Validity of Certified Mould Inspectors - Snake Oil Salesmen??

Might be hard justifying Mold Inspections after having read this:

http://forensic-applications.com/moulds/sampling.html

Kinda blows that IAC2 certification…

Any comments

The clown who wrote that crap use to come to this site. He was discovered to be a fraud that preys on home inspectors by helping lawyers sue innocent home inspectors. He admitted it on one of our threads, a few years back. He knows very little about mold. And he has admitted on this message board that he has no education in mold.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

He told us on this message board that he makes his living mainly working for insurance companies trying to debunk the mold experts in court. Somebody has got to work for the dishonest people.
A few years back, my great nephew got diagnosed with Shaken Baby Syndrome and went permanently blind at a daycare. The daycare said they accidentally dropped him. The doctors say differently. Now the trial has gotten pushed back again, because the daycare is bringing in an expert to testify there is no such thing as Shaken Baby Syndrome. It takes all kinds.

Well I recently did a clearance inspection after a grow-op remediation that the City of Montreal Health Dept. here completely debunked, using the facts more or less stated in this article, that there is no science to indoor vs outdoor single grab sampling etc. How bout if someone knows better than the “clown who wrote that crap”, offer a rebuttal to his essay using facts. This man’s argument appears logical and well presented, go figure he’s an expert witness. If he knows nothing about mold, or makes spelling and grammatical errors, he must know how to read in order to find 73 references!! I would like to know if I am practicing junk science. I want to stay an “innocent home inspector”, not a charlatan taking advantage of a fearful population. God won’t it suck losing this revenue stream!!

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Michael the difference is that we are not going to houses ( for the most part) where people want to find out if there is a mold anomaly within the residence, we go in to determine the air quality and have no past experience and even more many times, lied about home conditions.

So now let’s say we go to a house that was filled with mold 5 days ago and the used ozone machines to kill the mold smell and wipe down the walls and repainted. Would you know there was a mold problem without testing? When the mold gets improperly wiped it does not magically disappear. It typically gets into the carpeting, Ducts, AC and furniture and then stays there.

I would venture to say about 90% of people would either say you just we it off or use bleach. Cleaning mold Improperly is 100 times worse than doing nothing.

We are trying to put together pieces of a puzzle with no past or even false past knowledge. I think the biggest problems with all the data against mold testing is that they are assuming you accurately know the past conditions of the house. Do you know any past conditions of the houses you inspect?

Do you need to be educated? Yep. Big time. I will post a video here and without mold testing I most likely would not have inspected the way I did. The entire house flooded and they cleaned it totally improperly in an attempt to hide the mold.

Does this help any.

Well, Mr. Wilson – as the “clown who wrote this crap” let me say in my own defence - it is of little wonder why I no longer participate in this forum, when it is populated by the disreputable likes of Mr. Braun and Mr. Thornberry.

Mr. Braun, I have copied and saved your posts and will be forwarding the material to my attorney next week. Perhaps you will get the opportunity in court to demonstrate your abject lie wherein you state that I “…was discovered to be a fraud that preys on home inspectors by helping lawyers sue innocent home inspectors. He admitted it on one of our threads, a few years back. He knows very little about mold. And he has admitted on this message board that he has no education in mold.”

Furthermore, Mr. Braun, your abject lies and libel are compounded with your statement:

He told us on this message board that he makes his living mainly working for insurance companies trying to debunk the mold experts in court.”

Really? – that is news to me. However, if that is the case, Mr. Braun, you will have no difficulty finding the posts in your defence wherein I supposedly made these statements and admisisons. I’m sure Mr. Wilson would like to see them - why not just find them and repost them?

Of course, you cannot, Mr. Braun, and you will dangle in the wind by your own foolish words, because, as evidenced by your posts, you are an abject liar.

You demonstrate that being a member of NACHI entails no accountability or professionalism, or the necessity of honesty or any laudable attibute. Instead, you demonstrate that those who engage in your business are merely dishonest lying businessmen (who of course may redeem themselves and your profession by resoundingly condemning you as a liar for your bald faced lies.)

It should be an interesting case, Mr. Braun, wherein your lies will be put to the test. Of, course you could prove to everyone here that you are not a bald-faced liar, by merely substantiating your claims that I have been found to be a fraud, or reposting the post where you claim that I “…makes his living mainly working for insurance companies trying to debunk the mold experts in court.”

