Re: Gots hates it when the disinformation isn't his.

[Guest guest]

This guy sure lives up to his name. How is it that no judge has so far

demanded a sentence for people like him to live in a mold infested

house or work in a mold infested business place for a period of time?

Let's see you PROVE that mold DOESN'T cause our ailments, Mr. GOTS!!!

I'm so sick of you legal and corporate brown-lipsticked whores who

f@$* with people's lives with your disgusting smelly-breathed lies!

It's time, good long-suffering people, that those of us with the

strength to fight back do so by demanding that slimeballs like this

schmutz put themselves in the victim's shoes to see if mold really

does cause illness and death. I'd splurge for the biohazard suit just

to see this bastard squirm in a room full of stachy.

Mr./Ms. Editor, that article is so full of crap, but I guess you're

just another yes-man/ma'am employee who will swing from a tree for

your paycheck and benefits by allowing it to go to print.

> http://www.claimsmag.com/Issues/aug02/mold_claims.asp

> Mold Claims: Recognizing What Is Real

> By E. Gots

> The recent mold frenzy is the strangest environmental claim issue that I

> have seen in 30 years of toxicological and environmental litigation

> consulting. Why? Mold is a natural living material, essential for life and

> comprising 25 percent of the world's biomass. It has neither become more

> prevalent than it was 20 years ago, nor is there much additional support for

> any new adverse health effects, despite thousands of active claims alleging

> the contrary.

> Most allegations are based upon misinformation, so often repeated that it

> has garnered an aura of certitude. Among the misinformation: mold and mold

> toxins in the indoor environment are not known to cause brain damage,

> immunological disorders, bleeding lungs in newborns, fibromyalgia, attention

> deficit disorder, cancer, or chronic fatigue syndrome. The alleged chronic

> disorder " fungal syndrome " or " bioaerosal disease " is neither accepted in

> the medical community, nor known to exist.

> Outdoor levels of mold spores in parts of the country (i.e., St. Louis in

> summer) are routinely 50,000 m3. People are being told to evacuate homes

> which have 5 percent of those levels. The term " toxic " mold makes no sense.

> Almost all molds can make mycotoxins, including Alternaria, one of the most

> common outdoor molds and always considered non-toxic or benign by

> environmental consultants.

> One of the reasons for this strange and vast discord between health

> realities and health perceptions is the lack of medical expert voices in the

> fray. Instead, the din of indoor air experts and air quality experts, few

> of whom have any medical expertise and even fewer of whom have read

> thoroughly the scientific literature, has coopted this field. Some fringe

> physicians also have jumped into this arena. As those of you who handle

> claims well know, the growing interest in testing and finding problems

> rivals 's interest in keeping Enron healthy. Thus, they are neither

> expert, nor impartial.

> Notwithstanding the fact that this situation is misdirected, you as claim

> handlers still have to contend with the mold issue. Failing to do so is

> perilous.

> Risk Decision Process

> True health risks are generally minimal in most mold contamination

> situations. Exceptions may exist, i.e., if contamination is extensive, if

> occupants are highly allergic, if residents are immunocompromised. Although

> health is the driver for most testing and remediation, however, we must

> recognize that perceived health risks are the real driver.

> Because of the extensive publicity, people are genuinely worried about mold.

> That plus, now common, legal representation are key determinants of your

> actions. This is particularly true in high-risk jurisdictions such as

> California and Texas. These factors have led to the need for prompt action

> and decisions, some of which must be guided by the level of distress of

> involved parties.

> This presents the claim handler a new challenge: psychological assessment

> (and early clinical assessment) of the client or occupants. This, in turn,

> must be considered before you deny coverage or permit the claimant to move.

> One approach we have used in homeowner matters is requiring a physical

> examination of residents who complain of symptoms. After all, the IAQ people

> are not qualified to connect symptoms to cause, and if the occupants believe

> that their health has been compromised, what could be more reasonable and

> supportable than medical confirmation? One caution: use standard, mainstream

> physicians, not those who are making a current carrier in mold hype or fear.

> Some situations require effective, early health risk communication. This is

> particularly true in commercial buildings, municipal facilities, and schools

> in which large numbers of concerned workers, parents, or students may be

> involved. Communicators must have expertise, excellent communication skills,

> and the ability to deal with media and Internet errors in a knowledgeable,

> believable fashion. Any good communicator will anticipate the concerns and

> be prepared to answer tough questions.

