Follow us!

    Re: hi Mary

    Posted by FF on 4/10/03

    TO: ?

    Reading over posts on this board for a month now has really made me
    stop and think. Political, agendas, accusations, challenges, once in
    awhile something really useful, etc.

    Please accept this in proper context, a few things came to mind, and
    probably do not have any real meaning, just thoughts.

    "The Looneys." It's in a book I was just reading, "Behind the Nylon
    Curtain," employees exposed to a certain chemical were nicknamed The
    Looneys because after the exposure thewy acted crazy. Now, did these
    people have psych problems or exposure problems?

    "Toxic Mold." "There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence
    link..." We hear it all the time. And if the liable parties have
    their way, there won't ever be any scientifically credible evidence.
    It's the same for mold, chemicals, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, tires,
    what have you.

    At the same time exposed/injured persons are discredited, specific
    chemicals are used in chemical warfare, and specific organisms
    (toxins) are used as biological warfare agents. If any of these are
    the same, i.e. fusarium and stachybotrys, does how they are labeled
    (weapon or indoor mold) determine when they are toxic?


    On 3/28/03, Mary wrote:
    > Hello Pat:
    > Well yes, I was repeating myself, actually cut and past, in
    > my 'trying to be less sarcastic' mode. The original poster,
    > returned from some kind of vacation so I was sharing my 'evolved'
    > response.
    > By the way, I don't doubt that at least some, perhaps many, people
    > alleging they have mcs are in fact ill. My main beef is with the
    > seemingly all inclusive mcs diagnosis net. It seems to be a tool
    > of convenience, vs a real diagnosis. Some may be fakers, some may
    > have mental illness. I know you believe it incorrect to declare
    > all 'mcsers' as nuts, and I agree. I believe it is just as
    > incorrect to cast the broad mcs net simply because the actual
    > illness is unknown.
    > Short for time Pat, gotta go, now
    > Best regards
    > Mary
    > On 3/28/03, Pat wrote:
    >>>>> I suggest you consider that the vast majority of public health
    >> authorities doubt that MCS is real. While this fact may trouble
    >> you, and may upset those with contrary opinions, it remains a
    >> reality. <<<
    >> Mary, although the post was not for me, I have indeed already
    >> replied to your above comments. The fact that you are repeating
    >> such comments is very interesting to me.

    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.

The Counsel.Net ChatBoardsm. All Rights Reserved.