It's obvious that this Information Age has been nothing more than the
Disinformation Age. Equally obvious is that one of the most effective
ways to spread disinformation is to conceal facts. So, if you happen
to be interested in seeing how companies fare when they conceal the
ingredients in their product lines, then refer to the Proctor & Gamble
Corporation in the relatively near future. Its personnel and advertis-
ers have disseminated sleight of hand deceptions about the Febreze
Air Effects product line, all the while neglecting to disclose the doz-
ens of chemical ingredients in it.
Febreze Air Effects is showcased as an odor eliminator that will get
you to breathe happily, as if it were happy pills in spray form. Now,
such a product, due to the lack of label warnings, carries an applied
warranty that it's universally safe. The warranty is automatically vio-
lated in the fact that Febreze Air Effects has ingredients known to
trigger asthma.
In medical nomenclature, they're known as asthma incitants, compris-
ing: 1} sensitizers, 2} bronchoconstrictors, and 3} respiratory irri-
tants. One example is the airway obstructer acetaldehyde, one of
the ingredients in Febreze.
The Febreze product line is an intense asthma trigger. Yet, there's no
warning on the label, for the sake of asthmatics and sufferers of Reac-
tive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome. In fact, Febreze contains skin
irritants and a couple of carcinogens, as well.
In failing to place a warning on the Febreze label, Proctor & Gamble
subjected asthmatics to unexpected encounters with respiratory dis-
tress, at the hands of unassuming house hosts, hotel maids, neighbors,
family members, and store merchants. In fact, there was an instance
where a cab driver sprayed Febreze in his cab while driving an asth-
matic home. The odor lingered on the asthmatic's clothes so intense-
ly that the asthmatic discarded the clothing he was wearing as soon as
he got home. In fact, he got out of the cab about a mile or so away
from his home, walking the rest of the way.
Febreze is a product so potent that it's odor will waft into the house
next door and apartments along a hallway. When the neighbor hap-
pens to be a sensitive asthmatic, he/she gets physically assaulted by
the asthma-triggering ingredients of Febreze. His/her airspace is vio-
lated.
The Specific Chemicals in Febreze
Enter the 501(c)(3) charity known as the Environmental Working Group.
Its mission is to use the power of public information, in order to protect
public health and the environment. Its team comprises engineers, law-
yers,scientists, and data analysts. In fact, its board comprises a number
of reputable names. Its projects are not narrow in scope. In fact, one
of it projects was to test for the chemical contents of the Febreze Air
Effects products line.
The results: 87 air contaminants were detected in Febreze Air Effect
Hawaiian Aloha, as well as water. Only three of the ingredients are
disclosed on the label, by name. The other ones have been labeled
as "quality control ingredients" and fragrance. There was one propel-
lant found.
The product is assumed to be household safe, being that it's a residen-
tial product and not an industrial one surrounded by hazmat suits. Yet,
the following ingredients were detected in Febreze Air Effects. Some
are immediately identifiable asthma triggers:
1] Denatured Alcohol, aka methylated spirits. This is ethanol mixed
with a poisonous additive that makes the alcohol unable to be con-
consumed without very ill effects. Originally, it was 10% methanol
(CH3OH.) Today, denatured alcohol might contain methyl ethyl
ketone, acetone, methyl isobutyl ketone, or denatonium benzoate.
Protector and Gamble's people think nothing of you spraying this
in a home of pets, children, and asthmatics.
2] Acetaldehyde. Refer to: Airway obstruction induced by in-
haled acetaldehyde in asthma.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12371536
3] Alpha-pinene. It's a confirmed allergen. See: Gas chromatogra-
phy: an investigative tool in multiple allergies to essential
oils.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12534533
4] Benzaldehyde. A member of the formaldehyde family. Formalde-
hyde is an asthma trigger, a carcinogen, and a dermatitis trigger.
5] Trimethyl Pentanyl Diisobutyrate. It's a nail polish plasticizer.
6] Limonene. "Bronchial hyperresponsiveness was related to in-
door concentration of limonene." It tortures susceptible per-
sons, otherwise known as theatopic. See: Asthmatic symp-
toms and volatile organic compounds, formaldehyde, and
carbon dioxide in dwellings.
http://oem.bmj.com/content/52/6/388.abstract
7] Butylated Hydroxytoluene. This is a food additive that happens to
be a well established asthma trigger for a subset of asthmatics. This
is BHT.
8] Benzyl Acetate. Produces respiratory tract irritation. Continued.
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
According to the University of Berkley, Benzyl Acetate is linked to
pancreatic cancer, in addition to it being a respiratory irritant. See:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6130016_chemicals-found-fabric-softeners.html
10] 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
11] Hexadecane. This is known as cetane, a diesel fuel additive.
12] Butylphenyl Methylpropional. In the European Union, this is at-
tached to a duty of declaration. All products that contain it must dis-
close it as such on the labels. In addition, this chemical is a reputed
respiratory and skin irritant. Perhaps this is why disclosure of it on
product labels is the law in Europe.
13] Cyclamen Aldehyde. This is member of the Formaldehyde family;
Light yellow to colorless in appearance. In order to familiarize your-
self with the aldehyde world, refer to:
http://www.archive.org/stream/formaldehydeando003763mbp/formaldehydeando003763mbp_djvu.txt
14] Geraniol. A well established B-cell mediated allergen and a prim-
ary 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
15] Methylpyrrolidone Ethyl Acetate. This is a solvent. It's also a
neurotoxin. In Europe, Methylpyrrolidone is regarded as a re-
productive toxicant. It's also an irritant, meaning that it will make
Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome sufferers fight to get a
full breath, for as long as they are exposed to it.
16] "Fragrance." This is actually a mixture of ingredients, and not an
ingredient unto itself. It's insufficient to label a cauldron of chemi-
cals and non-chemical allergens in this way. There's not mention
of any non-chemical fragrance ingredient in Febreze, otherwise
known as a high weight molecular agent. In addition, the EWG's
Further Toxic Concern for "fragrance" is "Neurotoxicity, Aller-
gies/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://www.herc.org/news/perfume/risks.htm
A political operative who shall politely remain unnamed complained of a
lawsuit which resulted in asthmatics being freed from the assault and bat-
tery of asthma triggers in their airspace. The propagandist stated that
banning the asthma-triggering substances that assault the respiratory sys-
tem of asthmatics was a "loss of freedom" in this great land. Of course,
this is a lie. The truth is that forcing asthmatics to struggle to breathe in
their own airspace is the ultimate deprivation of freedom.
You have fifteen minutes to breath, or else you are dead. You have five
minutes to breath, or else brain damage sets in. People who are forced
to endured untreated respiratory conditions don't get used to the chronic
shortness of breath. They get scarred lungs, instead. An example is in
cases of byssinossis. Byssinsosis is acquired sensitivity to cotton, hemp,
or flax dust. It involves inflammation to the air sacs of the lungs, other-
wise known as inflammation of the aveoli. When left untreated, it results
in the scarring of the lungs.
Concerning the political operative who claimed that it was a loss of free-
dom to let asthmatics be spared of asthma-triggering substances, how
would he like it if he had to fight to breathe on a daily basis?
Fragrances are nothing more than vanities that attract even those who
gluttonously seek to devour the odor of food in every breath they take,
as if to be eating all day long, be the artificial odor Pina Colada, Berry
Patch, Watermelon, Hawaiian Aloha, or whatever appears on the mar-
ket. That is to say, the obsession with constantly inhaling poignant fra-
grances is equivalent to the vice of gluttony.
The AMA long ago stated that the treatment for Occupational Asthma
is Avoidance, aka environmental control. Now, Occupational Asthma
is something that goes home with you, where you become adversely re-
active to common household chemical products. So too is this the case
with Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, Irritant Associated Vo-
cal Cord Dysfunction, and other illnesses caused by chemical exposure.
This means that there isn't enough prescription medicines in existence to
stop the reactions, once the patient is in the midst of exposure. In fact,
the chemically sensitive often are allergic to albuterol. In other cases,
the prescription medicine becomes ineffective after a number of months
or years. This means that the AMA was correct in having stated that
that Avoidance is the treatment for OA (occupational asthma.) This in-
cludes the need to avoid Febreze.
