The AMA, the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology
(the AAAAI), and the American Lung Association (the ALA) have all
acknowledged the following:
They acknowledged the existence of Chemical Sensitivity as it applies
to Asthma and Asthma-like conditions. This includes Occupational
Asthma due to Low Weight Molecular Agents, Irritant-induced Asth-
ma, Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, and cases involving
Small Airways Disease. All three associations have acknowledged
that chemical-bearing agents can trigger asthma attacks in susceptible
persons.
Each organization advocates the practice of Environmental Control;
of avoiding airborne agents which trigger one's asthma. In fact, the
AMA has formally referred to Avoidance as "Control of Factors Con-
tributing to Asthma Severity." In French medical Literature, avoidance
is known as "Strict Eviction."
Examples of recognized asthma triggers in the chemical category
include:
[A] "NO2" from gas stoves and fireplaces, fumes from
kerosene heaters, and volatile organic compounds
from carpeting, cabinetry, plywood, particle board,
and fumes from household cleaning products."
[B] "Air pollutants such as tobacco smoke, wood smoke,
chemicals in the air and ozone"
"Occupational exposure to vapors, dusts, gases or fumes"
"Strong Odors or sprays such as perfumes, household clean-
sers, cooking fumes (especially from frying), paints, or var-
nishes"
[C] "Perfume, paint, hair spray, or any strong odors or fumes."
http://www.epa.gov/asthma/chemical_irritants.html
http://asthma.about.com/od/asthmatriggers/qt/chemictriggers.htm
http://www.aaaai.org/patients/publicedmat/tips/occupationalasthma.stm
http://www.lungusa.org/healthy-air/home/resources/cleaning-supplies.html
http://www.lungusa.org/lung-disease/asthma/about-asthma/understanding-asthma.html
http://www.lungusa.org/lung-disease/asthma/living-with-asthma/take-control-of-your-asthma/asthma-triggers.html
An American Lung Association already stated:
"Perfume, room deodorizers, cleaning chemicals, paints, and
talcum powder are examples of triggers that must be avoided
or kept at very low levels."
The same American Lung Association furthermore states:
"These 'triggers' can set off a reaction in your lungs and other
parts of your body." Now, place an emphasis on "other parts
of your body," and keep in mind that:
Avoidance also applies to Anaphylaxis, Chemically-induced Hepatitis,
Irritant Rhinitis, Dermatitis, Urticaria (rashes), Irritant-associated Vo-
cal Cord Dysfunction, Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, etc.
The AMA's Admitting to the Converse Relationship Between
Pollution Levels and Hospital Admissions Due to Asthma
Five to six thousand people die each year from asthma, in the United
States alone, and one of the highest asthma-related death rates has
been in Harlem, NY, as well as Detroit. Ever so coincidentally, the
environs of Harlem are venues for NYC waste sites. Concerning this,
the AMA has expressly stated that:
"fluctuations in the levels of air pollution correlate with asth-
ma symptoms and hospital admissions." [Report 4 of the AMA's
Council on Scientific Affairs (A-98)]
===============================================
The segment posted below appears in another Atlantic America article.
This means that it might look familiar to you. In fact, the information in
quotations, as well as the asthma chart, was provided by the American
Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology, in its publican information
literature. Needless to say, charts can be invaluable for individuals seek-
ing to learn fact.
The AAAAI's public education material
on the subject of Occupational Asthma
Concerning the AAAAI that Barrett cited in his campaign to convince
mankind that Environmental Illness is merely a matter of mental illness,
it published an instructional website about Occupational Asthma. The
AAAAI has already acknowledged that Occupational Asthma can be
caused by a number of chemicals at nontoxic/ambient levels, afflicting
a number of workers employed in a number of industries.
Acrylates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adhesive handlers
Amines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shellac & lacquar handlers
Anhydrides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plastic, epoxy resin users
Chloramine-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Janitors, cleaning staff
Dyes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Textile workers
Fluxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Electronic workers
Formaldehyde/glutaraldehyde . . . Hospital staff
Persulfate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hairdressers
Isocyanates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spray painters, Insulation
installers; plastic, rubber,
foam manufactory workers.
The same public education material of the AAAAI states:
"The cause may be allergic or nonallergic in nature,
and the disease may last for a lengthy period in some
workers, even if they are no longer exposed to the
agents that caused their symptoms."
"Inhalation of some substances in aerosol form can
directly lead to the accumulation of naturally oc-
curring chemicals in the body, such as histamine or
acetylcholine within the lung, which in turn lead to
asthma."
"For example, insecticides, used in agricultural work,
can cause a buildup of acetylcholine, which causes
airway muscles to contract, thereby constricting air-
ways."
"Allergic occupational asthma can occur in workers
in the plastic, rubber or resin industries following
repeated exposure to small chemical molecules in
the air."
"If occupational asthma is not correctly diagnosed
early, and the worker protected or removed from the
exposure, permanent lung changes may occur and
asthma symptoms may persist even without exposure."
"Up to 15% of asthma cases in the United States may
have job-related factors."
"Isocyanates are chemicals that are widely used in many
industries, including spray painting, insulation installa-
tion, and in manufacturing plastics, rubber and foam.
These chemicals can cause asthma in up to 10% of ex-
posed workers."
The aforementioned illustrates that Chemical Sensitivity, as it applies to
asthma and rhinitis, is acknowledged as valid and authentic by the same
AAAAI that Barrett elected to use, in order to support his assertion that
chemical sensitivity is merely a psychological illness.
Conclusion
Stephen Barrett can mock the diagnostic title, Multiple Chemical Sensi-
tivity, all that he wants to. It will not take away the fact is that chemical
sensitivity has already been recognized in case specific form. Nor will
it take away the fact that the sufferers of those case-specific forms of
chemical sensitivity need to avoid the chemicals which exacerbate their
medical conditions.
_________________
The following quote is
directly from the AMA
Avoidance and AMA (CSA) Report 4 (A-98)
Avoidance is not 'detrimental.' Nor is it nonsense. Avoidance is a
medical necessity. And as it applies to asthma, the AMA has stated:
Regardless of the efficiency of clinician assessment and pa-
tient self-monitoring, if the patient's exposure to irritants
or allergens to which he or she is sensitive is not reduced
or eliminated, symptom control and exacerbation rate may
not improve. Formerly titled 'Environmental Control,' the
key points in this area logically include efforts by clinicians
to pinpoint causative agents and to provide specific advice
on how to avoid or reduce exposures to environmental or
dietary triggers and drugs that may provoke or exacerbate
symptoms." AMA Report 4, Council on Scientific Affairs (A-98)
============================================
May 23, 2013
May 21, 2013
The 80+ Chemicals Detected in Febreze Air Effects ...
eliminator that will get you to breathe happily; as if it were happy pills
in aerosol form, health food in a spray, and an encapsulating cleaning
product that smothers odors, making them disappear. In fact, Febreze
was even heralded as being phthalate-free.
Enter the 501(c) non-profit charity known as the Environmental Working
Group, aka the EWG. Its stated mission is that of using the power of pub-
lic information, in order to protect public health and the environment. Its
team comprises scientists, engineers, data analysts, and lawyers. In fact,
its board comprises a number of reputable names. One of the EWG pro-
jects was that of analyzing the contents of Febreze Air Effects Hawaiian
Aloha. According to the scientists, it was nothing more than a cauldron
of chemicals.
If and only if the EWG findings are correct, at least one Febreze product
is injurious in a number of quantitative ways, especially to those suffering
from any one of a number of reactive respiratory or skin diseases. In ad-
dition, if and only if the findings of a Quebecois scholastic project were
correct, then Febreze in general is surprisingly injurious.
If Febreze were the odor eliminator that Proctor & Gamble claims it to be,
then no one would be smelling the glut of fragrance chemicals which emit
from Febreze products. If those fragrance odors are not encapsulated and
eliminated by Febreze, then no odor is. This means that the molecular com-
ponents of decaying fish still enter the respiratory tracts of living beings, no
matter how much Febreze you apply to your environment.
As is stated below, Consumer Reports Magazine performed its own tests,
and some of the people tested were sickened by what they were smelling.
Some actually noticed the smell of decaying physical matter, in addition
to the glut of Febreze chemicals.
The cast of characters detected by EWG scientists in Febreze Air Effects
Hawaiian Aloha include chemicals listed as: 1} Genotoxins & Mutagenic
chemicals, 2} Bronchoconstrictors & Irritants, 3} Oxidative chemicals that
produce allergenic compounds upon being exposed to air. 4} Neurotoxins,
5} Reproductive Toxins, 6} Indoor air pollutants, 7} the Hepatotoxic Class
(liver cell killers,) 8} Cell-mediated allergens which produce skin reactions.
The results according to the Environmental Working Group:
If and only if the report of the Environmental Working Group analysis is cor-
rect, and if and only if the Febreze ingredient formula remained unchanged
since the EWG report's publication, the following applies:
Eighty-seven chemicals were detected in Air Effects Hawaiian Aloha, along
with water. The 89th ingredient was regarded as Fragrance. But, fragrance
is actually a mixture of molecular compounds. Thus, it's more proper to re-
gard Febreze Air Effects Hawaiian Aloha as an 87-chemical product. Only
three Febreze ingredients were disclosed on the label by name. The other
ingredients were labeled under the titles "quality control ingredients" or
fragrance, meaning that their identities were hidden from the public.
There was one propellant, incidentally.
In addition, keep in mind that, in the United States, the safety of any chemi-
cal does NOT have to been proven, in order for it to used as an ingredient in
any household product. Also in America is the law popularly called, "Trade
Secret Law." Such a law does NOT require companies to reveal their product
line ingredients on their products' labels. Of course, this ever so conveniently
hides from the public the reality of what it ingests and inhales.
The Chromosome Chain Breaker
Concerning Febreze's Mutagenic chemical, 1,3-Dichloro-2-Propanol, it's
classified as a Clastogen. Clastogens break chromosome chains.
Below is an outline of the ingredients Americans are purchasing, every time
they rush to a store, to get Hawaiian Aloha Air Effects sprayed throughout
their houses, taxi cabs, houses, apartments, offices, reception areas, storage
areas, classrooms, dance floors, shops, and automobiles ... and ultimately, in
order for Febreze to reach their respiratory tracts, livers, pancreases, brains,
and other vital organs.
The Provider of Interleukin 6, the Inflammation Inducer
1] 2-ethyl-hexanol. This chemical is a news article unto itself, in that it
has been categorically identified as an indoor air pollutant which was
found to activate a type of white blood cell which, in turn, produces a
major inflammatory mediator, called Interleukin 6. In as much, CD4+
cells are activated by 2-ethyl-hexanols. In sequence, 2-ethyl-hexanol
has been implicated in the development of Building-related Illness, aka
Sick Building Syndrome. This Febreze ingredient is a menace. In fact:
It has been reported that the number of people suffering
from occupational asthma and skin rashes triggered by
various chemicals in indoor air have increased markedly.
Two-ethyl-hexanol (2-EH) is known to be an indoor air
pollutant and its influence on health is of great concern.
See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19038237
Asthma symptoms may be related to increased humidity in con-
crete floor constructions and emission of 2-ethyl-1-hexanol, an
indicator of dampness-related alkaline degradation of plastici-
ser DEHP.
Now, it's important for you to know that DEHP is a phthalate that
comes from Febreze ingredient, 2-ethyl-1-hexanol. The offshoot
chemical is Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. The pertinence to this is
that Febreze was showcased as a phthalate-free product.
See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20146997
The Hangover Chemical and Airway Obstructor
2] Acetaldehyde. This is the hangover chemical in excessive alcohol
consumption. It happens to be recognized as a cancer risk to the
upper digestive tract. Now, as far as concerns its presence in any
artificial fragrance product, it obstructs the airways. See: Airway
obstruction induced by inhaled acetaldehyde in asthma.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12371536
Death at 180 Parts Per Million and Above
3] Benzyl Acetate. Produces respiratory tract irritation. The con-
tinued exposure to ambient levels of this compound at 50 parts
per million will cause kidney damage. Cats have died from this,
at 180 parts per million. See:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=E87DA8C3-BDB5-82F8-F685ED7A7F920F9C
A Suspect in Pancreatic Cancer Induction
According to the University of Berkley, Benzyl Acetate is linked
to pancreatic cancer, in addition to it being a respiratory irritant.
