Re: Surprise! Veritox Finds Nothing Wrong w/Weyerhaeuser Hou
Posted by Deborah on 10/20/10
Meant to add that Newton's theory is now known as the LAW of
gravity..and this IS a serious matter.
On 10/20/10, Deborah wrote:
> 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
> 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?
> On 10/20/10, Rem Dude wrote:
>> 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
>> 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.
>> 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 doesnï¿½t work
>>> 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
>>> But I do agree with the remark about construction defects being
>>> a viable cause of action and one that should have been pursued
Posts on this thread, including this one