Follow us!


    Posted by Deborah on 8/11/10

    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.
    >>> 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

    Posts on this thread, including this one

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.