Re: Surprise! Veritox Finds Nothing Wrong w/Weyerhaeuser Hou

More | Report Post

Deborah:

If what you say were true, then mold plaintiffs would not be
losing case after case after case. Today, it takes more than
plausibility and conjecture to prove chronic illness due to mold
exposure.

Granted, I have seen 7 cases of Aspergillosis, however, all were
immunocompromised patients and none could link indoor exposure
to their infections. In fact, PCR analysis in 2 cases proved
that there was no connection.

The issue is simple, if you have "irrefutable proof" linking
indoor exposure to chronic illness, then you may have a chance
in court - but if you don’t, expect to lose your case.

RD

On 10/20/10, Deborah wrote:
> On 10/19/10, Rem Dude wrote:
>> " You would think by now that the legal profession would wise
>> up to the facts - black toxic mold hype doesn�t work
>> anymore."
>>
>> RD
>>
> You think that any CIH, remediator, medical professional, IAQ
> expert, etc. would wise up to the fact that molds and their
> byproducts, even molds other than "black" toxic mold [sic
> redundant], do indeed cause serious health problems in a much
> larger 'sub'-group of the population than earlier 'position'
> statements and opinions for hire led the general public, the
> courts, and many others to believe.
>
> Aspergillus is one of the worst culprits and also largely
> responsible for adult onset asthma as well as many other
ailments.
>
> But I do agree with the remark about construction defects being
> a viable cause of action and one that should have been pursued
> simultaneously.