Mould and testing

Since the topic of discussion changed from methlabs to mould, I started a new thread…

Although I addressed your question about “ripping people off” on the original thread, I need to address the second part of your question. Of course they have mould in their house – EVERY house has mould. EVERY building has mould. EVERY house has “toxic black mould.” EVERY house contains billions of spores of mouild. Houses are constructed with mould inoculated materials. Every time one opens a front door and enters a home, one typically introduces hundreds to hundreds of thousands of new mould spores.

Telephone: Ring, ring…

Mrs. Homeowner Smith: Does my house contain mould?

Answer #1:
Yes.

Answer #2:
Geez… I dunno … let me come out and take some of your hard earned money from your pension fund to do some sampling, and then I will tell you… Yes.

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

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

No doubt about where you stand . I like the truth .
You are my kind of people .
You make it easy for me to try and stay out of court on Mould.

Can you tell me why most other Americans spell mould ( MOLD)?

Roy Cooke

Caoimhín,

You are a credit to the profession…I like your honest replies and can only hope others take notice, before they are discredited in a courtroom by a professional like yourself representing an insurance company.

A friend of mine was discredited to the tune of $400,000.00…:shock: …all over a few simple mould samples which lead Met-Life and the homeowner to sue him until he didn’t know whether to $hit or take a bus home…:smiley:

I do many mold tests problem 5 to 10 a week. I don’t tell them that they have a mold problem unless they do. Just because there is mold in a home doesn’t mean there is a problem. But if the levels are higher inside than the outside there might be a problem. Visible mold should be tested to see what type it is and at what levels they are and then determine if it needs remediation. Independent labs will examine the tests and determine if remediation should take place. I have found that many people think they are sick from mold Some were and some not. Maybe in Canada there isn’t much of a problem but here in Florida mold is a major problem and it needs to be addressed. I don’t worry about getting sued every time I go out and do a job. I Carry Mold insurance and inform each client the truth about what could be or not be in there home. Knowledge is power read the facts
http://www.cdc.gov/mold/dampness_facts.htm
http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/airindoormold.html.

Hi Gents –

Good comments.

Mr. DeForrest, let me address your comments first since it is exactly the things that you said in your post that would be the rope by which I would hang you in court and demonstrate that your services constituted gross negligence. Imagine that your report cost the seller to loose an important sale (or other claims), and now they are going to sue you for their damages claming gross professional negligence, and gross incompetence. They hire me as a rebuttal witness. As it turns out, I defeat you in court without ever having to even visit the subject property. I demonstrate that your report alone destroys your credibility, and demonstrates gross incompetence.

Here’s is how I would do it: (Everyone should know that the following is a DEMONSTRATION ONLY and that DeForrest Home Inspections is in no way involved in litigation or that the following example is actually meant to impugn the good reputation of DeForrest Home Inspections.)

Rebuttal witness writes:

“We have reviewed the DeForrest Home Inspections report, and we have found several fundamental errors and omissions which render the DeForrest Home Inspections report fatally flawed in its nature and unusable. Nowhere in the DeForrest Home Inspections report were we able to locate where the inspector applied standard mandatory data quality objectives in the collection of their data. The collection of the data is far outside accepted science, and the premise of the data lacks scientific acceptability and therefore the work does not appear to meet the standards set by Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir. 1923).

It is an established and industry accepted fact that particle migration (such as spores) is mainly influenced by particle properties, ventilation conditions and airflow patterns. (1) Particle concentrations in general, (2) and spore concentrations in particular within a structure exhibit large spatial variations which tend to be compartmentalized within a given space. Furthermore, it is a well established and a common industrial hygiene precept that short term samples such as those collected by the DeForrest Home Inspections personnel exhibit large temporal variations. (3) Generally, the geometric standard deviation of interday and intraday airborne concentrations lie between 1.2 and 2.5 geometric standard deviations. (4) These large variations are similar to those seen by other authors, specific to airborne mould concentrations. (5)(6)(7). However, the DeForrest Home Inspections report entirely failed to provide a statement on confidence, error and/or precision regarding their data (see Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. 113 S.Ct. 2728, 125 L.Ed. 2d 469, 482-485 (1993)), rendering the samples and data, and, ultimately, the analysis, meaningless.