Febreze Air Effects Additionally Contains the Following:
1,3-DICHLORO-2-PROPANOL | HEXYL ACETATE | NEROL |
BUTYLPHENYL METHYLPROPIONAL | ETHYL ACETATE |
DIETHYLENE GLYCOL MONOETHYL ETHER | HEDIONE |
2-tert-BUTYLCYCLOHEXANOL | ETHYL OCTANOATE |
TRIMETHYL PENTANYL DIISOBUTYRATE | HEXADECANE |
DIETHYLHEXYL FUMARATE | HEXYL SALICYLATENEROL |
1-TRIMETHYL-2-CYCLOHEXENYL-1-PENTEN-3-ONE |
2,6-DIMETHYL-7-OCTEN-2-OL | HEXYL CINNAMAL |
3-METHYL BUTYL ACETATE | DIPROPYLENE GLYCOL |
GAMMA-DECALACTONEALLYL | ETHYL HEXANOL |
4-tert-BUTYLCYCLOHEXYL ACETATE | ETHYL BUTY-
RATE | DIMETHYLBENZYL CARBINYL BUTYRATE |
CYCLOHEXYL PROPIONATE, 2-METHOXY-p-CRESOL |
HEXYL ISOBUTYRATE, P-TERT-BUTYL CYCLOHEXYL-
ACETATE CIS | HEXYL BUTYRATE | 2-BUTEN-1-One,
1-(2,6,6-TRIMETHYL-1,3-CYCOLOHEXADIEN-1-YL |
Note: There were more chemicals found in Febreze
Air Effects than what has been posted above.
It's obvious that Febreze is nothing more than a cauldron of chemicals
which the respiratory tract, nervous system, pancreas, and civilization
can happily do without. In fact, it's nothing more than a vain witch's
brew. It constitutes an invasive harassment of the respiratory tract.
http://www.ewg.org/schoolcleaningsupplies/cleaningsuppliesoverview?id=219
In addition, 1} chemical allergies do exist, 2} there are objectively prov-
en systemic forms of chemical sensitivity, 3}there are objectively proven
localized forms (adversely affecting one body system, 4} and there have
proven to exist dual chemical sensitivity, aka co-existing forms of chemi-
cal sensitivity. See:
Chemical Allergies Do Exist
http://www.chemicalsensitization.com/2006/08/visible-measurable-wheals-have-been.html
Systemic and Coexisting Forms
of Chemical Sensitivity
http://www.chemicalsensitization.com/2010/12/systemic-and-coexisting-forms-of.html
Objective Medical Findings
in the Chemically Sensitive
http://www.chemicalsensitization.com/2010/06/posted-below-is-list-of-objective.html
Incidentally, contrary to what has been claimed by certain political operatives, there
are prestigious mainstream medical entities in the United States that recognized the
diagnosis Multiple Chemical Sensitivity by name. In addition, there is a viable pro-
posed mechanism for MCS, coming from the mainstream American university world
of biochemistry. The star of that show is the Vanilloid Receptor. See:
Mt. Sinai, Johns Hopkins, Harvard,
Yale, and the MCS Diagnosis
http://www.chemicalsensitization.com/2010/06/mt-sinai-johns-hopkins-harvard-yale-and.html
A Proposed Mechanism for MCS
http://www.chemicalsensitization.com/2011/01/proposed-mechanism-for-mcs.html
_____________________________________________________
February 22, 2012
February 20, 2012
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,
hematotoxicity, dermatitis, urticaria, 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 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,
hematotoxicity, dermatitis, urticaria, 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 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.
___________________________________________________
February 18, 2012
Chemical Allergies Do Exist
Dr. Stephen Barrett "M.D." is an outspoken individual who retired
from psychiatry in 1993 and then proclaimed himself "the media"
in 2001. He was never board-certified in psychiatry, and he was
never board-certified in anything else. He has zero experience as
a practitioner in every form of internal, dermatological, and dental
medicine. In addition, he was not a researcher in any capacity,
either. He was neither a biochemist, nor a vaccinologist, nor a
medical technologist, nor anything similar.
An Allegation of Stephen Barrett that Calls for a Response:
Stephen Barrett alleged, throughout his anti-MCS literature,
that a primary test for chemical sensitivities consists in ...
(I) a very subjective and non-quantitative form of testing ...
(II) by which a diluted chemical solution is placed under ...
the tongue of a patient (or injected through his skin), ...
(III) followed by nothing more than the patient reporting if
whether or not he experiences any symptom from the
administered chemical solution.
This allegation, in combination with numerous omissions
of fact, can easily deceive a beginner into assuming that
there has never been a test to prove the existence of
chemical sensitivities. This allegation, therefore, calls for
a response.
The Response:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
To start, the testing for IgE-mediated chemical allergies has
been conducted via mainstream medical RAST testing. The
specific chemicals tested are found in the OCCUPATIONAL
PANEL of a RAST TEST order form. This means that main-
stream medical science recognizes the undisputed existence of
chemical allergies. Case closed. The never-board-certified
Stephen Barrett loses again. It would do the intrusive slander-
er well to stay out of things that do not concern him.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In addition:
(1) The testing for chemical sensitivities has included, but
has not been limited to, ...
(I) ... the traditional skin prick test, otherwise known as the
SPT.
(II) In skin prick testing, a test-subject is regarded as having
tested positive when a visible and measurable wheal,
equal to or larger than a designated size, appears as a
result of the skin test.
(III) The size of the wheal is then recorded in numerical form,
and numerical measurement constitutes objectivity.
IgE-mediated Chemicals, via the Process of Haptenation
(2) The purpose for the SPT is to test for immediate onset
Type I hyper-reactivity. Such a reaction occurs within
one hour of exposure.
(I) IgE stands for Immunoglobulin E, and an immunoglobu-
lin is a protein produced by plasma cells & lymphocytes,
serving the function of an antibody.
(II) A number of chemicals have been found to trigger im-
mediate onset reactions, and a subset of those have
been discovered to be IgE-mediated, via a process
known as "haptenation."
(III) Haptein is a greek word which means "to fasten," and
a hapten is a low weighted molecular agent that reacts
with an antibody, but cannot induce the formation of
an antibody until it is fastened to either a carrier protein
or to a large antigenic molecule. Chemicals happen to
be agents of low molecular weight.
Type IV Hypersensitivity Reactions
(3) In addition, there are a significant number of chemicals
which have been found to induce Type IV, cell-mediated
hyperreactivity. This is known as "delayed allergic reac-
tivity," and this type hypersensitivity results in dermatitis.
(I) Concerning Type I and Type IV hyper-reactivity, the
Practice Parameter for Allergy Diagnostic Testing, as
is issued by the Joint Council of Allergy Asthma and
Immunology, states:
"Many chemicals (e.g., sulfonechloramides,
azo dyes, parabens, fragrances) used as
additives in foods, drugs, and cosmetics
may induce either IgE-mediated reactions
or contact dermatitis, or both." [Ann Al-
lergy 1995; 75:543-625]
Non-immunological Chemical Sensitivity Reactions,
Including Anaphylaxis
(4) In addition, a number of chemicals have been identified
as irritants, being that they trigger very real "nonimmuno-
logical" responses. There is even a nonimmunolgical form
of anaphylaxis, called an "anaphylactoid reaction." Such
a reaction produces the same final result as doe an immuno-
logic anaphylactic reaction, and the only difference between
the two types of reactions is in the triggering mechanism of
them. That is to say:
"An anaphylactoid reaction is another type of
immediate reaction that mimics anaphylaxis.
While symptoms and treatments are the same
the reason for the reaction is not. An ana-
phylactoid reaction does not involve the IgE
antibodies' immune system and is not consid-
ered a true allergic reaction. Even so, the
reaction can be just as serious." [American
College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology]
See:
http://www.acaai.org/public/advice/anaph.htm
(I) Thus, there is Allergic Asthma, and then there is Irritant-
induced Asthma. One type of asthma is immunologic,
while the other type is not. You are not inclined to run
a 26 mile marathon in either case, whenever you are
exposed to your asthma triggers.
Allergic Sensitization, Direct Irritation,
and Pharmacological Reactions
(5) Hypersensitivity reactions can be triggered via:
(a) Allergic Sensitization. This is induced by repeated
exposure to a sensitizing agent such as formaldehyde,
glutaraldehyde, or phenyl isocyanate. And then, upon
becoming sensitized, further exposure to the agent re-
sults in an antibody release and/or an inflammatory
chemical release.
(b) Direct Irritation. This is induced in those who are
"atopic;" (in those who possess chronic vulnerabilites
or pre-existent conditions). Such persons develop
"symptoms immediately after exposure to substances
such as chlorine, ammonia, sulfur dioxide, and envi-
ronmental smoke."
