Re: ACHEMMIC

More | Report Post

I know Jeannie Mosley. She is a very smart, self taught woman. She
reads a gazillion science papers and then has an uncanny aptitude
to interpret them into plain language, common sense. I learn alot
from her.

On 8/10/10, Deborah wrote:
>
> "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.
>
> JC,
>
> 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
>> issue.
>>
>> 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.
>> http://www.policyholdersofamerica.org/doc/CIRS_PEER_REVIEWED_PAP
>> ER.pdf
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Sharon
>>
>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>