Classic air sampling strategy indicates that reasonable confidence in estimating an average ambient airborne concentration is achieved when at least 70% of the exposure time is measured,( 8 ) and states that random grab samples are the least desirable technique for estimating the average exposure. (9) Yet we note that DeForrest Home Inspections used exclusively single random grab samples whose total sampling time was less than 1% of the anticipated exposure time. Thus the sampling design error in the DeForrest Home Inspections was uncharacterized and resulted in huge uncertainties in the reported results.

Other foundational and scientifically accepted classic air sampling references (10)(11) have estimated that for each daily study period (expressed as 8 hours), between eight and eleven random grab samples are needed to obtain adequate confidence in the average airborne concentration estimate. As it is, DeForrest Home Inspections only collected five indoor samples and five outdoor samples which cannot provide adequate confidence in estimating the spore concentration in the subject property. Essentially, DeForrest Home Inspections failed to use accepted scientific protocols and instead, they guessed the spore concentrations at the expense of the homeowner.

Based on our review, the lack of DQOs in the sampling performed by the DeForrest Home Inspections demonstrates the way DeForrest Home Inspections artificially increased the cost of their services and lent a pretence of credibility by puffing up their report with Latin names and exotic numbers, without providing any actual valid data. (At this point, I would probably provide a three or four page discussion on DQOs, and how without DQOS, one has numbers, but no data, and how you violotated about six different ASTM standards).

We have found that the DeForrest Home Inspections report relied exclusively on myths and misconceptions regarding moulds in the home. The report indicates the inspector lacked any real knowledge and had no factual basis for making their conclusions, and that their conclusions were unsupported by scientific fact. For example, in their report, DeForrest Home Inspections repeated an often quoted, but entirely false premise that:

But if the levels are higher inside than the outside there might be a problem.

This false premise has become the hallmark of the charlatan and the untrained “mould inspector” who collects indoor and outdoor samples without any understanding of sampling theory of aerobiology. It is entirely untrue that counts higher indoors than outdoors in anyway indicates a problem, and we have noted that DeForrest Home Inspections did not provide any valid scientific references or peer reviewed scientific literature to support their false claims that “…if the levels are higher inside than the outside there might be a problem.”

For a start, nowhere in the DeForrest Home Inspections report do we find a qualitative or quantitative statement regarding the outdoor vs. indoor coupling. As such, DeForrest Home Inspections has entirely ignored the fact that on the day of their visit, opposing windows in the subject property were open, and their “elevated” indoor counts were actually outdoor counts, and not representative of the indoor concentrations at all.

It is well known that non-problematic houses may have significantly higher indoor spore counts than outdoors. For example, in the graphic below,
( http://www.forensic-applications.com/misc/evononprob.jpg ) we have presented the results of a study (16) conducted by this reviewer (Connell) wherein actual simultaneous indoor and outdoor contemporaneously collated samples were collected from non-problematic houses (no mould problems). As can be seen, in a significant number of the properties, (yellow triangles to the left of the blue line) had spores counts in excess of the outdoor counts – even for closed mode sampling (insignificant outdoor coupling).

Similarly, in another study (17) performed by this reviewer (Connell) we collected simultaneous indoor and outdoor contemporaneously collated samples from problematic houses (significant mould problems). As can be seen, in the following graphic ( http://www.forensic-applications.com/misc/evoprob.jpg ) in a significant number of the properties, (yellow triangles to the right of the blue line) had spores counts less than the outdoor counts (outdoor coupling also qualified).

