Re: WHAT A SMELLY WORLD! ff
Posted by ff on 4/17/04
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producing strains were present, based on outdated texts, stated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.
> 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.
Posts on this thread, including this one