Mold-Help.org
Return to the Home Page
View the Mold-Help.org Site Map


Search this Site using
Google


    This Site
    The WWW
Search Mold-Help.org for Vital Mold Information and Resources
 
Clarification of media's mishaps, misconceptions and myths   PDF  Print  E-mail 
Posted by Webuddha.com  
Friday, 01 April 2005

3/31/05

After relentless research, further clarification explains why "toxic" mold is definitely more dangerous than "allergic" mold

Who really created the "hype" and "hysteria" approach to this national health crisis?  Why they would downplay a nationwide epidemic and misrepresent the facts.

The marketing plan

There has been much confusion surrounding the media recently that demonstrates many people appear to be de-sensitized and confused to the hazardous facts regarding exposure to toxigenic molds.  Due to the recent media frenzy, and irresponsible reporting practices fueled by media sponsors, such as insurance and pharmaceutical companies.  A current survey we conducted shows that many still believe that exposure to toxic mold can cause slight allergic effects. the report also explains that many people believe that toxic mold and allergenic mold are one and the same; and some think that allergic mold (mold that just causes minor allergic reactions) is more  dangerous than toxic mold (mold that produces mycotoxins that can cause permenent neurological damage, among other hazardous consequences). This ignorance can be partially blamed by innovative marketing schemes that large corporations who have a vested interests from the ramifications of an educated public. 

Case in point, Clorox, a well known chemical company that produces bleach and Tilex (a product that Clorox claims is a mold and mildew "remover") recently funded a study on the health effects of allergenic molds.  The following paragraph is an excerpt of their "findings."

Although toxic mold has received much media attention lately, toxic reactions caused by fungal exposure have not been found to be a significant health problem,? claimed lead author Jay M. Portnoy, despite the numerous peer-reviewed medical papers that state the contrary.  ?The more common household molds, when in the presence of moisture, can proliferate and cause problems and health effects that are generally due to allergy or irritation to fungal substances.? Portnoy went on to say, ?An individual should not panic at the first sight of mold growing in their home.?  He also contends that small areas of visible mold growth should be cleaned with (but of course!) a dilute bleach/detergent solution, which kills viable colonies and removes fungal allergens. Commercial products are available for this purpose." Although this came as no surprise since the study was funded by Clorox, this comment is extremely poor advice.  Using bleach on mold can actually exacerbate a potential mold problem as it sets off millions of poisonous mycotoxins and doesn't actually kill mold. Besides, if mold is present, it is highly likely that it is also growing rampantly between walls or in unseen places.

This report is obvious to many researchers that realize that the government has been under fire since it was discovered that some federal funded papers have surfaced from some people in the insurance defense industry that failed to explain the neurological and pathalogical aspects of fungal expsoure. The classic example of "propaganda reporting" are two other questionable and incomplete studies: The Institute Of Medicine's,  ?Damp Indoor Spaces and Health? dated May 25, 2004 (IOM report), and the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Position Paper released in 2002, (ACOEM report).

Some human rights groups have begun to call upon Congress and US Surgeon General Carmona to de-published these two review reports because of the fraud they are perpetrating on the American public. With all the known illnesses caused by mold exposure, the obvious intent of these two papers is nothing more than to limit and deny medical claims related to mold exposure. They are designed and were written for improper use in United States courtrooms. The ACOEM report (originally written by Globaltox) is based on a single study in mice and the IOM report myopically looked at non-infectious diseases caused by mold exposure, only.?

The Manhattan Institute, a national political 'think-tank,' paid GlobalTox $40,000 to write a position paper regarding the potential health risks of toxic mold exposure. Contrary to unbiased medical research, the controversial piece claims that it is not plausible the types of illnesses experienced by the Haynes family and reported by thousands from across the US, could possibly be caused by "toxic mold"  exposure in homes, schools or office buildings.

