I have similar concerns about Shoemaker, CIRS, and trends in the 'mold community.' Do you have any information on Dr. Andrew Heyman, a Shoemaker disciple?
I'm not sure I'd call Heyman a "disciple" - the two of them are fairly independent but "on the same page"... I'm conintually amazed at the long line and high cost of Heyman's practitioner service. He is after all, a solid researcher AND Facultly Director at GW. What his means is that his claims are VERY VERY difficult to debunk... after all, he "has credentials" etc. SADLY, his research does NOT include actual good environmental data or support. I know of NO ONE in my industry (Industrial Hygiene and/or Environmental Health Science) that is willing to sample for or draw exposure risk conclusions in a home for "actinos and endos" regardless of the outlandish claims of Heyman. THIS is from OUR point of view - not the researchers point of view (which is both the lab and the exam room)... these are two very very different points of view. They MUST work together - but like Shoemaker, the CDC/University study of Cleveland hemosiderosis (circa 1995) and many others, they INTENTIONALLY IGNORE the science of exposure in environment including in buildings (as the environment).
well, CIRS is NOT an accepted name for an accepted illness. That is correct.
Nor is it widely accepted in typical med circles.
The only med group that somewhat accepts it is the Functional Medicine industry - which is divided among M.D.'s and naturopaths (fake science, bad science). Neither of which have a good standing or reputation among other M.D.s. (or me!)
Some functional M.D.s reject the Shoe information and mold-heavy diagnoses. but too many have bitten hook line and sinker!
Hi Russ, thanks for reading and considering the thoughts and concepts I present. YES I'm very aware of the much-vaunted Dr. Heyman. He is "responsible" for the false "actions and endos" scare - and the lab making $$$ off that scare. It continues today but sadly has been "normalized" by many of the naturos and functionals and their puppy "IEP"s who will sample anything for a buck - even if it's nonsense.
I'd like to learn more, as a major mold certification organization has just partnered with Dr. Heyman and they have dismissed my concerns as baseless.
In several presentations to this organization and those of us in it, Dr. Heyman has highlighted and emphasized his association with Shoemaker. That's my impetus for using the word disciple (and he claims to have been with Shoemaker at the beginning).
YES you are correct using "disciple" in the sense you just explained - I accept that - BECAUSE he is using it to gain credibility in a group of people that LOVE the Shoe.
There is more - watch out for claims from NORMI contractors that they "adhere to to and follow the NORMI "STANDARD" for methods" ... there is NO STANDARD from NORMI. Not now, not ever. What they mean is that they follow what they were TAUGHT in course... that is NOT based on a true industry consensus for standard of care.
NORMI is now doing this for samples - they claim they "have the STANDARD sample method"... bullshit. It's a simple typical spore trap method. NOTHING special... but marketing is everything and NO ONE questions it... they literally believe advertising over science and experts who sell nothing.
RUSS, YES I've seen that - clearly they conned him into thinking they are "good" - their "certificate" holders are some of the worst assessors and contractors I've had the pleasure of reviewing. That org is full of nonsense... I can elaborate but not here - too much detail needs to be written for any blog comment!
The con is the Shoemaker claims and method and treatments and scare tactics.
I think Heyman has himself in a pickle - the income and fame from the mold illness community - and the Academic world of research (that typically has nothing to do with real world - which is exactly his research on actinomycete and endotoxins... YET he keeps accepting patients (according to my contacts his fees are something like $1500 /hour.!!! and has 6 month wait list - not a bad gig if you can get it, eh?
So I saw a number of functional medicine doctors, NPs and chiropractors who believed in varying degrees with shoemaker, but MOSTLY aligned with Dr Neil Nathan and ( first name?)Christa. They all seemed to think that urine tests for mycotoxin levels correlated with mold exposure. Could you explain how that whole system works for why/why not the urine test is useful? And a little bit of what environmental tests are valid?
Carol - thanks for reading and being interested in the topic - please feel free to engage in convo here or elsewhere. IF you have others, docs, practitioners, "IEP"s who are interested in this, please have them reach out - you too can reach me via email or DM... Thank You!
Hi Carol - I'd love to have time to get deep into detail. The basic concept that is missing is the "pathway" - some mycotoxin (a molecule on a solid particle, i.e., piece of mold filament or spore), somewhere, getting into the air where you live/work, you breathing it, and then the molecules getting absorbed by your lung. This path happens with many different molecules (i.e, toxins, hazards, chemicals). THEN it has to circulate into the kidneys. There is however a second, more likely pathway - ingestion. Eating food with toxins. also ending up in kidneys.