DeForrest Home Inspections attempts to defend its nonsensical indoor vs. outdoor comparison by citing the “IESO Standard,” (12) a document frequently cited by untrained and poorly trained “mould experts” who lack any real knowledge in aerobiology. However, the IESO is not a recognized standards authority, and does not establish national consensus standards as claimed. The “standards” used by DeForrest Home Inspections are not considered to be scientifically valid, and do not carry any weight in legitimate discussion amongst bone fide indoor environmental quality experts.

Essentially, the IESO “standards” were initially developed a couple of years ago by a particular laboratory in an effort to promote sales. The “standards” referenced by DeForrest Home Inspections (IESO 2210) are mostly myth-based procedures devoid of any actual scientific merit, and lacking any credibility. The “standards” make a central point of using outdoor airborne mould levels as comparison to sample indoor levels. However, this is an example of argumentum ad populum in the light of state-of-knowledge; essentially IESO makes the case that “since everyone else seems to be doing it, it must somehow be correct.” However, it has long been known, that there is no correlation between indoor and outdoor spore concentrations in the circumstances under discussion.

By comparison, bone fide national consensus standards organizations would include ASHRAE(13), ANSI (14) and ASTM International. (15). These organizations publish “technically exhaustive” standards that will carry weight of law, and are frequently incorporated directly as actual mandatory code.

The promulgation of true standards is an arduous process involving literally hundreds of experts. For example, this reviewer (Connell) in the capacity of a recognized Industrial Hygienist is on the ASTM International Indoor Air Quality Committee (D22.08 ). We (several dozens of us) have been engaged in the promulgation of an indoor mould assessment standard for over three years. The process involves the vetting of the language and the science by a broad spectrum of scientists, medical personnel, engineers, public policy experts, and others before the standard will see the light of day. Ultimately, an entire ASTM standard could be held up on the opposition of just one expert, until consensus is achieved. By contrast, the IESO was formed in 2002, and the “standard” was instantly published without any external peer review or assessment of validity. (At this point, I would probable provide a discussion on how the IESO documents are in stark contradiction to decades old ASTM standards on sampling protocols).

Even the IESO indicates it’s lack of technical merit in it’s own standards. IESO 2210, (used by DeForrest Home Inspections) explicitly states in it’s own language, that the standard is not technically exhaustive, and should only be used to determine if an appropriate specialist (e.g. an Industrial Hygienist) is required for further investigation. Indeed, the IESO 2210 clearly states:

7.0 Applicability and Limitations
7.3 The results and recommendations made by the inspector relative to this standard are not a warranty, surety, or guarantee of any nature or kind.

By this statement, the IESO is explicitly and honestly telling the world that the standard carries no weight.

DeForrest Home Inspections makes further foundationless statements in its report such as:

Visible mold should be tested to see what type it is and at what levels they are and then determine if it needs remediation.

In making this statement, DeForrest Home Inspections implies that if mould of a particular genus or species is present, then it should not be remediated. However, DeForrest Home Inspections does not provide any information on which genera or species it would permit to remain in the subject property. If, on the other hand DeForrest Home Inspections does not hold the opinion that a specific mould genera should be permitted to remain, then what is to be gained by needlessly spending additional fees to identify the “type” except to further artificially increase its invoices?

Similarly, DeForrest Home Inspections has provided absolutely no threshold as to which “levels” would constitute the need for remediation. Finally, DeForrest Home Inspections concludes that “Visible mold should be tested…” but does not provide a reference for this assertion that is not held or supported by any recognized body of experts.

DeForrest Home Inspections underscores its lack of understanding in sample collection and analysis by stating:

Independent labs will examine the tests and determine if remediation should take place.

In fact, no legitimate independent laboratory, following BMPs would ever determine if remediation should take place. The role of a independent laboratory is exclusively to identify and quantify samples without interpretation. Unless a laboratory has visited the site, performed an industry accepted inspection complete with the identification of moisture intrusion issues, such a laboratory would be entirely incapable of determining the need for remediation. It is exclusively the role of DeForrest Home Inspections to determine the need and scope of remediation.

