Re: Surprise! Veritox Finds Nothing Wrong w/Weyerhaeuser Hou
Posted by Deborah on 10/21/10
I mentioned adult onset asthma. Perhaps your observational skills aren't
as good as they should be?
Here is one case, note the date of
publication;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/95654 There are more
recent studies supporting this.
I am well aware of "other" triggers for asthma, but I referred
specifically to adult onset asthma. I know, first hand, about respiratory
ailments; MCS and asthma ( all adult onset ) are quite a combo.
You need to edify yourself. And, again, you are welcome for all the work
that mold and indoor air quality advocates generated for your profession.
Hope the economy doesn't take a bite out of it.
Isn't it odd that "farmer's lung" can be diagnosed and correlated to
exposure to stored hays and grains? Have a good day.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary
depends upon his not understanding it!" Upton Sinclair
The above would hold true for anyone who refuses to see the obvious truth
and we all know what happened to Galileo who, oddly enough, died the year
Isaac Newton was born.
On 10/21/10, Rem Dude wrote:
> Once again - 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
> And for your edification - ALL allergens including fungi, dust mites,
> pests, pollen, dander are triggers for asthma attacks. In addition,
> exercise, food, ozone and air pollutants can also trigger attacks.
> Cockroach, dust mites, and ozone are attributed to far more asthma
> attacks than mold exposure. Children exposed to cockroaches are 4
> times more likely to have asthma than children living in clean homes.
> Once again you’re fixated on ONE of MANY triggers and claiming that it
> ALONE is responsible for these complaints. If mold and asthma is the
> basis for this class action, then they have already lost.
> On 10/20/10, Deborah wrote:
>> 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
>>> 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