The problem is that NO ONE has measured or confirmed the amount of toxins in the air that you breath WITH the amount in the urine samples. This has been done a few times studying food. (An interesting side note is that one good study I found showed only about 7% of the toxins eaten end up in urine - they did not/could not explain why, but interesting nonetheless)>
BUT there is more... the methodology of the lab analysis. Consider that there is no single accepted, proven, validated chemical analysis method - we call this "standardized" and this would be used by ALL labs doing mycotoxins in urine. BUT - the two biggest/busiest labs use PROPIETARY methods - which means we can't do quality assessments, consistency, accuracy tests - these are all "assumed" by the consumer and Docs etc. BUT these labs do not get third party audited. We are asked so-to-speak to TRUST the method hidden inside that lab. This is NOT acceptable public or medical health method.
The other problem here is the report telling the patient the concentration measured is "elevated" or not. These are not third party comparisons or standards either. No one has studied and published what levels are in the average, health person's urine! None. How can a lab or doctor make sense of these highly variable concentrations? they cannot - well, let me rephrase that: IF THEY WERE HONEST (or competent) they would never use these concentrations to diagnose or prescribe a particular treatment.
SO - when a doc says "Go do this testing of dust in your home" or "throw out your belongings" or "Move out NOW" or "spray this fog" - they are ignorant, incompetent, guilty of malpractice, or corrupt - YOU can choose the motive.
Of course this is a simple summary overview, but you get the point. The "science" they claim to use (they always say "evidence-based medicine" is actually NON-existent.
In addition, one could, if they had access to some of the data (and other data not ever collected by the Docs or the "IEP"s etc), show that the methods these "professionals" use are about as good as flipping a coin, or using a placebo (you've prob heard of the placebo effect!?). They can't predict anything - not safety, not high or low level, not efficacy of treatment meds,... pretty much nothing (because prediction IS one of the key application requirements of all quantitative testing like urine, dust, air, etc when we are worried about exposure to hazards).
I have similar concerns about Shoemaker, CIRS, and trends in the 'mold community.' Do you have any information on Dr. Andrew Heyman, a Shoemaker disciple?
I'm not sure I'd call Heyman a "disciple" - the two of them are fairly independent but "on the same page"... I'm conintually amazed at the long line and high cost of Heyman's practitioner service. He is after all, a solid researcher AND Facultly Director at GW. What his means is that his claims are VERY VERY difficult to debunk... after all, he "has credentials" etc. SADLY, his research does NOT include actual good environmental data or support. I know of NO ONE in my industry (Industrial Hygiene and/or Environmental Health Science) that is willing to sample for or draw exposure risk conclusions in a home for "actinos and endos" regardless of the outlandish claims of Heyman. THIS is from OUR point of view - not the researchers point of view (which is both the lab and the exam room)... these are two very very different points of view. They MUST work together - but like Shoemaker, the CDC/University study of Cleveland hemosiderosis (circa 1995) and many others, they INTENTIONALLY IGNORE the science of exposure in environment including in buildings (as the environment).
Dr. Heyman was dismissed as an expert witness in CA recently due to to his stance on CIRS not being widely recognized.
well, CIRS is NOT an accepted name for an accepted illness. That is correct.
Nor is it widely accepted in typical med circles.
The only med group that somewhat accepts it is the Functional Medicine industry - which is divided among M.D.'s and naturopaths (fake science, bad science). Neither of which have a good standing or reputation among other M.D.s. (or me!)
Some functional M.D.s reject the Shoe information and mold-heavy diagnoses. but too many have bitten hook line and sinker!
Hi Russ, thanks for reading and considering the thoughts and concepts I present. YES I'm very aware of the much-vaunted Dr. Heyman. He is "responsible" for the false "actions and endos" scare - and the lab making $$$ off that scare. It continues today but sadly has been "normalized" by many of the naturos and functionals and their puppy "IEP"s who will sample anything for a buck - even if it's nonsense.
I'd like to learn more, as a major mold certification organization has just partnered with Dr. Heyman and they have dismissed my concerns as baseless.
In several presentations to this organization and those of us in it, Dr. Heyman has highlighted and emphasized his association with Shoemaker. That's my impetus for using the word disciple (and he claims to have been with Shoemaker at the beginning).
You and I should connect and discuss further your concerns... send me direct email - healthyhouse@aol.com
Thanks!
