grains, paper, textiles, soil and water. This particular fungi genus often

present as part of the normal human flora (composition of bacilli, fungi,

viruses and other microbes found to live and in many species, aid in the

digestion and metabolic process of the human body).

However, the Geotrichum candidum species are known to cause a secondary

infection, Geotrichchosis (that can cause oral, bronchical, pharyngeal, and

intestinal disorders most commonly in immune suppressed persons). Geotrichosis

in addition to association with certain forms of tuberculosis is also known to

be associated with allergic reactions similar to allergic aspergillosis, and a

type of intestinal disorder characterized by abdominal pain, diarrhea, and

rectal bleeding. This is a rare disease that can cause lesions of the bronchi,

intestine, lung, mouth, and skin.

Gliocladium sp.++ – Observed as a fungus that is structurally similar to

Penicillium sp., and is reported to be allergenic.

Helminthosporium sp.++ – Observed as allergenic.

Histoplasma sp. – Observed as a pathogenic fungi genus, that in some sub-species

are known to cause Histoplasmosis, a disease with presentation from benign

pulmonary disease to chronic, progressive, and fatal infection in susceptible

persons.

Humicula sp.++ – Observed to grow on products with a high-cellulose content.

Species of this fungi genus are also found in soil and on plant-life debris, and

are potentially allergenic to both animals and humans.

Hyaline Mycelia sp.++ – Observed as sterile mycelia (a mass of interwoven,

branched, thread-like filaments, that makes up most fungi species) that are

white or transparent. No fruiting structures are produced by the mycelia, and

visual identification of these microorganisms is virtually impossible. They are

associated with allergic symptoms.

Microsporum sp. – This fungi genus is observed to cause ringworm to occur on the

human scalp mostly, and is also contagious to other areas of the body. It

generally attacks animals more than man and is usually transmitted through

contact with animals.

Monila sp. – This fungus is observed as allergenic to animals and humans and

produces soft rot in the fruits of trees. Other species of this fungi genus

produce a reddish color bread mold. This fungi species is known for causing

infections of the cornea (eye).

Mucor sp. – This is a Zygomycetes fungus (rapidly growing and multiplying on

most media used for nutrition) that is a known allergen to human skin and

bronchia tissues. It is observed to cause mucorosis (mucous buildup) in immune

compromised persons. The sites of infection are usually the brain, eye and

skin, lungs, nasal sinus, and may occur concurrently in multiple sites

systemically. It is often found on dead plant material, fruits and fruit

juices, horse manure, and also on animal hair, dairy products, meat and

leather.

Myxomycetes sp. – This is a common mold that have both dry and wet spore. In

its initial growth phase it requires high moisture content. Myxomycetes do not

grow well on general fungi nutritional sources, are not considered a true fungi

species, and cannot be distinguished from smuts (soot or sooty matter).

Nigrospora sp.++ – This fungi species is observed to be allergenic to animals

and humans.

Paecilomyces sp. – This is a fungi genus commonly found on compost, dead plants,

in dust and on soil products less than in the air, and is observed to cause the

decomposition of foods and be allergenic to animals and humans, but is rarely

pathogenic to humans. It is found in warm climates and arid regions.

Paecilomyces variotii species can cause Paecilomycosis, associated with

contaminated humidifiers a known cause of pneumonia, cornea infections, and

other diseases such as Wood Trimmers Disease. When found growing on arsenic

substrate it may produce arsine gas. This can occur on wallpapers covered with

paris green. Its mycotoxins include: paecilotoxins, byssachlamic acid,

variotin, ferrirubin, viritoxin, indole-3-acetic acid, fusigen, and patulin.

Papulospora sp.++ – This fungi species is considered allergenic to animals and

humans and is found on decaying plants, manure, paper, soil, and textiles.

Penicillium sp. – Over 200 species are categorized into this fungi genus,

therefore identification to a specific species is difficult in laboratory and

use of testing apparatus. Often found in aerosol samples, it is found on

carpets, wallpaper, and on fiberglass duct insulation. Many species of

Penicillium are common contaminants on various substrates and are known as

potential mycotoxin producers. These species are known to produce the following

mycotoxins: chryogine, citreoviridin, citrinin, cyclopiazonic acid, decumbin,

griseofulvin, isofumigaclavine A, meleagrin, mycophenolic acid, ochratoxin,

patulin, penicillic acid, penicillin, penitrem A, peptide nephrotoxin,

roquefortine C & D, verrruculogen, viomellein, xanthocillin X, and xanthomegin.

Phoma sp. – This fungi genus is considered as an indoor air allergen similar to

the early growth stages of Chaetominum sp. It is normally isolated from soil

and plant life, especially potatoes. It produces “pink spotting” on painted

surfaces and can produce antigens that cross-react with those of the Alternaria

sp. It is known to grow on butter, paint cement and rubber and is also

associated with Phalohyphomycosis a systemic or subcutaneous disease.

Pithomyces sp.++ – This fungal species grows on dead grass in pastures and are

known to cause facial eczema in ruminants (cows, deer, goats, sheep, etc.). It

is regarded as allergenic to humans, but not pathogenic.

Rhizomucor sp. – This is a Zygomycetous fungi genus known to be allergenic. It

is known to cause mucorosis in immune compromised persons. It is similar to

Mucor sp. Multiple sites of infection include the brain, eyes, lungs, nasal

sinus, and skin.

Rhizopus sp. – This is a common saprophyte that grows on a variety of

substrates, especially spoiled food. It is known to cause human allergies. It

is similar to Mucor sp. Multiple sites of infection include the brain, eyes,

lungs, nasal sinus, and skin.

Rhodotorula sp.- This is a reddish colored yeast typically found in moist

environments such as carpeting, cooling coils, and drain pans. In some

countries it is the most common yeast genus identified in the indoor air. It is

observed as allergenic to animals and humans and is shown to colonize in

terminally ill (severely immune compromised) patients.

Saccharomyces sp. – Known as Baker’s Yeast, this species is known to be

allergenic to animals and humans, and can cause eye irritation and respiratory

problems if inhaled.

Scorpulariopsis sp. – This species are known to produce arsine gas if growing on

arsenic substrate. This can occur on wallpapers covered with paris green. It

has been observed growing on a wide variety of materials including house dust.