Finally, DeForrest Home Inspections disingenuously attempts to increase its apparent credibility by citing a link to the US DHHS, Centers for Disease Control. However, in so doing, DeForrest Home Inspections purposely ignores the document recently released by the Centers for Disease Control. (18 ) The CDC Mold Work Group, in its section “Chapter 2: Assessing Exposure to Mold” states (in part):

*Sampling for mold is not part of a routine building assessment. In most cases appropriate decisions concerning remediation and need for personal protection equipment (PPE) can be made solely on the basis of visual inspection. *(sic)

In fact, the CDC recognized the frivolity of samples suchb as those collected by DeForrest Home Inspections in the same document when it stated:

Other than in a controlled, limited, research setting, sampling for biological agents in the environment cannot be meaningfully interpreted and would not significantly affect relevant decisions regarding remediation, reoccupancy, handling or disposal of waste and debris, worker protection or safety, or public health.

We do not see that DeForrest Home Inspections performed their sampling “…in a controlled, limited, research setting…

Overall, we conclude the work performed by DeForrest Home Inspections, and the comments and conclusion based thereon lacked scientific validity, lacked the application of standard practices, lacked the application of pertinent industry standards, lacked credibility, lacked foundation, and lacked value. In our opinion, the work and conclusions of DeForrest Home Inspections constituted gross incompetence in the field of indoor aerobiology.

Etc, etc, etc…… (all of the references I used are provided below at the end of this post).

An important note is that since you didn’t follow proper standards, etc, your E&O carrier denied your claim, and now your insurance policy is rendered useless - YOU have to come up with the punitive damages out of your pocket (got a couple hundred thousand $$$ on hand for emergencies?)

Again, this was just a fun example of how I would handle the case as presented. Now, the above took me aoub t90minutes to prepare; at $195 an hour, I would probably impugn your report for under $500. Good money spent by my client considering the fact that you are being sued for a couple of million.

I hope that sheds some light on the matter. Please feel free to defend your position (with the recognition that I get a second chance on cross examination!)

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

(1) **Li Y; Heng J; and Chen Z *****Study Of Particle Movement In Ventilation System ***Proceedings: Indoor Air 2002 Anaheim California, 2002

(2) Keady PB; Mainquist L; TrackingIAQ Problemsto Their Source**, ****Occupational **Health & Safety,September 2000

(3) Ayer, HE, Burg J, *Time Weighted Averages Vs. Maximum Personal Sample *(Presented at the AIHA Conference, Boston, MA, 1973)

(4) NIOSH Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual, HEW Publication Number 77-173 (1977)

(5) Spurgeon, J; Data submitted to the ASTM D22.08.02 Committee for review, October 2005

(6) Connell, CP, Sample results: What do they really tell us? Presented at the IAQ in Schools Lecture Series, Corpus Christi, TX, 2003

(7) Eudey L, Su HJ, Burge HA. Biostatistics and bioaerosols. In Bioaerosols, Burge HA, ed. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, pp. 269-307. 1995

(8 ) NIOSH Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual, HEW Publication Number 77-173 (1977)

(9) Ibid.

(10) NIOSH Technical Information Exposure Measurement Action Level and Occupational Environmental Variability, HEW Publication 76-131, Cincinnati OH, 45226, (1975)

(11) NIOSH Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual, HEW Publication Number 77-173 (1977)

(12) Indoor Environmental Standards Organization

(13) American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers

(14) American National Standards Institute

(15) Formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials

(16) Connell, CP, Field Measurements for Moulds: Spatial and Temporal Variations; Presented at the ASTM International D22 Committee: 2006 Boulder Conference: Bringing Science to Bear on Moisture and Mold in the Built Environment

(17) Ibid.

