RE: Stachybotrys Chartarum IgG antibodies test. Is it accurate/useful?

[Guest guest]

Milhouse:

Educationally/Scientifically speaking only: (not to be construed as to, or in

any medical capacity at all.)

The IgG (most abundant of the immunoglobulins) and to an extent its counterpart

the IgA are accurate in determining the human allergen activity at one moment in

time pertaining to strictly chemcial allergens produced by molds, bacteria, etc.

However, the actual cell of a bacteria or mold cannot be an allergen in and of

themselves as they are actually classified as human pathogens (i.e., disease

causing). I have a paper on this that I produced in 2006 that I will repost

again when I get back to my home computer.

What the allergen test indicates specifically is that a certain pathogen

discharging chemistry (exotoxins/mycotoxins or volatile organic compounds (VOC)

or even more specific particulates (that can be even more toxic to the lungs)

are present.

Hope this will help in your understanding as a new member.

Doug Haney

Environmental-Health Projects

_Haney52@...

>>

From: millhouseroad@...

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:38:21 +0000

Subject: [] Stachybotrys Chartarum IgG antibodies test. Is it

accurate/useful?

Hello,

This is my first post and I have a question that I am hoping someone

can answer for me.

Is the IgG antibodies blood test for Stachybotrys Chartarum

accurate/useful?

[Guest guest]

>

> Hello,

>

> This is my first post and I have a question that I am hoping someone

> can answer for me.

>

> Is the IgG antibodies blood test for Stachybotrys Chartarum

> accurate/useful?

>

> The reason that I ask this is because on the link bellow it says

> that, " The demonstration of mold-specific antibodies alone is generally

> considered insufficient to prove that health effects reported by

> individuals in moisture-damaged buildings are caused by mold exposure. "

>

> http://www.ehib.org/html_entity.jsp?bcc=papers & paper_key=STACHYBOTRYS_MI\

> SINTERP_2000

>

>

> If the IgG test isn't accurate then what kind of test is accurate in

> determining whether or not Stachybotrys Chartarum is causing me health

> problems.

>

> Thanks.

>

> -

>

[Guest guest]

Doug,

I'm straying slightly off topic here and am probably way off in my

understanding. But if when you were referring to the excitotoxins and mycotoxins

as similar to voc's; if you were to do a voc test in a home is that how you

would test for excito/mycotoxins ?

And back to the topic, in effect are allergy tests in this way not going to be

enough to really pick up any toxic load that an individual has?

Thanks and my apologies if I've misunderstood.

Sam

Milhouse:

Educationally/ Scientifically speaking only: (not to be construed as to, or in

any medical capacity at all.)

The IgG (most abundant of the immunoglobulins) and to an extent its counterpart

the IgA are accurate in determining the human allergen activity at one moment in

time pertaining to strictly chemcial allergens produced by molds, bacteria, etc.

However, the actual cell of a bacteria or mold cannot be an allergen in and of

themselves as they are actually classified as human pathogens (i.e., disease

causing). I have a paper on this that I produced in 2006 that I will repost

again when I get back to my home computer.

[Guest guest]

Diane, thanks for the info about the trichothecene mycotoxin testing.

When it comes to determining whether or not Stachybotrys Chartarum is causing a

person's health problems is the mycotoxin urine test considered to be a more

accurate test than the IgG antibody blood test?

Also, is there any particular lab that is more reliable/accurate

when it comes to the IgG antibody blood test? Or is OK to have my blood tested

at any lab?

Again, thank you all for the help and suggestions.

-

> >

> > Hello,

> >

> > This is my first post and I have a question that I am hoping someone

> > can answer for me.

> >

> > Is the IgG antibodies blood test for Stachybotrys Chartarum

> > accurate/useful?

> >

> > The reason that I ask this is because on the link bellow it says

> > that, " The demonstration of mold-specific antibodies alone is generally

> > considered insufficient to prove that health effects reported by

> > individuals in moisture-damaged buildings are caused by mold exposure. "

> >

> > http://www.ehib.org/html_entity.jsp?bcc=papers & paper_key=STACHYBOTRYS_MI\

> > SINTERP_2000

> >

> >

> > If the IgG test isn't accurate then what kind of test is accurate in

> > determining whether or not Stachybotrys Chartarum is causing me health

> > problems.

> >

> > Thanks.

> >

> > -

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Sam: Please, no apologies at all. Your questioning is perfectly in order.