It is also associated with Type III (systemic fungal) allergies.

Serpula lacrymans sp. – This species is a known cause of extrinsic asthma

(immediate-type hypersensitivity or Type I [respiratory]). Acute symptoms

include bronchia spasms, and edema. In chronic cases pulmonary emphysema may

develop.

Smut – This is a common species observed as members of the Basidiomycetes.

Smuts do not usually grow indoors, is often found on soot/sooty materials,

requires a living plant as a host for sporulation (growth), and will not

sporulate on laboratory media. Smut spores are almost indistinguishable from the

Myxomycetes sp.

Sporobolomyces sp.++ – This species is known as an allergen to animals and

humans.

Sporothrix schenckii sp. – This species is known to cause Sporotrichosis, a

common chronic fungal infection. It is normally characterized by evidence of

skin ulcers and subcutaneous nodules found along lymphatic channels. It rarely

spreads to involve, bones, lungs, joints, or muscles. The fungus is found in

soil and decaying vegetation and usually enters the skin by accidental injury.

Sporotrichum sp.++ – This species is a known allergen in animals and humans.

Often confused taxonomically with Sporothrix sp., this species does not cause

Sporotrichohosis.

Stachybotrys chartarum (atra) sp. – Several strains of 15 known variants of this

genus are known to produce macrocylic trichothecene mycotoxins which include the

following: cyclosporins, roidin E, stachybotryalactone, stratoxin F, G, & H,

trichoverrol, and verrucarin J. All of the Stachybotrys sp. produce forms of

these lethal mycotoxins known to have caused death in certain livestock animals.

The Stachybotrys mycotoxins are present on the fungal spores. This is a slow

growing fungus on laboratory media. It does not compete well with other rapidly

growing fungi species and grows on building materials with high cellulose, low

nitrogen content. It is often found in areas with relative humidity above 55

percent and subject to temperature fluctuations.

People chronically exposed to the mycotoxins Stachybotrys sp. produces report

cold/flu-like symptoms, dermatitis, diarrhea, fatigue, intermittent local hair

loss, generalized malaise, headaches, and sore throats. These mycotoxins are

known to suppress the immune system affecting lymphoid tissue and bone marrow.

Animals injected with the mycotoxins from this fungus exhibit the following

symptoms: necrosis and hemorrhage within the brain, thymus, spleen, intestine,

lung, heart, lymph node, liver, and kidneys. Its adverse affects by absorption

of the mycotoxins in the human lungs are known as Pneumomycosis. This

microorganism is rarely found in outdoor air samples and is usually difficult to

find in indoor air as well. Unless it is physically disturbed or (possibly a

drop in relative humidity) it will not usually be detected by indoor testing

often contaminating wall areas behind furniture, pictures, and wall spaces. The

spores are found in a gelatinous mass. Spores of this microbe species often die

soon after release into the air but still remain highly allergenic and

toxigenic. Percutaneous absorption in skin exposure is known to cause mild

health-related symptoms.

Stemphylium sp.++ – This species is known to be allergenic to animals and

humans, and is normally isolated from cellulose materials and dead plants.

Syncephalastrum sp. – A fungus observed to cause respiratory infections

characterized by a solid intracavitary (pertaining to space within a body

cavity) fungal ball.

Torula sp.++ – A fungus observed as allergenic to animals and humans.

Trichoderma sp. – This fungus if commonly found in dead trees, pine needles,

paper, soil and unglazed ceramics. It is observed as producing antibiotics that

are toxic to humans and is a known allergen to animals and humans. This fungus

is easily recognized by its fast growing, quickly spreading white, green or

yellow colonies. It is one of the most widely spread soil fungi and is

frequently isolated from varied geographical locations. It colonizes on dead

leaves, fallen timber, compost heaps and on activated sludge. With other fungi,

Trichoderma sp., are highly aggressive. The have the ability to kill other

fungi with their mycotoxins and then consume them using a combination of

enzymes. Because Trichoderma degrades cellulose, it is often found in water or

moisture damaged buildings. The Trichoderma species produces the following

mycotoxins: Tricothecene and cyclic peptides, gliotoxin, isocyanides,

trichodermin, and trichotoxin A.

Trichophyton sp.++ – This fungi species can cause ringworm to affect athlete’s

foot, beard, skin and the scalp. It is observed as allergenic to animals and

humans, and is normally found on soil and on skin.

Trichothecium sp. – This fungi species is found in corn seeds, decomposing

vegetation, flour and soil. The species Trichothecium roseum can produce a

trichchothecene mycotoxin that is observed as associated with disease in animals

and humans. It is also known allergenic.

Tritirachium sp.++ – This fungi species is known to be an allergen to animals

and humans.

Ulocladium sp.++ – This fungi species are commonly observed as contaminants and

can be very allergenic to animals and humans. It lives off decaying plant life

and on the soil. Ulocladium frequently occurs in the air and dust samples and is

also found on water-damaged building materials such as gypsum board.

Verticillium sp. – This fungi species are commonly observed as contaminants and

can be allergenic to animals and humans. On rare occasions they are known to

cause infections to the eyes. They are normally found on arthropods, decaying

vegetation, soil, and straw.

Wallemia sp.++ – This fungus is normally found on dairy products, fruits, hay,

salted meats, soil, sugary foods, and textiles, and is observed as an allergen

to animals and humans.

Yeasts (also) ++– Various yeasts are commonly identified on air samples. Some

yeast species are observed as allergenic to animals and humans. They can cause

allergies and health problems if a person has had previous long-term or

high-level exposures and has developed hypersensitivity as a result. Yeasts are

known to be allergenic to susceptible animals and humans when present in

sufficient concentrations.