See:
www.ehow.com/list_6130016_chemicals-found-fabric-softeners.html
Automotive Additives and one Plasticizer
4] Hexadecane. This is known as cetane, a diesel fuel additive.
5] Trimethyl Pentanyl Diisobutyrate. A nail polish plasticizer.
6] Diethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether. An anti-freeze additive.
A Literal Triple Threat to Health
7] Dichlorohydrin, also known as 1,3-Dichloro-2-Propanol and
1,3-DCP. Carcinogenic, Hepatotoxic, and Genotoxic. In fact,
Dichlorohydrin was clearly shown through scientifically valid
testing according to generally accepted principles to cause
cancer. EVIDENCE ON THE CARCINOGENICITY OF 1,3-
Dichloro-2-Propanol (1,3-DCP; α,γ-Dichlorohydrin)
See: oehha.ca.gov/prop65/hazard_ident/pdf_zip/13dcp.pdf
As was previously mentioned, Dichlorohydrin has been found
to cause liver damage, commensurate with the level of exposure
to it. For example, a 34 year old man suffered from fulminant
hepatitis after cleaning a tank in which there were traces of
dichlorohydrin. In spite of daily plasma exchanges, he died
10 days after exposure. A 27 year old man with much lighter
exposure showed only slight liver dysfunction.
See: http://het.sagepub.com/content/13/4/267.abstract
As far as goes this Air Effects ingredient being a mutagen, it's
specifically classified as a clastogenic chemical. As a review,
a clastogenic chemical literally causes breaks in chromosome
chains. Genotoxicity of 1,3-dichloro-2-propanol in the SOS
chromotest and in the Ames test. Elucidation of the geno-
toxic mechanism.
See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1913979
Poison Roulette. Pick your additive.
8] Denatured Alcohol, aka methylated spirits. This is ethanol
mixed with a poisonous additive that makes the alcohol unable
to be consumed without extremely ill effects. Originally, it was
10% methanol (CH3OH.) Today, denatured alcohol might con-
tain methyl denatonium benzoate, methyl isobutyl ketone, ethyl
ketone, acetone, denatonium benzoate. Protector & Gamble's
people think nothing of you spraying this in a home of children,
asthmatics, and pets.
The Oxidizing Terpene
9] Linalool. A terpene that easily oxidizes. Oxidized linalool is a
skin sensitizer. When exposed to air, it readily forms allergenic
products. It is recognized by experts as something that greatly
contributes to fragrance allergy which emphasizes the need
of testing with compounds that patients are actually exposed
to and not only with the ingredients originally applied in com-
mercial formulations. Spraying Febreze, therefore, yields more
chemicals than are in the canister, bottle, etc.
See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19125719
Bronchial Hyperresponsiveness in Spray Form
10] Limonene. "Bronchial hyperresponsiveness was related to
indoor concentrations of limonene." It tortures susceptible
persons, otherwise known as people who are atopic. See:
Asthmatic symptoms and volatile organic compounds,
formaldehyde, and carbon dioxide in dwellings.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7627316
Limonene is also a contact allergen of the terpene family. This
means that, upon being exposed to air, limonene produces the
allergenic substance that effects the skin, in addition to it being
an assault upon the respiratory tracts of atopic persons.
We continue with more ingredients detected by the EWG ...
11] Alpha-pinene. It's a confirmed allergen. See: Gas chroma-
tography: an investigative tool in multiple allergies to
essential oils.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12534533
12] Butylated Hydroxytoluene. This food additive happens to be a
well established asthma trigger for a subset of asthmatics. This
is BHT.
13] Benzothiazole. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis
showed this to be one of four most toxic chemicals in artificial turf.
http://www.ehow.com/about_6165648_artificial-turf-asthma.html
14] Cyclamen Aldehyde. This is member of the Formaldehyde
family; Light yellow to colorless in appearance. Refer to:
http://www.archive.org/stream/formaldehydeando003763mbp/formaldehydeando003763mbp_djvu.txt
15] Geraniol. A well established B-cell mediated allergen and the
primary ingredient in Java type citronella oil. This is a contact
allergen, even through airborne contact. See: Cytochrome
P450-mediated activation of the fragrance compound
geraniol forms potent contact allergens.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18824010
16] Methylpyrrolidone. In Europe, Methylpyrrolidone is regarded
as a reproductive toxicant. It is also an irritant, meaning that it
will make Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome patients fight
to get a full breath, for as long as they are exposed to it.
17] Alpha-Ionone. Respiratory sensitizer and skin sensitizer, mean-
ing that it's something to which a person can become allergic, in
repeated exposure thereof. It's also an irritant, meaning that per-
son can have an adverse reaction to it without first developing an
allergy to it.
http://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/99250.htm
18] Butylphenyl Methylpropional. This is Lilial, a known sensitiz-
er (an allergen that has the power to make you become allergic
to it.) It's also known as Lilialdehyde, a member of the formal-
dehyde family. As well as being used as a powerful fragrance,
it's also an intermediate for the agrochemical synthesis. See:
Identification of Lilial as a fragrance sensitizer in a perfume
by bioassay-guided chemical fractionation and structure ac-
tivity relationships.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11140386
19] Fragrance. This is actually a mixture of ingredients, and not an
ingredient unto itself. None the less, it's pertinent to note that the
EWG's Further Toxic Concern for "fragrance" is "Neurotoxicity,
Allergies/immunotoxicity, Miscellaneous."
As is cited elsewhere on this site, fragrance is a medically recog-
nized trigger of flare-ups in Asthma, Rhinitis, Sinusitis, Urticaria,
and Dermatitis, as well as flare-ups in Vocal Cord Dysfunction
Syndrome, Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, and Small
Airways Disease. Furthermore, the twenty most common chemi-
cals found in 31 tested fragrance products are listed at the follow-
ing web page:
http://users.lmi.net/wilworks/ehn20.htm
Febreze: NOT an odor eliminator. Rather, it's an odor adder.
A noticeable piece of false advertising exists in Proctor & Gamble call-
ing Febreze an odor eliminator. Febreze, in its 87 chemicals, emits a
multiplicity of chemical aromas. This means that Febreze floods the air
with odors, rather than eliminates them.
Its glut of aromatic chemicals serves the function of maskers, hiding the
preexisting odors which remain with decomposing and volatile material.
Therefore, kitchen trash will still emit odors, no matter what quantity of
Febreze is sprayed. Mold-ridden indoor areas will continue to emit mi-
cotoxins, and smoke-damaged property won't experience any change in
its physical properties, either. This means that Febreze doesn't have the
power to suspend the law of Conservation of Mass. Febreze is simply
a chemically-laden diversionary tactic that overwhelms the senses and
drowns-out preexisting odors. It's a con game.
Bio-accumulation
The added consideration is something known as the bio-accumulative
effect ... the effect of repeated exposure to the 87 chemicals. Such a
thing, in part, is an element of Pharmacology. The other part is allergy
development. In as much, a chemical ingredient originally not harmful
can become very harmful, via repeated exposure.
Adjuvant Effect
Concerning the pharmacological aspect, there is the matter of Adjuvant
Effect. This is when a couple of chemicals team-up to cause harm.
Pharmacological Effect
There is additionally the matter of one chemical being consumed by the
body causing another chemical's level in the same body to be elevated,
as if the triggering chemical were a cue ball. The classical example of
this type of pharmacological reaction is the organophosphate category
of pesticide. Its presence elevates the level of acetylcholine in the lungs.
Oxidation Effect
There is also the oxidation effect in this falsely advertised product, at
least with the terpenes in Febreze. Very simply, exposing an oxidative
chemical to the air will result in the formation of allergenic substances.
Such is the case with the fragrance ingredients Linalool and Limonene.
That is to say, spraying Febreze causes the formation of chemicals in
addition to what was put into Febreze at the factory.
Exorbitantly gaudy levels of chemical spray products,
when used by those with Deadened Senses.
Enter those members of the elderly who never achieved discipline, in
this hedonistic age. These are the pathological pleasure seekers. Con-
cerning them, realize the following pattern: The elderly are known to
crank up the volume on a radio and blow out everyone else's ears in
the process. Elderly women, unaware of how addicted to chemicals
they have been, are known to crank up the volume on the chemically-
laden fragrance products, thereby suffocating any nearby asthmatic.
Thus, the legacy that the vain leave behind is s-u-f-f-o-c-a-t-i-o-n.
Why would you want to make your home, workplace, auto,
meeting hall, waiting room, or rec room a toxic waste dump?
In light of all the chemicals in Febreze, if you do use this product,
you are doing nothing more than contaminating your home, your
motor vehicle, your taxi cab, your apartment, your office, your
store. In addition, if you happen to have an asthmatic neighbor,
you are suffocating that person out of house and home. Should
your store, taxi cab, office be visited by an asthmatic reactive to
chemicals, be prepared ... eventually ... to hire a member of the
U.S. federal bar association who is versed in the Americans with
Disabilities Act. This includes persons with other types of respir-
atory disease, such as Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome.
Now, autism has been statistically linked to the presence of certain
chemical classes and pesticide types. Therefore, it is advisable to
keep Febreze away from developing children, as well as people
with allergic dermatitis and respiratory disease.
The blatant red flag about Febreze in the advertising about it
The initial red flag of the Febreze commercials exists in the fact that,
if Febreze had the power to absorb and eliminate odors as claimed, it
would instantaneously absorbed and eliminated the odors of its many
synthetic fragrance chemicals. Therefore, there would be no "flowery"
smell detected by blindfolded people, on the various Febreze commer-
cial sets. The televised witnesses (or scripted actors) specifically stat-
ed that odors were graphically present ... like a cologne bottle spilled
on a suit jacket.
The truth is that Febreze does absolutely nothing but mask odors, by
means of providing a glut of fragrance chemicals that cumulatively
serve the function of diversion. Those chemicals drown out the pre-
existing smells of whatever decomposing trash bin was used as a set
for the various Febreze commercials.
Consumer Reports Magazine did its blind test also, and reported that
the responses of the test subjects included those which were less than
laudatory. There were people sickened by Febreze. In fact, I received
emails by persons who were ill in an unexplainable fashion, and then,
as soon as they got rid of the Febreze in their bedrooms, kitchens, etc,
their symptoms completely vanished.
In the 1980s, there was a TV commercial which pointed out the truth
that cigarette smoke nestles into all of the clothes in the closet of any
cigarette smoker, thereby resulting in the smell lingering in every piece
of clothing. Febreze, with its dozens of synthetic chemicals, invades
your life in the same way, if and only if you aren't the typical deadened
American living the dull sedentary lifestyle and hardly notices any odor
which is not present in a repulsively gaudy degree.
_____________________________________________________
© Patrick Anthony Pontillo
_____________________________________________________
Febreze Air Effects Additionally Contains the Following,
according to the Environmental Working Group, as of 2011:
| BENZYL ACETATE | 2-tert-BUTYLCYCLOHEXANOL |
| ETHYL OCTANOATE | DIETHYLHEXYL FUMARATE |
| HEXYL SALICYLATE | CYCLAMEN ALDEHYDE | NEROL |
| PRENYL ACETATE | 2,6-DIMETHYL-7-OCTEN-2-OL |
| TRIMETHYL PENTANYL DIISOBUTYRATE | PRENOL |
| 1-TRIMETHYL-2-CYCLOHEXENYL-1-PENTEN-3-ONE |
| 2,6-DIMETHYL-7-OCTEN-2-OL | HEXYL CINNAMAL |
| 3-METHYL BUTYL ACETATE | DIPROPYLENE GLYCOL |
| 4-tert-BUTYLCYCLOHEXYL ACETATE | ACETATE CIS |
| ETHYL BUTYRATE | DIMETHYLBENZYL CARBINYL
BUTYRATE | CYCLOHEXYL PROPIONATE | HEDIONE |
| P-TERT-BUTYL CYCLOHEXYL-HEXYL BUTYRATE |
| 2-METHOXY-p-CRESOL | HEXYL ISOBUTYRATE, |
Note: There were more chemicals found in Febreze
Air Effects than what has been posted above.
http://www.ewg.org/schoolcleaningsupplies/cleaningsuppliesoverview?id=219
Updates of Febreze include the following:
http://www.chemicalsensitization.com/2012/10/update-on-febreze.html
http://www.chemicalsensitization.com/2012/05/febreze-update.html
_____________________________________________________
Test Results: Febreze killed all of the test-subject plants.
