Follow us!

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

    Posted by Rem Dude on 10/20/10

    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 dont, 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.

    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.