I was not referring to excitotoxins per se, which are indirect cofactors with

certain fungi bio-activity (i.e., fermentation activty as molecules of sugar

component):

Excitotoxicity is the pathological process by which nerve cells are damaged and

killed by glutamate and similar substances. This occurs when receptors for the

excitatory neurotransmitter glutamate such as the NMDA receptor and AMPA

receptor are overactivated. Excitotoxins like NMDA and kainic acid which bind to

these receptors, as well as pathologically high levels of glutamate, can cause

excitotoxicity by allowing high levels of calcium ions[1] (Ca2+) to enter the

cell. Ca2+ influx into cells activates a number of enzymes, including

phospholipases, endonucleases, and proteases such as calpain. These enzymes go

on to damage cell structures such as components of the cytoskeleton, membrane,

and DNA.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitotoxicity)

I specifically was referring to the activity of exotoxins and mycotoxins in

bio-activity directly as produced chemical components of bacterial and fungi:

An exotoxin is a toxin excreted by a microrganism, including bacteria, fungi,

algae, and protozoa.[1] An exotoxin can cause damage to the host by destroying

cells or disrupting normal cellular metabolism. They are highly potent and can

cause major damage to the host. Exotoxins may be secreted, or, similar to

endotoxins, may be released during lysis of the cell.

(Source: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en & q=exotoxin+ & btnG=Search)

VOCs are diffrent as they are products of " organic " microorganisms, but also can

chemically bond with other chemical components in the air suchs as soot and

diesel products floating around in the air and entering the human respiratory

system in addition to endodoxins and mycotoxins:

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are organic chemical compounds that have high

enough vapor pressures under normal conditions to significantly vaporize and

enter the atmosphere. A wide range of carbon-based molecules, such as aldehydes,

ketones, and other light hydrocarbons are VOCs.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatile_organic_compounds)

Particulates are separate components as well. As molds and bacteria and other

organic structures start to break apart and die they become particulates

suspending in the air and on water. We humans will all have our chance to become

particulates one day.

Particulates, alternatively referred to as particulate matter (PM) or fine

particles, are tiny particles of solid or liquid suspended in a gas or liquid.

In contrast, aerosol refers to particles and the gas together. Sources of

particulate matter can be man made or natural.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulate)

Should you visit Google and type the following: 'Environmental equipment capture

VOC'

there is listed many articles of authority in how to use, capture, and find the

sophisticated environmental sampling instrumentation used.

My responses were as to allergens (i.e., molecules of chemistry or particultes)

vs. pathogens (i.e., living organic cells), strictly dedicated to the

educational distinction of the differences of each pertaining to the human body

and modern medical detection of them.

In this context as explained, the medical techniques are totally different

perspectives and methodologies.

I hope that this helps in your understanding of my previous posts.

Have a Blessed day.

Doug Haney

>>

From: yaddayadda53@...

Doug,

I'm straying slightly off topic here and am probably way off in my

understanding. But if when you were referring to the excitotoxins and mycotoxins

as similar to voc's; if you were to do a voc test in a home is that how you

would test for excito/mycotoxins ?

And back to the topic, in effect are allergy tests in this way not going to be

enough to really pick up any toxic load that an individual has?

Thanks and my apologies if I've misunderstood.

Sam

[Guest guest]

I have a question???  We lived in a moldy place in 2004 before moving

out we had our home tested. Our attorney is now saying after 4 years

that our testing is insufficiant evidence to prove that there was mold in

our home due to a recent change in appelent law regaurding testing.

Something in reference to the test needs to not only have evidence of

mold present but also give a spore count to prove the mold was producing

spores.??? something to this effect. Does anyone know anything to help me

understand???  A year ago my test were sufficiant now they're nothing??

It feels really wrong!!! HELP PLEASE!!!

________________________________

From: Haney <_Haney52@...>

KC Members < >

Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:59:04 PM

Subject: RE: [] Stachybotrys Chartarum IgG antibodies test. Is it

accurate/useful?

Milhouse:

Educationally/ Scientifically speaking only: (not to be construed as to, or in

any medical capacity at all.)

The IgG (most abundant of the immunoglobulins) and to an extent its counterpart

the IgA are accurate in determining the human allergen activity at one moment in

time pertaining to strictly chemcial allergens produced by molds, bacteria, etc.

However, the actual cell of a bacteria or mold cannot be an allergen in and of

themselves as they are actually classified as human pathogens (i.e., disease

causing). I have a paper on this that I produced in 2006 that I will repost

again when I get back to my home computer.

What the allergen test indicates specifically is that a certain pathogen

discharging chemistry (exotoxins/mycotoxi ns or volatile organic compounds (VOC)

or even more specific particulates (that can be even more toxic to the lungs)

are present.

Hope this will help in your understanding as a new member.

Doug Haney

Environmental- Health Projects

_Haney52@ hotmail.com

>>

From: millhouseroad

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:38:21 +0000

Subject: [] Stachybotrys Chartarum IgG antibodies test. Is it

accurate/useful?

Hello,

This is my first post and I have a question that I am hoping someone

can answer for me.

Is the IgG antibodies blood test for Stachybotrys Chartarum

accurate/useful?

[Guest guest]

,

I'm not an attorney but if your's is referring to appellate

" decisions " (they aren't a law but can be what is called " case

law " ) these are decisions about a case which was appealed. I'd

be surprised if they would rule on facts because appeals are

about procedures which determine facts. He should provide the

citation for the case and the decision so you can see what it says.

Unless this was in Federal Court it most likely won't apply to other

states. Even if Federal, sometimes they only apply in that court

jurisdiction or even to only that case. You need a legal opinion

from an attorney who is familiar with the court jurisdiction of your

case.