Febreze turned out to be an equal opportunity killer for the plant world.
During a science fair project in an Eastern Canadian school, Febreze
killed the test-subject plants, in two distinct tests. It took three weeks
for the plants to die in the first recreated Febreze atmosphere, and it
only took a matter of hours for Febreze to kill all of the test-subject
plants in the second test. In the second test, Febreze was used in a
high dosage. In that environment, not even a day passed, before the
test-subject plants were dead.
The basic summary of the test is that Febreze burnt the plant cells,
thereby preventing the plants from making photosynthesis. In as
much, if the Febreze product line is as harmless and as detoxifying
as Proctor & Gamble's advertisers make it out to be, then the test-
subject plants wouldn't have been killed during both phrases of the
test. Rather, Febreze would have made the plants more vibrant.
You now have a general idea of what Febreze can do to you, your
family members, your students, your regular customers/clients, your
employees, your apartment neighbors, and your pets, as well as the
sufferers of low-weight molecular asthma and Reactive Airways Dys-
function Syndrome. Add Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction
and other environmental illnesses.
http://www.chemicalsensitization.com/2011/07/80-chemical-ingredients-in-febreze.html
______________________________________________________
Consumer Reports Magazine chimed in on Febreze in 2011
Before all else, you need to understand that the pertinence of this outline
is that Febreze has been a nightmare to certain patients who suffer from
specific types of respiratory disease. That is to say, Febreze has been
assault & battery to these persons.
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
Update: The Consumer's Union of the U.S. Incorporated has report-
ed that their tests have found Proctor & Gamble to be apparently lying
to the public about its Febreze product line. All that was surmised was
Febreze's inability to eliminate odors, as this site has long since stated.
In fact, Consumer Reports Magazine stated that the Febreze product line
is NOT the magical eliminator of odors that it has been advertised to be.
Thus, those two affiliated entities concur with the article posted below.
The article was originally posted in the Summer of 2011.
Concerning the report, test subjects were placed in a setting which con-
tained long-standing sardines and the litter box scoopings of two large
cats, along with an odor of the Febreze product line. The non-profit or-
ganization, as well as Consumer Reports, reported that the test subjects
described the affected area in the following ways:
“I wanted to throw up.” ... “Flowers gone bad, dirty diapers, old
garbage.” ... “Like a men’s room in a truck stop.” ... “It’s not
exactly pleasant, and I don’t want to inhale.” ... “air freshener,
cat urine, and a hamster cage.”
The bottom line is that Febreze didn't eliminate or even successfully mask
the other odors which were deliberately placed in the same setting. More-
over, to people with reactive respiratory diseases, the Febreze odors per-
petually linger in absorbent material such as clothing and upholstery.
For Further Reading:
http://shopping.yahoo.com/news/does-febreze-air-effects-give-odors-the-boot--20121011.html
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/11/does-febreze-air-effects-give-odors-the-boot/index.htm
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
is that Febreze has been a nightmare to certain patients who suffer from
specific types of respiratory disease. That is to say, Febreze has been
assault & battery to these persons.
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
Update: The Consumer's Union of the U.S. Incorporated has report-
ed that their tests have found Proctor & Gamble to be apparently lying
to the public about its Febreze product line. All that was surmised was
Febreze's inability to eliminate odors, as this site has long since stated.
In fact, Consumer Reports Magazine stated that the Febreze product line
is NOT the magical eliminator of odors that it has been advertised to be.
Thus, those two affiliated entities concur with the article posted below.
The article was originally posted in the Summer of 2011.
Concerning the report, test subjects were placed in a setting which con-
tained long-standing sardines and the litter box scoopings of two large
cats, along with an odor of the Febreze product line. The non-profit or-
ganization, as well as Consumer Reports, reported that the test subjects
described the affected area in the following ways:
“I wanted to throw up.” ... “Flowers gone bad, dirty diapers, old
garbage.” ... “Like a men’s room in a truck stop.” ... “It’s not
exactly pleasant, and I don’t want to inhale.” ... “air freshener,
cat urine, and a hamster cage.”
The bottom line is that Febreze didn't eliminate or even successfully mask
the other odors which were deliberately placed in the same setting. More-
over, to people with reactive respiratory diseases, the Febreze odors per-
petually linger in absorbent material such as clothing and upholstery.
For Further Reading:
http://shopping.yahoo.com/news/does-febreze-air-effects-give-odors-the-boot--20121011.html
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/11/does-febreze-air-effects-give-odors-the-boot/index.htm
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
May 20, 2013
The Diversionary Tactic
The fight to breathe, the metallic taste in the mouth, and the stinging
tongue. Numbness in the upper-respiratory tract, the dry heaving
episode, and the headache that leaves cheekbones and temples feel-
ing bruised. It involves a world that has also included hepatic injury,
(liver cell death/necrosis), dermatitis, urticaria, hematotoxicity (the
killing or damaging or red blood cells), and anaphylaxis.
The Razor Blades of Defamation
Mainstream medical science has already established that chemicals,
at nontoxic levels, aren't universally harmless. Numerous chemicals
have been identified as sensitizers, while other ones were already cat-
egorized as irritants. Chemical Sensitivity has already been defined in
case-specific and body-system-specific form. Irritant-induced Asthma
and its subset condition, Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, is
one form, while Airborne Irritant Contact Dermatitis is another form.
Chemical sensitivity is already a well-established component in main-
stream medical science, and so too is the irritant-induced reaction.
However ...
Throughout the past fifteen years, literature has been posted online that
can easily deceive a novice into assuming that no chemical of any kind,
whenever encountered at a nontoxic level, could ever trigger an adverse
reaction in anyone. The literature accentuated the Multiple Chemical
Sensitivity debate, while simultaneously declining to acknowledge the
existence of the several case-specific forms of chemical sensitivity, such
as Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, Irritant-induced Asthma,
and Occupational Asthma due to Low Weight Molecular Agents which
had already been identified and defined.
Each piece of propaganda asserted that Multiple Chemical sensitivity is
merely a matter of mental illness. As a result, persons not familiarized
with Occupational and Environmental Medicine were clueless that suf-
ficient medical findings in a number of chemically sensitive patients were
identified, along with the numerous chemicals that triggered the adverse
reactions.
The Corporate Claim of Universal Harmlessness
Contradicted by the Findings of Medical Science
It had even gotten to the point where insecticide providers boldly pro-
claimed that their product lines were entirely harmless, provided that
they were used according to regulatory guidelines. This proclamation
was accompanied by the claim that all persons suffering from Multiple
Chemical Sensitivity were merely mentally ill. However, mainstream
medical science had already established that nontoxic exposure to the
carbamate/organophosphate class of pesticide can cause a build-up of
acetylcholine in one's lungs and cause asthma to develop.
Perfumes Have Been Identified as Triggers of Asthma
The propaganda against the chemically sensitive was relentless. In
fact, the non-chemically sensitive got caught in the crossfire in 1996,
when the perfume intolerant were called "fragrance phobic fruitcakes."
Now, perfumes contain potent non-chemical ingredients as much as
they contain sensitizing chemicals. Therefore, Fragrance Intolerance
includes hyperreactivity to non-chemical ingredients as much as it in-
volves hypersensitivity to chemical-bearing agents. This means that,
in 1996, even persons who were not chemically sensitive were placed
under attack.
Never mentioned in the 1996 character assassination was the 1995
publication detailing a research undertaking which confirmed that
perfume strips found in magazines are asthma triggers. [Ann Aller-
gy Asthma Immunol., 1995 Nov;75 (5):429-33 ].
In the years to follow, perfumes would come to be acknowledged as
asthma triggers by the American Medical Association, the American
Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology, the American Lung As-
sociation, and the National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Then, in 2001, a published medical report placed perfume among the
triggers of anaphylaxis. Yet, no apologies were ever made to the per-
fume intolerant by the propagandist who defamed them.
Sensitization Is Not Limited To Chemical Exposures
The phenomenon of sensitization is not new. Neither is it unproven.
Nor is it limited to matters involving Chemical Sensitivity. The recog-
nition of Sensitization spans throughout the realms of:
1] metal dust exposure; Berylliosis (beryllium), etc.
2] mold exposure; Mushroom Worker's Lung, etc.
3] enzyme exposure; Detergent Worker's Lung, etc.
4] organic dust exposure; Byssinosis (cotton dust), etc.
5] chemicals & irritant gases; Irritant-induced Asthma, etc.
The Medical Doctrine of Concomitant Sensitivity
Concomitant Sensitivity is also known as Cross-sensitization, and it
means that, if you're hypersensitive to one chemical compound, then
you are hypersensitive to all other chemical compounds with similar
characteristics. An example of Concomitant Sensitivity exists within
the family of the acetylated salicylates. To be adversely reactive to
one of them is to be adversely reactive to all of them.
The Undeniable Proof of Mainstream Medicine's Recognition
of Chemical Allergies ... The RAST Test Order Form
You can be tested for IgE-mediated chemical allergies via the RAST
TEST. The specific chemicals for which a person can be tested are lo-
cated in the Occupational Panel, when filling out the allergy test order
forms. Case closed. Mainstream medicine has recognized chemical
allergies for decades. It's simply that deceptive propaganda, including
that of the unconscionable John Stossel, made society unaware of this.
High Production Volume Chemicals
and their Ubiquitous Presence in Modern Life
There have been medical professionals who declined to support the re-
cognition of MCS, but who simultaneously acknowledged that a per-
son can be severely hypersensitive to "one or a few" chemicals. Such
an acknowledgment needs to be accompanied by a qualifying state-
ment. That qualifying statement goes as follows:
Persons who are hypersensitive to a few High
Production Volume Chemicals are actually
hypersensitive to the dozens of commonly
encountered products that contain those
HPV chemicals. Concomitant Sensitivity,
combined with hypersensitivity to merely
a few HPV chemicals, easily explains how
a person can seem to be hypersensitive to
almost everything.
The Demarcating Factor in MCS
If you're adversely reactive to dozens of chemical-bearing agents, but
have symptoms that affect only one reoccurring symptom, then you
are outside of the MCS controversy. This is because the demarcation
factor in MCS is not hypersensitivity to multiple chemicals. Rather,
the demarcating factor is reactivity that adversely affects multiple
body systems.
As an example, if bronchial hyper-responsiveness is your only chemi-
cal sensitivity reaction, then only one body system is involved, mean-
ing that there is no presence of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity to assess
in you. The anti-MCS propagandists will have to find another way in
which to call you mentally ill. That is to say, your case involves local-
ized chemical sensitivity. It involves either Reactive Airways Dysfunc-
tion Syndrome or Irritant-induced Asthma; two similar conditions not
in controversy.
Nor does MCS have anything to do with multiple symptoms, per se.
You can have a repertoire of reoccurring symptoms and be outside
of the MCS controversy, if those multiple symptoms are limited to
the reactions of only one body system. In such a case, the anti-MCS
people will have to find another way by which call you mentally ill,
while simultaneously claiming chemicals to be virtuous and blame-
less at nontoxic levels.
The respiratory system is a body system that can host multiple symp-
toms. Firstly, asthma can coexist with upper-respiratory ills, and the
upper-respiratory tract can be the host of a number of symptoms. In
fact, within the world of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
it's a regular phenomenon to find asthma coexisting with Rhintis or
Rhino-sinusitis in the same one worker (or subset of workers.)
