Need Diagnosis--URGENT

[Guest guest]

I'm not a Dr. so I don't know and all symptoms are different for all. I had

severe pain all over but no weight loss. I suggest you go to Dr. Shoemaker's

web site _www.biotoxin.info_ (http://www.biotoxin.info) and have her take

the VCS test. It is not expensive, 98% accurate, easy to do, and you get

instant results for a toxic illness. You have nothing to lose (except about

$14)

and everything to gain by reading the info there and taking the test.

I recently learned that a friend is extremely ill. The doctors have run

lots of tests and can't figure it out. Her two main symptoms are extreme/rapid

weight loss and severe pain on the right side of her body. Her weight has

dropped to 110 pounds. She is 46 years old.

We don't think she has been exposed to a sick building, but we don't know

where else to turn. The people in the Sickbuildings group have lots of

knowledge and expertise, so I am hoping that someone can help.

Thank you.

**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for

fuel-efficient used cars.

(http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)

[Guest guest]

I recently learned that a friend is extremely ill.  The doctors have run lots of

tests and can't figure it out.  Her two main symptoms are extreme/rapid weight

loss and severe pain on the right side of her body.  Her weight has dropped to

110 pounds.  She is 46 years old.

We don't think she has been exposed to a sick building, but we don't know where

else to turn.  The people in the Sickbuildings group have lots of knowledge and

expertise, so I am hoping that someone can help.

Thank you.

[Guest guest]

Are you sure she isn't being exposed? I lost 60lbs. in 3 mo.(3 yrs

ago.), when I was living in my moldy condo, along w/hair loss,

nausea/vomiting, confusion, abdominal & joint pains, skin rashes,

freuent resp. infections, etc...! My dr's still don't know why I

lost all the weight & continue to lose. I recently had a

EGD/Colonoscopy & have now been diagnosed w/Crohn's Disease. Does

she have any GI issues(diarrhea, constipation)? Check out

www.biotoxin.info/home to see if that helps you any. Good luck

w/your friend; you're a good friend for trying to help her!

Hugs, Cheryl

I recently learned that a friend is extremely ill.  The doctors have

run lots of tests and can't figure it out.  Her two main symptoms are

extreme/rapid weight loss and severe pain on the right side of her

body.  Her weight has dropped to 110 pounds.  She is 46 years old.

We don't think she has been exposed to a sick building, but we don't

know where else to turn.  The people in the Sickbuildings group have

lots of knowledge and expertise, so I am hoping that someone can help.

Thank you.

[Guest guest]

Have they scanned her liver? I had a terrible pain on the right side

when I was in the sick building. They found I had a liver cyst.

Sometimes they can be really painful. Mine is still growing. I know

others who have them post exposure and they are pushing on the

diaphragm and causing breathing issues and pain.

>

[Guest guest]

--- In , <brianc8452@...>

wrote:

>

> I recently learned that a friend is extremely ill.  The doctors

have run lots of tests and can't figure it out.  Her two main

symptoms are extreme/rapid weight loss and severe pain on the right

side of her body.  Her weight has dropped to 110 pounds.  She is 46

years old.

===============================================

I assume they have ruled out GI involvement in the classic or

structural sense. And appendicitis - unless the pain is generalized

to the entire right side of her body. Cancer tests should have also

been run as there are blood tests for tumor-released proteins when

scans don't find any masses and hematologists can rule out non-

hodgkins lymphoma etc.

I assume endocrine tests were also done for thyroid, adrenals,

pancreas (diabetes?) etc.,and there was no sign of any active

infection in terms of viral and bacterial activity (white blood

counts and differentials).

She may benefit from consulting an infectious diseases specialist to

look for Lyme or parasitic infections.

Lastly, a toxicologist may be able to consider what most people

never think about in terms of exposures:

At the age of 45, I developed neuropathy on the right side of my

body (pain, reduced sensation and mobility with some atrophy),

weight loss due to chronic nausea and bad digestion of most foods

plus cognitive impairment - has she suffered short term memory loss,

problems with language comprehension/expression, loss of math

skills, increased concreteness of thinking etc? All of this came

from exposure to a combination of pesticides - and this is the

season when everyone is exposed.

It may be a long shot but the symptoms are familiar enough to

warrant a look at the work and home environments for pesticides,

VOCs from fuel leaks (CO? Oil tank?), new construction etc. since

neurotoxins can lead to these problems.

No doctor here, just speculating based upon my own experiences. It

took me nearly a year to figure out what happened to me and it

required the testing of my workplace to find the pesticide residues

as the landlords lied to me about the applications.

Barb Rubin

[Guest guest]

interesting question Jeanine.  I wonder what the reasons were that they wanted

to test my liver when I was in the hospital. It never got done because they fed

me breakfast and it was the day of my release. Of course now I cannot afford to

go to the doc like they want me to  to get the test done.

From: salzberglver3 <salzberglver3@...>

Subject: [] Re: Need Diagnosis--URGENT

Date: Monday, June 30, 2008, 5:47 PM

Have they scanned her liver? I had a terrible pain on the right side

when I was in the sick building. They found I had a liver cyst.

Sometimes they can be really painful. Mine is still growing. I know

others who have them post exposure and they are pushing on the

diaphragm and causing breathing issues and pain.

>

[Guest guest]

I appreciate everyone's quick responses and have shared the info with my

friend.  The pain on the right side of her body is throughout that side of her

body---arm, leg, etc.  They have run many blood tests, xrays, etc.  The doctors

now think it could be lung cancer.  She has never smoked.  They are running more

tests.  She doesn't have any symptoms relating to her lungs---no breathing

problems or coughing.  They saw something on a CT scan.  Thanks again for your

help.