YES you are correct using "disciple" in the sense you just explained - I accept that - BECAUSE he is using it to gain credibility in a group of people that LOVE the Shoe.
There is more - watch out for claims from NORMI contractors that they "adhere to to and follow the NORMI "STANDARD" for methods" ... there is NO STANDARD from NORMI. Not now, not ever. What they mean is that they follow what they were TAUGHT in course... that is NOT based on a true industry consensus for standard of care.
NORMI is now doing this for samples - they claim they "have the STANDARD sample method"... bullshit. It's a simple typical spore trap method. NOTHING special... but marketing is everything and NO ONE questions it... they literally believe advertising over science and experts who sell nothing.
RUSS, YES I've seen that - clearly they conned him into thinking they are "good" - their "certificate" holders are some of the worst assessors and contractors I've had the pleasure of reviewing. That org is full of nonsense... I can elaborate but not here - too much detail needs to be written for any blog comment!
And here I thought that the con was the other way around! Lol...
I look forward to connecting. I assure you... SOME of us are good at what we do and trying to be better.
The con is the Shoemaker claims and method and treatments and scare tactics.
I think Heyman has himself in a pickle - the income and fame from the mold illness community - and the Academic world of research (that typically has nothing to do with real world - which is exactly his research on actinomycete and endotoxins... YET he keeps accepting patients (according to my contacts his fees are something like $1500 /hour.!!! and has 6 month wait list - not a bad gig if you can get it, eh?
So I saw a number of functional medicine doctors, NPs and chiropractors who believed in varying degrees with shoemaker, but MOSTLY aligned with Dr Neil Nathan and ( first name?)Christa. They all seemed to think that urine tests for mycotoxin levels correlated with mold exposure. Could you explain how that whole system works for why/why not the urine test is useful? And a little bit of what environmental tests are valid?
Carol - thanks for reading and being interested in the topic - please feel free to engage in convo here or elsewhere. IF you have others, docs, practitioners, "IEP"s who are interested in this, please have them reach out - you too can reach me via email or DM... Thank You!
Hi Carol - I'd love to have time to get deep into detail. The basic concept that is missing is the "pathway" - some mycotoxin (a molecule on a solid particle, i.e., piece of mold filament or spore), somewhere, getting into the air where you live/work, you breathing it, and then the molecules getting absorbed by your lung. This path happens with many different molecules (i.e, toxins, hazards, chemicals). THEN it has to circulate into the kidneys. There is however a second, more likely pathway - ingestion. Eating food with toxins. also ending up in kidneys.
The problem is that NO ONE has measured or confirmed the amount of toxins in the air that you breath WITH the amount in the urine samples. This has been done a few times studying food. (An interesting side note is that one good study I found showed only about 7% of the toxins eaten end up in urine - they did not/could not explain why, but interesting nonetheless)>
BUT there is more... the methodology of the lab analysis. Consider that there is no single accepted, proven, validated chemical analysis method - we call this "standardized" and this would be used by ALL labs doing mycotoxins in urine. BUT - the two biggest/busiest labs use PROPIETARY methods - which means we can't do quality assessments, consistency, accuracy tests - these are all "assumed" by the consumer and Docs etc. BUT these labs do not get third party audited. We are asked so-to-speak to TRUST the method hidden inside that lab. This is NOT acceptable public or medical health method.
The other problem here is the report telling the patient the concentration measured is "elevated" or not. These are not third party comparisons or standards either. No one has studied and published what levels are in the average, health person's urine! None. How can a lab or doctor make sense of these highly variable concentrations? they cannot - well, let me rephrase that: IF THEY WERE HONEST (or competent) they would never use these concentrations to diagnose or prescribe a particular treatment.
SO - when a doc says "Go do this testing of dust in your home" or "throw out your belongings" or "Move out NOW" or "spray this fog" - they are ignorant, incompetent, guilty of malpractice, or corrupt - YOU can choose the motive.
Of course this is a simple summary overview, but you get the point. The "science" they claim to use (they always say "evidence-based medicine" is actually NON-existent.
In addition, one could, if they had access to some of the data (and other data not ever collected by the Docs or the "IEP"s etc), show that the methods these "professionals" use are about as good as flipping a coin, or using a placebo (you've prob heard of the placebo effect!?). They can't predict anything - not safety, not high or low level, not efficacy of treatment meds,... pretty much nothing (because prediction IS one of the key application requirements of all quantitative testing like urine, dust, air, etc when we are worried about exposure to hazards).