The case against the morel mushroom is starting to come together, but there are still major problems. Not everyone who got sick ate morels, and not everyone who ate morels got sick. If the mushroom is really the culprit, those gaps have to be explained.
In Episode 5 of A Morel Dilemma, we put the CDC data on trial with Dr. Grant Comstock and stress-test the evidence linking morels to the Bozeman outbreak. We look at case definitions, dose response, why some may have gotten sick but not others,
Because the question is no longer just whether morels can make people sick.
It is why this is happening now.
and whether this is truly a new danger or something that has been hiding in plain sight.
Select references:
- Dr. Beck's Study
- Dr. Leang's Case Series
A Morel DilemmaSupport the show
Review the show where ever your listening
Get Messages from Toxo (Join the Newsletter!)
Join as a supporting member
- Ad free episodes
- Bonus content and early access
- Discounts and give aways on GOTA PICCEM Mushroom card game
The GOTTA PICCEM Poisonous Mushroom Game!
The Poisonus Fungus Amongus Children's Book!
Tox trinkets (Rep the show at home!)
Reach the show
- Email: Toxtalk1@gmail.com
More Show Resources
Production Note: Unless otherwise noted, the news-style audio clips featured in this podcast, including those in the introductory theme song, are dramatizations based on real events, not actual news broadcasts. These segments were researched and written by the producer and brought to life using AI-generated text-to-speech. Earlier iterations used actual news recordings, but this approach was chosen to avoid potential copyright concerns associated with using original broadcasts.
People have strong feelings about AI, many of which are entirely legitimate, particularly concerns about outsourcing human creativity. However, text-to-speech technology predates the current wave of generative AI, and The Poison Lab has been using it for years. Its use is limited to generating spoken audio from human-written scripts in the introduction and occasional news-style clips, allowing us to maintain production quality and creativity while avoiding potential copyright disputes. All scientific research, writing, narration, interviews, and editorial content are human-created, representing countless hours of work on an independently produced, unfunded podcast.
To those inclined to dismiss an entire body of creative work simply because an introductory theme song contains synthetic voices, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. However, I would encourage you to consider the distinction between using technology as a creative tool and using it as a substitute for creativity. Dismissing hundreds of hours of original work over a single production choice strikes me as intellectually lazy. It reflects the kind of binary thinking that leaves little room for nuance and, in my view, is a much larger problem in the world today. I would hope that an audience interested in science, of all people, could appreciate that distinction.