The paper trail

In 2003, with the involvement of the US Chamber of Commerce and ex-developer, and monies raised by special interest groups by US Congressman Gary Miller (R-CA), a former land developer who has strong ties to the building industry, the GlobalTox report was disseminated to the real estate, mortgage and building industries' associations. A version of the Manhattan Institute commissioned piece may also be found as a position statement on the website of a US medical policy-writing body, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine?. Two principals of GlobalTox, Inc., Dr Kelman and  Retired Assistant Surgeon General, Bryan Hardin, acknowledged as co-authors of the ACOEM position statement. Dr. Andrew Saxon, M.D. Director UCLA Asthma, Allergy, and Immunologic Disease Center, who also frequently testifies as an expert witness against those who have been exposed to toxic mold, is the third listed author. Testimonies of Dr. Kelman and Dr. Saxon substantiating the above can be verified in the United States District Court in Arizona, Killian vs. Equity Residential Trust, et. Case No CIV02-1272-PHX-FJM also demonstrates that their company, GlobalTox, sold an altered version of that report for $40,000.00 to the Manhattan Institute.

This is strikingly similar to the conflict of interest by the FDA experts in approving Celebrex, Bextra and Vioxx, discussed in the New York Times, March 4, 2005 Editorial ?Experts and the Drug Industry.  In other words, states environmental health advocate Sharon Kramer, ?This is blatantly the Fox Watching the Hen House." "The ACOEM has another PhD, who does expert defense testimony, giving training seminars on mold exposure to physicians, Ronald Gots: 'From Clinic to Courtroom'. Gots has already been investigated by Dateline in 2000 for questionable worker's comp claim denials".

Propaganda reporting; only presenting one side = telling 1/2 the truth

The latest propaganda report to come under fire was a recent article in Forbes Magazine which showcases Dr. Gary Ordog; a knowledgeable physician who treats patients who suffer from mycotoxicosis (mold poisoning) and the large sums he receives as an expert witness iin plaintiff cases.  What the article failed to mention that the so called "Independent Medical Examiners" that the defense hires generally charge double to triple the cost of the ethical mold experts who testiify for the plaintiffs.  When asked why, one such specialist who wishes to remain anonymous, stated, "It is more expensive to lie than to tell the truth."  The Forbes article also didn't explain that because insurance companies, builders, and other defendants often have several resources to protect themselves against liitigation when the average homeowner, who loses their health, belongings and home to mold, often has no alternative but to sue.  Aside from paying for addiitional living quarters, mountiing medical bills, buying new belongings, and paying legal expenses, few are able to thrve without going bankrupt as their cases are often appealed several times.  If a mold victim and family does receive compensation, it never makes up for their losses, health problems, mental anguish, and the preciious time that was lost during their illness and recovery.  Additionally, depending on the molds they were exposed to, most will live with the fear of being pre-disposed to asthma and suffer from altered immunity for the rest of their lives.

Why?

If the government were to admit that exposure to toxigenic mold can cause permanent neurological, immunological, pathalogical and psychological damage to humans and animals this country could virtually go bankrupt.  Try to picture all of the people that would liable for low-income housing, government buildings, prisoners, military  and government workers, and all of the patients who have been misdiagnosed due to fungal exposure from our physicians that were educated by the pharmaceutical industry, the building industry, the insurance, and lastly, the pharmaceutiical industry whiich makes billions and billions of dollars each year for their products designed to treat the symptoms of many fungal related illnesses.  When you consider all of the implications  of such knowledge then think about the economic loss from the litigation and liability aspect. 

It can't help but make you wonder if you had to make the decision.  This is truly why the United States Government and its political allies will never admit the truth.  This is why all of the propaganda reporting is starting to become more prevalent.  The fear lies in the truth; and the truth is getting much closer.
 


Last Updated (Tuesday, 05 April 2005)

 
Home | Glossary | Current Headlines | Resources | Discussion Board | Products | Events | Contact Us Now! | Disclaimer
 
  © Mold-Help.org 2003 - All Rights Reserved - Atlanta Web Design - Atlanta Internet Marketing
  The contents of this site may not be copied in any matter unless permission is granted by the author.
!! NO EXCEPTIONS !!