Mold-related, CIRS-related and environmental illness patterns
For records built around a suspected exposure, where mycotoxin panels, inflammatory markers and competing frameworks have produced more conflict than clarity.
This page is for people who have been told, or suspect, that a building made them ill — and who now hold a stack of urine mycotoxin results, inflammatory markers, visual contrast scores, and at least two incompatible explanations of what it all means. This analysis does not adopt a proprietary framework and does not attempt to prove that an exposure caused an illness. It reconstructs the chronology, states what each test can and cannot support, and lays out the competing explanations honestly.
What records in this area tend to contain
These are descriptions of records, not diagnostic criteria. Recognising several of them does not mean you have a condition, and none of them is being asserted about you.
- Symptom onset or escalation tracking a specific building, water event, or relocation
- Urine mycotoxin panels, ERMI/HERTSMI reports, or environmental sampling of varying quality
- Inflammatory, complement, or hormonal markers collected under a CIRS-style protocol
- Cognitive, autonomic, respiratory, and GI symptoms appearing together
- Binder, antifungal, or detoxification trials with mixed or unrecorded outcomes
- Contradiction between practitioners about whether exposure is the explanation at all
The analytical work on a case like this
- Exposure chronology: dates, buildings, remediation events, and symptom change against each
- Every environmental and biological test result, with its analytical validity stated plainly
- Where a CIRS-style interpretation is internally consistent and where it depends on unvalidated steps
- Immune, barrier, autonomic and metabolic contributions that would be present regardless of exposure
- Response pattern to binders, antifungals, and avoidance, treated as evidence for or against
- Alternative explanations that the exposure narrative may have crowded out
What the work is trying to answer
These are the questions the reconstruction is built around. They are questions, not promises — some records answer them clearly and some do not, and the written synthesis says which.
- What does the record actually support about exposure, as distinct from what it has been said to prove?
- Which findings would be expected under an exposure-driven reading, and are they present?
- Are the tests in hand capable of individual causal inference, or only of describing presence?
- What would change the leading explanation, and what would a clinician need to order to test it?
What would argue against the leading reading
Every synthesis states the alternatives it could not exclude. For this area, the most important ones are:
- A post-infectious or immune process that began around the same period as the move or exposure
- Mast-cell-type reactivity with environmental triggers as one input among several
- Autonomic dysfunction producing the cognitive and fatigue picture independently
- Test characteristics: urinary mycotoxin panels have well-documented interpretive limitations
- Coincidence of timing — chronic illness frequently begins during a period of life change
BiomeLogic does not diagnose CIRS, mold illness, or mycotoxin toxicity, does not endorse or apply any proprietary CIRS protocol, does not assert that an exposure caused an illness, and does not treat environmental illness. Building assessment and remediation are questions for qualified environmental professionals; medical management belongs with your clinicians.
Mohammed Attallah is the founder of BiomeLogic and developed the Host Capacity Model independently; it is a working framework, not medical consensus or a clinically validated instrument. He is not a licensed clinician. Every output is educational analysis prepared for review, modification, or rejection by your own medical team. Full scope statement →
The service is chosen by scope, not by condition
There is no separate price for any pattern on this page. Gate 1 is free, takes a few minutes, needs no files, and ends with a written reply about whether the analysis suits your case and which engagement would fit.
Comprehensive Systems-Biology Case Analysis
$995The whole case: full-record reconstruction, a live working session, and a written synthesis with an intervention discussion framework.
Read the full scope →Complex Case Deep Dive
$1,500Unusually extensive or internally contradictory records needing expanded chronology and cross-test reconciliation. Scope, not a better method.
Read the full scope →Lab Pattern & Results Review
$500A defined set of results you already hold, where chronology and multisystem history do not materially change the reading.
Read the full scope →
Records in this area are usually large and internally contradictory. Where that is the case, the Deep Dive is discussed with you at Gate 1 before any payment.
Related reading on this site
MCAS, histamine and multisystem reactivity
For reactivity that spans foods, medications and environments, where stabilisers have helped partially and the trigger list keeps growing.
Medication- and treatment-associated patterns
For cases with a clear turning point after an antibiotic, a procedure, or a medication change, where the chronology has never been formally reconstructed.
Complex food and chemical sensitivity
For shrinking diets and growing reaction lists, where each new restriction buys less relief than the last.