NOTE: Notice that I have left the print as stated when the book was re-published

in 2000. My next book certainly WILL NOT indicate that ANY mold is able to cause

an allergy, because given the definition of allergens as I have posed, only the

mycotoxins, endotoxins, exotoxins and other toxins along with Volatile Organic

Compounds, and particulates are considered in the descriptions/definitions, and

not live-celled microorganisms. By the way, I also wrote an article

demonstrating that as a MYCOTOXIN (NOT A VOC, AS IS CLAIMED IN MEDICAL SCIENCE)

is a known TOXIN in every sense of the word, in that in drinking it heavily,

this TOXIN or POISON can cause coma or death given the amount consumed in a

short period of time, or over life time of drinking. Of course if the medical

field were to recognize this fact, and endorse it, far less people might die

annually of " ALCOHOLISM or ALCOHOL POISONING. " However, that is utopia to a

certain extent, because many health professionals like their drink, esp., wine,

and sales always go up in America when things seem to be going sour with our

economy!

1. Mold is linked to asthma because many scientific studies actually demonstrate

clearly, both genetically and through molecular research, and through Botany and

other sciences of various species for over 200 years that as " pathogens " they

have the capacity and capability to in fact, do so. However, more importantly

molds and mycotoxins are harder to control in products, are actually used to

create products, and are more advanced to evade normal clinical observation than

their counterparts... plus... " Money talks! And the economy takes priority over

human life. " Don't believe this? Take a hard look at tobacco products... the FDA

controls which are very limited in regulating tobacco products... sort of like

the " useless as tits on a bore hog " scenario, if you get the picture. There are

as many as 42 species of unhealthy molds in a cigarette. Remember what doctors

used to say about smoking?

2. " In review of the scientific literature... " You know, the newest " fad " of

" consensus medicine " sort of similar to that posed by the " COLLEGE " that is not

" REALLY " a " REAL COLLEGE, " made up of 5,000 medical doctors and a few other

" odds and ends " that make up the American " College " of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine, " many of which are Qualified Medical Examiners

essentially working for who? Your guess?

3. " Studies show that outdoor molds are likely... " Prove those studies exist.

Indoor air is not only more contaminated than outdoor air, because it is a

deliberate contained environment, but outdoor air is far more disbursed and

contains much higher levels of oxygen and ultraviolet rays of the sun, natural

killers of mold spores than indoors. Also, the human body functions far

healthier and metabolic processes function much more balanced in outdoor air

than inside. Anyone care to debate that fact with papers dedicated to scientific

study over the last 2000 years?

4. Here is one of my favorites in this stupid article... " There is no credible

evidence to suggest that environmental exposures to mold damages the immune

system. " First, many doctors and nurses working on Intensive Care hospital wards

or post surgery recovery might strongly differ. Nosocomial Infections:

Nosocomial Infections

Infections acquired during a hospital stay are called nosocomial infections.

Formally, they are are defined as infections arising after 48 hours of hospital

admission. For earlier periods it is presumably assumed that the infection arose

prior to admission, though this is not always going to be true. Patients with

only a brief hospital stay may find they have a nosocomial infection after

leaving hospital.

Nosocomial infections are common with estimates at about 10% of American

hospital patients, or more than 2 million cases annually in the USA. Death rates

may be 20,000 annually in the USA although some estimates are as high as 88,000

deaths. Cost estimates are as much as $4.5 billion in 1995.

Hospitals generally have a high rate of nosocomial infections and the reasons

are rather obvious. There are a lot of sick people around, many with depressed

immune systems, and a lot of staff that deal with them every day. Nosocomial

infections may arise from inhalation of droplets in the air or spread by direct

hand contact from hospital staff or visitors. Most nosocomial infections afflict

patients with reduced immune response either due to age, serious disease,

certain medications, or recent surgery.

Types of nosocomial infections: There are various types of nosocomial infections

affecting various different sites. An approximate list in order of likelihood,

with CDC 1996 data on frequency, is: urinary tract infections (34% in 1996),

surgical site infections (17%), respiratory infections especially nosocomial

pneumonia (13%), blood infections/bacteremia (14%), skin (especially burns),

gastrointestinal tract infections, and central nervous system infections.

Like any infectious condition, nosocomial infections can be bacterial, viral,

fungal, or even parasitic. The most common pathogens include staphylococci

(especially staphylococcus aureus), pseudomonas, and Escherichia coli. However,

various newer pathogens are becoming more important. Fungal conditions, mainly

from candida, comprise approximately 9% of nosocomial infections.

Fungal nosocomial infections: Several fungi have become more common in

nosocomial infections with a rate reported as 3.8 per 1,000 hospital patients

(CDC/NNIS). The most common are Candida (mostly Candida albicans), Aspergillus,

Fusarium, Trichosporon, and Malassezia. Candidiasis remains the most common type

of nosocomial fungal infection, particularly in the immunocompromised. Risk

factors for fungal infections include antibiotic treatments, chemotherapy,

intravascular catheters, neutropenia, hemodialysis, or prior fungal infection.

Antibiotic resistance: Many of the pathogens that cause nosocomial infections

have a high level of resistance to antibiotic treatments. These emerging

pathogens are the most serious concerns, because they are more difficult to

treat. Some of the major concerns are methicillin resistant staphylococcus

aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and

vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE).

Nosocomial Urinary tract infections: Urinary tract infections are the most

common nosocomial infections. These infections can be caused by various

pathogens such as E. coli, Pseudomonas, or Enterococcus.

Nosocomial pneumonia: Pneumonia is a common and serious nosocomial infection in

the USA. Pneumonia is the second most common nosocomial infection in the United

States. Most patients affected are have risk factors such as: mechanical

ventilation (high risk), elderly, neonates, severe underlying disease,

immunodeficiency, depressed sensorium, cardiopulmonary disease, or recent

thoraco-abdominal surgery. Several types of pathogens can infect the respiratory

tract and cause nosocomial pneumonia: bacterial pneumonia, Legionnaires'

disease, pulmonary aspergillosis, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and viral

pneumonias such as Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) and influenza.

Prevention of nosocomial infections: There are numerous preventive measures

ranging from the obvious to high-tech. The goals are to avoid transmission by

hand, by air, and by blood. Handwashing by medical staff is the single greatest

improvement, but sadly this hygiene action is often lacking in many staff. Other

measures include avoiding hand contact, especially to the conjunctiva or nasal

areas. Various sterilization measures are helpful ranging from simple acts like

sterilizing ventilators to full scale air filtering systems in the hospital. In

some cases it may be appropriate to vaccinate certain patients against

particular pathogens. There are numerous measures possible to avoid transmission

of nosocomial infections, and the above is a brief and incomplete discussion.

