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

More | Report Post

RD,

Again, your industry owes, in no small part, its boom in recent
years due to efforts of mold victims who survived to tell about it.

"Irrefutable" evidence; cause and effect? A middle-aged adult
diagnosed w/ asthma w/ no family history of it noting that their
symptoms ( others as well as the asthma ) diminish during absence
from the dwelling and later discovering, via testing, that there are
various molds, aspergillus included, in the dwelling including in
the HVAC system and duct work would seem irrefutable to me. How did
Newton come up with his theory of gravity? Observation and
repeatable results.

The evidence is there, it is simply a case of this being a battle
much like the ones waged against Big Tobacco, asbestos, lead,
dioxin, etc...big money can hold off reality for so long not forever.

I have seen aspergillosis in patients and am familiar with it and
the number you claim to "have seen" who were "immunocompromised" is
your personal observation based on how many years and how many
individual and/or clients who actually divulged such information to
to you, a remediator often, if not exclusively, working for the
structures' owners and/or insurance companies? I think your
observations represent the lower end of the spectrum and there are
other illnesses besides full blown aspergillosis that occur due to
exposure.

How many individuals died w/o autopsies? Guess the only way to find
out is to perform more autopsies which isn't likely to happen in
today's economy. Looking through paperwork today, I happened upon
an important 2008 study out of Germany, "Is there a need for
autopsies in the management of fungal disease?" by Manfred Knoke,
Hannelore Bernhardt and Gunther Schwesinger
Faculty of Medicine, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany

Any volunteers?

http://www.aspergillus.org.uk/secure/articles/pdfs2/18924260.pdf

On 10/20/10, Rem Dude wrote:
> 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.