You need your attorney to provide the specifics and perhaps

another attorney to interpret it to see if they agree.

As for the facts of mold and needing a spore count, this is moving

opposite of the developing science. The experts now realize that

mold spores are " seeds " (analagous to a plant which produces

seeds) created when a mold colony (biomass) is reproducing.

Actively growing mold often does not produce spores because it

is busy growing bigger rather than reproducing by creating more

spores for baby mold colonies.

Making spores synonomous with presence or growth is a

common mistake, usually by the less informed. Attorneys are

often less informed because they are more interested in how to

use facts to advance their legal position than to use facts to

accurately describe something.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

>

>

>

> I have a question??? We lived in a moldy place in 2004 before moving

> out we had our home tested. Our attorney is now saying after 4 years

> that our testing is insufficiant evidence to prove that there was mold in

> our home due to a recent change in appelent law regaurding testing.

> Something in reference to the test needs to not only have evidence of

> mold present but also give a spore count to prove the mold was producing

> spores.??? something to this effect. Does anyone know anything to help me

> understand??? A year ago my test were sufficiant now they're nothing??

> It feels really wrong!!! HELP PLEASE!!!

>

> ________________________________

> From: Haney <_Haney52@...>

> KC Members <groups (DOT) com>

> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:59:04 PM

> Subject: RE: [] Stachybotrys Chartarum IgG antibodies test. Is it

accurate/useful?

>

> Milhouse:

>

> Educationally/ Scientifically speaking only: (not to be construed as to, or in

any medical capacity at all.)

>

> The IgG (most abundant of the immunoglobulins) and to an extent its

counterpart the IgA are accurate in

> determining the human allergen activity at one moment in time pertaining to

strictly chemcial allergens

> produced by molds, bacteria, etc. However, the actual cell of a bacteria or

mold cannot be an allergen in and

> of themselves as they are actually classified as human pathogens (i.e.,

disease causing). I have a paper on this

> that I produced in 2006 that I will repost again when I get back to my home

computer.

>

> What the allergen test indicates specifically is that a certain pathogen

discharging chemistry

> (exotoxins/mycotoxi ns or volatile organic compounds (VOC) or even more

specific particulates (that can be

> even more toxic to the lungs) are present.

>

> Hope this will help in your understanding as a new member.

>

> Doug Haney

>

> Environmental- Health Projects

>

> _Haney52@ hotmail.com

>

> >>

>

> From: millhouseroad

> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:38:21 +0000

> Subject: [] Stachybotrys Chartarum IgG antibodies test. Is it

accurate/useful?

>

> Hello,

>

> This is my first post and I have a question that I am hoping someone

> can answer for me.

>

> Is the IgG antibodies blood test for Stachybotrys Chartarum

> accurate/useful?

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

We recently won a lawsuit in Dec 08 where we moved in our home in Nov 05

moved out in April 2007, had the initial testing done in 2007 and then more

testing in 2008. The defense (Drees Homes) tried to say that there was

" spoilation of evidence " due to having to rip down walls etc. I do know that

we had to have our Industrial Hygeniest test extensively to he could testify

what different molds were present and the spore count of each. Do you still

have access to the home-if so you would be best to get a hygeniest to

conduct testing-very expensive unfortunately but necessary to make sure you

have all the credentials for trial.

If you don't have the types mold present and their respective spore count,

I'm afraid it will be very difficult for you to win. Unfortunately the legal

system is not a friend to Mold victims.

Best of luck,

Meng.

..

On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 10:18 PM, shannon gray <shannongray72@...>wrote:

>

>

> I have a question??? We lived in a moldy place in 2004 before moving

> out we had our home tested. Our attorney is now saying after 4 years

> that our testing is insufficiant evidence to prove that there was mold in

> our home due to a recent change in appelent law regaurding testing.

> Something in reference to the test needs to not only have evidence of

> mold present but also give a spore count to prove the mold was producing

> spores.???

[Guest guest]

Carl:

You are surely aware that I respect what you state most often. However I am

compelled to scientifically disagree with some components of your statement

offered below:

“As for the facts of mold and needing a spore count, this is moving opposite of

the developing science. The experts now realize that mold spores are " seeds "

(analagous to a plant which produces seeds) created when a mold colony (biomass)

is reproducing. Actively growing mold often does not produce spores because it

is busy growing bigger rather than reproducing by creating more spores for baby

mold colonies.”

Specifically your statement that, “The experts now realize that mold spores are

“seeds.” Just as sperm are live celled microorganisms, spore are

organic/live-celled (i.e., genetically DNA-packed) microorganisms. I do not know

of one scientist studying Medical Mycology within the Molecular Sciences who

would subscribe to your statement as delivered. These “seeds” you speak of, grow

into ‘live-celled multi-nucleated’ hyphae that in rapid succession under the

right environmental conditions (i.e., moisture, temperature, food source,

territory, and other habitat conditions such as ‘host’ cellular weakening and

chemical changes) often develop into mycelia-manufacturing mycotoxins that can

and do influence unhealthy genetic mutations (e.g., as is observed with

Aflatoxin B1 in liver cancer).

