Re: ACHEMMIC

More | Report Post

No. The neighbor is a CA matter. I don't know where Jeanine lives.

On 8/11/10, Deborah wrote:
>
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>