Recently Gordon et al. (2004) reported the results of a study relating exposure to toxigenic fungi to cognitive impairment. A number of methodological problems limit the utility of this study, including the authors' not examining a number of potential confounding variables, use of a mild traumatic brain injury group as a comparison, and problematic statistical analyses increasing the Type 1 error rate. Based on these limitations, the authors' conclusion that mold-exposed people have more cognitive and physical symptoms than normal controls is questionable at best. This critique describes some of the problems with the methodology employed and the related difficulty in drawing conclusions from their work.