In summary, it's neither the number of symptoms nor the number of
chemicals that define Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. It is the number
of body systems that engage in the hypersensitivity reactions that de-
fines it. In the world of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
chemical sensitivity reactions have been documented as having had
adversely affected two body systems in the same one worker or sub-
set of workers. Such coexistence hints of the authentic existence of
MCS.
Formaldehyde: A Specific Example
Formaldehyde is a suitable example to employ, in showing that hyper-
sensitivity to merely one HPV chemical constitutes hypersensitivity to
dozens of chemical-bearing agents. Formaldehyde is a known trigger
of asthma, rhinitis, dermatitis, and anaphylaxis. It is released from a
number common products. This includes those liquid soap and sham-
poo products that contain quarternium-15, diazolidinyl urea, DMDM
hydantoin, and imidazolidinyl urea. In fact, go through the shampoo
and liquid soap section of any store and see if you can find one pro-
duct free of the ingredients listed above.
A detailed list of formaldehyde-releasing agents includes:
[] urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, [] oriented strand board,
[] medium density fiberboard, [] melamine resin, [] plywood,
[] surface coatings, [] joint cement, [] paints, [] wall coverings,
[] durable press drapery, [] permanent press clothing, [] floor
wax, [] kerosene heater emissions,[] burning wood, [] cosmetics,
[] nail hardeners, [] sun screen lotion, [] tanning lotions, [] liquid
soaps, [] moisturizing lotions, [] carpet cleansers, [] liquid scouring
cleansers, [] shampoos, [] medical venues, etc.
Formaldehyde shares common characteristics with benzaldehyde and
the sterilization agent, glutaraldehyde. Therefore, the products which
bear glutaraldehyde and benzaldehyde are to be included in the list of
formaldehyde-releasing agents. This includes cinnamon oil, and this
means that the phenomenon of Concomitant Sensitivity, in combina-
tion with hypersensitivity to a few High Production Volume Chemicals,
can account for the reason why some individuals seem to be hypersen-
sitive to almost everything.
Persistent Vulnerabilities,
aka Pre-existing Conditions
Then there is the matter of chronically existent vulnerabilities, also
known as atopy. One example is the upper-respiratory inflammation
known as boney turbinate hypertrophy. It is a condition not known to
be able to resolve itself,as surgery has been the only treatment offered
for it, by mainstream medicine.
Cases of chronically existent vulnerabilities can make a person hyper-
sensitive to both chemical and non-chemical odors. Therefore, such a
person can be adversely reactive to the smell of cleaning agents and
new vinyl products, as well as cooking odors, and musty cardboard.
Such a person might appear to be allergic to almost everything.
Immunological in Some Cases.
Nonimmunological in Other ones.
An individual can have either an immunological allergic reaction or
a non-immunological irritant reaction to chemical-bearing agents.
It depends on the person, the person's exposure history, the person's
pre-existing vulnerabilities, the chemicals themselves, and the way in
which the chemicals are encountered (by inhaling, ingestion, touch,
or ocular absorption.)
The bottom line is that chemical sensitivity has been proven to exist,
and to state otherwise is to defame the Occupational & Environment-
al Health programs who diagnose such conditions. To do so is to de-
fame the private practitioners who treat chemical sensitivty, as well
as the patients who develop this type of condition. Be it Reactive Air-
ways Dysfunction Syndrome, Airborne Irritant Contact Dermatitis,
Limonene Sensitivity, Aspirin Sensitivity, Methyltetrahydrophthalic
Anhydride Allergy, or Oil of Turpentine Allergy, it is all a matter of
chemical sensitivity.
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is not the only type of chemical sensitiv-
ity proposed to exist. It was simply one of the two forms used in a pro-
longed and unconscionable diversionary tactic. Other variations of the
disease have already been validated. Therefore, any discussion about
MCS that doesn't admit to the existence of chemical sensitivity (in its
case-specific and body-system-specific forms) invalidates itself.
___________________________________________________
tongue. Numbness in the upper-respiratory tract, the dry heaving
episode, and the headache that leaves cheekbones and temples feel-
ing bruised. It involves a world that has also included hepatic injury,
(liver cell death/necrosis), dermatitis, urticaria, hematotoxicity (the
killing or damaging or red blood cells), and anaphylaxis.
The Razor Blades of Defamation
Mainstream medical science has already established that chemicals,
at nontoxic levels, aren't universally harmless. Numerous chemicals
have been identified as sensitizers, while other ones were already cat-
egorized as irritants. Chemical Sensitivity has already been defined in
case-specific and body-system-specific form. Irritant-induced Asthma
and its subset condition, Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, is
one form, while Airborne Irritant Contact Dermatitis is another form.
Chemical sensitivity is already a well-established component in main-
stream medical science, and so too is the irritant-induced reaction.
However ...
Throughout the past fifteen years, literature has been posted online that
can easily deceive a novice into assuming that no chemical of any kind,
whenever encountered at a nontoxic level, could ever trigger an adverse
reaction in anyone. The literature accentuated the Multiple Chemical
Sensitivity debate, while simultaneously declining to acknowledge the
existence of the several case-specific forms of chemical sensitivity, such
as Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, Irritant-induced Asthma,
and Occupational Asthma due to Low Weight Molecular Agents which
had already been identified and defined.
Each piece of propaganda asserted that Multiple Chemical sensitivity is
merely a matter of mental illness. As a result, persons not familiarized
with Occupational and Environmental Medicine were clueless that suf-
ficient medical findings in a number of chemically sensitive patients were
identified, along with the numerous chemicals that triggered the adverse
reactions.
The Corporate Claim of Universal Harmlessness
Contradicted by the Findings of Medical Science
It had even gotten to the point where insecticide providers boldly pro-
claimed that their product lines were entirely harmless, provided that
they were used according to regulatory guidelines. This proclamation
was accompanied by the claim that all persons suffering from Multiple
Chemical Sensitivity were merely mentally ill. However, mainstream
medical science had already established that nontoxic exposure to the
carbamate/organophosphate class of pesticide can cause a build-up of
acetylcholine in one's lungs and cause asthma to develop.
Perfumes Have Been Identified as Triggers of Asthma
The propaganda against the chemically sensitive was relentless. In
fact, the non-chemically sensitive got caught in the crossfire in 1996,
when the perfume intolerant were called "fragrance phobic fruitcakes."
Now, perfumes contain potent non-chemical ingredients as much as
they contain sensitizing chemicals. Therefore, Fragrance Intolerance
includes hyperreactivity to non-chemical ingredients as much as it in-
volves hypersensitivity to chemical-bearing agents. This means that,
in 1996, even persons who were not chemically sensitive were placed
under attack.
Never mentioned in the 1996 character assassination was the 1995
publication detailing a research undertaking which confirmed that
perfume strips found in magazines are asthma triggers. [Ann Aller-
gy Asthma Immunol., 1995 Nov;75 (5):429-33 ].
In the years to follow, perfumes would come to be acknowledged as
asthma triggers by the American Medical Association, the American
Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology, the American Lung As-
sociation, and the National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Then, in 2001, a published medical report placed perfume among the
triggers of anaphylaxis. Yet, no apologies were ever made to the per-
fume intolerant by the propagandist who defamed them.
Sensitization Is Not Limited To Chemical Exposures
The phenomenon of sensitization is not new. Neither is it unproven.
Nor is it limited to matters involving Chemical Sensitivity. The recog-
nition of Sensitization spans throughout the realms of:
1] metal dust exposure; Berylliosis (beryllium), etc.
2] mold exposure; Mushroom Worker's Lung, etc.
3] enzyme exposure; Detergent Worker's Lung, etc.
4] organic dust exposure; Byssinosis (cotton dust), etc.
5] chemicals & irritant gases; Irritant-induced Asthma, etc.
The Medical Doctrine of Concomitant Sensitivity
Concomitant Sensitivity is also known as Cross-sensitization, and it
means that, if you're hypersensitive to one chemical compound, then
you are hypersensitive to all other chemical compounds with similar
characteristics. An example of Concomitant Sensitivity exists within
the family of the acetylated salicylates. To be adversely reactive to
one of them is to be adversely reactive to all of them.
The Undeniable Proof of Mainstream Medicine's Recognition
of Chemical Allergies ... The RAST Test Order Form
You can be tested for IgE-mediated chemical allergies via the RAST
TEST. The specific chemicals for which a person can be tested are lo-
cated in the Occupational Panel, when filling out the allergy test order
forms. Case closed. Mainstream medicine has recognized chemical
allergies for decades. It's simply that deceptive propaganda, including
that of the unconscionable John Stossel, made society unaware of this.
High Production Volume Chemicals
and their Ubiquitous Presence in Modern Life
There have been medical professionals who declined to support the re-
cognition of MCS, but who simultaneously acknowledged that a per-
son can be severely hypersensitive to "one or a few" chemicals. Such
an acknowledgment needs to be accompanied by a qualifying state-
ment. That qualifying statement goes as follows:
Persons who are hypersensitive to a few High
Production Volume Chemicals are actually
hypersensitive to the dozens of commonly
encountered products that contain those
HPV chemicals. Concomitant Sensitivity,
combined with hypersensitivity to merely
a few HPV chemicals, easily explains how
a person can seem to be hypersensitive to
almost everything.
The Demarcating Factor in MCS
If you're adversely reactive to dozens of chemical-bearing agents, but
have symptoms that affect only one reoccurring symptom, then you
are outside of the MCS controversy. This is because the demarcation
factor in MCS is not hypersensitivity to multiple chemicals. Rather,
the demarcating factor is reactivity that adversely affects multiple
body systems.
As an example, if bronchial hyper-responsiveness is your only chemi-
cal sensitivity reaction, then only one body system is involved, mean-
ing that there is no presence of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity to assess
in you. The anti-MCS propagandists will have to find another way in
which to call you mentally ill. That is to say, your case involves local-
ized chemical sensitivity. It involves either Reactive Airways Dysfunc-
tion Syndrome or Irritant-induced Asthma; two similar conditions not
in controversy.
Nor does MCS have anything to do with multiple symptoms, per se.
You can have a repertoire of reoccurring symptoms and be outside
of the MCS controversy, if those multiple symptoms are limited to
the reactions of only one body system. In such a case, the anti-MCS
people will have to find another way by which call you mentally ill,
while simultaneously claiming chemicals to be virtuous and blame-
less at nontoxic levels.
The respiratory system is a body system that can host multiple symp-
toms. Firstly, asthma can coexist with upper-respiratory ills, and the
upper-respiratory tract can be the host of a number of symptoms. In
fact, within the world of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
it's a regular phenomenon to find asthma coexisting with Rhintis or
Rhino-sinusitis in the same one worker (or subset of workers.)
In summary, it's neither the number of symptoms nor the number of
chemicals that define Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. It is the number
of body systems that engage in the hypersensitivity reactions that de-
fines it. In the world of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
chemical sensitivity reactions have been documented as having had
adversely affected two body systems in the same one worker or sub-
set of workers. Such coexistence hints of the authentic existence of
MCS.
Formaldehyde: A Specific Example
Formaldehyde is a suitable example to employ, in showing that hyper-
sensitivity to merely one HPV chemical constitutes hypersensitivity to
dozens of chemical-bearing agents. Formaldehyde is a known trigger
of asthma, rhinitis, dermatitis, and anaphylaxis. It is released from a
number common products. This includes those liquid soap and sham-
poo products that contain quarternium-15, diazolidinyl urea, DMDM
hydantoin, and imidazolidinyl urea. In fact, go through the shampoo
and liquid soap section of any store and see if you can find one pro-
duct free of the ingredients listed above.
