Brief Outline
Stephen Barrett has repeatedly asserted that the Multiple Chemical
Sensitivity diagnosis is an act of malpractice, given to those who are
merely mentally ill. He furthermore called Sick Building Syndrome
(SBS) a "fad diagnosis," stating that it is intertwined with MCS. He
additionally stated that Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is supported
by "a small cadre of physicians" who identify themselves as "clinical
ecologists."
The Induced Deceptions
Barrett's literature can easily deceive a novice into assuming that
the MCS diagnosis has never been given at any occupational &
environmental health clinic, as well as at any world renown med-
ical institution. And being that Barrett associated SBS with MCS,
it leaves a novice to assume the same things about Sick Building
Syndrome. Stephen Barrett's assertions call for a response.
The Response
The Association of Occupational & Environmental Clinics has
posted profiles of its members, in State-by-State directory form.
In each AOEC profile, mention is made of the profiled member's
Most Common Occupational Diagnoses and Most Common
Environmental Diagnoses. Placed into focus at this point are
the AOEC members listed directly below. The profile of each
one dates from February 2009 to October 2010.
{1} the world renowned Yale University,
{2} the world renowned Mount Sinai,
{3} Harvard affiliated Cambridge Hospital,
{4} The world renowned Johns Hopkins University.
{1} In the AOEC directory for the State of Connecticut, the second
member profiled is the Yale University Occupational and Envir-
onmental Health Clinic. For years, it marked as one of its Most
Common Environmental Diagnoses, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.
At this present time, it simply states it to be Chemical Sensitivity,
without the word, "multiple."
See: http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_CT.htm
This can be additionally confirmed at the following Yale University
web address, under the heading, Chemical Exposures/Disease:
See: http://medicine.yale.edu/intmed/occmed/clinical/index.aspx
{2} We next go to the State of New York. The fourth clinic profiled
in the New York directory is The Mount Sinai Irving J. Selikoff
Center. Among its three Most Common Environmental Diagnoses
is Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. In fact, the Occupational Health
Clinical Centers, located in Syracuse, New York, also has Multiple
Chemical Sensitivity marked as one of its most common environ-
mental diagnosis. In addition, the Long Island Occupational and
Environmental Health Center, in Medford NY, has MCS marked
as one of its two most common environmental diagnoses.
See: http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_NY.htm
{3} We now come to the AOEC directory for Massachusetts. The
third listed clinic is Harvard affiliate, Cambridge Hospital. Multiple
Chemical Sensitivity is listed as one of Cambridge Hospital's most
common environmental diagnoses.
See: http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_MA.htm
{4} Next comes Johns Hopkins Division of Occupational and Environ-
mental Medicine. According to the AOEC directory for the State
of Maryland, one of Johns Hopkins most common environmental
diagnosis is Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.
See: http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_MD.htm
Furthermore, a notable number of AOEC members have Sick Build-
ing Syndrome listed among their most common diagnoses. This
includes:
[] Presbyterian Occupational Medicine Clinic (Albuquerque),
[] The University of Washington Harborview Medical Ctr,
[] The University of Iowa Department of Internal Medicine,
[] Georgia Occup. & Environ. Toxicology Clinic (Atlanta),
[] The University of Stony Brook School of Medicine,
[] The University of Illinois - Chicago,
[] Wayne State University (Detroit),
[] The University of Pittsburgh,
[] Johns Hopkins, as was previously mentioned.
In addition, a number of AOEC members have Indoor Air Quality
listed among their most common diagnoses. For example, the world
renown Duke Medical Center has Indoor Air Quality Assessment
listed among its most common diagnoses, while Yale University
has Indoor Air Quality Problems listed.
The 21st Century proposed mechanism for MCS does not come from
the world of the "clinical ecologist." It comes from the school of molec-
ular bio-sciences of an American university. The expanded diagram of
that proposed mechanism mentions, in a favorable light, the conclu-
sions about chemical sensitivity which come from the school of emer-
gency medicine of yet another American university. In fact, findings
in chemical sensitivity also come from the technologically advanced
nations of Germany, Sweden, Austria, France, Italy, South Korea,
Spain, the Netherlands, and Japan.