(Source: http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/mistakes/nosocomial.htm)

PERSONAL NOTE: SAY DOCTOR, YOU MIGHT WANT TO VISIT A PATIENT OR TWO IN THE

HOSPITAL ONCE IN AWHILE TO LEARN WHAT OTHER MORE MEDICALLY PROFICIENT MEDICAL

HEALTH PROFESSIONALS SEEM TO KNOW BUT YOU DON'T!

Look at what some of your REAL researchers are saying!

http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/16/1/144

Then, go find a " REAL " job as a collector of garbage, because your article poses

a great deal of it!

R. Haney

Environmental Health Projects: Research & Consulting

Email: _Haney52@...

; iequality@...:

snk1955@...: Fri, 30 May 2008 23:00:48 -0400Subject: []

s Hopkins U, Mold Myths, " Health Alert " aka Litigation Defense Propaganda

And we wonder WHY people are not able to receive medical care for these serious

illnesses.

_http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts.com/reports/lung_disorders/2012-1.html_

(http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts.com/reports/lung_disorders/2012-1.html)

Lung Disorders Special Report 9 Common Mold Myths Media reports have linked

indoor mold exposure to everything from asthma to headaches. But what’s the real

scientific evidence that exposure to mold in your home actually can cause

physical symptoms? A recent review of scientific literature about mold-related

diseases found that, while mold can cause certain health problems, many common

claims just don’t hold up under scrutiny. Five allergists, including A.

Wood, M.D., of the s Hopkins University School of Medicine, set out to

define what can and can’t be proved about mold exposure. Here’s what they found

in their review: Toxic mold. Popular reports about the health effects of mold

are likely to include the term “toxic mold.” But that term can be misleading,

the experts say. They point out that only certain mold spores produce toxins,

and only under certain circumstances. Just because a particular mold can produce

toxins doesn’t mean it will. Even if the mold is producing toxins, a person must

breathe in a sufficient dose to be affected. It is highly unlikely that you

could inhale enough mold in your home or office to receive a toxic dose. Mold

and Asthma. While allergic responses to inhaling mold are a recognized factor in

lower airway disease such as asthma, studies show that outdoor mold is more

likely to cause problems for asthmatics than mold found indoors. A better

assessment of the effects of indoor mold on people with asthma would require

studies that follow people over a long period and take into account factors that

could affect the results, such as humidity and other airborne allergens and

irritants. Mold and Allergies. The link between mold and allergies is even

weaker, the experts say. Current research doesn’t provide a persuasive case that

exposure to mold in the outdoor air plays a role in allergies, and studies

linking indoor molds to upper airway allergy are even less compelling. Mold and

Skin Rashes. Exposure to molds doesn’t contribute to atopic dermatitis, or

rashes. Mold and Sinusitis. There’s no clear-cut evidence that sensitivity to

mold causes chronic sinusitis, nor are there conclusive data to show that

mold-killing antifungal drugs such as amphotericin, applied to the nasal

passages, are an effective treatment for sinusitis. Mold and Infection.

Superficial fungal infections, such as toenail fungus or jock itch, generally

result from fungi that develop inside the warm, moist environments found in

shoes or tight garments. Thrush can develop inside the mouths of people with

weakened immune systems, such as those who have AIDS or cancer. These infections

generally are not the result of exposure to mold in the home or workplace. Mold

and Irritation. Mold found indoors, even inside damp buildings, is not likely to

cause irritation of the eyes or throat -- and if it does, the effects are

short-lived. Symptoms or signs persisting weeks after exposure and those

accompanied by complaints related to the nervous system, brain, or whole body

(such as those attributed to chronic fatigue) can’t be pinned on the irritant

effects of mold exposure. Mold and Immune System Damage. There is no credible

evidence to suggest that environmental exposure to mold damages the immune

system. The experts warn against immune-based tests given to look for

intolerance to mold and other substances in the environment—so-called multiple

chemical sensitivity. The authors specifically advise against using blood tests

that look for a wide range of non-specific changes in the immune system. They

also discourage using tests of autoantibodies, which are abnormal antibodies

that the body sometimes produces in reaction against its own tissues. These

tests are expensive and do not provide useful information that will help to

diagnose or manage diseases related to mold, they say. Mold and Hypersensitivity

Pneumonitis. This uncommon inflammation of the lungs, an example of which is

Farmer’s Lung, is caused by exposure to an allergen, usually organic dust that

may come from animal dander, molds, or plants. A person generally develops this

condition only after high-dose or prolonged exposure, or both, to mold or other

allergens. Much of the hoopla over mold exposure came in the wake of Hurricane

Katrina, the experts note in their report, which appeared in the Journal of

Allergy and Clinical Immunology. The flood-ravaged areas of the Gulf Coast,

sadly, have provided a natural laboratory, which enables medical researchers to

address lingering questions about the health effects of mold. Posted in _Lung

Disorders_ (http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts.com/reports/lung_disorders/) on

May 22, 2008**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch " Cooking

with Tyler Florence " on AOL Food.

(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4 & ?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)[Non-text

portions of this message have been removed]

_________________________________________________________________

Make every e-mail and IM count. Join the i’m Initiative from Microsoft.

http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Join/Default.aspx?source=EML_WL_ MakeCount

May 31, 2008

Read this for the 3rd time, & nbsp; They are going striaght for Shoemakers

research. & nbsp; They are saying that the blood work tests for this are to

expensive and are not useful info for diagnosing mold related

desease's. & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; Isn't that an admission that there are mold

illnesses?

So what do they suggest for diagnosing these mold related desease's?

From: snk1955@... & lt;snk1955@... & gt;

Subject: [] s Hopkins U, Mold Myths, " Health Alert " aka

Litigation Defense Propaganda

, iequality

Date: Friday, May 30, 2008, 7:00 PM

And we wonder WHY people are not able to receive medical care for these

serious illnesses.