(c) Pharmacological Reaction. This comes as a result
of the fact that some chemicals and nonchemical agents
elevate the production of chemicals that naturally exist in
the body. An example of a naturally existent chemical
in the body, able to have its level elevated by nontoxic
chemical exposure, is acetylcholine. A case in point is
the organophosphate/carbamate class of pesticide. Even
at nontoxic levels, it can elevate the level of acetylcholine
in the lungs, because that class of pesticide inhibits the
enzyme acetylcholinesterase.
For further understanding on this, see the Mayo Clinic's
teaching on Occupational Asthma. It is found at:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/occupational-asthma /DS00591/DSECTION=3&
A Sample of IgE-mediated Chemicals
(6) For confirmation purposes, examples of IgE-mediated
chemicals which can be involved in skin testing, include
the following:
(a) The disinfectant Ortho-phthalaldehyde.
It has even resulted in anaphylaxis, concerning the
product "Cidex OPA." See:
<> Nine episodes of anaphylaxis following cystoscopy
caused by Cidex OPA (ortho-phthalaldehyde) high-
level disinfectant in 4 patients after cystoscopy.
{J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004 Aug;114(2):392-7}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15316522&dopt=Citation
(b) Formaldehyde.
It is masked behind a number of aliases, and it outgases
from the shampoo and liquid soap ingredients, DMDM
hydantoin, imidazolidinyl urea, diazolidinyl urea, and
quaternium-15. See:
<> IgE-mediated urticaria from formaldehyde in a
dental root canal compound. (The full text describes
28 cases of Formaldehyde Sensitivity. {J Investig
Allergol Clin Immunol., 2002;12(2):130-3}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=12371530&dopt=Abstract
<> Exposure to gaseous formaldehyde induces IgE-
mediated sensitization to formaldehyde in school
children. {Clin Exp Allergy, 1996 Mar;26(3): 276-80}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=8729664&dopt=Abstract
<> IgE allergy due to formaldehyde paste during
endodontic treatment. Apropos of 4 cases:
2 with anaphylactic shock & 2 with generalized
urticaria. {Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 2000
Oct;101(4):169-74}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=11103423&dopt=Abstract
(c) Vinyl Sulphone Reactive Dyes.
They are also known as fiber-reactive dyes, as well as
azo dyes. They include Remazol Black B. See:
<> Roll of skin prick test and serological measure-
ment of specific IgE diagnosis of occupational
asthma resulting from exposure to vinyl sulphone
reactive dyes. {Occup Environ Med. 2001 Jun;58
(6):411-6}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=11351058&dopt=Citation
<> Asthma, rhinitis, and dermatitis in workers exposed
to reactive dyes. {Br J Ind Med. 1993 Jan;50(1):65-
70}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=8431393&dopt=Abstract
(d) Cyanuric Chloride.
It is used in the production of plastics, herbicides, pharma-
ceuticals, and fiber-reactive dyes. It is also a structural
component of monochlorotriazine and dichlorotriazine dyes.
See:
<> Immunologic cross-reactivity between respiratory
chemical sensitizers: reactive dyes and cyanuric
chloride. {J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998 Nov;102(5):
835-40}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9819302&query_hl=9
(e) The disinfectant Chlorhexidine.
It has even triggered anaphylaxis. See:
<> FDA Public Health Notice:
Potential Hypersensitivity Reactions to
Chlorhexidine-Impregnated Medical Devices
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/chlorhex.html
<> Immediate hypersensitivity to chlorhexidine:
literaure review. {Allerg Immunol (Paris) 2004.
Apr;36(4):123-6}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15180352&query_hl=16
(f) Phthalic Anhydride.
Nail polish ingredient, ingredient in specific spray paints, and
an agent used in the making of unsaturated polyester resins,
alkyd resins, polyester polyols, and insect repellents.
<> Detection of specific IgE in isocyanate and phthalic
anhydride exposed workers: comparison of RAST
RIA, Immuno CAP System FEIA, Magic Lite SQ.
{Allergy. 1993 Nov;48(8);627-30}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=8116862&dopt=Abstract
<> In vitro demonstration of specific IgE in phthalic
anhydride hypersensitivity. {Am Rev Respir Dis.,
1976 May;113(5):701-4}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=1267268&dopt=Abstract
(7) The test that Barrett condemns in his anti-MCS literature
is the provocation-neutralization test. And the only type
of practitioner that he mentions in the same literature is
so-called clinical ecologist. Barrett inaccurately explain-
ed the provocation-neutralization test, in his omitting of
pivotal fact, and he additionally gave the illusion that the
only person on earth who tests for chemical sensitivity is
the so-called clinical ecologist.
(I) Firstly, the diagnosing of the various forms of chemical
sensitivity has been occurring in the worlds of the Occu-
pational and Environmental Health Specialist, the Ear
Nose Throat & Allergy Specialist, the Dermatologist,
and even the Chest Physician. In fact, from the world
of the chest physician came the golden rule for diagnos-
ing Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction. And,
two pivotal papers on chemical sensitivity were pro-
duced by the head of the department of emergency
medicine of an american university. Yes, emergency
medicine.
(II) And secondly, Barrett failed to mention that the provo-
cation-neutralization test has included the measuring of
objective skin wheals.
Barrett Failed to Mention that it is an Offshoot
of the Serial Endpoint Titration Skin Testing
Procedure, Covered by Aetna Insurance
(8) The provocation-neutralization test is actually an
offshoot of the serial endpoint titration skin testing
procedure, covered by Aetna Insurance. And this
is pertinent to note in light of the observation that
Stephen Barrett has repeatedly stated what Aetna
covers, as if Aetna alone is the ultimate benchmark
in diagnostic testing.
(I) Now, the Skin Endpoint Titration seeks to first identify
a patient's allergens or hymenoptera venom hypersen-
sitivities (such as to that of hornets, bees, wasps, fire
ants, and/or yellow jackets.) That is to say, the Skin
Endpoint Titration first seeks to find the triggering dose
of a hypersensitivity reaction.
(II) The same testing then seeks to find the neutralizing
dose of the same allergen or venom. Now, this is
done for immunotherapy purposes, and the neutraliz-
ing dose is found in a series of skin tests. The dose
at which the patient no longer experiences a hyper-
sensitivity reaction is the "endpoint." It constitutes
the neutralizing dose. It then becomes the "safe
starting dose" for immunotherapy. Thus originates
the name "neutralization" in the provocation-neutrali-
zation test. The goal of the provocation-neutralization
test is to identify the "neutral dose."
(III) In summary, the provocation-neutralization test
looks for objective skin wheals, while simultane-
ously asking the patient how he/she feels when,
of course, such testing involves skin testing. And the
appearance of wheals have been documented in such
testing.
(IV) The diagnostic parameters become exceeded when
the testing is considered positive on an either/or basis;
on the basis of either the appearance of an objective
skin wheal or the subjective reporting of a symptom.
However, this is a test that concerns itself with prog-
nostic parameters, also.
(V) Nonetheless, to consider a test positive exclusively on
the merits of an objective skin wheal is to keep the
diagnostic part of any type of skin test within accept-
able parameters. It's the sublingual drops version of
such testing which raises eyebrows.
Wheal Reactions Showed a Distinct Pattern
(9) Objective skin whealing was consistently documented
during a research undertaking that tested the reliability
of the provocation-neutralization test. The result of
the research goes as follows:
"Reaction by symptoms to foods, chemicals,
and normal saline solution showed a random
pattern, although wheal reactions showed a
distinct pattern."
(I) Let it be repeated. In the skin test version of the
provocation-neutralization test:
"wheal reactions showed a distinct pattern."
(II) The conclusion of that research undertaking goes
as follows:
"Skin response alone may be a more
reliable indicator and require cross-
validation with other tests, such as
oral and inhalation challenges and
comparison with a control popula-
tion." See:
<> Intradermal skin testing for food and chemical
sensitivities: a double-blind controlled study.
{J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999 May;103(5 Pt 1):
907-11}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10329827&dopt=Abstract
(III) Concerning the prognostic aspect of the provocation-
neutralization test, Aetna states:
"Since provocation-neutralization requires the
provoking and neutralizing of symptoms to a
single item at a time, the patient could be re-
quired to undergo hundreds of individual tests
requiring weeks or months of full-day testing."
(Well, this is what Aetna states.)
(IV) The bottomline is that skin testing has been used to
identify individual chemical sensitivities to chemicals
such as formaldehyde and phenyl isocyanate, and
phthalic anhydride. Tested patients produced the
objective medical finding of visible and measurable
wheals. And this has included forms of testing other
than that of the neutralization-provocation test
(V) Chemically sensitive patients have tested positive in
inhalation challenge testing, as well as in patch testing
(the testing that seeks to detect delayed hypersensitivity
reponses.) And chemically sensitive patients were also
documented as having objective medical findings via
the fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopy and even the biopsy.