Now, how “The experts” you mention can convert a eukaryotic “plant-seed” that

would be completely different physically and chemically than a eukaryotic

“animal-human” cellular seed, is beyond my scope of comprehension. Though molds

have certain characteristics that have baffled scientists in years past, such as

being non-motile, they certainly know how to colonize and spread (some

mushrooms, spread out for literally hundreds of miles). For a long time in the

17th and up until the early 19th centuries molds were believed to be plant-life,

however all of that “belief” was laid to rest as the “Kingdom Fungi” was placed

closest to the “Kingdom Animalia” primarily because of fungi cellular structure

and chemistry being nearly identical to that of animals and humans, and not

chlorophyll-dependent as are plant cells.

Getting back to your statement, my question is, how can “the experts” accurately

determine that the spore of this eukaryotic live-cell closest in genetics,

chemistry, and organic structure to animals and humans, somehow change itself to

conform to that of “plant-life” that it physically has little characteristic

with? I do believe, as a practicing professional in the molecular sciences, that

“The experts” need to go back to the proverbial drawing board.

I agree with you certainly as to the fact that ‘environmental sample testing

values’ have diminished somewhat, but this process is still useful and perhaps

vital under certain circumstances. The reason it is still vital is because we

who provide scientific consulting to the legal, medical, governmental, and other

entities need exacting data to assist in the determination of who is

“susceptible” to the adversities of such environments. Likewise, in the final

analysis of human life and mortality, we in the end all are susceptible to

bacteria and microfungi, so why is it so hard for supposedly an “Intellectual

Civilization” such as ours to understand that anyone can develop this same

“susceptibility” to molds and mycotoxins, while they are still among the living.

The spores of microfungi are very much a distinctive part of this medical

dilemma.

Finally, since I have been on both sides of the practice in the environmental

field for well over 11 years now, written a text on the practice of professional

remediation, have taught personnel on proper remediation tactics, and have

assisted Congressional members in laws and/or regulatory comprehension of both

“remediation” and “green/healthy-safe” indoor environmental tactics, I feel my

comments on your statement reflecting this subject as well, are merited. Given

what I have stated herein, especially as to who is ‘susceptible’ as opposed to

who may not be, taking the “remediation-risk” process lightly is nothing less

than absolutely “stupid!” The medical science confirming what I have stated

herein is very accurate and is becoming more convincingly so, almost daily, as

molecular chemistry and genetic complexity unfolds secrets long-held over the

past 233 years of American scientific discovery. I absolutely agree that the

costs of remediation have to come into some reasonable fiscal

sensibility/responsibility, as well as under specific certification, safety, and

regulation, however we do not want to underrate the fiscal considerations in

professionally and effectively remediating a potentially deadly environmental

condition. This is a very serious situation, and it needs to continue to be

handled as such in the same manner without any devaluation of the circumstances.

Dr. Jack Thrasher is absolutely correct, as well as the others who research with

him on the subject of environmental particulates and contaminants being as

unhealthy or up to 500 times more so than merely inhaling airborne mold spores.

To diminish his vital work in any manner would be a grave mistake.

Again Carl, I totally respect you and your work, but this thought processes as

presented herein have to be reevaluated considerably revised to get in tune with

what is actively being observed in the molecular sciences today.

Have a Blessed day.

Doug Haney

Environmental Health Projects

Email: EHPROJECT1998@...

>>

,

I'm not an attorney but if your's is referring to appellate

" decisions " (they aren't a law but can be what is called " case

law " ) these are decisions about a case which was appealed. I'd

be surprised if they would rule on facts because appeals are

about procedures which determine facts. He should provide the

citation for the case and the decision so you can see what it says.

[Guest guest]

Carl is correct.

The Court does not have to " rely " on those cases in the " appellate " context.

But, the Court can look to other " Jurisdictions " to get " guidance "

and information about the facts which might be " analogized. "

It can depend on how " persuasive " your attorney is in convincing the court that

they should look to another jurisdiction. That is why " experts " are brought in.

To " educate " the court and the jury.

*not legal advice*

>

> ,

>

> I'm not an attorney but if your's is referring to appellate

> " decisions " (they aren't a law but can be what is called " case

> law " ) these are decisions about a case which was appealed. I'd

> be surprised if they would rule on facts because appeals are

> about procedures which determine facts. He should provide the

> citation for the case and the decision so you can see what it says.

>

[Guest guest]

Doug,

As I respect you, also. And one of the reasons is because neither

of us hesitates to respond when we disagree.

I put the word " seeds " in quotes and used the word " analogous "

to indicate I was illustrating a point, not offering a scientific

treatise. I don't disagree with you at all.

But I still insist that there is more to mold testing than simply

spore counting. And PCR, which can be extremely precise in

identifying species and varieties, does not give numerical levels.