_http://www.johnshop kinshealthalerts .com/reports/ lung_disorders/ 2012-1.html_

(http://www.johnshop kinshealthalerts .com/reports/ lung_disorders/ 2012-1.html)

Lung Disorders Special Report

9 Common Mold Myths

Media reports have linked indoor mold exposure to everything from asthma to

headaches. But what’s the real scientific evidence that exposure to mold in

your home actually can cause physical symptoms? A recent review of scientific

literature about mold-related diseases found that, while mold can cause

certain health problems, many common claims just don’t hold up under scrutiny.

Five allergists, including A. Wood, M.D., of the s Hopkins

University School of Medicine, set out to define what can and can’t be proved

about

mold exposure. Here’s what they found in their review:

Toxic mold. Popular reports about the health effects of mold are likely to

include the term “toxic mold.” But that term can be misleading, the experts

say. They point out that only certain mold spores produce toxins, and only

under certain circumstances. Just because a particular mold can produce toxins

doesn’t mean it will. Even if the mold is producing toxins, a person must

breathe in a sufficient dose to be affected. It is highly unlikely that you

could inhale enough mold in your home or office to receive a toxic dose.

Mold and Asthma. While allergic responses to inhaling mold are a recognized

factor in lower airway disease such as asthma, studies show that outdoor mold

is more likely to cause problems for asthmatics than mold found indoors. A

better assessment of the effects of indoor mold on people with asthma would

require studies that follow people over a long period and take into account

factors that could affect the results, such as humidity and other airborne

allergens and irritants.

Mold and Allergies. The link between mold and allergies is even weaker, the

experts say. Current research doesn’t provide a persuasive case that exposure

to mold in the outdoor air plays a role in allergies, and studies linking

indoor molds to upper airway allergy are even less compelling.

Mold and Skin Rashes. Exposure to molds doesn’t contribute to atopic

dermatitis, or rashes.

Mold and Sinusitis. There’s no clear-cut evidence that sensitivity to mold

causes chronic sinusitis, nor are there conclusive data to show that

mold-killing antifungal drugs such as amphotericin, applied to the nasal

passages, are

an effective treatment for sinusitis.

Mold and Infection. Superficial fungal infections, such as toenail fungus or

jock itch, generally result from fungi that develop inside the warm, moist

environments found in shoes or tight garments. Thrush can develop inside the

mouths of people with weakened immune systems, such as those who have AIDS or

cancer. These infections generally are not the result of exposure to mold in

the home or workplace.

Mold and Irritation. Mold found indoors, even inside damp buildings, is not

likely to cause irritation of the eyes or throat -- and if it does, the

effects are short-lived. Symptoms or signs persisting weeks after exposure and

those accompanied by complaints related to the nervous system, brain, or whole

body (such as those attributed to chronic fatigue) can’t be pinned on the

irritant effects of mold exposure.

Mold and Immune System Damage. There is no credible evidence to suggest that

environmental exposure to mold damages the immune system. The experts warn

against immune-based tests given to look for intolerance to mold and other

substances in the environment—so-called multiple chemical sensitivity. The

authors specifically advise against using blood tests that look for a wide

range

of non-specific changes in the immune system. They also discourage using

tests of autoantibodies, which are abnormal antibodies that the body sometimes

produces in reaction against its own tissues. These tests are expensive and do

not provide useful information that will help to diagnose or manage diseases

related to mold, they say.

Mold and Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis. This uncommon inflammation of the

lungs, an example of which is Farmer’s Lung, is caused by exposure to an

allergen, usually organic dust that may come from animal dander, molds, or

plants. A

person generally develops this condition only after high-dose or prolonged

exposure, or both, to mold or other allergens.

Much of the hoopla over mold exposure came in the wake of Hurricane Katrina,

the experts note in their report, which appeared in the Journal of Allergy

and Clinical Immunology. The flood-ravaged areas of the Gulf Coast, sadly,

have provided a natural laboratory, which enables medical researchers to

address

lingering questions about the health effects of mold.

Posted in _Lung Disorders_

(http://www.johnshop kinshealthalerts .com/reports/ lung_disorders/) on May 22,

2008

************ **Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch " Cooking with

Tyler Florence " on AOL Food.

(http://food. aol.com/tyler- florence? video=4 & amp;? NCID=aolfod00030 000000002)

June 1, 2008

I took this a different way. the first few lines they make the

comments about toxic mold and basicly exclude it from there further

comments about " MOLD " and I agree with them that molds not produceing

mycotoxins are hatmless. I also agree that you have to be exposed to

a pretty high amount of toxic mold to cause major damage (in a short

period of time)(but even in low dose exposures to toxic molds,those

toxins still can cause damage to weeked organs and cause effects

specific to the type). what I dont agree to is the statement that

even molds that are known to produce toxins dont aways do so. WRONG!

WEITHER THEY PRODUCE THEM CONSTANTLY OR NOT, THE TOXINS ACCULATE IN

THE INDOOR AREAS, THEY DONT PACK UP AND LEAVE, AND THEY ARE IN THE

SPORES AND ATTACH TO THE SPORES SO THERES NO WAY YOU WONT BE GETTING

EXPOSURE TO THE TOXINS THAT " TOXIC MOLD PRODUCES.

(http://www.johnshop kinshealthalerts .com/reports/ lung_disorders/

2012-1.html)

>

> Lung Disorders Special Report

>

> 9 Common Mold Myths

>

> Media reports have linked indoor mold exposure to everything from

asthma to

>

> headaches. But what's the real scientific evidence that exposure

to mold in

>

> your home actually can cause physical symptoms? A recent review of

scientific

>

> literature about mold-related diseases found that, while mold can

cause

>

> certain health problems, many common claims just don't hold up

under scrutiny.

>

> Five allergists, including A. Wood, M.D., of the s

Hopkins

>

> University School of Medicine, set out to define what can and

can't be proved about

>

> mold exposure. Here's what they found in their review:

>

> Toxic mold. Popular reports about the health effects of mold are

likely to

>

> include the term " toxic mold. " But that term can be misleading,

the experts

>

> say. They point out that only certain mold spores produce toxins,

and only

>

> under certain circumstances. Just because a particular mold can

produce toxins

>

> doesn't mean it will. Even if the mold is producing toxins, a

person must

>

> breathe in a sufficient dose to be affected. It is highly unlikely

that you

>

> could inhale enough mold in your home or office to receive a toxic

dose.

