The problem with how this research paper was used can be summarized as this: (1) The paper did not study the Cleveland and San Francisco clusters of infant deaths and (2) Correlation doesn’t necessarily equal causation - just because the infants (in Cleveland and San Francisco) with the bleeding lungs lived in the moldier homes doesn't mean that the high levels of Stachybotrys (or other molds) is to blame or may be the singular causal factor for their deaths. In addition to the research paper’s lack of site-specific studies, the possibility of other causal or contributing factors was left out of their research and the CDC investigations. And this is why there is all the confusion today. Was Stachybotrys the singular cause of their deaths; was it a contributing factor; was it neither causal or contributing to their deaths; were there other contributing or causal factors; . . .? The list of questions left unanswered was endless. Despite these questions, many professionals (and the CDC) have dug into their stance on the issue; further compromising the type of information and services people receive today. 

So, what’s the truth about Stachybotrys and acute idiopathic pulmonary hemorrhage among infants? Firstly, let’s look at some research on the Cleveland cases that were non-biased in their discoveries and reporting, such as Overview of Investigations into Pulmonary Hemorrhage among Infants in Cleveland, Ohio. In this paper researchers report finding: “An epidemiologic investigation of pulmonary hemorrhage in infants in Cleveland found an association with exposure to S.chartarum and other airborne fungi. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke was an additional risk factor in the presence of S.chartarum. Further studies are needed to determine whether the fungal association is causal.” This is a good place to start, because it reinforces the following truths that you should be aware of: 

1. Stachybotrys and other types of molds can, under certain circumstances, pose health risks to infants and other occupants of a water-damaged and mold-contaminated building; however,
2. Those risks are not fixed. In other words, the type and dose of airborne mold does not equally correlate with a given biological response in all individuals. Some may experience allergic reactions, others infectious disease, others death, others no negative response at all. Therefore, …
3. The presence of an abnormal airborne mold spore population doesn’t mean that a life-threatening situation is present; however, negative health effects due to exposure (including death) should not be dismissed.
4. Care should always be taken to reduce or eliminate exposure to such environments until (1) the presence, extent, and risk-potential has been defined by an Indoor Environmental Professional (like Gulf Coast Center for Indoor Air Quality Services) and (2) confirmed remediation has been completed.
5. Finally, another environmental stressor (e.g., environmental tobacco smoke and bacteria) may be a contributor or causal factor in building related symptoms or illnesses. If building related symptoms (BRS) or building related illness(es) (BRS) are known, suspect, or potential, it is crucial to have a competent indoor environmental consultant and/or industrial hygienist assess the building for hazards and risks as appropriate to develop a corrective action plan (i.e., protocol) for remediation. This assessment often looks for several environmental stressors – not just mold – to determine the condition of the building relative to those BRS/BRI concerns occupants have, thus providing the specificity desired for safe remediation and re-occupancy of the building.

If you are dealing with a known, suspect, or potential indoor environmental quality issue in your home or workplace, contact the professionals at Gulf Coast Center for Indoor Air Quality Services to discuss how we can best serve you.