Re: ACHEMMIC

More | Report Post

sounds a bit familiar, but there were so many, many. was she the one
with a neighbor who died from the exposure?

On 8/10/10, Sharon wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>>