>

> Mold and Asthma. While allergic responses to inhaling mold are a

recognized

>

> factor in lower airway disease such as asthma, studies show that

outdoor mold

>

> is more likely to cause problems for asthmatics than mold found

indoors. A

>

> better assessment of the effects of indoor mold on people with

asthma would

>

> require studies that follow people over a long period and take

into account

>

> factors that could affect the results, such as humidity and other

airborne

>

> allergens and irritants.

>

> Mold and Allergies. The link between mold and allergies is even

weaker, the

>

> experts say. Current research doesn't provide a persuasive case

that exposure

>

> to mold in the outdoor air plays a role in allergies, and studies

linking

>

> indoor molds to upper airway allergy are even less compelling.

>

> Mold and Skin Rashes. Exposure to molds doesn't contribute to

atopic

>

> dermatitis, or rashes.

>

> Mold and Sinusitis. There's no clear-cut evidence that sensitivity

to mold

>

> causes chronic sinusitis, nor are there conclusive data to show

that

>

> mold-killing antifungal drugs such as amphotericin, applied to the

nasal passages, are

>

> an effective treatment for sinusitis.

>

> Mold and Infection. Superficial fungal infections, such as toenail

fungus or

>

> jock itch, generally result from fungi that develop inside the

warm, moist

>

> environments found in shoes or tight garments. Thrush can develop

inside the

>

> mouths of people with weakened immune systems, such as those who

have AIDS or

>

> cancer. These infections generally are not the result of exposure

to mold in

>

> the home or workplace.

>

> Mold and Irritation. Mold found indoors, even inside damp

buildings, is not

>

> likely to cause irritation of the eyes or throat -- and if it

does, the

>

> effects are short-lived. Symptoms or signs persisting weeks after

exposure and

>

> those accompanied by complaints related to the nervous system,

brain, or whole

>

> body (such as those attributed to chronic fatigue) can't be pinned

on the

>

> irritant effects of mold exposure.

>

> Mold and Immune System Damage. There is no credible evidence to

suggest that

>

> environmental exposure to mold damages the immune system. The

experts warn

>

> against immune-based tests given to look for intolerance to mold

and other

>

> substances in the environment—so-called multiple chemical

sensitivity. The

>

> authors specifically advise against using blood tests that look

for a wide range

>

> of non-specific changes in the immune system. They also discourage

using

>

> tests of autoantibodies, which are abnormal antibodies that the

body sometimes

>

> produces in reaction against its own tissues. These tests are

expensive and do

>

> not provide useful information that will help to diagnose or

manage diseases

>

> related to mold, they say.

>

> Mold and Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis. This uncommon inflammation

of the

>

> lungs, an example of which is Farmer's Lung, is caused by exposure

to an

>

> allergen, usually organic dust that may come from animal dander,

molds, or plants. A

>

> person generally develops this condition only after high-dose or

prolonged

>

> exposure, or both, to mold or other allergens.

>

> Much of the hoopla over mold exposure came in the wake of

Hurricane Katrina,

>

> the experts note in their report, which appeared in the Journal of

Allergy

>

> and Clinical Immunology. The flood-ravaged areas of the Gulf

Coast, sadly,

>

> have provided a natural laboratory, which enables medical

researchers to address

>

> lingering questions about the health effects of mold.

>

> Posted in _Lung Disorders_

>

> (http://www.johnshop kinshealthalerts .com/reports/

lung_disorders/) on May 22, 2008

>

> ************ **Get trade secrets for amazing burgers.

Watch " Cooking with

>

> Tyler Florence " on AOL Food.

>

> (http://food. aol.com/tyler- florence? video=4 & amp;?

NCID=aolfod00030 000000002)

>

June 1, 2008

hope this is the right link on fungal lung infection/damage. if you

read this it so obviously shows that just like anywhere else in the

environment, molds that produce toxins do so to condiction the area

for the servival of the mold itself. looks to me that it does the

same thing in our bodies. so really, it seem obvious that mold

without the toxins it produces would be pretty harmless.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2180/7/5

>

> I took this a different way. the first few lines they make the

> comments about toxic mold and basicly exclude it from there further

> comments about " MOLD " and I agree with them that molds not

produceing

> mycotoxins are hatmless. I also agree that you have to be exposed

to

> a pretty high amount of toxic mold to cause major damage (in a

short

> period of time)(but even in low dose exposures to toxic molds,those

> toxins still can cause damage to weeked organs and cause effects

> specific to the type). what I dont agree to is the statement that

> even molds that are known to produce toxins dont aways do so. WRONG!

> WEITHER THEY PRODUCE THEM CONSTANTLY OR NOT, THE TOXINS ACCULATE IN

> THE INDOOR AREAS, THEY DONT PACK UP AND LEAVE, AND THEY ARE IN THE

> SPORES AND ATTACH TO THE SPORES SO THERES NO WAY YOU WONT BE

GETTING

> EXPOSURE TO THE TOXINS THAT " TOXIC MOLD PRODUCES.

>

> (http://www.johnshop kinshealthalerts .com/reports/ lung_disorders/

> 2012-1.html)

> >

> > Lung Disorders Special Report

> >

> > 9 Common Mold Myths

> >

> > Media reports have linked indoor mold exposure to everything

from

> asthma to

> >

> > headaches. But what's the real scientific evidence that exposure

> to mold in

> >

> > your home actually can cause physical symptoms? A recent review

of

> scientific

> >

> > literature about mold-related diseases found that, while mold

can

> cause

> >

> > certain health problems, many common claims just don't hold up

> under scrutiny.

> >

> > Five allergists, including A. Wood, M.D., of the s

> Hopkins

> >

> > University School of Medicine, set out to define what can and

> can't be proved about

> >

> > mold exposure. Here's what they found in their review:

> >

> > Toxic mold. Popular reports about the health effects of mold are

> likely to

> >

> > include the term " toxic mold. " But that term can be misleading,

> the experts

> >

> > say. They point out that only certain mold spores produce

toxins,

> and only

> >

> > under certain circumstances. Just because a particular mold can

> produce toxins

> >

> > doesn't mean it will. Even if the mold is producing toxins, a

> person must

> >

> > breathe in a sufficient dose to be affected. It is highly

unlikely

> that you

> >

> > could inhale enough mold in your home or office to receive a

toxic

> dose.