QPCR, which is Quantitative PCR, is only an estimate because

the numbers are detemined by microscopy - imprecise at best.

Spores are important, as you say, but they are not the only

concern and they should never be used solely to represent either

environmental conditions or exposure to the occupants. As stated

by you and in my other post today, the context of the mold growth

and the linking of the various points of view is critical to any legal

or scientific argument.

As for the latest from the experts, you may be interested in the

University of Tulsa symposium in Orlando April 27-29. It is on the

AIHA official book " Recognition, Evaluation and Control of Indoor

Mold " . Over 60 of a diverse group of international experts

including field practitioners considered the last 25+ years of

studies and information to formulate some innovative and

forward-thinking responses. I have attached their flyer and a

brochure to this e-mail.

Finally, the vast majority of mold remediation is easy and the

simplistic NYC Guidelines and EPA positions are correct in

identifying that many can be handled by " maintenance "

procedures. But I do disagree on the lack of emphasis on

controlling moisture and when the maintenance should shift to

professional.

That aside, the critical issue on this group is a subset of the

general situation of those not severly impacted (yet). The

question here is how to remediate when the occupant is

extremely sensitive (or potentially) and the health impact is great?

Under those conditions an appropriate professional is critical. And

not just anyone with lots of qualifications, but someone who

specifically comprehends our plight and has an ability to

successfully meet our needs. When it moves to the courtroom,

additional expertise and criteria is necessary.

If you find other errors or continue to disagree, please let me

know.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Carl:

>

> You are surely aware that I respect what you state most often. However I am

compelled to scientifically disagree with some components of your statement

offered below:

>

> " As for the facts of mold and needing a spore count, this is moving opposite

of the developing science. The experts now realize that mold spores are " seeds "

(analagous to a plant which produces seeds) created when a mold colony (biomass)

is reproducing. Actively growing mold often does not produce spores because it

is busy growing bigger rather than reproducing by creating more spores for baby

mold colonies. "

>

> Specifically your statement that, " The experts now realize that mold spores

are " seeds. " Just as sperm are live celled microorganisms, spore are

organic/live-celled (i.e., genetically DNA-packed) microorganisms. I do not know

of one scientist studying Medical Mycology within the Molecular Sciences who

would subscribe to your statement as delivered. These " seeds " you speak of, grow

into `live-celled multi-nucleated´ hyphae that in rapid succession under the

right environmental conditions (i.e., moisture, temperature, food source,

territory, and other habitat conditions such as `host´ cellular weakening and

chemical changes) often develop into mycelia-manufacturing mycotoxins that can

and do influence unhealthy genetic mutations (e.g., as is observed with

Aflatoxin B1 in liver cancer).

>

> Now, how " The experts " you mention can convert a eukaryotic " plant-seed " that

would be completely different physically and chemically than a eukaryotic

" animal-human " cellular seed, is beyond my scope of comprehension. Though molds

have certain characteristics that have baffled scientists in years past, such as

being non-motile, they certainly know how to colonize and spread (some

mushrooms, spread out for literally hundreds of miles). For a long time in the

17th and up until the early 19th centuries molds were believed to be plant-life,

however all of that " belief " was laid to rest as the " Kingdom Fungi " was placed

closest to the " Kingdom Animalia " primarily because of fungi cellular structure

and chemistry being nearly identical to that of animals and humans, and not

chlorophyll-dependent as are plant cells.

>

> Getting back to your statement, my question is, how can " the experts "

accurately determine that the spore of this eukaryotic live-cell closest in

genetics, chemistry, and organic structure to animals and humans, somehow change

itself to conform to that of " plant-life " that it physically has little

characteristic with? I do believe, as a practicing professional in the molecular

sciences, that " The experts " need to go back to the proverbial drawing board.

>

> I agree with you certainly as to the fact that `environmental sample testing

values´ have diminished somewhat, but this process is still useful and perhaps

vital under certain circumstances. The reason it is still vital is because we

who provide scientific consulting to the legal, medical, governmental, and other

entities need exacting data to assist in the determination of who is

" susceptible " to the adversities of such environments. Likewise, in the final

analysis of human life and mortality, we in the end all are susceptible to

bacteria and microfungi, so why is it so hard for supposedly an " Intellectual

Civilization " such as ours to understand that anyone can develop this same

" susceptibility " to molds and mycotoxins, while they are still among the living.

The spores of microfungi are very much a distinctive part of this medical

dilemma.

>

> Finally, since I have been on both sides of the practice in the

environmental field for well over 11 years now, written a text on

the practice of professional remediation, have taught personnel

on proper remediation tactics, and have assisted Congressional

members in laws and/or regulatory comprehension of both

" remediation " and " green/healthy-safe " indoor environmental

tactics, I feel my comments on your statement reflecting this

subject as well, are merited. Given what I have stated herein,

especially as to who is `susceptible´ as opposed to who may not

be, taking the " remediation-risk " process lightly is nothing less

than absolutely " stupid! " The medical science confirming what I

have stated herein is very accurate and is becoming more

convincingly so, almost daily, as molecular chemistry and genetic

complexity unfolds secrets long-held over the past 233 years of

American scientific discovery. I absolutely agree that the costs of

remediation have to come into some reasonable fiscal

sensibility/responsibility, as well as under specific certification,

safety, and regulation, however we do not want to underrate the

fiscal considerations in professionally and effectively remediating

a potentially deadly environmental condition. This is a very

serious situation, and it needs to continue to be handled as such

in the same manner without any devaluation of the

circumstances.

