Follow us!


    Posted by ff on 4/17/04

    Hey Mary:

    I don't mind giving you the basis for the statement. But first,
    what prompts such a statement, and what was the purpose for making

    The statement was prompted by the assurances from many such as CC
    for example, that "it ain't mold." I have to believe the fact
    that he conducts investigations without suffering ill effects
    plays a role in his thinking. I've seen this kind of thinking
    over and over, in various issues, over the years. "It doesn't
    bother me, I'm not having a problem, so I don't believe you are."
    Also, scientists (I'm not necessarily implying CC is a scientist)
    tend to get hung up on scientific fact as they know it, and they
    can be wrong, especially if something changes that they are
    unaware of. The mold expert used here to determine whether toxin
    producing strains were present, based on outdated texts, stated
    there were none. In more recent information, and in actuality,
    there were several present (fusarium schlect -others, etc...)

    For one such issue in which I had experience as an early warning
    case/situation, the refusal of many to consider "something has
    changed, it's causing damage," ended up increasing exposure to the
    extent that it has now become a billion dollar disaster (in fact,
    that corporation's biggest disaster in over 200 years - they just
    kept on selling the product - ). If the giant can make a mistake,
    possibly CC and the "it ain't mold" group could make a mistake?

    DD mentioned GWI, there are many others. I could name many, you
    know most. As an example, send the congressional investigating
    committee out to the field, let a few experience the illness first
    hand, and their thinking will change (when it impacts them
    personally). Just a few examples:

    I recall a story by a Maryland MD, working on pfiesteria and
    treating patients, while reponsible agencies were ignoring it. It
    progressed to the point where several agencies' employees made a
    trip to the town, went out on the water, and "as luck would have
    it," so to speak, a few got sick. They readily became believers,
    but only after it was warranted by their own personal experience.
    In our situation, I warned agency employees to use protective
    equipment when going on site in 1994. The warnings were ignored.
    Several got sick. Years later, 2000, their own colleagues doubted
    the risk and went on site. Again, more became believers. In all
    of these cases, the illnesses/effects experienced were not
    visually observable to others (dis-believers).

    One purpose for making the statement was to point out the obvious
    disadvantage in environmental illness cases, or research into
    environmental illnesses, that the damage is not readily apparent,
    or visible. This seems to serve to discredit the victims from the
    outset. Sorry, but again by way of personal experience, I'd take
    the auto accident, as bad as it was, over the poisoning, any day.

    I don't know how well I embrace the scientific method, remember
    I'm a layperson, but yes, this concept should be addressed. We
    don't need any more mistakes like the giant made. Your clients
    (if johncodiethecrazyengineer is correct), could benefit form this.

    I'll think on this for awhile and see what I can come up with.
    I'd like to give you a much better answer, but for now I did not
    want to delay responding as you asked some very legitimate
    questions. Yep. Just got in, I've been goofing around with my
    grandson (6) over spring break. Only certain genotypes would
    know: while visiting the old fort, I don't want to name names, but
    the one in Florida's oldest city, in one area (inside), an all
    too familiar feeling began to creep up on me - not visually
    noticeable to others, but agonizing. CC should go there and spend
    the night, see what he comes up with?

    Note to DD: It's strange, I know you know how it goes. I was
    feeling pretty good until the the fort tour. Then, had to go
    through a crowd of smokers when leaving. Drove home through
    Hastings, and really began getting sick. Several miles down the
    road, we caught up with the spray applicator. Stopped at a fried
    chicken place, and got hit with the cleaning fluid just mopped all
    over the floor. Don't you hate the process of trying to sort out
    which exposure is the worst, which combination is the worst, so
    you can figure how to avoid?

    Mary, see how nutty that sounds, but damn, I'd take the wreck any
    day over the poisoning.


    On 4/13/04, mary wrote:
    > Hello ff:
    > Let's discuss part of what you have said:
    > "Another complicating factor is that, as legitimate as it may
    > be, only those that have experienced it can understand or
    > believe it."
    > Okay, now what is your basis for this statement? We see things
    > like this all the time here, but no factual support is offered.
    > Have you done some research on this? Have studies been
    > published? A survey perhaps? Is this something that can be, or
    > has been, quantified? I know you embrace the scientific method,
    > so let's hear more about this please.
    > Best Spring Regards and hope the day finds you well.
    > Mary
    > On 4/13/04, ff wrote:
    >> Yeah, it says a lot. I've always said that as many
    >> individuals experience environmental illnesses, it's their
    >> first time of entering into other disciplines, fields of
    >> expertise, science, whatever. Each one of these individuals
    >> sounds nuts. In total, as a 'group' they discredit and
    >> destroy hope of credible, capable scientists ever gaining
    >> legitimate interest in the subject.
    >> Another complicating factor is that, as legitimate as it may
    >> be, only those that have experienced it can understand or
    >> believe it.
    >> Finally, it goes back to cause and effect, and the lack of any
    >> hope of immediate feedback. If people fell over dead every
    >> time they had an exposure (the same exposure), or fell over
    >> dead everytime thay walked into the same building, it would
    >> not be long before they concluded "something" was present and
    >> it will kill you. With MCS, mold, etc., most affected people
    >> look OK to everyone else, they're not falling over dead.
    >> Compare it to a severe automobile accident, and rolling he
    >> victim into the courtroom all mangled up, in traction, limbs
    >> missing, etc. Now that's something that can easily be seen -
    >> "Oh my God, look at that poor injured person, damn near dead"
    >> OK Mary, it's easy to see why an ambulance chaser could be all
    >> that's required to win big in PI cases.
    >> FF

    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.