(18 ) The CDC Mold Work Group, National Center for Environmental Health, National Center for Infectious Diseases, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, October 2005

[FONT=Arial](The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

On 09/21/06 at 15:07 MST, I edited this post by removing the “smiley faces” created by the number “8” and the incomplete clause “Indeed in the ASTM Standard…”
[/FONT]

[quote=adeforrest]
But if the levels are higher inside than the outside there might be a problem. Visible mold should be tested to see what type it is and at what levels they are and then determine if it needs remediation. Independent labs will examine the tests and determine if remediation should take place. [

Oh boy, sounds like your playing Russian-Roulette…:D](“http://”)

Caoimhin - Your last post is the most informative piece of material that has ever been published on this message board regarding this topic. Thank you for it.

I definitely agree, and also believe anyone who may have to face an expert like Caoimhín in court had better eat their Wheaties…:roll: …and make sure they don’t have anything worth a nickel in their name…:smiley:

Maybe I should just stop doing any inspections. But thats is going to be tough to give up the $180,000 profit last year with a 40% growth this year. I have been in the mold business for 9 years and been testing for 5. I have taken multiply mold inspection and remediation and will continue taking more. Most my mold inspections are for remediation company’s that have received calls for mold remediation. Not for people trying to sell their home. I do not do mold inspections with home inspections. Also my mold inspection report consist of 20 to 30 pages of information about mold their test and with disclaimer’s. Thanks for your option that was great information. But I think you would have to see a complete report before you make statements like you did. I think I will risk it a little longer.

Don’t test for Radon either. If you live near rocks, you have it. Don’t test for lead paint. If the home you live in was built before 1976…you have it. Don’t test pools and spas either. They will just need service either way. Don’t inspect houses either. Just hire a GC to inspect further and repair or replace as needed…I could do this all day.

One of the differences is that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) both agree with Mr. Connell about mold. They recommend against sampling.
Of course their interest is in trying to determine whether sampling is relevant to human health concerns, not making a profit from mold sampling like everyone who recommends it.

They strongly recommend testing for Radon, although the presence of rocks is not how you determine whether or not you have unsafe Radon levels.

Looked on your site to see a copy of your mold report but couldn’t find one, Adam. Also, on your site you display an articvle by a Dr. Shotwell who provides a partial summation of an article by the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Sept. 1999.
Dr. Shotwell’s quote appears to have nothing to do with the article (which I read, http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/inside.asp?AID=2686&UID=) and everything to do with making money from mold sampling, since he’s connected with Atlantic Environmental and mold sampling appears to be included in how they make money.

Investigating hidden mold problems

Investigating hidden mold problems may be difficult and will require caution when the investigation involves disturbing potential sites of mold growth. For example, removal of wallpaper can lead to a massive release of spores if there is mold growing on the underside of the paper. If you believe that you may have a hidden mold problem, consider hiring an experienced professional. http://www.epa.gov/mold/hiddenmold.html

There is substantial visible mold growth inside hard surface (e.g., sheet metal) ducts or on other components of your heating and cooling system. There are several important points to understand concerning mold detection in heating and cooling systems:

  • Many sections of your heating and cooling system may not be accessible for a visible inspection, so ask the service provider to show you any mold they say exists.
  • You should be aware that although a substance may look like mold, a positive determination of whether it is mold or not can be made only by an expert and may require laboratory analysis for final confirmation. For about $50, some microbiology laboratories can tell you whether a sample sent to them on a clear strip of sticky household tape is mold or simply a substance that resembles it.
  • If you have insulated air ducts and the insulation gets wet or moldy it cannot be effectively cleaned and should be removed and replaced.
  • If the conditions causing the mold growth in the first place are not corrected, mold growth will recur.
    *]http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/airduct.html#deciding%20to%20have%20your%20air%20ducts%20cleaned

It’s not so much who is right or wrong. The lesson here is for each of us to give great thought and research to how you will engage discussions about mold.
These MB discussions have helped me determine how best to address the subject when it comes up - so I appreciate all of the input to this topic.