>

> Dr. Jack Thrasher is absolutely correct, as well as the others who research

with him on the subject of environmental particulates and contaminants being as

unhealthy or up to 500 times more so than merely inhaling airborne mold spores.

To diminish his vital work in any manner would be a grave mistake.

>

> Again Carl, I totally respect you and your work, but this thought processes as

presented herein have to be reevaluated considerably revised to get in tune with

what is actively being observed in the molecular sciences today.

>

> Have a Blessed day.

>

> Doug Haney

> Environmental Health Projects

> Email: EHPROJECT1998@...

>

>

>

> >>

>

>

> ,

>

> I'm not an attorney but if your's is referring to appellate

> " decisions " (they aren't a law but can be what is called " case

> law " ) these are decisions about a case which was appealed. I'd

> be surprised if they would rule on facts because appeals are

> about procedures which determine facts. He should provide the

> citation for the case and the decision so you can see what it says.

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

>

[Guest guest]

Carl: I certainly agree with all that you have stated herein. The use of PCR is

critical at this stage if potential illness or litigation pertaining to symptoms

influensive of illness are in question. Knowing what I know as to the latent

qualities of certain microfungi, perhaps PCR for molds and mycotoxins should be

a standard application upon initial inspections. It is a costly venture, but a

critical component in determining a more accurate status of an suspected

unhealthy/ " sick building " . I do wish that at some time in the near future

someone would bring a conference such as the one you have informed me of to

Sacramento. I have a dedicated number of Power Point programs on molecular

aspects in relating the processes that microorganic molds and yeasts use in

weakening the protective genetic structures and chemistry of animals/humans in

disease causation.

I have been ill, which precludes me from much travel, and I am teaching college

part-time. This keeps me quite busy. I don't think I am telling you much though,

given the schedule you must be keeping.

I have weighed in before on this, but once again, Immunoglobulins G and A, are

very important for immunability analysis. Remember, before all the mold

litigation invaded the court system back in/around 2000, this type analytical

tool most medics suspecting microfungi as promoting illness used to determine

where they were going medically with their patients. After a few attorneys

happened to change the mindset of the medical field, suddenly the IgG and IgA

use was minimized and chastized as being of very little value. This is because

molds were emphasized as, and still are, " allergens. " Even though they are not

as live-celled pathogens as are bacteria. The chemicals produced and the

particulates are of course " allergenic " to human immune cells of the IgE

variety. Politics in the medical field is alive and thriving just as much as

lobbyists are alive and well in politics. Follow the money in America and you

will discover quickly where and why " influential changes " are a major factor of

our economy, system of justice, and government/commercial enterprise as a whole.

Anyway, thank you for your welcome response, and again, I totally agree with all

you have written in your response to me.

God Bless and take care.

Happy Easter to all.

Doug Haney

[Guest guest]

,

This is a good question because it illustrates some key points.

(I'm not an attorney but I can describe what often happens). The

problem is your proof of exposure using the antibody results is

necessary but it is not enough.

I always hated English class because of analyzing sentences,

breaking them apart until they had no meaning. However, this is a

case where a version of that process will be (hopefully) helpful.

Start with the first part of what you quoted, " The demonstration

of mold-specific antibodies alone... " Notice is says nothing about

accuracy or validity of the test. It is saying the test, even if

accurate, is not enough by itself to prove your total claim. It

only shows you were exposed " sometime " and that antibodies were

created. Nothing more.

The conclusion of your claim is in the last part of your

question, " determining whether or not Stachybotrys Chartarum is

causing me health problems. " Assuming S. chartarum can be shown to

cause these health problems, it is not proof by itself. You must

show the test and the conclusion are connected.

Okay, so the antibodies are present and you have the miraculous

good fortune to have lab samples showing the presence of S.

chartarum in your house. You still haven't shown you were exposed

to the S. chartarum. The lab samples may have a high number but

maybe you were only exposed to a small portion, just enough to

create antibodies but not enough to cause illness. Presence of

mold is not the same as exposure to mold and is not the same as

getting sick from the mold.

Exposure is the connection between the " accurate test " of

antibodies and the " health effects " of your claim.

But even if the connection is made, there is still the challange

to prove where and when were you exposed to the S. chartarum which

caused your health problems. At the location you tested? Or

somewhere else? Maybe it was in some food you ate.

There is also the additional difficulty of proving that the person

you are suing is the person responsible for causing the exposure.

1. Not anticipating these arguments and documenting the supporting

evidence is one of the (many) reasons why plaintiff cases lose. It

makes it easy for the defense. They don't have to know any science

or microbiology or anything except logical sequence.