> Evacuation or Not

> A significant cost driver in the mold arena is relocation. This is

> particularly common in homes, but may involve commercial establishments and

> municipal buildings. Rarely is immediate evacuation needed. Mold is not like

> carbon monoxide or natural gas. An exception may be a situation in which

> contamination is unusually severe, i.e., a family returns after three weeks

> to a flooded home or a roof blows off a building.

> Too many IAQ investigators order evacuation with little appropriate

> knowledge to do so and little reason. The finding, for example, of small

> amounts of Stachybotrys is not, taken alone, grounds for evacuation. It is

> important for the claim handler to discuss this issue with consultants. If

> they are too cavalier, they can get you in trouble; if they are overly

> conservative (demanding regular evacuation), they can lead to vastly

> inflated costs. If occupants are complaining of symptoms, they should be

> examined by a non-mold-activist physician at once to see whether medical

> findings are consistent with a mold-induced cause.

> During remediation a second evacuation decision may have to be made. The

> need for this depends upon the amount of remediation and the ability to

> reasonably protect the occupants.

> Most importantly, these decisions are all matters of judgement. Your job is

> to be certain that your consultants have good judgement and valid,

> scientifically supportable reasons for their decisions.

> The testing and remediation industry is chaotic and highly variable in

> quality. Some of the largest and best known firms over-test and

> over-interpret and over-evaluate. That is how they get paid. Working with

> the key individuals, reviewing their work, getting recommendations, and,

> most importantly, reviewing their reports and recommendations, both for

> content and consistency, are the only ways to insure that you are getting

> the right people. Inconsistency in your recommendations and your actions can

> get you into trouble. You need a standard and medically/scientifically

> supportable set of guidelines and standard operating procedures.

> Sampling options are another area of enormous inconsistency. Sampling should

> always be determined by apparent or highly suspicious water damage and

> suspected mold growth. Random tests are uninterpretable and make no sense.

> The latest creative, but rarely appropriate, testing extreme involves

> mold-smelling dogs, a silly, expensive approach designed to escalate costs.

> Since dogs are touted as being able to identify mold at 1,000 times lower

> levels that the human nose, they will likely find it everywhere, even when

> it is inconsequential to human health.

> Evaluation and Remediation

> Water incursions must be controlled and damage cleaned up. This is often a

> localized activity that does not, and should not, involve an entire

> facility. The allegation of widespread mold spore dissemination through the

> ventilation system is rarely a meaningful issue. Because spores enter

> buildings and homes every time we open doors and windows, they are

> everywhere. The concern is not their presence (unless levels are

> extraordinarily high), but whether they find wet areas for growth. One study

> of normal homes showed mold spore levels during routine activities. A simple

> act like changing sheets on beds, for example, has been shown to generate

> many thousands of airborne mold spores.

> Rarely do contents require destruction or replacement. An exception is

> furniture which is water soaked and moldy. This may not be salvageable.

> Surface spores, however, on otherwise dry furnishings, drapes, and clothing

> can readily be cleaned. Solid surfaces can be wiped down.

> Returning occupants to remediated areas generally follows elimination of

> water damage and moldy materials. Numbers are unreliable, often

> uninterpretable, but commonly used. The commonly-used 1-1 or 2-1 ratios of

> indoor to outdoor mold are poor rules of thumb, as levels can vary so

> markedly from time to time and as, in cold climates, winter outdoor levels

> are almost always lower than indoor levels. The best guidelines are: 1) Has

> the damaged area been remediated? Visual inspection answers that question.

> 2) Are levels consistent with customary indoor levels which have been

> reported in the scientific literature?

> The only claims that generally are compatible with mold contamination are

> respiratory claims, primarily hayfever and, occasionally, asthma. Most of

> the rest - brain damage, immune dysfunction, chronic fatigue, etc. - are

> nonsense and readily defendable. They simply find no scientific support and

> are not generally recognized in the medical community. Symptoms alone are no

> measure of personal injury from mold. Symptom reporting is highly unreliable

> and non-specific.

> To investigate personal injury claims, several steps are essential:

> . Review all past medical records to correlate alleged exposure with

> symptoms and findings and to put them in as temporal context with alleged

> exposure.