Some patients were found to have inflamed air sacs of
the lungs, while other ones were found to have hepatic
injury in the absence of viral infection. Other ones were
found to have upper-respiratory erythema and swelling.
Chemical Sensitivity exists in a number of forms. It's very
real, and it can be quite brutal. In as much, it has been re-
peatedly documented that chemicals, at ambient (nontoxic)
levels, are not universally harmless.
__________________________
from psychiatry in 1993 and then proclaimed himself "the media"
in 2001. He was never board-certified in psychiatry, and he was
never board-certified in anything else. He has zero experience as
a practitioner in every form of internal, dermatological, and dental
medicine. In addition, he was not a researcher in any capacity,
either. He was neither a biochemist, nor a vaccinologist, nor a
medical technologist, nor anything similar.
An Allegation of Stephen Barrett that Calls for a Response:
Stephen Barrett alleged, throughout his anti-MCS literature,
that a primary test for chemical sensitivities consists in ...
(I) a very subjective and non-quantitative form of testing ...
(II) by which a diluted chemical solution is placed under ...
the tongue of a patient (or injected through his skin), ...
(III) followed by nothing more than the patient reporting if
whether or not he experiences any symptom from the
administered chemical solution.
This allegation, in combination with numerous omissions
of fact, can easily deceive a beginner into assuming that
there has never been a test to prove the existence of
chemical sensitivities. This allegation, therefore, calls for
a response.
The Response:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
To start, the testing for IgE-mediated chemical allergies has
been conducted via mainstream medical RAST testing. The
specific chemicals tested are found in the OCCUPATIONAL
PANEL of a RAST TEST order form. This means that main-
stream medical science recognizes the undisputed existence of
chemical allergies. Case closed. The never-board-certified
Stephen Barrett loses again. It would do the intrusive slander-
er well to stay out of things that do not concern him.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In addition:
(1) The testing for chemical sensitivities has included, but
has not been limited to, ...
(I) ... the traditional skin prick test, otherwise known as the
SPT.
(II) In skin prick testing, a test-subject is regarded as having
tested positive when a visible and measurable wheal,
equal to or larger than a designated size, appears as a
result of the skin test.
(III) The size of the wheal is then recorded in numerical form,
and numerical measurement constitutes objectivity.
IgE-mediated Chemicals, via the Process of Haptenation
(2) The purpose for the SPT is to test for immediate onset
Type I hyper-reactivity. Such a reaction occurs within
one hour of exposure.
(I) IgE stands for Immunoglobulin E, and an immunoglobu-
lin is a protein produced by plasma cells & lymphocytes,
serving the function of an antibody.
(II) A number of chemicals have been found to trigger im-
mediate onset reactions, and a subset of those have
been discovered to be IgE-mediated, via a process
known as "haptenation."
(III) Haptein is a greek word which means "to fasten," and
a hapten is a low weighted molecular agent that reacts
with an antibody, but cannot induce the formation of
an antibody until it is fastened to either a carrier protein
or to a large antigenic molecule. Chemicals happen to
be agents of low molecular weight.
Type IV Hypersensitivity Reactions
(3) In addition, there are a significant number of chemicals
which have been found to induce Type IV, cell-mediated
hyperreactivity. This is known as "delayed allergic reac-
tivity," and this type hypersensitivity results in dermatitis.
(I) Concerning Type I and Type IV hyper-reactivity, the
Practice Parameter for Allergy Diagnostic Testing, as
is issued by the Joint Council of Allergy Asthma and
Immunology, states:
"Many chemicals (e.g., sulfonechloramides,
azo dyes, parabens, fragrances) used as
additives in foods, drugs, and cosmetics
may induce either IgE-mediated reactions
or contact dermatitis, or both." [Ann Al-
lergy 1995; 75:543-625]
Non-immunological Chemical Sensitivity Reactions,
Including Anaphylaxis
(4) In addition, a number of chemicals have been identified
as irritants, being that they trigger very real "nonimmuno-
logical" responses. There is even a nonimmunolgical form
of anaphylaxis, called an "anaphylactoid reaction." Such
a reaction produces the same final result as doe an immuno-
logic anaphylactic reaction, and the only difference between
the two types of reactions is in the triggering mechanism of
them. That is to say:
"An anaphylactoid reaction is another type of
immediate reaction that mimics anaphylaxis.
While symptoms and treatments are the same
the reason for the reaction is not. An ana-
phylactoid reaction does not involve the IgE
antibodies' immune system and is not consid-
ered a true allergic reaction. Even so, the
reaction can be just as serious." [American
College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology]
See:
http://www.acaai.org/public/advice/anaph.htm
(I) Thus, there is Allergic Asthma, and then there is Irritant-
induced Asthma. One type of asthma is immunologic,
while the other type is not. You are not inclined to run
a 26 mile marathon in either case, whenever you are
exposed to your asthma triggers.
Allergic Sensitization, Direct Irritation,
and Pharmacological Reactions
(5) Hypersensitivity reactions can be triggered via:
(a) Allergic Sensitization. This is induced by repeated
exposure to a sensitizing agent such as formaldehyde,
glutaraldehyde, or phenyl isocyanate. And then, upon
becoming sensitized, further exposure to the agent re-
sults in an antibody release and/or an inflammatory
chemical release.
(b) Direct Irritation. This is induced in those who are
"atopic;" (in those who possess chronic vulnerabilites
or pre-existent conditions). Such persons develop
"symptoms immediately after exposure to substances
such as chlorine, ammonia, sulfur dioxide, and envi-
ronmental smoke."
(c) Pharmacological Reaction. This comes as a result
of the fact that some chemicals and nonchemical agents
elevate the production of chemicals that naturally exist in
the body. An example of a naturally existent chemical
in the body, able to have its level elevated by nontoxic
chemical exposure, is acetylcholine. A case in point is
the organophosphate/carbamate class of pesticide. Even
at nontoxic levels, it can elevate the level of acetylcholine
in the lungs, because that class of pesticide inhibits the
enzyme acetylcholinesterase.
For further understanding on this, see the Mayo Clinic's
teaching on Occupational Asthma. It is found at:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/occupational-asthma /DS00591/DSECTION=3&
A Sample of IgE-mediated Chemicals
(6) For confirmation purposes, examples of IgE-mediated
chemicals which can be involved in skin testing, include
the following:
(a) The disinfectant Ortho-phthalaldehyde.
It has even resulted in anaphylaxis, concerning the
product "Cidex OPA." See:
<> Nine episodes of anaphylaxis following cystoscopy
caused by Cidex OPA (ortho-phthalaldehyde) high-
level disinfectant in 4 patients after cystoscopy.
{J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004 Aug;114(2):392-7}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15316522&dopt=Citation
(b) Formaldehyde.
It is masked behind a number of aliases, and it outgases
from the shampoo and liquid soap ingredients, DMDM
hydantoin, imidazolidinyl urea, diazolidinyl urea, and
quaternium-15. See:
<> IgE-mediated urticaria from formaldehyde in a
dental root canal compound. (The full text describes
28 cases of Formaldehyde Sensitivity. {J Investig
Allergol Clin Immunol., 2002;12(2):130-3}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=12371530&dopt=Abstract
<> Exposure to gaseous formaldehyde induces IgE-
mediated sensitization to formaldehyde in school
children. {Clin Exp Allergy, 1996 Mar;26(3): 276-80}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=8729664&dopt=Abstract
<> IgE allergy due to formaldehyde paste during
endodontic treatment. Apropos of 4 cases:
2 with anaphylactic shock & 2 with generalized
urticaria. {Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 2000
Oct;101(4):169-74}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=11103423&dopt=Abstract
(c) Vinyl Sulphone Reactive Dyes.
They are also known as fiber-reactive dyes, as well as
azo dyes. They include Remazol Black B. See:
<> Roll of skin prick test and serological measure-
ment of specific IgE diagnosis of occupational
asthma resulting from exposure to vinyl sulphone
reactive dyes. {Occup Environ Med. 2001 Jun;58
(6):411-6}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=11351058&dopt=Citation
<> Asthma, rhinitis, and dermatitis in workers exposed
to reactive dyes. {Br J Ind Med. 1993 Jan;50(1):65-
70}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=8431393&dopt=Abstract
(d) Cyanuric Chloride.
It is used in the production of plastics, herbicides, pharma-
ceuticals, and fiber-reactive dyes. It is also a structural
component of monochlorotriazine and dichlorotriazine dyes.
