Posted by Deborah on 8/10/10
"Regardless of leaving ACHEMMIC, I am a staunch supporter of the
validity and integrity in science behind the POA paper. I
think that Deborah and others who have left ACHEMMIC are, too,
as far as I know." Sharon
Yes, Sharon, you are correct. Mold-induced illness is real and it
makes one susceptible to many other pathogens, illnesses and
chemicals. The POA paper is very important, I wish it had been
out when this started for me. It was hard fighting against the
current while most were telling me I was either imagining things,
exaggerating or nuts.
Just when I find myself starting to agree with some of your
points, you derail somewhere.
I don't know anything about Jeanine Moseley, but I hope that she
is doing okay.
On 8/10/10, Sharon Kramer wrote:
> John Codie,
> Where on earth do you get this stuff? For such a skeptic, you
> are quite a conspiracy theory nut!
> None of the authors of that paper - which is put out by
> Policyholders Of America - is promoting false science. It is
> all well documented by scientific reference.
> CIRS from WDB is an illness that the Department of Labor
> awarded disability to an air traffic controller well over a
> year ago. It is all properly disclosed who does what in this
> What you don't seem to understand is that in order to show
> conflict of interest, you have to be able to show:
> a. that someone published misleading scientific information
> b. that they did it for financial motivation.
> That is not the case with this paper.
> As far as ACHEMMIC, I too left the org. I did this about a
> month ago. It was hampering my ability to speak out directly
> of the politics behind the deceit of the US Chamber et al.
> which definately qualifies under criteria a & b above for
> conflicts of interest causing the promotion of false science.
> Regardless of leaving ACHEMMIC, I am a staunch supporter of the
> validity and integrity in science behind the POA paper. I
> think that Deborah and others who have left ACHEMMIC are, too,
> as far as I know.
> On 8/10/10, JohnCodie wrote:
>> On 8/08/10, Deborah Daniels wrote:
>>> To Whom It May Concern:
>>> I was affiliated with the aforementioned group using my
>>> married name of Davitt. I have recently resigned from this
>>> group to which I contributed virtually nothing.
>>> I wish to take the time to point out that there is a member
>>> on the board, one Lee Daniels, listed as a public health
>>> advocate, who is not a relative of mine or in any way
>>> connected to my family. I have no personal knowledge of
>>> this person or his/her activism in IAQ issues.
>>> Deborah Daniels Davitt
>> I pulled up the membership list and found alot of wolfs in
>> sheep skins. Many ready and able to take up your cause for
>> a special fee. They got together to write their own
>> position paper; while claiming the US Navy has their own
>> mold remediation guidelines. Just more sheepskin to cover
>> the money blood hungry of wanting to obtain federal funding
>> for mold studies. The US Navy builds their primary
>> resicence out either steel, or fiber glass; wood products
>> providing fuel for harmful toxic fumes are not desired. The
>> most proficient manual for toxic removal is the acidic
>> cleaning of the toliets. So why would this group take a
>> Katrina handout provided to rescue workers for Katrina
>> clearly giving outdated references to the New York City
>> Guidelines and try to turn it into a Federal Mold Guideline
>> Document? So it would legitimize their position? I
>> champion and applaud your decision. I only wish Sharon
>> would likewise disassociate. The group is no more than a
>> Tea party soliciting for funds so support their gravy
>> train. What is a bandwagon without the hay, just a buch of
>> boobs, on public display. jc
Posts on this thread, including this one