[] Re: Need Diagnosis--URGENT

Date: Monday, June 30, 2008, 5:47 PM

Have they scanned her liver? I had a terrible pain on the right side

when I was in the sick building. They found I had a liver cyst.

Sometimes they can be really painful. Mine is still growing. I know

others who have them post exposure and they are pushing on the

diaphragm and causing breathing issues and pain.

>

[Guest guest]

, this is so scarry I know. I mentioned once before my dads sisters husband

went in to have his prostate checked and found out he had lung cancer. He had

never smoked a day in his life so it was quite a shock. In the end he elected to

let it run its course and passed peacefully but if you look back in the

archives, I believe it was Doug Haney posted a fabulous paper he wrote about

exposure and cancer. My memory fails me on the details but it would be a great

post for you to look at and may have some very helpfull information as you go

into this situation.

 

Chris...

From: <brianc8452@...>

Subject: Re: [] Re: Need Diagnosis--URGENT

Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2008, 8:00 PM

[Guest guest]

United States Vet/ALL:

It is my hope that the article below is the one about Molds/Mycotoxins that you

are referencing (hope it assists): Some of the graphs and text have been

modified to fit into this post.

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.

2. , 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.

4. 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

EditionCopyright © 2000 Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

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.htm

@...: unitedstatesvet@...: Tue, 1 Jul

2008 18:00:49 -0700Subject: Re: [] Re: Need Diagnosis--URGENT

, this is so scarry I know. I mentioned once before my dads sisters husband

went in to have his prostate checked and found out he had lung cancer. He had

never smoked a day in his life so it was quite a shock. In the end he elected to

let it run its course and passed peacefully but if you look back in the

archives, I believe it was Doug Haney posted a fabulous paper he wrote about

exposure and cancer. My memory fails me on the details but it would be a great

post for you to look at and may have some very helpfull information as you go

into this situation. Chris...From: <brianc8452@...>Subject:

Re: [] Re: Need Diagnosis--URGENTTo:

@...: Tuesday, July 1, 2008, 8:00 PM

_________________________________________________________________

Making the world a better place one message at a time.

http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_BetterPlace

[Guest guest]

Just wanted to update you in case anyone has other ideas. My friend is

very ill. The doctors thought it was lung cancer, but the lung biopsy

was negative. They did a PET scan and a TB test and both were

negative. Her weight continues to drop and the doctors have told her

that her organs are going to start shutting down if she loses any more

weight. (She does not have an eating disorder.) The CT scan showed a

dark area in her lungs and a spot on her liver. She has a growth/lump

on her shoulder. She has severe pain on the right side of her body.

The situation is grim. She was told to update her Will and Power of

Attorney. Please let me know if you have any other ideas.

--- In , <brianc8452@...>

wrote:

>

> I recently learned that a friend is extremely ill.  The doctors have

run lots of tests and can't figure it out.  Her two main symptoms are

extreme/rapid weight loss and severe pain on the right side of her

body.  Her weight has dropped to 110 pounds.  She is 46 years old.

> We don't think she has been exposed to a sick building, but we don't

know where else to turn.  The people in the Sickbuildings group have

lots of knowledge and expertise, so I am hoping that someone can help.

> Thank you.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I would recommend trying the mold diet immediately. IF it's mold she

should see a response within a few days.

> >

> > I recently learned that a friend is extremely ill.  The doctors

have

> run lots of tests and can't figure it out.  Her two main symptoms

are

> extreme/rapid weight loss and severe pain on the right side of her

> body.  Her weight has dropped to 110 pounds.  She is 46 years old.

> > We don't think she has been exposed to a sick building, but we

don't

> know where else to turn.  The people in the Sickbuildings group

have

> lots of knowledge and expertise, so I am hoping that someone can

help.

> > Thank you.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

> >

> > I recently learned that a friend is extremely ill. The doctors have

> run lots of tests and can't figure it out. Her two main symptoms are

> extreme/rapid weight loss and severe pain on the right side of her

> body. Her weight has dropped to 110 pounds. She is 46 years old.

> > We don't think she has been exposed to a sick building, but we don't

> know where else to turn. The people in the Sickbuildings group have

> lots of knowledge and expertise, so I am hoping that someone can help.

> > Thank you.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I had and have pain so sever in my lower legs and feet that I cannot walk

sometimes.

Shooting agonizing pain. Swelling as well. I have not lost weight, but have

gained.

The EPA now list Central Nervous Disorders as a symptom to mold exposure.

[Guest guest]

Reg,

What is the " mold diet " ?

Thanks,

Jac

> I would recommend trying the mold diet immediately. IF

> it's mold she should see a response within a few days.

[Guest guest]

Its also been called " the no yeast diet " . Its for people who have

candida or intestinal dysbiosis, which often happens when you are

exposed to mold because mold suppresses your immune system sort of

like immunosuppressant drugs do.

People with dentures or bad teeth also tend to have a lot of problems

with candida because it has lots of places in their mouth to hide..

Mold can screw up your circulation which dries you out and gingivitis

often is a result of that..

So the two problems (mold illness and candida) often are co-morbid, as

I am beginning to understand...

There is overlap in treatments.. Cholestyramine binds mycotoxins.

Candida also produces toxins that can be bound by cholestyramine

( " CSM " ) SO, people who take cholestyramine for mold illness may also

be binding some of the toxins produced by candida, so they feel

better, but they wont actually get rid of the candida without specific

treatment for same, just as drugs for candida are not going to cure

their hypersensitivity to mold either..

There are also drug-resistant staph infections - biofilms.. Lots of

people with mold illness have them TOO..

They also are very hard to get rid of..

These are ALL SEPARATE ISSUES... There are MANY SEPARATE HEALTH

ISSUES THAT PEOPLE GET..

its easy to get them confused..