See:
<> Immunologic cross-reactivity between respiratory
chemical sensitizers: reactive dyes and cyanuric
chloride. {J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998 Nov;102(5):
835-40}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9819302&query_hl=9
(e) The disinfectant Chlorhexidine.
It has even triggered anaphylaxis. See:
<> FDA Public Health Notice:
Potential Hypersensitivity Reactions to
Chlorhexidine-Impregnated Medical Devices
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/chlorhex.html
<> Immediate hypersensitivity to chlorhexidine:
literaure review. {Allerg Immunol (Paris) 2004.
Apr;36(4):123-6}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15180352&query_hl=16
(f) Phthalic Anhydride.
Nail polish ingredient, ingredient in specific spray paints, and
an agent used in the making of unsaturated polyester resins,
alkyd resins, polyester polyols, and insect repellents.
<> Detection of specific IgE in isocyanate and phthalic
anhydride exposed workers: comparison of RAST
RIA, Immuno CAP System FEIA, Magic Lite SQ.
{Allergy. 1993 Nov;48(8);627-30}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=8116862&dopt=Abstract
<> In vitro demonstration of specific IgE in phthalic
anhydride hypersensitivity. {Am Rev Respir Dis.,
1976 May;113(5):701-4}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=1267268&dopt=Abstract
(7) The test that Barrett condemns in his anti-MCS literature
is the provocation-neutralization test. And the only type
of practitioner that he mentions in the same literature is
so-called clinical ecologist. Barrett inaccurately explain-
ed the provocation-neutralization test, in his omitting of
pivotal fact, and he additionally gave the illusion that the
only person on earth who tests for chemical sensitivity is
the so-called clinical ecologist.
(I) Firstly, the diagnosing of the various forms of chemical
sensitivity has been occurring in the worlds of the Occu-
pational and Environmental Health Specialist, the Ear
Nose Throat & Allergy Specialist, the Dermatologist,
and even the Chest Physician. In fact, from the world
of the chest physician came the golden rule for diagnos-
ing Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction. And,
two pivotal papers on chemical sensitivity were pro-
duced by the head of the department of emergency
medicine of an american university. Yes, emergency
medicine.
(II) And secondly, Barrett failed to mention that the provo-
cation-neutralization test has included the measuring of
objective skin wheals.
Barrett Failed to Mention that it is an Offshoot
of the Serial Endpoint Titration Skin Testing
Procedure, Covered by Aetna Insurance
(8) The provocation-neutralization test is actually an
offshoot of the serial endpoint titration skin testing
procedure, covered by Aetna Insurance. And this
is pertinent to note in light of the observation that
Stephen Barrett has repeatedly stated what Aetna
covers, as if Aetna alone is the ultimate benchmark
in diagnostic testing.
(I) Now, the Skin Endpoint Titration seeks to first identify
a patient's allergens or hymenoptera venom hypersen-
sitivities (such as to that of hornets, bees, wasps, fire
ants, and/or yellow jackets.) That is to say, the Skin
Endpoint Titration first seeks to find the triggering dose
of a hypersensitivity reaction.
(II) The same testing then seeks to find the neutralizing
dose of the same allergen or venom. Now, this is
done for immunotherapy purposes, and the neutraliz-
ing dose is found in a series of skin tests. The dose
at which the patient no longer experiences a hyper-
sensitivity reaction is the "endpoint." It constitutes
the neutralizing dose. It then becomes the "safe
starting dose" for immunotherapy. Thus originates
the name "neutralization" in the provocation-neutrali-
zation test. The goal of the provocation-neutralization
test is to identify the "neutral dose."
(III) In summary, the provocation-neutralization test
looks for objective skin wheals, while simultane-
ously asking the patient how he/she feels when,
of course, such testing involves skin testing. And the
appearance of wheals have been documented in such
testing.
(IV) The diagnostic parameters become exceeded when
the testing is considered positive on an either/or basis;
on the basis of either the appearance of an objective
skin wheal or the subjective reporting of a symptom.
However, this is a test that concerns itself with prog-
nostic parameters, also.
(V) Nonetheless, to consider a test positive exclusively on
the merits of an objective skin wheal is to keep the
diagnostic part of any type of skin test within accept-
able parameters. It's the sublingual drops version of
such testing which raises eyebrows.
Wheal Reactions Showed a Distinct Pattern
(9) Objective skin whealing was consistently documented
during a research undertaking that tested the reliability
of the provocation-neutralization test. The result of
the research goes as follows:
"Reaction by symptoms to foods, chemicals,
and normal saline solution showed a random
pattern, although wheal reactions showed a
distinct pattern."
(I) Let it be repeated. In the skin test version of the
provocation-neutralization test:
"wheal reactions showed a distinct pattern."
(II) The conclusion of that research undertaking goes
as follows:
"Skin response alone may be a more
reliable indicator and require cross-
validation with other tests, such as
oral and inhalation challenges and
comparison with a control popula-
tion." See:
<> Intradermal skin testing for food and chemical
sensitivities: a double-blind controlled study.
{J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999 May;103(5 Pt 1):
907-11}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10329827&dopt=Abstract
(III) Concerning the prognostic aspect of the provocation-
neutralization test, Aetna states:
"Since provocation-neutralization requires the
provoking and neutralizing of symptoms to a
single item at a time, the patient could be re-
quired to undergo hundreds of individual tests
requiring weeks or months of full-day testing."
(Well, this is what Aetna states.)
(IV) The bottomline is that skin testing has been used to
identify individual chemical sensitivities to chemicals
such as formaldehyde and phenyl isocyanate, and
phthalic anhydride. Tested patients produced the
objective medical finding of visible and measurable
wheals. And this has included forms of testing other
than that of the neutralization-provocation test
(V) Chemically sensitive patients have tested positive in
inhalation challenge testing, as well as in patch testing
(the testing that seeks to detect delayed hypersensitivity
reponses.) And chemically sensitive patients were also
documented as having objective medical findings via
the fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopy and even the biopsy.
Some patients were found to have inflamed air sacs of
the lungs, while other ones were found to have hepatic
injury in the absence of viral infection. Other ones were
found to have upper-respiratory erythema and swelling.
Chemical Sensitivity exists in a number of forms. It's very
real, and it can be quite brutal. In as much, it has been re-
peatedly documented that chemicals, at ambient (nontoxic)
levels, are not universally harmless.
__________________________
February 16, 2012
Herman Staudenmayer Neglected to Take into Account that Anise Oil, Cinnamon Oil, Lemon Oil, & Peppermint Spirit Constitute Chemical- bearing Agents
The Research Undertaking that Barrett waved
Like a National Flag
In his attempt to convince mankind that Chemical Sensitivity is merely
a mental illness, the Stephen Barrett who never examined any chemi-
cal sensitivity patient repeatedly cited a "research undertaking" which
was conducted in Denver during the 1980s. The test is formally titled:
"Double-blind provocation chamber challenges in 20 patients present-
ing with "multiple chemical sensitivity," and the article which detailed
the research undertaking was published on August 18, 1993.
The research team who conducted that test consisted of psychologist
Herman Staudenmayer (Ph.d), allergist John Selner (MD), and chem-
ist Martin P. Buhr (Ph.d). I was told by someone very well known in
the Chemical Sensitivity world that Herman Staudenmayer appeared
as a brooder, to state it politely.
The title of the test is misleading, in that it was not based on standard
challenge testing, such as the methacholine challenge test which mea-
sures changes in FEV1. Rather, the Staudenmayer test was subject-
ive testing; the type of testing that Barrett condemned as invalid. So,
we see another instance of hypocrisy in the psychiatrist of early retire-
ment.
Incidentally, FEV1 is the measurement of Forced Expiratory Volume,
after one second of exhaling. In addition, pulmonary experts, from my
experience, will not allow severely sensitive people to take the metha-
choline challenge test, in fear that they "might not recover" the ability
to breath. For example, an Ivy League trained pulmonary expert for-
bid me to take the test. In the State where I was at the time, the law
only permitted pulmonary specialists to order methacholine testing.
Background in Brevity
1) The test consisted in 145 occasions where a test subject had sent
into into his/her chamber an injection of air. The test subject was
then instructed to discern if whether or not the injected air was accom-
panied by a chemical agent. Each of the twenty test subjects partici-
pated in at least one "provocation challenge."
2) The challenges were divided into two types:
a) active challenges,
b) sham challenges.
Eighty-eight of the provocation challenges were defined as "sham"
challenges, and they were recorded as injections of chemical-free
air. The other fifty-seven challenges were defined as "active" chal-
lenges, each of which was recorded as the injection of chemical-
bearing air.
