Follow us!


    Posted by Sharon on 8/11/10

    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.
    >>>> 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.