Re: ERMI Test (Shoemaker)

[Guest guest]

I just did the ERMI twice, at my house and at my Mom's, once with dust

clothes and once with the vacuuming dust collectors. Cost is $285 for each.

Janis

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Teri <teri.ksmith@...> wrote:

>

>

> I have a very suspect mold-toxicity issue (on top of Lyme diagnosis and

> some other things). Visible mold was growing in windows, on

> furniture--green, grey, white. Leak in the bathroom wall. I am disabled and

> live with my parents, they are in denial about the issue.

>

> Anyway, I have been told to do the ERMI by mycometrics or whatever it's

> called. Has anyone done this test, if so how much does it cost?

>

> In addition, Shoemaker recommends that people exposed to toxins remove

> themselves from the environment. How does a disabled person with few

> resources do this?

>

> Thanks in advance,

> -T

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Please try to find as many of the old posts as possible before you run off and

spend money on ERMI. I and others have contributed an immense amount of

information for decision-making.

Bottom line is this: ERMI is useful in very very few situations. there are

other, better ways of getting site information that is helpful. Ask yourself,

will the results increase the power of my decision-making, regardless of the

answer. Develop your question (need of info), and predict your reaction or

course of action depending on the typical and likely sample results. You will

find that regardless of the result, your action is usually the same. So save

money, and just follow the obvious, but logical and rational course of action.

Does this make sense?

You can contact me off group if you wish, as I'd prefer not to re-hash this

discussion here.

For searching, start with the terms: ERMI, mold sampling, PCR, validity,

samples. Others may be able to help you search the archives even better.

[Guest guest]

I second 's statements below about ERMI. In fact, I would without

hesitation apply them to ALL methods of mold testing and MOST other types of

testing.

A general misconception about lab tests is they provide conclusive proof. They

do not in and of themselves. There is always a context, a question it can

answer, which may or may not support a " proof. "

Usually, lab results are interpreted to support a preconceived or hoped for

result. If my hope is different than yours then my " proof " will not be the same

as yours. Then how do we determine who is right and who is wrong? It can't be

with the test so it must be by some other means.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

(fm my Blackberry)

[] Re: ERMI Test (Shoemaker)

Please try to find as many of the old posts as possible before you run off and

spend money on ERMI. I and others have contributed an immense amount of

information for decision-making.

Bottom line is this: ERMI is useful in very very few situations. there are

other, better ways of getting site information that is helpful. Ask yourself,

will the results increase the power of my decision-making, regardless of the

answer. Develop your question (need of info), and predict your reaction or

course of action depending on the typical and likely sample results. You will

find that regardless of the result, your action is usually the same. So save

money, and just follow the obvious, but logical and rational course of action.

Does this make sense?

You can contact me off group if you wish, as I'd prefer not to re-hash this

discussion here.

For searching, start with the terms: ERMI, mold sampling, PCR, validity,

samples. Others may be able to help you search the archives even better.

[Guest guest]

Out of curiosity how does a lab benefit from the results?

>

> Usually, lab results are interpreted to support a preconceived or hoped for

result. If my hope is different than yours then my " proof " will not be the same

as yours. Then how do we determine who is right and who is wrong? It can't be

with the test so it must be by some other means.

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

> (fm my Blackberry)

[Guest guest]

Dave,

Your question implies the lab will interpret the results. (if I'm reading you

right).

The lab should NEVER interpret the results. Because they have no idea where the

sample was collected, why it was collected, or if it was collected properly.

Without that basic information no one can correctly interpret lab results of any

kind.

Example: one of my clients sent a sample in for ERMI analysis. The lab responded

there was insufficient dust to analyze.

So they collected another sample with more dust. The result was maxed out at 6.

Panic!

They called me and I can find no basis for mold growth, not even accumulated

dust behind furniture.

I recommended they take 2 samples, each from a separate location instead of 1

from each of several locations (a general sample) to see if only one or both

locations was the source. Their response?

It took them a month of vacuuming the whole house to get enough dust for the one

sample. Two samples will take two months. What good was that?!

Which means that even though the comparative values of the Type 1 and Type 2

mold groups correctly calculate to an ERMI 6, the results have absolutely no

meaning.

ERMI and all other methods of collection have certain assumptions and

limitations. If those aren't met them the results can be either wrong or right

but there is no way to figure it out without a correct test or some other means.

So more directly to your question of how does a lab benefit: they get more

business if their results agree with what a layman or improperly educated

contractor or consultant wants to find. They send more samples to that lab and

they tell their friends or groups like this about how that lab finds problems

that others missed.

Which comes around to one (of several) fatal flaws of ERMI - there are too many

variables to reduce to a single digit result.

And this client's situation also illustrates several problems with ALL testing

if it doesn't have prior appropriate and informed context and understanding for

interpreting the results.