> . Include in the review a medication analysis. Many medications can produce

> a host of symptoms.

> . Review contemporaneous (not after mold has been discovered or a lawsuit

> filed) medical records to see what complaints and, most importantly,

> physical findings existed during exposure period.

> . The former review leads to identification of temporal relationships and

> alternate causation.

> . If indicated, review, or have performed, standard allergy skin testing to

> see whether the claimants are allergic to the identified mold. If not, they

> likely have no valid claim.

> . Force opposing experts to prove that mold can cause the alleged disorders

> (using medical and scientific literature).

> . Force opposing experts to prove which mold and when allergies developed,

> assuming claimant has demonstrated mold allergies.

> . Show that 20 percent of the population has some allergies to mold and

> dozens of other aeroallergens which do not, in general, suggest serious

> illness and often do not even indicate a clinical response to those agents.

> . Recognize that there are very few long term illnesses which have ever

> arisen from indoor mold exposure.

> . Be prepared to compare mold exposures in gardens, camps, plant stores,

> and numerous occupational settings (thousands, even millions, of times

> higher than indoor levels even in contaminated facilities) and to show what

> ailments such individuals develop and how rarely those occur.

> As it is commonly used, toxic mold is a meaningless term. Indoor air mold

> has never been proven to produce toxicity, and common allergies are the main

> endpoint of mold exposure in sensitive people. Gardening or walking in the

> woods exposes people to vastly higher levels of toxigenic mold than do

> almost any indoor exposures. The defense of irrational claims depends upon

> well prepared defense counsel who understand the known clinical science of

> mold and its effects.

> E. Gots is a lecturer at town University School of Medicine and

> a principal at the International Center for Toxicology and Medicine. He can

> be contacted at regots@....

Barth

NEW: TOXIC MOLD SURVEY: www.presenting.net/sbs/sbssurvey.html

[Guest guest]

Mr. Gots,

I do not see any indication behind your name that would indicate your

expertise in this area. Or are you simply a " consultant " to who ever your

client is.

It is this kind of rhetoric that puts the consumer, insurance companies,

and the attorneys in a feeding frenzy.

Ask Mr. and Mrs. Ballard to comment on your thoughts! Or were you their

opposing consultant in the case?

I usually just delete articles such as yours, you win, I read it, and now

I will use your article as the classic example of the disinformed just

wanting to see their name in print.

One last question; where do I look in the yellow pages to find your

recommended " Standard Mainstream Physician " or your specialized "

Non-Mold-Activist-Physician "

Sincerely,

Mark Rakow, CIE, CMR

Alabama Registered Inspector HI0024

CEO, American Home Inspection, Inc.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:23:47 -0400 bherk@... writes:

> http://www.claimsmag.com/Issues/aug02/mold_claims.asp

>

> Mold Claims: Recognizing What Is Real

> By E. Gots

>

> The recent mold frenzy is the strangest environmental claim issue

> that I

> have seen in 30 years of toxicological and environmental litigation

> consulting. Why? Mold is a natural living material, essential for

> life and

> comprising 25 percent of the world's biomass. It has neither become

> more

> prevalent than it was 20 years ago, nor is there much additional

> support for

> any new adverse health effects, despite thousands of active claims

> alleging

> the contrary.

>

> Most allegations are based upon misinformation, so often repeated

> that it

> has garnered an aura of certitude. Among the misinformation: mold

> and mold

> toxins in the indoor environment are not known to cause brain

> damage,

> immunological disorders, bleeding lungs in newborns, fibromyalgia,

> attention

> deficit disorder, cancer, or chronic fatigue syndrome. The alleged

> chronic

> disorder " fungal syndrome " or " bioaerosal disease " is neither

> accepted in

> the medical community, nor known to exist.

>

> Outdoor levels of mold spores in parts of the country (i.e., St.

> Louis in

> summer) are routinely 50,000 m3. People are being told to evacuate

> homes

> which have 5 percent of those levels. The term " toxic " mold makes no

> sense.

> Almost all molds can make mycotoxins, including Alternaria, one of

> the most

> common outdoor molds and always considered non-toxic or benign by

> environmental consultants.

