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.
_____________________________________________________
