Re: Re: Letter/Political Action Group

[Guest guest]

Sally,

What you are witnessing is an age old battle in this issue - come to a head

by a particular action, changing in stance - and lack of effective

communication. To the best of my knowledge no one has any dishonorable

intentions of aiding the defense in mold litigation. But ineffective

communication

when a concern is raised, caused a problem area to become bigger than it

should.

There are two ways to solve this problem.

1. Promote what IS the true science within the courts, to physicians and

government entities.

2. Expose what IS NOT true science by exposing the conflicts of interest

of the pseudo-science that was written for the intended purpose to mislead

the courts.

You would think that these two goals could work together to achieve a

common goal of righting the wrongs of this issue, and often times they do.

But when effective communication is not employed, then matters that should be

addressed go unaddressed causing a fractionalization, and leaving the sick

and injured wondering what is the right thing to do or who to trust.

As a newbie, the science info you will receive is most likely accurate from

this board. The info of what has caused the scientific misinformation to

become US health policy is correct.

To the best of my knowledge there are no " ulterior motives " for personal

gain playing out here - and I take issue with that being repeatedly presented

but never described.

The info you receive of both the science and the deceit of the issue are

correct here, to the best of my knowledge.

Sharon

In a message dated 8/18/2010 6:19:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

mustangsally2254@... writes:

Here is the " newbie " again--asking questions of the " seasoned " members

that

you've probably long ago tired of discussing. Is there some split within

the

members of this group? The comments seem to hint at some past

differences; my

question is whether this is a controversy based in personalities/styles or

in

the research that is discussed on these message boards. This field is

already

confusing to some of us who are recent entrants into the arena and

understanding

how sufferers themselves may be in opposition might help us prepare for

objections or debate among those who advocate education and progress in

the

identification and treatment of these exposure-related illnesses.

Thanks for any suggestions--if you don't want to " beat a dead horse, "

maybe

point me in the right direction?

Sally

Sharon Noonan Kramer