A detailed list of formaldehyde-releasing agents includes:
[] urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, [] oriented strand board,
[] medium density fiberboard, [] melamine resin, [] plywood,
[] surface coatings, [] joint cement, [] paints, [] wall coverings,
[] durable press drapery, [] permanent press clothing, [] floor
wax, [] kerosene heater emissions,[] burning wood, [] cosmetics,
[] nail hardeners, [] sun screen lotion, [] tanning lotions, [] liquid
soaps, [] moisturizing lotions, [] carpet cleansers, [] liquid scouring
cleansers, [] shampoos, [] medical venues, etc.
Formaldehyde shares common characteristics with benzaldehyde and
the sterilization agent, glutaraldehyde. Therefore, the products which
bear glutaraldehyde and benzaldehyde are to be included in the list of
formaldehyde-releasing agents. This includes cinnamon oil, and this
means that the phenomenon of Concomitant Sensitivity, in combina-
tion with hypersensitivity to a few High Production Volume Chemicals,
can account for the reason why some individuals seem to be hypersen-
sitive to almost everything.
Persistent Vulnerabilities,
aka Pre-existing Conditions
Then there is the matter of chronically existent vulnerabilities, also
known as atopy. One example is the upper-respiratory inflammation
known as boney turbinate hypertrophy. It is a condition not known to
be able to resolve itself,as surgery has been the only treatment offered
for it, by mainstream medicine.
Cases of chronically existent vulnerabilities can make a person hyper-
sensitive to both chemical and non-chemical odors. Therefore, such a
person can be adversely reactive to the smell of cleaning agents and
new vinyl products, as well as cooking odors, and musty cardboard.
Such a person might appear to be allergic to almost everything.
Immunological in Some Cases.
Nonimmunological in Other ones.
An individual can have either an immunological allergic reaction or
a non-immunological irritant reaction to chemical-bearing agents.
It depends on the person, the person's exposure history, the person's
pre-existing vulnerabilities, the chemicals themselves, and the way in
which the chemicals are encountered (by inhaling, ingestion, touch,
or ocular absorption.)
The bottom line is that chemical sensitivity has been proven to exist,
and to state otherwise is to defame the Occupational & Environment-
al Health programs who diagnose such conditions. To do so is to de-
fame the private practitioners who treat chemical sensitivty, as well
as the patients who develop this type of condition. Be it Reactive Air-
ways Dysfunction Syndrome, Airborne Irritant Contact Dermatitis,
Limonene Sensitivity, Aspirin Sensitivity, Methyltetrahydrophthalic
Anhydride Allergy, or Oil of Turpentine Allergy, it is all a matter of
chemical sensitivity.
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is not the only type of chemical sensitiv-
ity proposed to exist. It was simply one of the two forms used in a pro-
longed and unconscionable diversionary tactic. Other variations of the
disease have already been validated. Therefore, any discussion about
MCS that doesn't admit to the existence of chemical sensitivity (in its
case-specific and body-system-specific forms) invalidates itself.
___________________________________________________
May 16, 2013
Systemic and Co-existing Forms of Chemical Sensitivity, as well as some of the chemicals which triggered them
Anaphylaxis: It impairs multiple body systems in one systemic fashion,
and it has been triggered by a number of chemicals at ambient (nontoxic)
levels. The chemicals which have thus far been documented as having
triggered anaphylaxis at nontoxic levels include:
[01] the hair bleaching agent, Ammonium Persulfate.
[02] the antimicrobial agent, Chlorhexidine (0.05%).
[03] the medical disinfectant, Ortho-phthalaldehyde.
[04] the fungicide, Chlorothalonil (0.01% aqueous).
[05] the analgesic ingredient, Polyvinylpyrrolidone.
[06] the diagnostic agent, Isosulphan Blue Dye.
[07] the dialysis ingredient, Ethylene Oxide.
[08] the additive, Sodium Benzoate.
[09] the analgesic, Acetaminophen.
[10] the xanthine dye, Flourescein.
[11] the food coloring, Tartrazine.
[12] common aspirin.
[13] formaldehyde.
[14] nitrites.
[15] sulfites ... etc.
The existence of Systemic Chemical Sensitivity has already been docu-
mented under the name, anaphylaxis and even urticaria. It is not a pro-
posed hypothesis yet to be proven.
An Assertion Negated by Evidence Gathered
in the Field of Occupational Medicine
An objection to the recognition of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity exist-
ed in the assertion that a chemical, whenever encountered at a nontoxic
level, cannot impair more than one body system in the same one person.
However, chemicals have individually done this during anaphylaxis.
In the world of occupational medicine there have been DOCUMENTED
instances where the same one chemical, at an ambient level, has impaired
two body systems in the same one worker (or subset of workers.) This
phenomenon can be regarded as dual chemical sensitivity. It has thus far
involved the integumentary system (the skin) in combination with the re-
spiratory system in the following forms:
[1] airborne irritant urticaria (hives) accompanied by rhinitis.
[2] asthma and rhino-conjunctivitis accompanied by dermatitis.
[3] asthma accompanied by dermatitis.
[4] asthma accompanied by urticaria.
Dual Chemical Sensitivity has already been documented. It appears
in documentation under the title "co-morbid conditions," as well as
"coexisting conditions." It is a documented phenomenon and not a
hypothesis yet to be proven. The chemicals which have thus far been
documented as having induced it, in the world of Occupational Medi-
cine, include:
[1] dental acrylates;
[2] dusts of persulfate salts;
[3] epoxy resin diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A;
[4] leather tanning ingredient potassium dichromate;
[5] spray paint additive, polyfunctional aziridine cross-
linker CX-100.
The coexistence of different forms of localized chemical sensitivity en-
tirely negates the assumption that a chemical sensitivity reaction can
impair no more than one body system in a person at a time. Clicking
on each of the following titles will connect you to the documentary evi-
dence, concerning dual chemical sensitivity:
Occupational allergic airborne contact dermatitis and delayed bronchial asthma from epoxy resin revealed by bronchial provocation test.
Occupational Asthma and Contact Dermatitis in a Spray Painter after Introduction of an Aziridine Cross-Linker.
Occupational asthma and dermatitis after exposure to dusts of persulfate salts in two industrial workers (author's transl).
Dentist's occupational asthma, rhino-conjunctivitis, and allergic contact dermatitis from methacrylates.
Pronounced Short-term Chemical Exposure
Causing Long-term Illness in Dual Body Systems
Then there are cases where pronounced chemical exposure (such as
in the case of chemical spills) has resulted in adverse affects to dual
body systems. It has furthermore resulted in chronic hypersensitivity
to a number of chemicals other than that which was encountered dur-
ing the chemical overexposure.
One case study involves a tank truck hauler who developed symptoms
during and after an eight and a half hour stay around an alleged tank of
paraffin, due to the fact that he experienced a tire blowout while driving,
and had to wait for a road crew to get him back on the road.
Within one hour of the blowout, the driver underwent racking cough,
a severe headache, and an irritated throat. Within forty hours, his feet,
hands, and abdomen started to swell. The swelling continued to the
point triggering shortness of breath and chest pains. The medical ex-
amination of the driver resulted in the following objective findings:
[1] an elevated CD 26 cell count;
[2] a protuberant/distended abdomen;
[3] a decreased T-suppressor cell count;
[4] the presence of the antinuclear antibody;
[5] and the presence of the anti-thyroid antibody.
[6] the presence of the anti-smooth-muscle anti-body;
[7] liver function test results consistent with hepatotoxic
injury.
When the driver was examined a year after the blowout, he stated that
exposure to chemical agents resulted in his suffering gastrointestinal dis-
tress, fatigue, weakness, arthralgia, and irritability. This is a description
of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, and this is pertinent to note in light of
the fact that the detractors of MCS have repeatedly claimed that per-
sons manifesting signs of MCS have no objective medical findings to
support their reported symptoms. This driver had seven objective
medical findings at the outset of his illness.
In meeting rooms where position statements are drafted, the name
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity was changed to that of Idiopathic En-
vironmental Intolerance. This substitute title is an entirely erroneous
title in the case of the tank truck hauler, being that "idiopathic" means
"of unknown origin," and the hauler's ills originated at a known time
and a known place.
That case study and seven other ones are described in medical article
titled, Reactive Intestinal Dysfunction Syndrome Caused by
Chemical Exposures - RIDS.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a920920118~frm=titlelink
An Assertion in anti-MCS Literature Negated by
Evidence Gathered in the Field of Occupational Medicine
Needless to say, anti-MCS literature asserts that persons suffering from
MCS are merely mentally ill, despite the fact that there is no consensus
as to what particular type of mental illness this might be. Nonetheless,
a few propagandists assert that persons suffering from MCS are mere-
ly phobic of chemical exposure, and that the fear of chemicals causes
them to imagine illness. However, a number of persons suffering from
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity are those who worked in chemically lad-
en environments for extended periods of time. If such persons were
phobic of chemical exposure, they would have never taken the chemi-
cally laden jobs they took. They would have never even applied for
those jobs. The propagandists' assertion completely falls apart.
===============================================
and it has been triggered by a number of chemicals at ambient (nontoxic)
levels. The chemicals which have thus far been documented as having
triggered anaphylaxis at nontoxic levels include:
[01] the hair bleaching agent, Ammonium Persulfate.
[02] the antimicrobial agent, Chlorhexidine (0.05%).
[03] the medical disinfectant, Ortho-phthalaldehyde.
[04] the fungicide, Chlorothalonil (0.01% aqueous).
[05] the analgesic ingredient, Polyvinylpyrrolidone.
[06] the diagnostic agent, Isosulphan Blue Dye.
[07] the dialysis ingredient, Ethylene Oxide.
[08] the additive, Sodium Benzoate.
[09] the analgesic, Acetaminophen.
[10] the xanthine dye, Flourescein.
[11] the food coloring, Tartrazine.
[12] common aspirin.
[13] formaldehyde.
[14] nitrites.
[15] sulfites ... etc.
The existence of Systemic Chemical Sensitivity has already been docu-
mented under the name, anaphylaxis and even urticaria. It is not a pro-
posed hypothesis yet to be proven.
An Assertion Negated by Evidence Gathered
in the Field of Occupational Medicine
An objection to the recognition of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity exist-
ed in the assertion that a chemical, whenever encountered at a nontoxic
level, cannot impair more than one body system in the same one person.
However, chemicals have individually done this during anaphylaxis.
In the world of occupational medicine there have been DOCUMENTED
instances where the same one chemical, at an ambient level, has impaired
two body systems in the same one worker (or subset of workers.) This
phenomenon can be regarded as dual chemical sensitivity. It has thus far
involved the integumentary system (the skin) in combination with the re-
spiratory system in the following forms:
[1] airborne irritant urticaria (hives) accompanied by rhinitis.
[2] asthma and rhino-conjunctivitis accompanied by dermatitis.
[3] asthma accompanied by dermatitis.
[4] asthma accompanied by urticaria.
Dual Chemical Sensitivity has already been documented. It appears
in documentation under the title "co-morbid conditions," as well as
"coexisting conditions." It is a documented phenomenon and not a
hypothesis yet to be proven. The chemicals which have thus far been
documented as having induced it, in the world of Occupational Medi-
cine, include:
[1] dental acrylates;
[2] dusts of persulfate salts;
[3] epoxy resin diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A;
[4] leather tanning ingredient potassium dichromate;
[5] spray paint additive, polyfunctional aziridine cross-
linker CX-100.
The coexistence of different forms of localized chemical sensitivity en-
tirely negates the assumption that a chemical sensitivity reaction can
impair no more than one body system in a person at a time. Clicking
on each of the following titles will connect you to the documentary evi-
dence, concerning dual chemical sensitivity:
Occupational allergic airborne contact dermatitis and delayed bronchial asthma from epoxy resin revealed by bronchial provocation test.
Occupational Asthma and Contact Dermatitis in a Spray Painter after Introduction of an Aziridine Cross-Linker.
Occupational asthma and dermatitis after exposure to dusts of persulfate salts in two industrial workers (author's transl).
Dentist's occupational asthma, rhino-conjunctivitis, and allergic contact dermatitis from methacrylates.