2. This legal and logical requirement is nearly impossible to

overcome if pushed to the extreme. It requires a near perfect

proof of a specific exposure at a precise time to the exclusion of

all other times of exposure which might have caused your specific

health problems. But did they? So then you also have to prove your

health problems were not caused by something else at a different

time and place. You have to remove this doubt sufficiently for a

judge or jury to believe you.

3. Shared liability. Perhaps the mold caused only 60% or just 20%

of the health problems. Or the landlord is responsible for 50% but

the property manager for 30% and you are held responsible for the

remaining 20%. (and then you have to pay your legal costs). Even

worse, I've seen cases that were slam dunks for the plaintiff but

the various defendants couldn't decide on who owed what share. So

the case went to trial to determine that. But in the process some

mistakes were made and a judgment was rendered against the

plaintiff anyway.

This is only part of why we need knowledgable and experienced

experts in a variety of professions and disciplines. The complete

and connected circle of cause and effect from credible witnesses

must be complete. Which can be outrageously expensive with a high

risk for an unpredictable result.

, I not saying any of the above is right or justified or that

your situation is not true. I certainly am not arguing against

you. I'm merely answering your question and including how a

defense attorney could challange your claims and that a

plaintiff's attorney should prepare his case to prevail against

such nonsence.

There is a huge gap between proof of exposure (by antibodies or

anything else), where and when you were exposed, and who is at

fault.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

>

> Hello,

>

> This is my first post and I have a question that I am hoping

> someone can answer for me.

>

> Is the IgG antibodies blood test for Stachybotrys Chartarum

> accurate/useful?

>

> The reason that I ask this is because on the link bellow it says

> that, " The demonstration of mold-specific antibodies alone is

> generally considered insufficient to prove that health effects

> reported by individuals in moisture-damaged buildings are caused

> by mold exposure. "

>

> http://www.ehib.org/html_entity.jsp?bcc=papers &

> paper_key=STACHYBOTRYS_MI\

> SINTERP_2000

>

> If the IgG test isn't accurate then what kind of test is accurate

> in determining whether or not Stachybotrys Chartarum is causing

> me health problems.

>

> Thanks.

>

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 08:48 PM 4/30/2009, you wrote:

>But even if the connection is made, there is still the challange

>to prove where and when were you exposed to the S. chartarum which

>caused your health problems. At the location you tested? Or

>somewhere else? Maybe it was in some food you ate.

Carl is right. The key pivot point to clearly state it:

Did the IgG levels go down upon remediation and symptoms go away as well?

Meaning, you need another IgG test, maybe two, and to be re-interviewed by

a doctor at the time of each test to list your current symptoms' " levels. "

That allows a comparison over time, and connection to the clean up.

It removes " doubt " . The judge is likely on your side, but he knows the

side with money, will file an appeal if his decision does not take in

account " reasonable doubt " , and the judge will have cost the state

more money to support the next trial. A " big picture " of the entire

legal process over time and possible scenarios is needed to know

what to prepare for your side to present. Dated pictures are big with

a judge. Hard to fake those.

Did you keep a sewn lab book of your symptoms as they occured?

This is often the single most important key decision making factor

for a judge, but it is not critical. Just that if you have it, then the

judge has an easier time of seeing the timeline and harm done

to you, and seeing the symptoms increase, then decrease.

Doctor (expert) testimony to support your layman opinion is

still needed, in either case, with or without the symptom history.

If not consider starting one now. Damage levels, monetary award

size, is often based on symptom(s) impact(s) and duration, and

lost income during the period of documented symptoms in the

inked, handwritten bound notebook, with no blank pages, and

each page and entry dated.

>1. Not anticipating these arguments and documenting the supporting

>evidence is one of the (many) reasons why plaintiff cases lose. It

>makes it easy for the defense. They don't have to know any science

>or microbiology or anything except logical sequence.

All so true. Benefit of the doubt makes the law in favor of the guilty.

>health problems. But did they? So then you also have to prove your

>health problems were not caused by something else at a different

>time and place. You have to remove this doubt sufficiently for a

>judge or jury to believe you.

Removing the doubt is key. Proving it was not other sources, is

not so key, but if you have removed doubt, then you handled that

as well.

>3. Shared liability. Perhaps the mold caused only 60% or just 20%

>of the health problems. Or the landlord is responsible for 50% but

>the property manager for 30% and you are held responsible for the

>remaining 20%. (and then you have to pay your legal costs).

I've heard of this twice now for other cases I have read about.

The " deep " pockets does not pay all now.

Instead, it is proportioned, and then deep pockets might, might be

considered by the judge. But the judge will likely not mention that

verbally or in writing. It's a bone of contention and possible cause

for retrial or appeal, both are to be avoided. Wearing you down is

their goal, and emptying your pockets of money to pay your lawyer.

Thus, you end doing all the leg work, while you are still recovering...

Sigh.

>must be complete. Which can be outrageously expensive with a high

>risk for an unpredictable result.