3) The sham challenges came in two forms:
a) clean air injected alone,
b) clean air accompanied by an aromatic agent.
4) The active challenges also came in two forms:
a) the injection of an airborne chemical alone,
b) an airborne chemical accompanied by an aromatic agent.
5) The aromatic agents were called "maskers."
Maskers used in the "Staudenmayer Test" included:
a) anise oil,
b) cinnamon oil,
c) lemon oil,
d) peppermint spirit (10% oil and 1% leaves.)
4) The overall result of the test, as recorded by the research team,
goes as follows: "Individually, none of these patients demon-
strated a reliable response pattern across a series of challenges."
The conclusion was that persons diagnosed with Multiple Chem-
ical Sensitivity are merely psychologically ill.
The Invalidating Feature of that Test
The maskers that Stephen Barrett cited as having been used in the
"Herman Staudenmayer Test" are known triggers of adverse reac-
tions in susceptible persons. The maskers were chemical-bearing
agents.
Concerning anything aromatic, keep in mind that the AMA, the world-
renown Mayo Clinic, the American Lung Association, and the Ameri-
can Academy of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology each recognize, in
publicly accessible print, that "strong odors" can be triggers of adverse
upper and/or lower respiratory reactions in susceptible people, simply
because they are strong odors. This has included anise oil, cinnamon
oil, lemon oil, and peppermint spirit.
The Chemical Ingredients in the Sample List of Maskers
Used in 'the Staudenmayer Test' that were Alleged to be
Chemical-free
Concerning the sample list of maskers used in the "Staudenmayer
Test," observe the following:
Anise Oil:
- An active ingredient in it is anethole.
- Anethole's chemical composition is C10H12O.
- Its CAS No. is 104-46-1.
- It is a known trigger to those adversely reactive to it.
- In fact, Anethole is known as p-1-propenylanisode.
- It is also known as 1-methoxy-4-(1-propenyl)benzene.
- Thus, anise oil is a chemical-bearing agent.
In all occasions where anise was used as a masker in a clean air inject-
ion, a chemical-bearing agent was being injected into the test subject's
chamber. Therefore, to have recorded such an injection as one of
chemical-free air was to have recorded a falsehood.
Cinnamon Oil:
Along with being a "strong odor," cinnamon oil is a bearer of aldehyde.
In fact, the naturally occurring trans-cinnamaldehyde unassistedly be-
comes benzaldehyde in the presence of heat.
In as much, to have recorded a cinnamon oil air injection as a chemical-
free one was to have recorded yet another falsehood. Cinnamon oil is
a chemical-bearing agent.
Lemon Oil:
The most prevalent constituent in lemon oil is the monoterpene, limo-
nene, aka 4-isopropenyl-1-methyl-cyclohexene. Limonene de-
velops a potent sensitizing capacity when oxidized, and it's a reputed
skin sensitizer. In addition, a Swedish research undertaking record-
ed the following: "Bronchial hyperresponsiveness was related to in-
door concentrations of limonene, the most prevalent terpene." Lemon
oil also includes the same alpha-pinene that was implicated in oil of
turpentine allergy.
Peppermint:
This aromatic agent is the bearer of Methyl Salicylate, and as is shown
below, it is among the salicylate allergy triggers. It's also the bearer of
the following sensitizing agents: (a) alpha-pinene, (b) phellandrene,
and (c) limonene. It's also the bearer of (d) methone, (e) mentho-
furane, (f) and methyl acetate.
Now, as far as concerns methyl salicylate, Supplement 5 of the Journal
of the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists, 1999 / Vol. 14,
states:
"Of note, methyl salicylate carries the same warnings as oral
salicylates and has the potential to cause Reye's Syndrome in
children with flu-like symptoms, as well as adverse reactions
in those with aspirin allergy, asthma, or nasal polyps."
In as much, to record an airborne injection of peppermint spirit as
a chemical-free one, is to record yet another falsehood.
Dephosphorylation
The research team gave no consideration to the the masking of sensi-
tivity responses; a phenomenon attributed to the involvement of Ca2+
calmodulin phosphatase calcineurin and the ensuing dephosphorylation
that it induces. Phosphorylation is explained in the following text:
http://www.chemicalsensitization.com/2011/01/proposed-mechanism-for-mcs.html
Barrett's Predictable Response to the Test
As is to be expected, in an article written by him, Barrett recommended
that clinical researchers conduct more tests likened to the one conduct-
ed by Staudenmayer and his colleagues; anise oil, cinnamon oil, and all.
You should be able to conjecture why he advocated Kangaroo Court
research.
_____________________________________________________
Like a National Flag
In his attempt to convince mankind that Chemical Sensitivity is merely
a mental illness, the Stephen Barrett who never examined any chemi-
cal sensitivity patient repeatedly cited a "research undertaking" which
was conducted in Denver during the 1980s. The test is formally titled:
"Double-blind provocation chamber challenges in 20 patients present-
ing with "multiple chemical sensitivity," and the article which detailed
the research undertaking was published on August 18, 1993.
The research team who conducted that test consisted of psychologist
Herman Staudenmayer (Ph.d), allergist John Selner (MD), and chem-
ist Martin P. Buhr (Ph.d). I was told by someone very well known in
the Chemical Sensitivity world that Herman Staudenmayer appeared
as a brooder, to state it politely.
The title of the test is misleading, in that it was not based on standard
challenge testing, such as the methacholine challenge test which mea-
sures changes in FEV1. Rather, the Staudenmayer test was subject-
ive testing; the type of testing that Barrett condemned as invalid. So,
we see another instance of hypocrisy in the psychiatrist of early retire-
ment.
Incidentally, FEV1 is the measurement of Forced Expiratory Volume,
after one second of exhaling. In addition, pulmonary experts, from my
experience, will not allow severely sensitive people to take the metha-
choline challenge test, in fear that they "might not recover" the ability
to breath. For example, an Ivy League trained pulmonary expert for-
bid me to take the test. In the State where I was at the time, the law
only permitted pulmonary specialists to order methacholine testing.
Background in Brevity
1) The test consisted in 145 occasions where a test subject had sent
into into his/her chamber an injection of air. The test subject was
then instructed to discern if whether or not the injected air was accom-
panied by a chemical agent. Each of the twenty test subjects partici-
pated in at least one "provocation challenge."
2) The challenges were divided into two types:
a) active challenges,
b) sham challenges.
Eighty-eight of the provocation challenges were defined as "sham"
challenges, and they were recorded as injections of chemical-free
air. The other fifty-seven challenges were defined as "active" chal-
lenges, each of which was recorded as the injection of chemical-
bearing air.
3) The sham challenges came in two forms:
a) clean air injected alone,
b) clean air accompanied by an aromatic agent.
4) The active challenges also came in two forms:
a) the injection of an airborne chemical alone,
b) an airborne chemical accompanied by an aromatic agent.
5) The aromatic agents were called "maskers."
Maskers used in the "Staudenmayer Test" included:
a) anise oil,
b) cinnamon oil,
c) lemon oil,
d) peppermint spirit (10% oil and 1% leaves.)
4) The overall result of the test, as recorded by the research team,
goes as follows: "Individually, none of these patients demon-
strated a reliable response pattern across a series of challenges."
The conclusion was that persons diagnosed with Multiple Chem-
ical Sensitivity are merely psychologically ill.
The Invalidating Feature of that Test
The maskers that Stephen Barrett cited as having been used in the
"Herman Staudenmayer Test" are known triggers of adverse reac-
tions in susceptible persons. The maskers were chemical-bearing
agents.
Concerning anything aromatic, keep in mind that the AMA, the world-
renown Mayo Clinic, the American Lung Association, and the Ameri-
can Academy of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology each recognize, in
publicly accessible print, that "strong odors" can be triggers of adverse
upper and/or lower respiratory reactions in susceptible people, simply
because they are strong odors. This has included anise oil, cinnamon
oil, lemon oil, and peppermint spirit.
The Chemical Ingredients in the Sample List of Maskers
Used in 'the Staudenmayer Test' that were Alleged to be
Chemical-free
Concerning the sample list of maskers used in the "Staudenmayer
Test," observe the following:
Anise Oil:
- An active ingredient in it is anethole.
- Anethole's chemical composition is C10H12O.
- Its CAS No. is 104-46-1.
- It is a known trigger to those adversely reactive to it.
- In fact, Anethole is known as p-1-propenylanisode.
- It is also known as 1-methoxy-4-(1-propenyl)benzene.
- Thus, anise oil is a chemical-bearing agent.