Pronounced Short-term Chemical Exposure
Causing Long-term Illness in Dual Body Systems
Then there are cases where pronounced chemical exposure (such as
in the case of chemical spills) has resulted in adverse affects to dual
body systems. It has furthermore resulted in chronic hypersensitivity
to a number of chemicals other than that which was encountered dur-
ing the chemical overexposure.
One case study involves a tank truck hauler who developed symptoms
during and after an eight and a half hour stay around an alleged tank of
paraffin, due to the fact that he experienced a tire blowout while driving,
and had to wait for a road crew to get him back on the road.
Within one hour of the blowout, the driver underwent racking cough,
a severe headache, and an irritated throat. Within forty hours, his feet,
hands, and abdomen started to swell. The swelling continued to the
point triggering shortness of breath and chest pains. The medical ex-
amination of the driver resulted in the following objective findings:
[1] an elevated CD 26 cell count;
[2] a protuberant/distended abdomen;
[3] a decreased T-suppressor cell count;
[4] the presence of the antinuclear antibody;
[5] and the presence of the anti-thyroid antibody.
[6] the presence of the anti-smooth-muscle anti-body;
[7] liver function test results consistent with hepatotoxic
injury.
When the driver was examined a year after the blowout, he stated that
exposure to chemical agents resulted in his suffering gastrointestinal dis-
tress, fatigue, weakness, arthralgia, and irritability. This is a description
of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, and this is pertinent to note in light of
the fact that the detractors of MCS have repeatedly claimed that per-
sons manifesting signs of MCS have no objective medical findings to
support their reported symptoms. This driver had seven objective
medical findings at the outset of his illness.
In meeting rooms where position statements are drafted, the name
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity was changed to that of Idiopathic En-
vironmental Intolerance. This substitute title is an entirely erroneous
title in the case of the tank truck hauler, being that "idiopathic" means
"of unknown origin," and the hauler's ills originated at a known time
and a known place.
That case study and seven other ones are described in medical article
titled, Reactive Intestinal Dysfunction Syndrome Caused by
Chemical Exposures - RIDS.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a920920118~frm=titlelink
An Assertion in anti-MCS Literature Negated by
Evidence Gathered in the Field of Occupational Medicine
Needless to say, anti-MCS literature asserts that persons suffering from
MCS are merely mentally ill, despite the fact that there is no consensus
as to what particular type of mental illness this might be. Nonetheless,
a few propagandists assert that persons suffering from MCS are mere-
ly phobic of chemical exposure, and that the fear of chemicals causes
them to imagine illness. However, a number of persons suffering from
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity are those who worked in chemically lad-
en environments for extended periods of time. If such persons were
phobic of chemical exposure, they would have never taken the chemi-
cally laden jobs they took. They would have never even applied for
those jobs. The propagandists' assertion completely falls apart.
===============================================
May 15, 2013
A List of Single System & Systemic
Forms of Chemical Sensitivity
Identified & Defined Forms of Chemical Sensitivity
The forms of chemical sensitivity listed below are those which have al-
ready been identified and defined by mainstream medical science. The
list automatically illustrates that nontoxic\ambient levels of chemicals
are not universally harmless. The list, therefore, illustrates the need for
a plurality of people to avoid pertinent chemical exposures. In main-
stream medical science, environmental illness conditions are diagnosed
in the world of Occupational & Environmental Medicine. Pulmonary
specialists and dermatologists have confirmed chemical sensitivity con-
ditions.
The bottom line is this: There exist chemical sensitivity conditions that
are not called "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity," and which involve sensi-
tivity to numerous chemicals and irritants. Reactive Airways Dysfunction
Syndrome and Occupational Asthma due to low weight molecular agents
are two examples.
The Merit in Making the List Known
The list serves to counter that which anti-MCS literature serves
to provoke. Needless to say, anti-MCS literature serves to:
1] provoke the powers-that-be into depriving chemically sensitive
persons of reasonable accommodation;
2] provoke the powers-that-be into depriving severely impaired
chemically sensitive persons of disability compensation;
3] persuade marketers into declining to provide consumer product
lines free of those chemical-bearing agents which are known to
trigger adverse reactions such as asthma.
When you illustrate that there are forms of chemical sensitivity that have
already been proven to exist, you illustrate the need of an entire class of
people to avoid ambient levels of those chemical-bearing agents that are
known to harm them. You don't have to wait for the universal recogni-
tion of MCS, in order make this illustration. The recognition of irritant-
induced asthma alone, along with its subset condition, Reactive Airways
Dysfunction Syndrome, is all that is needed to accomplish this.
Even if MCS comes to be declared a non-reality, there will still exist
the ethical requirement to consider the needs of those who suffer from
the case-specific, systemic, and localized forms of chemical sensitivity.
Matters involving formaldehyde-releasing agents, the organophosphate-
carbamate class of pesticide, as well as perfume ingredients, additives,
and reasonable accommodation will have to be addressed. Here is the
list, constructed in two parts:
Generalized\Systemic and Localized Forms
Irritant-induced Asthma
Irritant Rhinitis\Rhinosinusitis
Halothane-induced Hepatitis
Photoallergic Contact Dermatitis
Benzene-induced Aplastic Anemia
Airborne Irritant Contact Dermatitis
Formaldehyde-induced Anaphylaxis
(chlorhexidine-induced & other forms)
Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome
Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction
(symptoms include shortness of breath)
Acute Generalized Exanthematous Pustulosi
Chemical Worker's Lung
(a type of Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis)
Occupational Asthma due to low-weight molecular agents
Occupational Urticaria (due to low-weight molecular agents),
as well as systemic forms of urticaria
_____________________________________
Chemical-specific Forms
Pine Resin/Rosin Allergy Albietic Acid Sensitivity
Peruvian Lily Allergy (Tuliposide A Sensitivity)
Red Cedar Allergy (Plicatic Acid Sensitivity)
Methyltetrahydrophthalic Anhydride Allergy
IgE-mediated Triethanolamine Sensitivity
Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivity
(Acetylated) Salicylate Sensitivity
Cyanuric Chloride Sensitivity
Ethylene Diamine Sensitivity
Acetaminophen Sensitivity
Glutaraldehyde Sensitivity
Chlorhexidine Sensitivity
Methacrylate Sensitivity
Sulfite Hypersensitivity
Isocyanate Sensitivity
Chromate Sensitivity
Paraben Sensitivity
... etc., etc., etc.
Note 1: The list of chemical-specific forms is long. None the less,
the subset provided should suffice in proving a point.
Note 2: Sick Building Syndrome was not listed because it is not ex-
clusively caused by ambient chemical exposure. It can also
be caused by viral and mold exposure.
Note 3: Reactive Upper-Airways Dysfunction Syndrome doesn't ap-
pear in the list, being that Irritant Rhinitis was listed. None
the less, RUDS is the subset of irritant-induced rhinosinusitis
or rhinitis that works on the upper-respiratory tract the same
way that RADS works on the lower respiratory tract.
Note 4: Small Airways Disease was not listed. Yet, it was found to
exist in some of the WTC clean-up crew members who be-
came ill during or after the clean-up. See: CT helps find
cause of puzzling cough in WTC Rescue workers. It's
found at:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=17093
Note 5: There are a multiplicity of contact sensitivity conditions that
were not posted. They were omitted, in order to avoid the
appearance of redundancy.
Note 6: The diagnostic title, Reactive Intestinal Dysfunction Syndrome
(RIDS), has been proposed. See: Reactive intestinal dys-
function syndrome caused by chemical exposure - RIDS.
It is found at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9766481
The forms of chemical sensitivity listed below are those which have al-
ready been identified and defined by mainstream medical science. The
list automatically illustrates that nontoxic\ambient levels of chemicals
are not universally harmless. The list, therefore, illustrates the need for
a plurality of people to avoid pertinent chemical exposures. In main-
stream medical science, environmental illness conditions are diagnosed
in the world of Occupational & Environmental Medicine. Pulmonary
specialists and dermatologists have confirmed chemical sensitivity con-
ditions.
The bottom line is this: There exist chemical sensitivity conditions that
are not called "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity," and which involve sensi-
tivity to numerous chemicals and irritants. Reactive Airways Dysfunction
Syndrome and Occupational Asthma due to low weight molecular agents
are two examples.
The Merit in Making the List Known
The list serves to counter that which anti-MCS literature serves
to provoke. Needless to say, anti-MCS literature serves to:
1] provoke the powers-that-be into depriving chemically sensitive
persons of reasonable accommodation;
2] provoke the powers-that-be into depriving severely impaired
chemically sensitive persons of disability compensation;
3] persuade marketers into declining to provide consumer product
lines free of those chemical-bearing agents which are known to
trigger adverse reactions such as asthma.
When you illustrate that there are forms of chemical sensitivity that have
already been proven to exist, you illustrate the need of an entire class of
people to avoid ambient levels of those chemical-bearing agents that are
known to harm them. You don't have to wait for the universal recogni-
tion of MCS, in order make this illustration. The recognition of irritant-
induced asthma alone, along with its subset condition, Reactive Airways
Dysfunction Syndrome, is all that is needed to accomplish this.
Even if MCS comes to be declared a non-reality, there will still exist
the ethical requirement to consider the needs of those who suffer from
the case-specific, systemic, and localized forms of chemical sensitivity.
Matters involving formaldehyde-releasing agents, the organophosphate-
carbamate class of pesticide, as well as perfume ingredients, additives,
and reasonable accommodation will have to be addressed. Here is the
list, constructed in two parts:
Generalized\Systemic and Localized Forms
Irritant-induced Asthma
Irritant Rhinitis\Rhinosinusitis
Halothane-induced Hepatitis
Photoallergic Contact Dermatitis
Benzene-induced Aplastic Anemia
Airborne Irritant Contact Dermatitis
Formaldehyde-induced Anaphylaxis
(chlorhexidine-induced & other forms)
Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome
Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction
(symptoms include shortness of breath)
Acute Generalized Exanthematous Pustulosi
Chemical Worker's Lung
(a type of Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis)
Occupational Asthma due to low-weight molecular agents
Occupational Urticaria (due to low-weight molecular agents),
as well as systemic forms of urticaria
_____________________________________
Chemical-specific Forms
Pine Resin/Rosin Allergy Albietic Acid Sensitivity
Peruvian Lily Allergy (Tuliposide A Sensitivity)
Red Cedar Allergy (Plicatic Acid Sensitivity)
Methyltetrahydrophthalic Anhydride Allergy
IgE-mediated Triethanolamine Sensitivity
Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivity
(Acetylated) Salicylate Sensitivity
Cyanuric Chloride Sensitivity
Ethylene Diamine Sensitivity
Acetaminophen Sensitivity
Glutaraldehyde Sensitivity
Chlorhexidine Sensitivity
Methacrylate Sensitivity
Sulfite Hypersensitivity
Isocyanate Sensitivity
Chromate Sensitivity
Paraben Sensitivity
... etc., etc., etc.
Note 1: The list of chemical-specific forms is long. None the less,
the subset provided should suffice in proving a point.
Note 2: Sick Building Syndrome was not listed because it is not ex-
clusively caused by ambient chemical exposure. It can also
be caused by viral and mold exposure.
Note 3: Reactive Upper-Airways Dysfunction Syndrome doesn't ap-
pear in the list, being that Irritant Rhinitis was listed. None
the less, RUDS is the subset of irritant-induced rhinosinusitis
or rhinitis that works on the upper-respiratory tract the same
way that RADS works on the lower respiratory tract.
Note 4: Small Airways Disease was not listed. Yet, it was found to
exist in some of the WTC clean-up crew members who be-
came ill during or after the clean-up. See: CT helps find
cause of puzzling cough in WTC Rescue workers. It's
found at:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=17093
Note 5: There are a multiplicity of contact sensitivity conditions that
were not posted. They were omitted, in order to avoid the
appearance of redundancy.
Note 6: The diagnostic title, Reactive Intestinal Dysfunction Syndrome
(RIDS), has been proposed. See: Reactive intestinal dys-
function syndrome caused by chemical exposure - RIDS.