> >

> > Mold and Asthma. While allergic responses to inhaling mold are a

> recognized

> >

> > factor in lower airway disease such as asthma, studies show that

> outdoor mold

> >

> > is more likely to cause problems for asthmatics than mold found

> indoors. A

> >

> > better assessment of the effects of indoor mold on people with

> asthma would

> >

> > require studies that follow people over a long period and take

> into account

> >

> > factors that could affect the results, such as humidity and

other

> airborne

> >

> > allergens and irritants.

> >

> > Mold and Allergies. The link between mold and allergies is even

> weaker, the

> >

> > experts say. Current research doesn't provide a persuasive case

> that exposure

> >

> > to mold in the outdoor air plays a role in allergies, and

studies

> linking

> >

> > indoor molds to upper airway allergy are even less compelling.

> >

> > Mold and Skin Rashes. Exposure to molds doesn't contribute to

> atopic

> >

> > dermatitis, or rashes.

> >

> > Mold and Sinusitis. There's no clear-cut evidence that

sensitivity

> to mold

> >

> > causes chronic sinusitis, nor are there conclusive data to show

> that

> >

> > mold-killing antifungal drugs such as amphotericin, applied to

the

> nasal passages, are

> >

> > an effective treatment for sinusitis.

> >

> > Mold and Infection. Superficial fungal infections, such as

toenail

> fungus or

> >

> > jock itch, generally result from fungi that develop inside the

> warm, moist

> >

> > environments found in shoes or tight garments. Thrush can

develop

> inside the

> >

> > mouths of people with weakened immune systems, such as those who

> have AIDS or

> >

> > cancer. These infections generally are not the result of

exposure

> to mold in

> >

> > the home or workplace.

> >

> > Mold and Irritation. Mold found indoors, even inside damp

> buildings, is not

> >

> > likely to cause irritation of the eyes or throat -- and if it

> does, the

> >

> > effects are short-lived. Symptoms or signs persisting weeks

after

> exposure and

> >

> > those accompanied by complaints related to the nervous system,

> brain, or whole

> >

> > body (such as those attributed to chronic fatigue) can't be

pinned

> on the

> >

> > irritant effects of mold exposure.

> >

> > Mold and Immune System Damage. There is no credible evidence to

> suggest that

> >

> > environmental exposure to mold damages the immune system. The

> experts warn

> >

> > against immune-based tests given to look for intolerance to mold

> and other

> >

> > substances in the environment—so-called multiple chemical

> sensitivity. The

> >

> > authors specifically advise against using blood tests that look

> for a wide range

> >

> > of non-specific changes in the immune system. They also

discourage

> using

> >

> > tests of autoantibodies, which are abnormal antibodies that the

> body sometimes

> >

> > produces in reaction against its own tissues. These tests are

> expensive and do

> >

> > not provide useful information that will help to diagnose or

> manage diseases

> >

> > related to mold, they say.

> >

> > Mold and Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis. This uncommon

inflammation

> of the

> >

> > lungs, an example of which is Farmer's Lung, is caused by

exposure

> to an

> >

> > allergen, usually organic dust that may come from animal dander,

> molds, or plants. A

> >

> > person generally develops this condition only after high-dose or

> prolonged

> >

> > exposure, or both, to mold or other allergens.

> >

> > Much of the hoopla over mold exposure came in the wake of

> Hurricane Katrina,

> >

> > the experts note in their report, which appeared in the Journal

of

> Allergy

> >

> > and Clinical Immunology. The flood-ravaged areas of the Gulf

> Coast, sadly,

> >

> > have provided a natural laboratory, which enables medical

> researchers to address

> >

> > lingering questions about the health effects of mold.

> >

> > Posted in _Lung Disorders_

> >

> > (http://www.johnshop kinshealthalerts .com/reports/

> lung_disorders/) on May 22, 2008

> >

> > ************ **Get trade secrets for amazing burgers.

> Watch " Cooking with

> >

> > Tyler Florence " on AOL Food.

> >

> > (http://food. aol.com/tyler- florence? video=4 & amp;?

> NCID=aolfod00030 000000002)

> >

June 1, 2008

Snk,

Would you be able to post the whole article or send it to me, please. The link

said that the article was no longer avalable. Many thanks, Sam

> In all seriousness I think we need a study concerning the

> health

June 1, 2008

seriously, here's 5 allergest's saying that " non-toxic produceing

molds " dont caude any illnesses and probably not even allergies or

asthma. YEP, MORE PROOF THAT IT'S THE BIOTOXINS THAT CAUSE OUR

DISEASES.

I think they are right.non-toxic molds do no harm.

my thoughts from how I veiw their comments :

9 Common Mold Myths

Media reports have linked indoor mold exposure to everything from

asthma to headaches. But what's the real scientific evidence that

exposure to mold in your home actually can cause physical symptoms?

A recent review of scientific literature about mold-related

diseases found that, while mold can cause certain health problems,

many common claims just don't hold up under scrutiny. Five

allergists, including A. Wood, M.D., of the s Hopkins

University School of Medicine, set out to define what can and can't

be proved about mold exposure. Here's what they found in their

review:

Toxic mold. Popular reports about the health effects of mold are

likely to

include the term " toxic mold. " But that term can be misleading, the

experts say. They point out that only certain mold spores produce

toxins, and only under certain circumstances. Just because a

particular mold can produce toxins doesn't mean it will. Even if

the mold is producing toxins, a person must breathe in a sufficient

dose to be affected. It is highly unlikely that you

could inhale enough mold in your home or office to receive a toxic

dose.

(well thank god it's a rare that people get exposed to this level

because,yes,

it can mess you up. if it wasn't rare the world would be in deep

s##t. scary thought of even 50% pf people walking around with TBI and

PTSD. yikes!!!!)

Mold and Asthma. While allergic responses to inhaling mold are a

recognized factor in lower airway disease such as asthma,

(clairify " allergic response " do you mean a hypersensity reaction?

clairify

hypersensitiviy. )

studies show that outdoor mold is more likely to cause problems for

asthmatics than mold found indoors.