In all occasions where anise was used as a masker in a clean air inject-
ion, a chemical-bearing agent was being injected into the test subject's
chamber. Therefore, to have recorded such an injection as one of
chemical-free air was to have recorded a falsehood.
Cinnamon Oil:
Along with being a "strong odor," cinnamon oil is a bearer of aldehyde.
In fact, the naturally occurring trans-cinnamaldehyde unassistedly be-
comes benzaldehyde in the presence of heat.
In as much, to have recorded a cinnamon oil air injection as a chemical-
free one was to have recorded yet another falsehood. Cinnamon oil is
a chemical-bearing agent.
Lemon Oil:
The most prevalent constituent in lemon oil is the monoterpene, limo-
nene, aka 4-isopropenyl-1-methyl-cyclohexene. Limonene de-
velops a potent sensitizing capacity when oxidized, and it's a reputed
skin sensitizer. In addition, a Swedish research undertaking record-
ed the following: "Bronchial hyperresponsiveness was related to in-
door concentrations of limonene, the most prevalent terpene." Lemon
oil also includes the same alpha-pinene that was implicated in oil of
turpentine allergy.
Peppermint:
This aromatic agent is the bearer of Methyl Salicylate, and as is shown
below, it is among the salicylate allergy triggers. It's also the bearer of
the following sensitizing agents: (a) alpha-pinene, (b) phellandrene,
and (c) limonene. It's also the bearer of (d) methone, (e) mentho-
furane, (f) and methyl acetate.
Now, as far as concerns methyl salicylate, Supplement 5 of the Journal
of the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists, 1999 / Vol. 14,
states:
"Of note, methyl salicylate carries the same warnings as oral
salicylates and has the potential to cause Reye's Syndrome in
children with flu-like symptoms, as well as adverse reactions
in those with aspirin allergy, asthma, or nasal polyps."
In as much, to record an airborne injection of peppermint spirit as
a chemical-free one, is to record yet another falsehood.
Dephosphorylation
The research team gave no consideration to the the masking of sensi-
tivity responses; a phenomenon attributed to the involvement of Ca2+
calmodulin phosphatase calcineurin and the ensuing dephosphorylation
that it induces. Phosphorylation is explained in the following text:
http://www.chemicalsensitization.com/2011/01/proposed-mechanism-for-mcs.html
Barrett's Predictable Response to the Test
As is to be expected, in an article written by him, Barrett recommended
that clinical researchers conduct more tests likened to the one conduct-
ed by Staudenmayer and his colleagues; anise oil, cinnamon oil, and all.
You should be able to conjecture why he advocated Kangaroo Court
research.
_____________________________________________________
February 14, 2012
Objective Medical Findings
in the Chemically Sensitive
Posted below is a list of objective medical findings entered into the
records of chemically sensitive patients and research documenta-
tion. It appears after an introduction and a narration of a recent
case study. The introduction shows how objective medical find-
ings can be entirely missed during initial examines, while the case
study 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 web-
site declared it "junk science." It was/is the emergent illness which
afflicted persons exposed to the debris of the World Trade Center
collapse. Unofficially called "World Trade Center Syndrome," its
distinctive feature is the "the WTC Cough," and its symptoms in-
clude shortness of breath.
The article attributed the ills of the afflicted WTC cleanup crew
members to the 2002 "flu season." It furthermore attributed the
ills of Manhattan 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 quick-
ly 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. They had
Small Airways Disease, and it was the end-expiratory CT scan that
confirmed it. The standard chest CT scan entirely overlooked it.
The Fiberoptic Rhinolaryngoscopy Detects that
which the Garden Variety Cursory Exam Overlooks
The upper airway endoscopy is recognized by mainstream medical
science as an effective means by which pathologies of the septum,
turbinates, mucosa, nasopharynx, adenoids, eustachian tube orifice,
tonsils, posterior tongue, epiglottis, glottis, and vocal cords can be
easily seen. It was the fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopic exam which re-
sulted in researchers realizing (in the early 1990s) that the Multiple
Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome which was presumed to involve no
objective medical findings showed signs of a physical pathology.
In addition, the golden rule for diagnosing Irritant-associated Vocal
Cord Dysfunction came to be that of a flexible fiberoptic rhinolaryn-
goscopic exam performed upon a patient while the patient is symp-
tomatic.
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 understanding, 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 narra-
tion posted directly below should offer more detailed insight to this.
It involves a case study which teaches us that, simply because cor-
porate 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 build-
ing became ill six months after having worked there. A laboratory
would come to confirm 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 com-
plex human anatomy. Furthermore, there was also the matter of
pesticide exposure, ambient solvent exposure, 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 then worsened and she had to quit work en-
tirely. A fellow employee of hers also quit working, and he moved
to Arizona. Other fellow employees mentioned that they were be-
ing sickened, too.
The business no longer operates in the former coal tar research cen-
ter. Moreover, a large corporation that is involved in this matter,
despite the fact that the antics of a small fly-by-night business are
described. In fact, the corporaton'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 would be able to detect the presence of certain airborne sub-
stances, simply because she unavoidably tasted them on her tongue.
A subset of her symptoms, incidentally, was the metallic taste in her
mouth. She could no longer go to the places she used to frequent
without becoming severely symptomatic. A number of airborne
agents would trigger her ills. This included engine fragrances, en-
gine exhausts, and musty cardboard boxes. In addition, she lived
in the american state which presently has the fourth worse air qua-
lity in the entire United States. In addition, she had no prior history
of asthma, no prior history of chronic upper-respiratory ills, and no
history of allergies.
She received the diagnosis of agoraphobia & panic attacks, by a
"mental health person." The corporate attorneys involved in her
workman's comp case asserted that she had no objective medical
findings to support her claims. However, an allergist and immun-
ologist gave her the diagnoses of Asthma, Rhinitis, and Chemical
Sensitivities, while a cytopathologist gave her the additional diagno-
sis of Reactive Hyperplasia. In fact, in emergenccy room settings,
she received the Asthma and Rhinitis diagnosis. Yet, assertions of
mental illness had been set forth on record and asserted in court de-
positions 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
performed on her. It was conducted by an ear nose throat and
allergy specialist who was also a fellow of the American College
of Surgeons. The woman who was said to have no objective
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 physical 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 documented as having "gruntled breathing" during
one ER visit. She was also recorded as having wheezed and
crackled during other ones. Thus, she had already been found
to have the previously mentioned adenopathy. Tachycardia,
erythema of the oropharynx, and hypopotassemia had also
been entered into her medical records before the October 13th
rhinolaryngoscopy. Yet, she was branded with the "mental ill-
ness stigma," especially by the corporate attorneys and an inde-
pendent medical examiner hired by the antonistic corporation.
Furthermore, after she had become ill, she tested severely posi-
tive for dust mites and no other high weight molecular agent
(such as ragweed, tree pollen, etc.) Yet, she has no prior his-
tory 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 are cases where barn
workers became sensitized to storage mites.
The account of the chemically sensitive woman who has over a
dozen objective meidcal findings attached to her medical records
can be accessed by clicking on the web link provided directly be-
low.
Narrative of the chemically sensitive woman
with over a dozen objective medical findings
Chemical Exposure During Testing is Often a Necessity
There is one thing to note about a plurality of chemical sensitivity
conditions. In order to acquire objective medical findings, you
have to be examined while exposed to a chemical agent that as-
sails you. 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's not an unheard event for a chem-
ically sensitive patient to be found hunched over a waste basket
after having been administered a skin prick test. Patch testing
has resulted in a few occasions of anaphylaxis. In addition, be-
ing made symptomatic before a rhinolaryngoscopic exam is not
a painless event. Moreover, 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
objective medical finding in chemically sensitive patients, they will
risk extinguishing the disrespect and indifference that their literature
serves to incite. This will incline people to take a respectful view
of environmental 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 is only a matter of time before the contro-
versy involving Multiple Chemical Sensitivity will be resolved. In
light of this, a list of objective medical findings in chemically sensi-
tive patients is posted directly 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:
Note 2: There are also instances of hematotoxicity triggered
by nontoxic benzene exposure. See: Hematotoxicity
in workers exposed to low levels of benzene:
Note 3: There is more that can be included, but the afore-
mentioned things should suffice in proving a point.
_____________________________________
records of chemically sensitive patients and research documenta-
tion. It appears after an introduction and a narration of a recent
case study. The introduction shows how objective medical find-
ings can be entirely missed during initial examines, while the case
study 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 web-
site declared it "junk science." It was/is the emergent illness which
afflicted persons exposed to the debris of the World Trade Center
collapse. Unofficially called "World Trade Center Syndrome," its
distinctive feature is the "the WTC Cough," and its symptoms in-
clude shortness of breath.