Now it is true that I testify in court rather a lot, and it is also true I have never lost a case – yet, it is seldom (indeed if ever), on behalf of Insurance Companies – for example this year I testified in Federal Court in Pennsuylvania (220 W. Rittenhouse Square Condominium Association v. Myrna Stolker. Philadelphia CCP April Term 2009 No. 02446 Honorable Gary F. Di Vito presiding (2012)) against a “toxic mould” doctor. An MD who decided he was an expert in mould testing, and who was being supported by two CIHs, and a PhD Microbiologist. Based on my testimony the MD (and all supporting written testimony) was found to constitute junk science and was thrown out of court. Then later, I was in Federal Court (again) in Denver, but there to testify on behalf of the US Department of Justice, on a mould issue (and again, “my side" won.) In a couple of days I will be testifying before a Grand Jury, for the prosecution on a fraud case – perhaps I should suggest they subpoena Mr. Braun, so he may share with the Grand Jury his information about me being discovered to be a “fraud” (I’m sure they will find it very interesting – and then, after he is impugned for perjury, the State will find very nice lodgings for Mr. Braun in some warm jail somewhere afterward for his lies).

You are a disgrace to your profession, Mr. Braun, and a fool; and since you and your ilk are permitted to remain a NACHI member, you demonstrate that such membership is of no value, and meaningless and merely a mark of the professional liar.

Mr. Thornberry – perhaps you too would like your moment in court to support your comments: “Nor does he have any education in spelling or grammar. Hardly a credible source if you ask me…” Perhaps you will get your chance for someone to ask you, you would like to join Mr. Braun in court?

Demonstrate, Gentlemen, to those reading this thread that you have even an iota of credibility, and produce, for all to see, your objective evidence that you have to support your libel. I put it to you, Mr. Thornberry and Mr. Braun, that you cannot. You, Mr. Thornberry, based on your post are also a liar.

Now Gents - If I choose to move forward and seek compensation for your lies, and libel, I promise you, I will pursue it with the vigor that I pursue all such cheats, con-artists, thieves and liars – relentlessly.

So that there should be no confusion, let me be clear:

Mr. Braun is an abject liar who cannot support his statements.

Mr. Thornberry is a an abject liar who similarly cannot support his statements.

NACHI membership is hurt by association for permitting these two reprobates to continue their membership representing the face of the Professional Home Inspector.

Mr. Wilson you say you have debunked what I (and hundreds of scientists and microbiologists have stated). Please share your report with us, that we may see for ourselves.

Mr. Wilson, note that for all the ad hominem displayed by the two liars, they could not produce a single objective techical argument against that which is stated in my article - they just hate it. They hate it because they lack the technical competence to understand it.

The ball is in your court Gentlemen. I will be giving a series of lectures to the membership of ASHI shortly - I’m sure they will find this exchange most enjoyable.

Cheers!
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
www.forensic-applications.com

Actually, I think Wilson wasn’t saying exactly that. I think he left a few words out and had a run-on sentence or two, but this is how I read his post: (take out “here” and “more or less” and change “that” to “which”)

Michel, thinking critically about mold testing or mold remediation as it is currently practiced in our media driven culture will not win you friends at times. To doubt the necessity of a multi-million dollar industryputs you in the crosshairs of many folks on this board.

I would encourage you to study all sides and do the work to learn as much of the science as you can, NOT just the recommended remediation standards set forth by the organizations which profit most from them. You will find as you inspect(if you haven’t already) that the most common component of a mold problem which is unemphasized or ignored altogether is, incredibly, moisture. It also happens to be, IMO, the number one thing all the fly-by-night mold experts(so say their certificates) should be evaluating. Home inspectors are all about moisture, so we should have the most level heads and well informed opinions about this topic.

Now sit back and watch me get excoriated for suggesting such things. :shock:

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Thornberry vs. Connell

Lightweight vs. Heavyweight

Go easy on him Mr. Connell.

Nate doesn’t realize what he stepped in yet.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Except… That’s not what you said, remember?

Actually, for two professionals to state another businessman has no education (in whatever subjects) on a public forum which the world can read, I’d say his reaction is justified.

Braun of course took it much further than you, so he got more attention in Mr. Connell post. Well deserved. Braun has used the same non-responsive insults in other conversations regarding mold and it was done publicly there as well.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Sounds like a reference to a man’s credentials to me.-X :slight_smile:

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

So Nathan, can you point out even one misspelled word in the article? Just one. You opened your mouth, let’s see how well you do in apologizing.

Now THAT’S a good question. I cut and pasted it and ran a spelling/grammar check and Word didn’t find any errors. Hmmm…

And Nate, you seem knowledgeable enough to know that no judge is going to care if you thought you were “just being sarcastic” if he determines you said something slanderous about another professional.

Can’t we all just get alo… Oh never mind. :slight_smile:

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Stick to trying to dupe the newbies, Nate. Mr. Connell is way, way out of your league. Your public denouncement of his “credibility” for this typo is lame … even for you.