>

> One of the reasons for this strange and vast discord between health

> realities and health perceptions is the lack of medical expert

> voices in the

> fray. Instead, the din of indoor air experts and air quality

> experts, few

> of whom have any medical expertise and even fewer of whom have read

> thoroughly the scientific literature, has coopted this field. Some

> fringe

> physicians also have jumped into this arena. As those of you who

> handle

> claims well know, the growing interest in testing and finding

> problems

> rivals 's interest in keeping Enron healthy. Thus, they are

> neither

> expert, nor impartial.

>

> Notwithstanding the fact that this situation is misdirected, you as

> claim

> handlers still have to contend with the mold issue. Failing to do so

> is

> perilous.

>

> Risk Decision Process

>

> True health risks are generally minimal in most mold contamination

> situations. Exceptions may exist, i.e., if contamination is

> extensive, if

> occupants are highly allergic, if residents are immunocompromised.

> Although

> health is the driver for most testing and remediation, however, we

> must

> recognize that perceived health risks are the real driver.

>

> Because of the extensive publicity, people are genuinely worried

> about mold.

> That plus, now common, legal representation are key determinants of

> your

> actions. This is particularly true in high-risk jurisdictions such

> as

> California and Texas. These factors have led to the need for prompt

> action

> and decisions, some of which must be guided by the level of distress

> of

> involved parties.

>

> This presents the claim handler a new challenge: psychological

> assessment

> (and early clinical assessment) of the client or occupants. This, in

> turn,

> must be considered before you deny coverage or permit the claimant

> to move.

> One approach we have used in homeowner matters is requiring a

> physical

> examination of residents who complain of symptoms. After all, the

> IAQ people

> are not qualified to connect symptoms to cause, and if the occupants

> believe

> that their health has been compromised, what could be more

> reasonable and

> supportable than medical confirmation? One caution: use standard,

> mainstream

> physicians, not those who are making a current carrier in mold hype

> or fear.

>

> Some situations require effective, early health risk communication.

> This is

> particularly true in commercial buildings, municipal facilities, and

> schools

> in which large numbers of concerned workers, parents, or students

> may be

> involved. Communicators must have expertise, excellent communication

> skills,

> and the ability to deal with media and Internet errors in a

> knowledgeable,

> believable fashion. Any good communicator will anticipate the

> concerns and

> be prepared to answer tough questions.

>

> Evacuation or Not

>

> A significant cost driver in the mold arena is relocation. This is

> particularly common in homes, but may involve commercial

> establishments and

> municipal buildings. Rarely is immediate evacuation needed. Mold is

> not like

> carbon monoxide or natural gas. An exception may be a situation in

> which

> contamination is unusually severe, i.e., a family returns after

> three weeks

> to a flooded home or a roof blows off a building.

>

> Too many IAQ investigators order evacuation with little appropriate

> knowledge to do so and little reason. The finding, for example, of

> small

> amounts of Stachybotrys is not, taken alone, grounds for evacuation.

> It is

> important for the claim handler to discuss this issue with

> consultants. If

> they are too cavalier, they can get you in trouble; if they are

> overly

> conservative (demanding regular evacuation), they can lead to

> vastly

> inflated costs. If occupants are complaining of symptoms, they

> should be

> examined by a non-mold-activist physician at once to see whether

> medical

> findings are consistent with a mold-induced cause.

>

> During remediation a second evacuation decision may have to be made.

> The

> need for this depends upon the amount of remediation and the ability

> to

> reasonably protect the occupants.

>

> Most importantly, these decisions are all matters of judgement. Your

> job is

> to be certain that your consultants have good judgement and valid,

> scientifically supportable reasons for their decisions.

>

> The testing and remediation industry is chaotic and highly variable

> in

> quality. Some of the largest and best known firms over-test and

> over-interpret and over-evaluate. That is how they get paid. Working

> with

> the key individuals, reviewing their work, getting recommendations,

> and,

> most importantly, reviewing their reports and recommendations, both

> for

> content and consistency, are the only ways to insure that you are

> getting

> the right people. Inconsistency in your recommendations and your

> actions can

> get you into trouble. You need a standard and

> medically/scientifically

> supportable set of guidelines and standard operating procedures.

>

> Sampling options are another area of enormous inconsistency.

> Sampling should

> always be determined by apparent or highly suspicious water damage

> and

> suspected mold growth. Random tests are uninterpretable and make no

> sense.