The article attributed the ills of the afflicted WTC cleanup crew
members to the 2002 "flu season." It furthermore attributed the
ills of Manhattan 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 quick-
ly 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. They had
Small Airways Disease, and it was the end-expiratory CT scan that
confirmed it. The standard chest CT scan entirely overlooked it.
The Fiberoptic Rhinolaryngoscopy Detects that
which the Garden Variety Cursory Exam Overlooks
The upper airway endoscopy is recognized by mainstream medical
science as an effective means by which pathologies of the septum,
turbinates, mucosa, nasopharynx, adenoids, eustachian tube orifice,
tonsils, posterior tongue, epiglottis, glottis, and vocal cords can be
easily seen. It was the fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopic exam which re-
sulted in researchers realizing (in the early 1990s) that the Multiple
Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome which was presumed to involve no
objective medical findings showed signs of a physical pathology.
In addition, the golden rule for diagnosing Irritant-associated Vocal
Cord Dysfunction came to be that of a flexible fiberoptic rhinolaryn-
goscopic exam performed upon a patient while the patient is symp-
tomatic.
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 understanding, 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 narra-
tion posted directly below should offer more detailed insight to this.
It involves a case study which teaches us that, simply because cor-
porate 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 build-
ing became ill six months after having worked there. A laboratory
would come to confirm 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 com-
plex human anatomy. Furthermore, there was also the matter of
pesticide exposure, ambient solvent exposure, 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 then worsened and she had to quit work en-
tirely. A fellow employee of hers also quit working, and he moved
to Arizona. Other fellow employees mentioned that they were be-
ing sickened, too.
The business no longer operates in the former coal tar research cen-
ter. Moreover, a large corporation that is involved in this matter,
despite the fact that the antics of a small fly-by-night business are
described. In fact, the corporaton'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 would be able to detect the presence of certain airborne sub-
stances, simply because she unavoidably tasted them on her tongue.
A subset of her symptoms, incidentally, was the metallic taste in her
mouth. She could no longer go to the places she used to frequent
without becoming severely symptomatic. A number of airborne
agents would trigger her ills. This included engine fragrances, en-
gine exhausts, and musty cardboard boxes. In addition, she lived
in the american state which presently has the fourth worse air qua-
lity in the entire United States. In addition, she had no prior history
of asthma, no prior history of chronic upper-respiratory ills, and no
history of allergies.
She received the diagnosis of agoraphobia & panic attacks, by a
"mental health person." The corporate attorneys involved in her
workman's comp case asserted that she had no objective medical
findings to support her claims. However, an allergist and immun-
ologist gave her the diagnoses of Asthma, Rhinitis, and Chemical
Sensitivities, while a cytopathologist gave her the additional diagno-
sis of Reactive Hyperplasia. In fact, in emergenccy room settings,
she received the Asthma and Rhinitis diagnosis. Yet, assertions of
mental illness had been set forth on record and asserted in court de-
positions 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
performed on her. It was conducted by an ear nose throat and
allergy specialist who was also a fellow of the American College
of Surgeons. The woman who was said to have no objective
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 physical 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 documented as having "gruntled breathing" during
one ER visit. She was also recorded as having wheezed and
crackled during other ones. Thus, she had already been found
to have the previously mentioned adenopathy. Tachycardia,
erythema of the oropharynx, and hypopotassemia had also
been entered into her medical records before the October 13th
rhinolaryngoscopy. Yet, she was branded with the "mental ill-
ness stigma," especially by the corporate attorneys and an inde-
pendent medical examiner hired by the antonistic corporation.
Furthermore, after she had become ill, she tested severely posi-
tive for dust mites and no other high weight molecular agent
(such as ragweed, tree pollen, etc.) Yet, she has no prior his-
tory 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 are cases where barn
workers became sensitized to storage mites.
The account of the chemically sensitive woman who has over a
dozen objective meidcal findings attached to her medical records
can be accessed by clicking on the web link provided directly be-
low.
Narrative of the chemically sensitive woman
with over a dozen objective medical findings
Chemical Exposure During Testing is Often a Necessity
There is one thing to note about a plurality of chemical sensitivity
conditions. In order to acquire objective medical findings, you
have to be examined while exposed to a chemical agent that as-
sails you. 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's not an unheard event for a chem-
ically sensitive patient to be found hunched over a waste basket
after having been administered a skin prick test. Patch testing
has resulted in a few occasions of anaphylaxis. In addition, be-
ing made symptomatic before a rhinolaryngoscopic exam is not
a painless event. Moreover, 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
objective medical finding in chemically sensitive patients, they will
risk extinguishing the disrespect and indifference that their literature
serves to incite. This will incline people to take a respectful view
of environmental 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 is only a matter of time before the contro-
versy involving Multiple Chemical Sensitivity will be resolved. In
light of this, a list of objective medical findings in chemically sensi-
tive patients is posted directly 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:
Note 2: There are also instances of hematotoxicity triggered
by nontoxic benzene exposure. See: Hematotoxicity
in workers exposed to low levels of benzene:
Note 3: There is more that can be included, but the afore-
mentioned things should suffice in proving a point.
_____________________________________
February 12, 2012
Systemic and Coexisting Forms
of Chemical Sensitivity
Anaphylaxis: It impairs multiple body systems in one systemic
fashion, and it has been triggered by a number of chemicals at
ambient levels. The chemicals which have thus far been docu-
mented 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
documented under the name, anaphylaxis and even urticaria. It
is not a proposed 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
consisted in the assertion that a chemical, whenever encountered
at a nontoxic level, can not impair more than one body system in
the same one person. However, chemicals have individually done
this during anaphylaxis. In fact, there are documented instances in
the world of occupational medicine 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, and it has thus far involved the integu-
mentary system (the skin) in combination with the respiratory 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, and it ap-
pears in documentation under the name "co-morbid conditions," as
well as under "coexisting conditions." Thus, it is not a hypothesis
yet to be proven. The chemicals which have thus far been document-
ed as having induced it, within the world of Occupational Medicine,
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
entirely negates the assumption that a chemical sensitivity reaction
can only impair one body system in any one person. Clicking on
each of the following titles will connect you to the documentary
evidence, 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 Aziridiine 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 hypersensitivity
to a number of chemicals other than that which was encountered
during 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 where it even triggered shortness of breath and chest
pains. The physical examination of the driver resulted in the follow-
ing objective medical 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 gastro-
intestinal distress, fatigue, weakness, arthralgia, and irritability.
Now, this is a description of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, and
this is pertinent to note in light of the fact that detractors of MCS
have repeatedly claimed that persons manifesting signs of MCS
have no objective medical findings to support their reported symp-
toms. This one driver had seven objective medical findings at the
outset of his illness placed in his record.
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 merely phobic of chemical exposure, and therefore, 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 laden environments. If such persons were pho-
bic of chemical exposure, they would have never taken the chemically
laden jobs they took. They would have never even applied for those
jobs.
fashion, and it has been triggered by a number of chemicals at
ambient levels. The chemicals which have thus far been docu-
mented 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
documented under the name, anaphylaxis and even urticaria. It
is not a proposed 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
consisted in the assertion that a chemical, whenever encountered
at a nontoxic level, can not impair more than one body system in
the same one person. However, chemicals have individually done
this during anaphylaxis. In fact, there are documented instances in
the world of occupational medicine 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, and it has thus far involved the integu-
mentary system (the skin) in combination with the respiratory 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, and it ap-
pears in documentation under the name "co-morbid conditions," as
well as under "coexisting conditions." Thus, it is not a hypothesis
yet to be proven. The chemicals which have thus far been document-
ed as having induced it, within the world of Occupational Medicine,
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
entirely negates the assumption that a chemical sensitivity reaction
can only impair one body system in any one person. Clicking on
each of the following titles will connect you to the documentary
evidence, 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 Aziridiine 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 hypersensitivity
to a number of chemicals other than that which was encountered
during 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 where it even triggered shortness of breath and chest
pains. The physical examination of the driver resulted in the follow-
ing objective medical 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 gastro-
intestinal distress, fatigue, weakness, arthralgia, and irritability.
Now, this is a description of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, and
this is pertinent to note in light of the fact that detractors of MCS
have repeatedly claimed that persons manifesting signs of MCS
have no objective medical findings to support their reported symp-
toms. This one driver had seven objective medical findings at the
outset of his illness placed in his record.
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 merely phobic of chemical exposure, and therefore, 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 laden environments. If such persons were pho-
bic of chemical exposure, they would have never taken the chemically
laden jobs they took. They would have never even applied for those
jobs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)