Fungal Hypersensitivity, Part 1

Leave a Comment
The following is an excerpt of an article written by renowned allergist and immunologist Dr. Vincent Marinkovich. Dr. Marinkovich was known as Dr. Mold up until his death two years ago at the age of 74. This article is titled Fungal Hypersensitivity: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, Therapy and represents one of numerous peer-reviewed scientific explanations of the health hazards associated with mold exposure.

"Fungal exposure itself can produce a confounding array of symptoms as different elements of the body’s defense systems are triggered. Early in the course of exposure, the innate immune system can be activated as endotoxins or fungal elements enter the body tissues. This inflammation can proceed without any involvement of the adaptive immune system with its antibodies and activated T-cells (Kauffman et al., 2000).

However, after a few days or weeks of antigen presentation on an inflamed mucosa, the adaptive system is likely to become involved as antibodies and T-cells specifically reactive to fungal antigens are generated. This will add to the inflammation of the affected tissues. Finally, fungal elements become directly involved if mycotoxins or other inflammatory triggers are formed that can cause toxic injury to specific organ systems. One need only be reminded of such fungal compounds as alcohol, lysergic acid (LSD), antibiotics, cyclosporin, or mushroom toxins to appreciate the ability of such organic molecules to cause symptoms.

Physicians who treat patients with mold-related problems are often challenged by the variations in the disease symptoms and the multiorgan involvement that are presumably the result of exposure to environments heavily contaminated with fungi. They may accept the likelihood that fungal exposure is the cause of their patient’s symptoms but not understand the underlying pathophysiology. Still, an attempt is made to treat the patient, essentially by utilizing various programs that remove the patient from the fungi. Over time, they learn that the clinical patterns seen in such patients are consistent, the diagnosis can be accurately made, and the response to therapy is very good.

There are other physicians who deny that fungi as encountered in homes or office-type work spaces are capable of causing illness. These physicians generally are not primary caregivers and can dismiss the patient’s complaints because of their apparent complexity without a consequence. They are better designated as theorists who base their negativity on arguments that the lack of sufficient evidence-based proof of a causal relationship of fungal exposure to human disease proves that such a relationship is not possible. They dismiss all case reports (Marinkovich et al., 1975) (Fink et al., 1971), epidemiological studies (Dearborne, 2002) (Etzel et al., 1998), and clinical observations of experienced clinicians as worthless and such patients as malingerers or psychiatrically disturbed (Hardin et al., 2003).

They seem to lack the vision to accept the challenge of the possibility that injury to multiple organ systems may result from exposure to large amounts of fungus-derived materials (such as spores and/or mycotoxins) in a home or office environment. They are wrong, and they can do a great deal of harm. First in denying the patient’s symptoms, and second by blocking disability requests from such patients injured by exposure to fungi in their workplaces. They are guilty of using poor scientific logic because it is closed-minded. Such thinking has no place in a medical setting where there are sick patients who need help."

More next time.