> The latest creative, but rarely appropriate, testing extreme

> involves

> mold-smelling dogs, a silly, expensive approach designed to escalate

> costs.

> Since dogs are touted as being able to identify mold at 1,000 times

> lower

> levels that the human nose, they will likely find it everywhere,

> even when

> it is inconsequential to human health.

>

> Evaluation and Remediation

>

> Water incursions must be controlled and damage cleaned up. This is

> often a

> localized activity that does not, and should not, involve an entire

> facility. The allegation of widespread mold spore dissemination

> through the

> ventilation system is rarely a meaningful issue. Because spores

> enter

> buildings and homes every time we open doors and windows, they are

> everywhere. The concern is not their presence (unless levels are

> extraordinarily high), but whether they find wet areas for growth.

> One study

> of normal homes showed mold spore levels during routine activities.

> A simple

> act like changing sheets on beds, for example, has been shown to

> generate

> many thousands of airborne mold spores.

>

> Rarely do contents require destruction or replacement. An exception

> is

> furniture which is water soaked and moldy. This may not be

> salvageable.

> Surface spores, however, on otherwise dry furnishings, drapes, and

> clothing

> can readily be cleaned. Solid surfaces can be wiped down.

>

> Returning occupants to remediated areas generally follows

> elimination of

> water damage and moldy materials. Numbers are unreliable, often

> uninterpretable, but commonly used. The commonly-used 1-1 or 2-1

> ratios of

> indoor to outdoor mold are poor rules of thumb, as levels can vary

> so

> markedly from time to time and as, in cold climates, winter outdoor

> levels

> are almost always lower than indoor levels. The best guidelines are:

> 1) Has

> the damaged area been remediated? Visual inspection answers that

> question.

> 2) Are levels consistent with customary indoor levels which have

> been

> reported in the scientific literature?

>

> The only claims that generally are compatible with mold

> contamination are

> respiratory claims, primarily hayfever and, occasionally, asthma.

> Most of

> the rest - brain damage, immune dysfunction, chronic fatigue, etc. -

> are

> nonsense and readily defendable. They simply find no scientific

> support and

> are not generally recognized in the medical community. Symptoms

> alone are no

> measure of personal injury from mold. Symptom reporting is highly

> unreliable

> and non-specific.

>

> To investigate personal injury claims, several steps are essential:

>

> . Review all past medical records to correlate alleged exposure

> with

> symptoms and findings and to put them in as temporal context with

> alleged

> exposure.

>

> . Include in the review a medication analysis. Many medications can

> produce

> a host of symptoms.

>

> . Review contemporaneous (not after mold has been discovered or a

> lawsuit

> filed) medical records to see what complaints and, most

> importantly,

> physical findings existed during exposure period.

>

> . The former review leads to identification of temporal

> relationships and

> alternate causation.

>

> . If indicated, review, or have performed, standard allergy skin

> testing to

> see whether the claimants are allergic to the identified mold. If

> not, they

> likely have no valid claim.

>

> . Force opposing experts to prove that mold can cause the alleged

> disorders

> (using medical and scientific literature).

>

> . Force opposing experts to prove which mold and when allergies

> developed,

> assuming claimant has demonstrated mold allergies.

>

> . Show that 20 percent of the population has some allergies to mold

> and

> dozens of other aeroallergens which do not, in general, suggest

> serious

> illness and often do not even indicate a clinical response to those

> agents.

>

> . Recognize that there are very few long term illnesses which have

> ever

> arisen from indoor mold exposure.

>

> . Be prepared to compare mold exposures in gardens, camps, plant

> stores,

> and numerous occupational settings (thousands, even millions, of

> times

> higher than indoor levels even in contaminated facilities) and to

> show what

> ailments such individuals develop and how rarely those occur.

>

> As it is commonly used, toxic mold is a meaningless term. Indoor air

> mold

> has never been proven to produce toxicity, and common allergies are

> the main

> endpoint of mold exposure in sensitive people. Gardening or walking

> in the

> woods exposes people to vastly higher levels of toxigenic mold than

> do

> almost any indoor exposures. The defense of irrational claims

> depends upon

> well prepared defense counsel who understand the known clinical

> science of

> mold and its effects.

>

> E. Gots is a lecturer at town University School of

> Medicine and

> a principal at the International Center for Toxicology and Medicine.

> He can

> be contacted at regots@....

>

>