It is found at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9766481
May 14, 2013
The Objective Medical Findings Documented in the Medical Records of Chemically Sensitive Patients
Mainstream medical science has already proved the existence of
chemical allergies. Immediate onset and delayed reactions have
long since been proven to exist. The reaction occurring within an
hour are known as an Immunoglobin-E reaction. It occurs by the
process of "haptenation." Haptenation is simply the act of a low-
weight molecule taking a piggy-bank ride on a much larger mole-
cule, thereby enabling an allergic reaction to transpire.
Chemicals have also been proven to trigger what is known as cell-
mediated delayed allergic reactions. These mostly affect the skin.
Next comes the delayed Immunoglobin-G reaction. This reaction
adversely affects the respiratory system. In summary, these involve
adverse reactions to non-toxic levels of chemical exposure. Such
low levels are known are ambient levels.
Today, testing for IgE-meditated chemical allergies is done through
RAST testing. It used to be done through the traditional skin prick
test. In as much, it's at the OCCUPATIONAL PANEL where the
request for chemical allergy testing is listed on ye olde RAST TEST
ORDER FORM. Therefore, don't look for any "chemical panel" on
a RAST TEST form. Look for the occupational one.
Plus, there are other objective medical findings attached to those suf-
fering from Chemical & Irritant Sensitivities, in addition to the presence
of classical allergic inflammatory mediators. In fact, Irritant Sensitivities
involve sensitivity to those chemicals which don't provoke the classical
allergic reaction. Some chemicals were found to trigger other kinds of
"inflammatory mediators." In as much, Chemical Sensitivity is basically
an inflammatory disease. Very simply, it triggers physical inflammation
somewhere in the body.
_____________________________________________________
Posted below is a partial list of objective medical findings that have en-
tered into the records of chemically sensitive patients and into research
documentation. It appears after an introduction and a narration of a re-
latively recent case study. The introduction shows how objective med-
ical findings can be entirely missed during a "cursory medical examine.
The case study also confirms that, simply because insurance company
attorneys allege something in a workman's comp case, it doesn't mean
it's true.
Not Detected by the Standard Chest CT Scan.
Yet Detected via the End-expiratory CT Scan.
A January 2002 article that remains posted on the Fox News website
declared it "junk science." It was/is the emergent illness which afflict-
ed persons exposed to the debris of the World Trade Center collapse.
Unofficially called "World Trade Center Syndrome," its distinctive fea-
ture was the "the WTC Cough," and its symptoms included shortness
of breath.
The article attributed the ills of the afflicted WTC cleanup crew mem-
bers to the 2002 "flu season." It furthermore attributed the ills of Man-
hattan residents to "anxiety salted with hypochondria." Its conclusion
was that only "minor and transient health effects from the site" were
to be expected. The conclusion was wrong.
A newly emerged illness had just made the scene, and just as quickly on
the scene was a political operative ridiculing people's notice of it. Then
came November 30, 2004, when it was officially disclosed that some of
the afflicted crew members of the ground zero cleanup operation were
actually suffering from the trapping of air. These workers were suffer-
ing from Small Airways Disease, and it was the end-expiratory CT scan
that confirmed it to be true. The standard chest CT scan overlooked it.
The Fiberoptic Rhinolaryngoscopy Detects that
which the Garden Variety Cursory Exam Overlooks
The upper airway endoscopy is recognized by mainstream medicine as
an effective means by which pathologies of the septum, nasopharynx,
turbinates, mucosa, adenoids, eustachian tube orifice, tonsils, posterior
tongue, epiglottis, glottis, and vocal cords can be easily seen. It was
the fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopic exam which resulted in researchers
realizing (in the early 1990s) that the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
Syndrome which was presumed to involve no objective medical find-
ings showed signs of being a physical pathology. In fact, the golden
rule for diagnosing Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction came
to be that of a flexible fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopic examination, per-
formed upon a patient only when he/she is symptomatic.
The human body is regarded as exceptionally complex. Therefore, the
reasonably minded person should understand that the cursory physical
exam and garden variety testing do not detect everything. This under-
standing, in addition to the preceding paragraphs, offers insight as to
why a number of chemically sensitive persons have been declared to
have no objective medical findings.
The narration posted directly below should offer more detailed insight
to this. It involves a case study which teaches us that, simply because
corporate defense attorneys assert something in a workman's comp
case, it doesn't automatically mean that it's true.
She Was Claimed to Have No Objective Medical
Findings to Verfiy Her Symptoms. Multiple Medical
Findings Were Documented in One Day.
A woman whose workplace was a former coal tar research building be-
came ill six months after having worked there. A laboratory confirmed
that her workplace was laden with very fine monofilament fibers. The
smaller the molecular agent, the greater is its potential to infiltrate and
afflict the inner recesses of the complex human anatomy. Furthermore,
there was also the matter of pesticide exposure, ambient solvent expos-
ure, and mold exposure to take into account, concerning her workplace
environment.
After the woman had initially become ill, she kept going to work, making
her condition worsen and making her have to quit work entirely. In fact,
a fellow employee of quit working and then moved to Arizona. Other
fellow employees mentioned that they were being sickened, too.
The business no longer operates in the former coal tar research center.
Moreover, a large corporation was involved in this matter, despite the
fact that the antics of a small fly-by-night business are described. In
fact, the corporation's total stockholder equity was marked as being
over eleven billion dollars in 2005.
Her Symptoms
The woman's symptoms included:
[1] a stinging tongue.
[2] shortness of breath.
[3] burning nasal passages.
[4] a metallic taste in the mouth.
[5] an adrenal-like stream throughout her solar plexus.
[6] headaches accompanied by the bruised feeling at the
cheekbones and temples.
[7] ice-like numbness pervading her upper-respiratory
tract (on specific occasion.)
She detected the presence of particular airborne substances, simply be-
cause she unavoidably tasted them on her tongue. In fact, one of her
symptoms was the metallic taste in her mouth. She could no longer go
to the places she used to frequent without becoming symptomatic, be-
ing that a number of airborne agents would now trigger her ills. This
included fragrances, engine exhausts, and musty cardboard boxes.
She lived in the American state which, at the time, had the fourth worse
air quality in the United States. In addition, she had no prior history of
asthma, no history of chronic upper-respiratory ills, and no history of
allergies.
She received the diagnosis of agoraphobia & panic attacks, by a "men-
tal health person." The corporate attorneys involved in her workman's
comp case asserted that she had no objective medical findings to sup-
port her claims. However, an allergist and immunologist gave her the
diagnoses of Asthma, Rhinitis, and Chemical Sensitivities. Meanwhile
a cytopathologist gave her the additional diagnosis of Reactive Hyper-
plasia. In fact, in emergency room settings, she received the Asthma
and Rhinitis diagnosis. Yet, assertions of mental illness had been set
forth on record and asserted in court depositions as the cause of her
ills. The assertions were significantly weakened in less than an hour.
Grossly Enlarged Turbinates, for Starters
On October 13, 2005, a fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopic exam was per-
formed on her. The exam was conducted by an ear nose throat and
allergy specialist who also happened to be a fellow of the American
College of Surgeons. The woman who was said to have no objec-
tive medical findings to support her symptoms was found to have:
[1] postauricular adenopathy.
[2] grossly enlarged turbinates.
[3] shoddy posterior cervical adenopathy
[4] some erythematous changes of the uvula.
[5] some mild edema of the true vocal cords.
[6] thickened coating over the dorsum of the tongue.
The physician's impressions, as are stated on record, were:
[1] multiple chemical and irritant sensitivities.
[2] rhinitis and turbinate hypertrophy.
[3] glossitis (tongue inflammation).
The conclusion is that, whatever be the medical condition this lady has,
it is one of a physical origin and mechanism. If she were not made ill
from workplace exposure, then she was made ill by some other physi-
cal cause.
Gruntled Breathing and Rales Were Already Observed
The story isn't over, of course. Objective medical findings had been
entered into her records even before the October exam. She was doc-
umented as having "gruntled breathing" during an ER visit. She was
also recorded as having wheezed and crackled during other ones. In
fact, she already was found to have adenopathy. Plus, tachycardia,
erythema of the oropharynx, and hypopotassemia had also been
entered into her medical records before the October 13th rhinolaryngo-
scopy. Yet, she was branded with the "mental illness stigma," by the
corporate defense attorneys and one independent medical examiner
hired by the antagonistic corporation.
Furthermore, after she had become ill, she tested severely positive for
dust mites and no other high weight molecular agent (such as ragweed,
tree pollen, etc.) Yet, she has no prior history of allergies. Now, she
was exposed to inordinate amounts of dust at her former place of work,
and a person can become sensitized to dust mites. After all, there exist
cases where barn workers became sensitized to storage mites.
The account of the chemically sensitive woman who has over a dozen
objective medical findings attached to her medical records can be ac-
cessed by clicking on the web link provided directly below.
Corporate Welfar: Government paying for illnesses caused by corporations.
The Icy Numbing
Chemical Exposure During Testing is Often a Necessity
There is one thing to note about a plurality of chemical sensitivity con-
ditions. In order to acquire objective medical findings, you have to
be examined while exposed to a chemical agent that assails you. In
fact, you have to be tested /examined while symptomatic. You will
not acquire objective medical findings in a vaccuum, in most testing.
In light of this, it was not an unheard event for a chemically sensitive
patient to be found hunched over a waste basket after having been
administered a skin prick test. Furthermore, patch testing has result-
ed in a few occasions of anaphylaxis, and being made symptomatic
before a rhinolaryngoscopic exam is not a painless event. Moreov-
er, the inhalation challenge test that measures FEV1 and the such is
not recommended for those who are extremely hyperresponsive.
If the Detractors of MCS Admit to Even One Objective
Medical Finding in any Type of Chemically Sensitive
Patient, the Effect of their Propaganda Will Be Diluted
If the detractors of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity disclose even one ob-
jective medical finding in chemically sensitive patients, they will risk ex-
tinguishing the disrespect and indifference that their literature serves to
incite. This will incline people to take a very respectful view of envi-
ronmental illness. In learning that there exists a spectrum of chemical-
specific, case-specific, single systemic, and systemic forms of chemical
sensitivity have already been found to exist, the public will surmise that
it will only a matter of time before the controversy involving Multiple
Chemical Sensitivity will be resolved. In light of this, a list of objective
medical findings in chemically sensitive patients is posted below:
Objective Medical Findings in the Chemically Sensitive
Bronchial hyperresponsiveness in inhalation challenge testing.
This includes things such as the drop in FEV1:
Forced Expiratory Volume after 1 second of time.
Objective skin whealing resulting from skin testing;
See the article in Part 1, titled, Visible & Measurable
Wheals Have Been Repeatedly Documented.
Simultaneous release of Leukotriene B4 and Interleukin-8;
(LTB4 is a chemokine. IL-8 is a toxin to neutrophils.)
Permeability of upper-respiratory epithelial cell junctions;
found in biopsy studies, via the electron micrograph
Abnormal liver function in the absense of viral infection.
Exorbitant presence of n-acetyl-benzoquinoniemine;
a toxic liver metabolite associated with P450
cytochrome inducers such as acetaminophen.
Paradoxical adduction of the true vocal cords.
Testing positive in traditional patch testing.
Peripheral nerve fiber proliferation.
Nasal and/or laryngeal erythema.
Turbinate swelling/hypertrophy.
Edema of the true vocal cords.
Lymphocytic infiltrates.
Glandular hyperplasia.
Angioedema.
Anaphylaxis.
Dermatitis.
Note 1: There are fiber optic rhinolaryngoscopic exam find-
ings that were not posted above. In order to read
of the additional findings, see: Rhinolaryngoscopic
Examination of Patients with Multiple Chemical
Sensitivity Syndrome, found at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8452394
Note 2: There are also instances of hematotoxicity triggered
by nontoxic benzene exposure. See: Hematotoxcity
in workers exposed to low levels of benzene, found
at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15576619
Note 3: There is more that can be included, but the afore-
mentioned things should suffice in proving a point.