I am impressed about the un-scientific presentation of random data, but the comments are well taken. :slight_smile:

Hello Mr. Newman:

Your post intrigued me.

  1. Why did you think the presentation of the data was unscientific? (Which it wasn’t).

  2. Why do you think it is random? (Which it isn’t).

  3. Why would unscientific random data impress you?

Just curious.

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

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

(1) Because the display lacks of prudent data like time(frame),
equipment used etc.
(2) check statistics 101 and you will agree that your are using random data
(3) my sarcastic me forgot the ‘not’

:slight_smile: Hope you curiosity is satisfied :slight_smile:

[FONT=Arial]Hello Mr. Newman:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Actually, no, my curiosity has actually only now risen to an higher level by your answer, since your answermakes further unsupported statements but doesn’t answer my question.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][FONT=Arial]Checking “statistics 101” merely confirms that the data are anything but random, and so using “statistics 101,” perhaps you would be kind enough to demonstrate for me here on this board, empirically why the data are random. It should be easy for you to show the calculations that support your argument - after all it is just “statistics 101.” To aid you in your calculations, [/FONT]I have provided you with the pertinent raw data for your demonstration at http://forensic-applications.com/misc/TabledataNACHIpost.doc[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Also, perhaps you can explain why the sampling methods etc. would be of any statistical importance, if, as you contend, the data are random. I’m sure that someone familiar with “statistics 101” would understand the difference between systematic error and random error, yes? And if the data were random as you believe, then the sampling methods would be of little consequence, since the methods wouild introduce systematic error and not random error, right?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][FONT=Arial]Finally, what makes you think that a time frame is a dependant variable for the data in the first place, and second why would the lack thereof constitute “unscientific data” even if it was? [/FONT]Perhaps you could provide an example. Again, for your example, I have provided you with the sampling dates. Does this now magically make the data “scientific?” [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]You rationale is not making much sense to me. Perhaps you could shed more light on the matter.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Cheers,[/FONT]
Caoimhín P. Connell
[FONT=Arial]Forensic Industrial Hygienist[/FONT]
www.forensic-applications.com
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

An interesting quest but I do not need any data to proof that the data is random.

:idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea:

If the measurement result X(1) is taken and if we know that X(2) would take a different value if we measured again and there is no influence from X(1) to X(2) and visa versa we are dealing with random data. This is also valid if X(1), X(2) are calculated values from multiple measurements at time t1,t2.

This does not mean that the sampling method would be of little consequences. And systematic errors and random errors are not exclusive to each other and yes depend on the sampling methods.

The well written argument above was just purely justified with data clutter and deserve nothing more than an unscientific declaration since the conclusion of and the observations itself ought to be reproducible for the uninvolved third party. :slight_smile:

Mr. Newman:

Thank you for your response. Your reply was certainly very interesting, and, I think, speak volumes of your superior understanding of statistics and possibly mathematics in general.

As a side note, when I presented this same data in a lecture to a body of internationally renown scientists and mycological researchers attending the ASTM International Standards Symposium at the University of Colorado a few months ago, none of the [FONT=‘Times New Roman’][FONT=Arial]eminent [/FONT]scientists from any of the universities, laboratories or governmental entities represented seemed to possess your astute sense of existentialism statistics, and, like me, they entirely failed to catch the fatal flaws in my data.[/FONT]

Perhaps you would be interested in addressing our humble committee and help explain your newly invented mathematical ideas. I’m sure we would gain some interesting perspectives from your well thought out, albeit confusing, explanations.

Kind regards,

Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG
Pro 12:15

New to you, eh, that’s what I thought, and I do not know what you presented at the University, I can only refer to your case demonstration above.
If it was excactly the same as you demonstated here without further details than that is another sad example for our education system.