(yes, enless there's a toxic mold problem indoors)

A better assessment of the effects of indoor mold on people with

asthma would require studies that follow people over a long period

and take into account factors that could affect the results, such

as humidity and other airborne allergens and irritants.

(please, thars nitpicking. everything

involved,dust,roached,mites,carpet,ect. all have mold and mold toxins

involved. you cant seperate it.)

Mold and Allergies. The link between mold and allergies is even

weaker, the experts say. Current research doesn't provide a

persuasive case that exposure to mold in the outdoor air plays a

role in allergies,

(WHT'S THE DIFFERENCE BERWEEN INDOOR AND OUTDOOR? yes, why are you

even talking about allergies in a non-toxic form?)

and studies linking

indoor molds to upper airway allergy are even less compelling.

(yes, because it's not a " allergy " it's a toxic reaction/damage from

toxin exposure)

Mold and Skin Rashes. Exposure to molds doesn't contribute to

atopic

dermatitis, or rashes.

(no, but those mold toxins can sure work up a itch,burn, and roxin

exposure causes vasculitis which causes tiny red dots that may be

what people think is a rash)

Mold and Sinusitis. There's no clear-cut evidence that sensitivity

to mold causes chronic sinusitis,

(no, because it's the toxins that first distroy your sinuses/mucus

system/tissue that than cause many irritants to aggervate that

condiction)

nor are there conclusive data to show that mold-killing antifungal

drugs such as amphotericin, applied to the nasal passages, are

an effective treatment for sinusitis.

(no, could even be very dangerous if you have severe nasal/olfacty

damage that goes into the brain. antifungal's aren't toxin free. may

help some people, but as ling as your breathing your taking in more

irritants,

besicly your kindof screwed with severe damage that doesn't heal)

Mold and Infection. Superficial fungal infections, such as toenail

fungus or jock itch, generally result from fungi that develop inside

the warm, moist

environments found in shoes or tight garments.

(duh, warm and moist, a toxic molds dream come true)

Thrush can develop inside the mouths of people with weakened immune

systems, such as those who have AIDS or cancer.

(toxins SUPPRESS the aquired immune system,because the innate immune

system is what triggers the aquired immune system to take actionm and

when the innate immune system sends out our killer cells to attack

the foriegn intruders and our killer cells get killed off, the signal

for the aquired immune system diesn't happen. so add suppressed

immune system to that please.)

These infections generally are not the result of exposure to mold

in the home or workplace.

(bet me and lose, do some reading on mycosis)

Mold and Irritation. Mold found indoors, even inside damp

buildings, is not likely to cause irritation of the eyes or throat

(unless theres toxins produced by molds!!, gee, wheres all those

studies where theres a mold problem in the home but the molds found

were not know to be the toxic mold types?)

-- and if it does, the

effects are short-lived.

(short lived only if you get out and stay out and only if it's a low

dose exposure that doesn't distory your mucus lineing and cause toxic

overload,break down BBB's and go to the brain.)

Symptoms or signs persisting weeks after exposure and those

accompanied by complaints related to the nervous system, brain, or

whole body (such as those attributed to chronic fatigue) can't be

pinned on the irritant effects of mold exposure.

(gee, I seem to have gathered during research that

allergens,irritants and toxins weren't the sale thing. maybe you

should be more specific about what your refering too, oh, wait, in

the allergest world they are all lumped together and only seperated

when the need arises to play the word game.maybe because they are a

result of biotoxin exposure and the irritants only become irritants

after the toxins have caused the organ damage)(please refer to

irritants as toxic or non-toxic)(please refer to allergens as toxic

or non-toxic)

Mold and Immune System Damage. There is no credible evidence to

suggest that environmental exposure to mold damages the immune

system.

(but theres all kinds of proof of what mold toxins can do)

(the innate immune system is the first defence against foriegn

invaders, it disturbs me that " expert " allergest's dont have

expertize of immunology.)

The experts warn against immune-based tests given to look for

intolerance to mold and other

substances in the environment—so-called multiple chemical

sensitivity. The authors specifically advise against using blood

tests that look for a wide range of non-specific changes in the

immune system. They also discourage using tests of autoantibodies,

which are abnormal antibodies that the body sometimes

produces in reaction against its own tissues.

(THAT'S PRETTY STUPIED, LET'S SEE, OUR ON CELLS CAN BE MORE TOXIC

THAN FORIEGN TOXIC INVADERS? HUMM, NOT WHAT I'VE READ.)

These tests are expensive and do not provide useful information

that will help to diagnose or manage diseases related to mold, they

say.

(WHAT'S THAT? DISEASES RELATED TO MOLD? DONT YOU MEAN DISEASES

RELATED TO THE BIOTOXINS THAT TOXIC MOLDS PRODUCE?)(WELL, THESE TESTS

DO PROVE EXPOSURE TO THE MOLD TYPES AND IF THOSE TYPES ARE KNOWN

BIOTOXIN PRODUCERS,WAALAA, YOU HAVE PROOF TO YOUR EXPOSURE TO THE

MOLD TOXINS BECAUSE, AS YOU SAID, NON0TOXIC PRODUCEING MOLDS ARE

HARMLESS)

Mold and Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis. This uncommon inflammation of

the lungs, an example of which is Farmer's Lung, is caused by

exposure to an allergen, usually organic dust that may come from

animal dander, molds, or plants. A

person generally develops this condition only after high-dose or

prolonged exposure, or both, to mold or other allergens.

(organic dust, dont you mean toxic organic dust?) (YES, WE KNOW,

EVERYTHING IS REFERED TO AS A ALLERGEN, EVEN BIOTOXINS)

Much of the hoopla over mold exposure came in the wake of Hurricane

Katrina,

(sad that it's takes something like that to get attm. I'd like some

proper medical attn. but I'm not katrina)

the experts note in their report, which appeared in the Journal of

Allergy

and Clinical Immunology. The flood-ravaged areas of the Gulf Coast,

sadly, have provided a natural laboratory, which enables medical

researchers to address lingering questions about the health effects

of mold. (WELL WHY DONT YOU GET BUSY ADDRESSING THEM THAN?)

Sign In

Re: s Hopkins U, Mold Myths, Health Alert aka Litigation Defense Propaganda

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Activity