Molds and Mycotoxins are Important, Too
Having done some investigations of "sick building syndrome," I didn't recall the mouse/rat studies as being keystones to the body of evidence one way or another. It actually surprises me to see the degree of emphasis the ACOEM placed on these studies in their statement: http://www.acoem.org/guidelines/article.asp?ID=52
The referenced studies:
Creasia DA, et al. Acute inhalation toxicity of T-2mycotoxin in mice. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1987;8:230-5.
Creasia DA, et al. Acute inhalation toxicity of T-2mycotoxin in the rat and guinea pig. Fundam ApplToxicol. 1990;14:54-9.
Whatever the apparent critisism that there has been some creative mathematical extrapolation of data in the ACOEM statement does NOT invalidate the ACOEM conclusions:
"The possibility of a mycotoxicosis as an explanation for specific signs and symptoms in a residential or general office setting should be entertained only after accepted processes that are recognized to occur have been appropriately excluded and when mold exposure is known to be uncommonly high. If a diagnosis of mycotoxicosis is entertained, specific signs and symptoms ascribed to mycotoxins should be consistent with the potential mycotoxins present and their known biological effects at the potential exposure levels involved."
////INTERESTING:
Here is place dedicated to black mold litigation and black mold claims: http://toxlaw.com/chatboards/blackmold/posts.html
The comments in the forum paint a little bigger picture about this topic.
PART II
I'll confess that the research I did on "sick buildings" was on behalf of Insurance. Maybe as such, I didn't put much into the reviews or reports based on epidemiological studies, or on animal studies (not to belittle their importance in scientific discovery). For different reasons, both are high risk for fallibility when applied to clinical practice with real human disease. But, there you go. It seems it becomes more up to litigators to prove the building is making people sick than it is for defendants to prove it's not. I agree with your points made with the referenced studies, but I'm skeptical that discrediting the epidemiological math on animal studies used by the ACOEM paper significantly changes how science can show that someone's symptoms correlates with a building environment.
On the flip side, I think that to advocate inclusion of Mycotoxicosis in a differential diagnosis to prevent a "barage of MRI's, CT's, AID's testing, MS testing, etc." is using no better extrapolation of scientific data than that referenced by the ACOEM paper, to say the least. That is, where's the data showing that treating more people for Mycotoxicosis can save dollars or lives?
Unsubstantiated accusations fly: That employers and their insurers are conspiring to prevent compensation for people who are getting sick because of their buildings. That trial lawyers are rolling over rocks and creating excuses to go after companies with big wallets. Some practitioners accuse health insurance of conspiring to prevent payment of care for sick people. Health insurance sees the care as fringe medicine geared to nurture chronic dependence on expensive and unproven therapies. All are accused of manipulating or skewing the science to support their views.
PART III
Even after having our building tested negative for mold, they just brought me a box in my office with one of them Ionic air cleaners. I can sarcastically, but confidently say that me and my coworkers will be atl east about 30% less likely to complain of symptoms that are due to bad air. (If only because it's currently suggested that placebo accounts for about 30% of a therapeutic effect.) But, without sarcasm I say that's money well spent. Now, if you agree with me on that one... They have also provided floor space for a Tai Chi Class upstairs (at minimal cost to employees). I really think that the stretches and breathing exercises make for a more productive worker. Even though I don't think I am "feeling the Chi" like I'm supposed to. You can't help but expect the therapeutic and/or placebo effects will be additive with the air purifier. I bet we have 30%less "sick" days the rest of the year in my building!
Now, don't think I'm being sarcastic, I think I'm going to come up with some kind of office talisman that will bring happiness to the cubicle/office workplace. An additional (albeit, perhaps placebo) additive effect to support a healthy work environment. You know the kind of talisman I mean. Look around your own work area, you already have them! (Hey, I bet you didn't realize you're practicing what some call complimentary and alternative medicine.)
nawledge
The referenced studies:
Creasia DA, et al. Acute inhalation toxicity of T-2mycotoxin in mice. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1987;8:230-5.
Creasia DA, et al. Acute inhalation toxicity of T-2mycotoxin in the rat and guinea pig. Fundam ApplToxicol. 1990;14:54-9.
Whatever the apparent critisism that there has been some creative mathematical extrapolation of data in the ACOEM statement does NOT invalidate the ACOEM conclusions:
"The possibility of a mycotoxicosis as an explanation for specific signs and symptoms in a residential or general office setting should be entertained only after accepted processes that are recognized to occur have been appropriately excluded and when mold exposure is known to be uncommonly high. If a diagnosis of mycotoxicosis is entertained, specific signs and symptoms ascribed to mycotoxins should be consistent with the potential mycotoxins present and their known biological effects at the potential exposure levels involved."
////INTERESTING:
Here is place dedicated to black mold litigation and black mold claims: http://toxlaw.com/chatboards/blackmold/posts.html
The comments in the forum paint a little bigger picture about this topic.
PART II
I'll confess that the research I did on "sick buildings" was on behalf of Insurance. Maybe as such, I didn't put much into the reviews or reports based on epidemiological studies, or on animal studies (not to belittle their importance in scientific discovery). For different reasons, both are high risk for fallibility when applied to clinical practice with real human disease. But, there you go. It seems it becomes more up to litigators to prove the building is making people sick than it is for defendants to prove it's not. I agree with your points made with the referenced studies, but I'm skeptical that discrediting the epidemiological math on animal studies used by the ACOEM paper significantly changes how science can show that someone's symptoms correlates with a building environment.
On the flip side, I think that to advocate inclusion of Mycotoxicosis in a differential diagnosis to prevent a "barage of MRI's, CT's, AID's testing, MS testing, etc." is using no better extrapolation of scientific data than that referenced by the ACOEM paper, to say the least. That is, where's the data showing that treating more people for Mycotoxicosis can save dollars or lives?
Unsubstantiated accusations fly: That employers and their insurers are conspiring to prevent compensation for people who are getting sick because of their buildings. That trial lawyers are rolling over rocks and creating excuses to go after companies with big wallets. Some practitioners accuse health insurance of conspiring to prevent payment of care for sick people. Health insurance sees the care as fringe medicine geared to nurture chronic dependence on expensive and unproven therapies. All are accused of manipulating or skewing the science to support their views.
PART III
Even after having our building tested negative for mold, they just brought me a box in my office with one of them Ionic air cleaners. I can sarcastically, but confidently say that me and my coworkers will be atl east about 30% less likely to complain of symptoms that are due to bad air. (If only because it's currently suggested that placebo accounts for about 30% of a therapeutic effect.) But, without sarcasm I say that's money well spent. Now, if you agree with me on that one... They have also provided floor space for a Tai Chi Class upstairs (at minimal cost to employees). I really think that the stretches and breathing exercises make for a more productive worker. Even though I don't think I am "feeling the Chi" like I'm supposed to. You can't help but expect the therapeutic and/or placebo effects will be additive with the air purifier. I bet we have 30%less "sick" days the rest of the year in my building!
Now, don't think I'm being sarcastic, I think I'm going to come up with some kind of office talisman that will bring happiness to the cubicle/office workplace. An additional (albeit, perhaps placebo) additive effect to support a healthy work environment. You know the kind of talisman I mean. Look around your own work area, you already have them! (Hey, I bet you didn't realize you're practicing what some call complimentary and alternative medicine.)
nawledge
posted by nawledge at
9:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home