Proof? Because there was so little dust to collect they vacuumed for a month to

collect enough dust in the VACUUM BAG! So little dust of which maybe 2% is

spores, a month of potential growth if damp or high RH - plus it had previously

been used to vacuum tracked-in garden dirt off the patio. Now that's

cross-contamination! Of the sample.

The results were accurate for the patio but not for the house. But there was no

way to tell from just the lab report or by the lab.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

(fm my Blackberry)

[] Re: ERMI Test (Shoemaker)

Out of curiosity how does a lab benefit from the results?

>

> Usually, lab results are interpreted to support a preconceived or hoped for

result. If my hope is different than yours then my " proof " will not be the same

as yours. Then how do we determine who is right and who is wrong? It can't be

with the test so it must be by some other means.

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

> (fm my Blackberry)

[Guest guest]

What are your thoughts on Pro-Lab home test kits for mold and various other?

Re: [] Re: ERMI Test (Shoemaker)

I second 's statements below about ERMI. In fact, I would without

hesitation apply them to ALL methods of mold testing and MOST other types of

testing.

A general misconception about lab tests is they provide conclusive proof. They

do not in and of themselves. There is always a context, a question it can

answer, which may or may not support a " proof. "

Usually, lab results are interpreted to support a preconceived or hoped for

result. If my hope is different than yours then my " proof " will not be the same

as yours. Then how do we determine who is right and who is wrong? It can't be

with the test so it must be by some other means.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

(fm my Blackberry)

[Guest guest]

Penny, you could try doing a search for Pro-Lab in the message archives. This

has been discussed alot and the answer is rather long and involved. Anyway, the

answer to this perhaps we should put into the group files since it is asked so

much. Thanks

>

> What are your thoughts on Pro-Lab home test kits for mold and various other?

>

>

> Re: [] Re: ERMI Test (Shoemaker)

>

>

> I second 's statements below about ERMI. In fact, I would without

hesitation apply them to ALL methods of mold testing and MOST other types of

testing.

>

> A general misconception about lab tests is they provide conclusive proof.

They do not in and of themselves. There is always a context, a question it can

answer, which may or may not support a " proof. "

>

> Usually, lab results are interpreted to support a preconceived or hoped for

result. If my hope is different than yours then my " proof " will not be the same

as yours. Then how do we determine who is right and who is wrong? It can't be

with the test so it must be by some other means.

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

> (fm my Blackberry)

>

[Guest guest]

The critique I posted applies to ALL labs. The additional problems for settling

plates, regardless of the lab, include being the most inaccurate and least

representative of all sampling methods.

They do not, and cannot, answer the questions we most need answered. Is my house

safe? Are my reactions caused by mold or something else? Was the remediation

successful? Did I cross-contaminate?

Pro-Labs cannot accurately be compared to those of other labs because they use a

slightly different agar in the plates. (As do some others). So, some molds will

flourish and some won't grow because of the differences.

Check the archives as Barb suggested for details and additional reasons.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

(fm my Blackberry)

Re: [] Re: ERMI Test (Shoemaker)

I second 's statements below about ERMI. In fact, I would without

hesitation apply them to ALL methods of mold testing and MOST other types of

testing.

A general misconception about lab tests is they provide conclusive proof. They

do not in and of themselves. There is always a context, a question it can

answer, which may or may not support a " proof. "

Usually, lab results are interpreted to support a preconceived or hoped for

result. If my hope is different than yours then my " proof " will not be the same

as yours. Then how do we determine who is right and who is wrong? It can't be

with the test so it must be by some other means.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

(fm my Blackberry)

[Guest guest]

Yes, put " Pro Labs " and also " Pro-Lab " and various versions into the " message

search " function at the group home page. You need to use a variety of things to

determine if there is a problem and what the problem is, including your senses,

of smell and sight, looking around, observations...do you feel better elsewhere

and the differences are always. It can be a starting point. I've done them and

I also buy plates from Dallas Environmental Center in Dallas which uses a

different medium and I get different results..some over lapping...i.e. some the

same but their plates pick up for example 'mucor sp' in my house but the Pro Lab

does not. This is due to a difference in the medium they use. If you are sick,

I would add in a test w the Dallas mold plates and then it depends on how you

place them also, and the time of year. In winter you can get different results

than in summer, so if all is well in winter but you still suspect something run

them again in summer for example.

>

> The critique I posted applies to ALL labs. The additional problems for

settling plates, regardless of the lab, include being the most inaccurate and

least representative of all sampling methods.

>

> They do not, and cannot, answer the questions we most need answered. Is my

house safe? Are my reactions caused by mold or something else? Was the

remediation successful? Did I cross-contaminate?

>

> Pro-Labs cannot accurately be compared to those of other labs because they use

a slightly different agar in the plates. (As do some others). So, some molds

will flourish and some won't grow because of the differences.

>

> Check the archives as Barb suggested for details and additional reasons.

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

> (fm my Blackberry)

>

>