Dated pictures are good. Doing them even without any sign of

mold, to show clean up, or remediation, or other, is very good,

as then the judge sees you as presenting a 'balanced' view point,

compared to the other side, who remains totally unbalanced.

>There is a huge gap between proof of exposure (by antibodies or

>anything else), where and when you were exposed, and who is at

>fault.

I am not going to pursue my exposure to sewer gas from a

bad hot water heater. Instead I will document the slow repairs,

and file for a rent decrease of 100%, until repairs are adequate.

It's much longer story than that. I have about 600 photos and

1 inch of faxed repair requests. Bad landlord is easy to document

and an alternative route in some states.

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

My family and I became very ill from mold exposure in a new home, we

recently went to trial in Dec 08 and we won-although the Judge reduced the

verdict later on-it was still a win for those of us whose health has been

severely damaged as a result of our exposure. I think if I am right Carl the

word we are all talking about is " causation " it is a nasty little word

which means unfortunately those who have been injured by their environment

have to prove the link between their environment and their illness. Even

though we all know that's why we are so sick!!

Although having the antibodies in your blood is very helpful for causation*,it

isn't enough* Carl is right the defense will do *everything* and more to

tear your case apart. They might even paint you with a disorder called

Somataform-which basically means that you have manufactured all of your

symptoms yourself-this is a favorite in toxic tort cases.

Can I ask was this a new home? did you have any medical issues prior to your

exposure and thirdly do you have a great mold doctor and a

microbiologist-these were absolutely key in our case. The Microbiologist was

Chin Yang PhD whose credentials are immaculate. The expert witnesses you

have will make your case,unfortunately your bloodwork is just icing on the

cake. I'm not a doctor or lawyer, this is only based on my personal

experience. If I can be of any further help,please feel free to contact me.

Good Luck,

Meng.

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Carl Grimes <grimes@...> wrote:

>

>

> ,

>

> This is a good question because it illustrates some key points.

> (I'm not an attorney but I can describe what often happens). The

> problem is your proof of exposure using the antibody results is

> necessary but it is not enough.

>

[Guest guest]

made some good points. I have to add another one. The " other side " will

(and have) altered photos and they don't show those to plaintiffs prior to

trial. Attorneys are required by law to share all trial evidence (photos,

documents, etc.) with each other prior to trial, but some attorneys ignore the

laws.

________________________________

From: <pete-@...>

Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 9:16:21 PM

Subject: Re: [] Stachybotrys Chartarum IgG antibodies test. Is it

accurate/useful?

At 08:48 PM 4/30/2009, you wrote:

>But even if the connection is made, there is still the challange

>to prove where and when were you exposed to the S. chartarum which

>caused your health problems. At the location you tested? Or

>somewhere else? Maybe it was in some food you ate.

[Guest guest]

,

It was an apartment and they are still renting the units and owned by the

same company. I wonder if I was to speak to the current tenant and they gave us

permission to test in their apt. Do you think that might work???

--

- In , Meng <moldsick@...> wrote:

>

> ,

>

> We recently won a lawsuit in Dec 08 where we moved in our home in Nov 05

> moved out in April 2007, had the initial testing done in 2007 and then more

> testing in 2008. The defense (Drees Homes) tried to say that there was

> " spoilation of evidence " due to having to rip down walls etc. I do know that

> we had to have our Industrial Hygeniest test extensively to he could testify

> what different molds were present and the spore count of each. Do you still

> have access to the home-if so you would be best to get a hygeniest to

> conduct testing-very expensive unfortunately but necessary to make sure you

> have all the credentials for trial.

>

> If you don't have the types mold present and their respective spore count,

> I'm afraid it will be very difficult for you to win. Unfortunately the legal

> system is not a friend to Mold victims.

>

> Best of luck,

>

> Meng.

> .

> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 10:18 PM, shannon gray <shannongray72@...>wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > I have a question??? We lived in a moldy place in 2004 before moving

> > out we had our home tested. Our attorney is now saying after 4 years

> > that our testing is insufficiant evidence to prove that there was mold in

> > our home due to a recent change in appelent law regaurding testing.

> > Something in reference to the test needs to not only have evidence of

> > mold present but also give a spore count to prove the mold was producing

> > spores.???

>

[Guest guest]

At 01:42 PM 5/1/2009, you wrote:

> made some good points. I have to add another one. The " other

>side " will (and have) altered photos and they don't show those to

>plaintiffs prior to trial. Attorneys are required by law to share

>all trial evidence (photos, documents, etc.) with each other prior

>to trial, but some attorneys ignore the laws.

You can refuse to have that unreviewed evidence admitted.

As it's only a 1 day trial, they lose. Be sure that ALL evidence

that gets submitted on the day of the trial matches what you

have seen before, ..., the bailiff brings it to you first, before the

judge. I am not a lawyer, and things swing loose with some

courts/judges/bailiffs, so jump up quick whenever the other

side even attempts to produce evidence for submission.

Speak up, or lose. Good luck.

Pete