_____________________________________
chemical allergies. Immediate onset and delayed reactions have
long since been proven to exist. The reaction occurring within an
hour are known as an Immunoglobin-E reaction. It occurs by the
process of "haptenation." Haptenation is simply the act of a low-
weight molecule taking a piggy-bank ride on a much larger mole-
cule, thereby enabling an allergic reaction to transpire.
Chemicals have also been proven to trigger what is known as cell-
mediated delayed allergic reactions. These mostly affect the skin.
Next comes the delayed Immunoglobin-G reaction. This reaction
adversely affects the respiratory system. In summary, these involve
adverse reactions to non-toxic levels of chemical exposure. Such
low levels are known are ambient levels.
Today, testing for IgE-meditated chemical allergies is done through
RAST testing. It used to be done through the traditional skin prick
test. In as much, it's at the OCCUPATIONAL PANEL where the
request for chemical allergy testing is listed on ye olde RAST TEST
ORDER FORM. Therefore, don't look for any "chemical panel" on
a RAST TEST form. Look for the occupational one.
Plus, there are other objective medical findings attached to those suf-
fering from Chemical & Irritant Sensitivities, in addition to the presence
of classical allergic inflammatory mediators. In fact, Irritant Sensitivities
involve sensitivity to those chemicals which don't provoke the classical
allergic reaction. Some chemicals were found to trigger other kinds of
"inflammatory mediators." In as much, Chemical Sensitivity is basically
an inflammatory disease. Very simply, it triggers physical inflammation
somewhere in the body.
_____________________________________________________
Posted below is a partial list of objective medical findings that have en-
tered into the records of chemically sensitive patients and into research
documentation. It appears after an introduction and a narration of a re-
latively recent case study. The introduction shows how objective med-
ical findings can be entirely missed during a "cursory medical examine.
The case study also confirms that, simply because insurance company
attorneys allege something in a workman's comp case, it doesn't mean
it's true.
Not Detected by the Standard Chest CT Scan.
Yet Detected via the End-expiratory CT Scan.
A January 2002 article that remains posted on the Fox News website
declared it "junk science." It was/is the emergent illness which afflict-
ed persons exposed to the debris of the World Trade Center collapse.
Unofficially called "World Trade Center Syndrome," its distinctive fea-
ture was the "the WTC Cough," and its symptoms included shortness
of breath.
The article attributed the ills of the afflicted WTC cleanup crew mem-
bers to the 2002 "flu season." It furthermore attributed the ills of Man-
hattan residents to "anxiety salted with hypochondria." Its conclusion
was that only "minor and transient health effects from the site" were
to be expected. The conclusion was wrong.
A newly emerged illness had just made the scene, and just as quickly on
the scene was a political operative ridiculing people's notice of it. Then
came November 30, 2004, when it was officially disclosed that some of
the afflicted crew members of the ground zero cleanup operation were
actually suffering from the trapping of air. These workers were suffer-
ing from Small Airways Disease, and it was the end-expiratory CT scan
that confirmed it to be true. The standard chest CT scan overlooked it.
The Fiberoptic Rhinolaryngoscopy Detects that
which the Garden Variety Cursory Exam Overlooks
The upper airway endoscopy is recognized by mainstream medicine as
an effective means by which pathologies of the septum, nasopharynx,
turbinates, mucosa, adenoids, eustachian tube orifice, tonsils, posterior
tongue, epiglottis, glottis, and vocal cords can be easily seen. It was
the fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopic exam which resulted in researchers
realizing (in the early 1990s) that the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
Syndrome which was presumed to involve no objective medical find-
ings showed signs of being a physical pathology. In fact, the golden
rule for diagnosing Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction came
to be that of a flexible fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopic examination, per-
formed upon a patient only when he/she is symptomatic.
The human body is regarded as exceptionally complex. Therefore, the
reasonably minded person should understand that the cursory physical
exam and garden variety testing do not detect everything. This under-
standing, in addition to the preceding paragraphs, offers insight as to
why a number of chemically sensitive persons have been declared to
have no objective medical findings.
The narration posted directly below should offer more detailed insight
to this. It involves a case study which teaches us that, simply because
corporate defense attorneys assert something in a workman's comp
case, it doesn't automatically mean that it's true.
She Was Claimed to Have No Objective Medical
Findings to Verfiy Her Symptoms. Multiple Medical
Findings Were Documented in One Day.
A woman whose workplace was a former coal tar research building be-
came ill six months after having worked there. A laboratory confirmed
that her workplace was laden with very fine monofilament fibers. The
smaller the molecular agent, the greater is its potential to infiltrate and
afflict the inner recesses of the complex human anatomy. Furthermore,
there was also the matter of pesticide exposure, ambient solvent expos-
ure, and mold exposure to take into account, concerning her workplace
environment.
After the woman had initially become ill, she kept going to work, making
her condition worsen and making her have to quit work entirely. In fact,
a fellow employee of quit working and then moved to Arizona. Other
fellow employees mentioned that they were being sickened, too.
The business no longer operates in the former coal tar research center.
Moreover, a large corporation was involved in this matter, despite the
fact that the antics of a small fly-by-night business are described. In
fact, the corporation's total stockholder equity was marked as being
over eleven billion dollars in 2005.
Her Symptoms
The woman's symptoms included:
[1] a stinging tongue.
[2] shortness of breath.
[3] burning nasal passages.
[4] a metallic taste in the mouth.
[5] an adrenal-like stream throughout her solar plexus.
[6] headaches accompanied by the bruised feeling at the
cheekbones and temples.
[7] ice-like numbness pervading her upper-respiratory
tract (on specific occasion.)
She detected the presence of particular airborne substances, simply be-
cause she unavoidably tasted them on her tongue. In fact, one of her
symptoms was the metallic taste in her mouth. She could no longer go
to the places she used to frequent without becoming symptomatic, be-
ing that a number of airborne agents would now trigger her ills. This
included fragrances, engine exhausts, and musty cardboard boxes.
She lived in the American state which, at the time, had the fourth worse
air quality in the United States. In addition, she had no prior history of
asthma, no history of chronic upper-respiratory ills, and no history of
allergies.
She received the diagnosis of agoraphobia & panic attacks, by a "men-
tal health person." The corporate attorneys involved in her workman's
comp case asserted that she had no objective medical findings to sup-
port her claims. However, an allergist and immunologist gave her the
diagnoses of Asthma, Rhinitis, and Chemical Sensitivities. Meanwhile
a cytopathologist gave her the additional diagnosis of Reactive Hyper-
plasia. In fact, in emergency room settings, she received the Asthma
and Rhinitis diagnosis. Yet, assertions of mental illness had been set
forth on record and asserted in court depositions as the cause of her
ills. The assertions were significantly weakened in less than an hour.
Grossly Enlarged Turbinates, for Starters
On October 13, 2005, a fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopic exam was per-
formed on her. The exam was conducted by an ear nose throat and
allergy specialist who also happened to be a fellow of the American
College of Surgeons. The woman who was said to have no objec-
tive medical findings to support her symptoms was found to have:
[1] postauricular adenopathy.
[2] grossly enlarged turbinates.
[3] shoddy posterior cervical adenopathy
[4] some erythematous changes of the uvula.
[5] some mild edema of the true vocal cords.
[6] thickened coating over the dorsum of the tongue.
The physician's impressions, as are stated on record, were:
[1] multiple chemical and irritant sensitivities.
[2] rhinitis and turbinate hypertrophy.
[3] glossitis (tongue inflammation).
The conclusion is that, whatever be the medical condition this lady has,
it is one of a physical origin and mechanism. If she were not made ill
from workplace exposure, then she was made ill by some other physi-
cal cause.
Gruntled Breathing and Rales Were Already Observed
The story isn't over, of course. Objective medical findings had been
entered into her records even before the October exam. She was doc-
umented as having "gruntled breathing" during an ER visit. She was
also recorded as having wheezed and crackled during other ones. In
fact, she already was found to have adenopathy. Plus, tachycardia,
erythema of the oropharynx, and hypopotassemia had also been
entered into her medical records before the October 13th rhinolaryngo-
scopy. Yet, she was branded with the "mental illness stigma," by the
corporate defense attorneys and one independent medical examiner
hired by the antagonistic corporation.
Furthermore, after she had become ill, she tested severely positive for
dust mites and no other high weight molecular agent (such as ragweed,
tree pollen, etc.) Yet, she has no prior history of allergies. Now, she
was exposed to inordinate amounts of dust at her former place of work,
and a person can become sensitized to dust mites. After all, there exist
cases where barn workers became sensitized to storage mites.
The account of the chemically sensitive woman who has over a dozen
objective medical findings attached to her medical records can be ac-
cessed by clicking on the web link provided directly below.
Corporate Welfar: Government paying for illnesses caused by corporations.
The Icy Numbing
Chemical Exposure During Testing is Often a Necessity
There is one thing to note about a plurality of chemical sensitivity con-
ditions. In order to acquire objective medical findings, you have to
be examined while exposed to a chemical agent that assails you. In
fact, you have to be tested /examined while symptomatic. You will
not acquire objective medical findings in a vaccuum, in most testing.
In light of this, it was not an unheard event for a chemically sensitive
patient to be found hunched over a waste basket after having been
administered a skin prick test. Furthermore, patch testing has result-
ed in a few occasions of anaphylaxis, and being made symptomatic
before a rhinolaryngoscopic exam is not a painless event. Moreov-
er, the inhalation challenge test that measures FEV1 and the such is
not recommended for those who are extremely hyperresponsive.
If the Detractors of MCS Admit to Even One Objective
Medical Finding in any Type of Chemically Sensitive
Patient, the Effect of their Propaganda Will Be Diluted
If the detractors of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity disclose even one ob-
jective medical finding in chemically sensitive patients, they will risk ex-
tinguishing the disrespect and indifference that their literature serves to
incite. This will incline people to take a very respectful view of envi-
ronmental illness. In learning that there exists a spectrum of chemical-
specific, case-specific, single systemic, and systemic forms of chemical
sensitivity have already been found to exist, the public will surmise that
it will only a matter of time before the controversy involving Multiple
Chemical Sensitivity will be resolved. In light of this, a list of objective
medical findings in chemically sensitive patients is posted below:
Objective Medical Findings in the Chemically Sensitive
Bronchial hyperresponsiveness in inhalation challenge testing.
This includes things such as the drop in FEV1:
Forced Expiratory Volume after 1 second of time.
Objective skin whealing resulting from skin testing;
See the article in Part 1, titled, Visible & Measurable
Wheals Have Been Repeatedly Documented.
Simultaneous release of Leukotriene B4 and Interleukin-8;
(LTB4 is a chemokine. IL-8 is a toxin to neutrophils.)
Permeability of upper-respiratory epithelial cell junctions;
found in biopsy studies, via the electron micrograph
Abnormal liver function in the absense of viral infection.
Exorbitant presence of n-acetyl-benzoquinoniemine;
a toxic liver metabolite associated with P450
cytochrome inducers such as acetaminophen.
Paradoxical adduction of the true vocal cords.
Testing positive in traditional patch testing.
Peripheral nerve fiber proliferation.
Nasal and/or laryngeal erythema.
Turbinate swelling/hypertrophy.
Edema of the true vocal cords.
Lymphocytic infiltrates.
Glandular hyperplasia.
Angioedema.
Anaphylaxis.
Dermatitis.
Note 1: There are fiber optic rhinolaryngoscopic exam find-
ings that were not posted above. In order to read
of the additional findings, see: Rhinolaryngoscopic
Examination of Patients with Multiple Chemical
Sensitivity Syndrome, found at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8452394
Note 2: There are also instances of hematotoxicity triggered
by nontoxic benzene exposure. See: Hematotoxcity
in workers exposed to low levels of benzene, found
at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15576619
Note 3: There is more that can be included, but the afore-
mentioned things should suffice in proving a point.
_____________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)