Chemical Sensitivity in Mainstream Medical Documentation

The Diversionary Tactic

2012-01-29T22:15:00.000-05:00

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.
___________________________________________________

The 80+ Chemical Ingredients in Febreze

2012-01-28T11:17:00.014-05:00

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
_______________________________________________

Chemical Allergies Do Exist

2012-01-23T11:30:00.001-05:00

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.
__________________________

Herman Staudenmayer Neglected to Take into Account that Anise Oil, Cinnamon Oil, Lemon Oil, & Peppermint Spirit Constitute Chemical- bearing Agents

2012-01-19T12:23:00.000-05:00

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.
_____________________________________________________

Objective Medical Findings in the Chemically Sensitive

2012-01-17T12:46:00.000-05:00

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.
_____________________________________

Systemic and Coexisting Forms of Chemical Sensitivity

2012-01-15T12:58:00.000-05:00

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.

Mt. Sinai, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Yale, and the MCS Diagnosis

2012-01-13T22:58:00.000-05:00

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.

A Proposed Mechanism for MCS

2012-01-11T08:20:00.000-05:00

The 21st Century proposed mechanism for MCS identifies two general
categories of chemical sensitivity. They are Central Chemical Sensitiv-
ity and Peripheral Chemical Sensitivity. The outline goes as follows:

Central Chemical Sensitivity

This type of chemical sensitivity involves the central nervous system,
and it's triggering point is proposed to be found in chemoreceptor ac-
tivation (action potential.)

Specific chemoreceptors, upon their activation, elevate nitric oxide
levels in the body. The nitric oxide reacts with superoxide, produc-
ing peroxynitrite.

While the nitric oxide is engaged in producing peroxynitrite, it is si-
multaneously engaged in an additional function. That function is
"retrograde signaling."

Nitric oxide's role in retrograde signaling is proposed to be that of
sending an electrical signal to the presynapse cells, thereby stimu-
lating the release of two types of neurotransmitters. The two types
are glutamate and aspartate.

Those types of neurotransmitters then stimulate receptors in the post
synaptic cells, known as N-methyl-d-aspartate receptors. Abbrevi-
ated "NMDA receptors", they react by producing nitric oxide from
their own sites, thereby maintaining the inordinately high level of
nitric oxide already present. Nitric oxide's ample presence proceeds
to maintain the inordinately high levels of peroxynitrite.

While the NMDA receptors are maintaining an elevated nitric oxide
level, peroxynitrite is engaged in causing the cells that contain those
receptors to be depleted of their energy pools. That which is being
depleted is adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the carrier of energy in
all living organisms. Peroxynitrite inhibits mitochondrial function,
and therefore, the production of ATP.

When cells containing NMDA receptors become deprived of their
energy pool's replenishment, the NMDA receptors become hyper-
sensitive to stimulation. And while the cells containing NMDA re-
ceptors are being deprived of energy replenishment, peroxynitrite
is engaged in yet another process; that of breaking down the blood
brain barrier. This enables increased chemical access to the brain.

Meanwhile, nitric oxide performs yet another function; that of in-
hibiting cytochrome P450 activity. Therefore, nitric oxide is pro-
posed to inhibit the process by which chemicals get metabolized
and become harmless. The result is heightened sensitivity to chem-
ical exposure.

The aforementioned scenario was proposed by Dr. Martin L. Pall,
of the School of Molecular Biosciences of Washington State. The
aforementioned scenario is called "a vicious cycle mechanism" and
a paper written by Dr. Pall which describes this vicious cycle can be
accessed by clicking on the following web address:

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/realfiles/members/2003/5935/5935.html

Vanilloid Receptor TRPV1

Recently added to this proposed mechanism is the first member of
the Vanilloid Receptor family, TRPV1. The involvement of TRPV1
in MCS is the subject of a paper written by Dr. Pall and a Dr. Julius
Anderson, M.D., Ph.D., of West Hartford, Vermont. It is titled,
The Vanilloid Receptor as the Putative Target of Diverse Chemi-
cals in Multple Chemical Sensitivity. The bibliographical citation
for it is Arch Environ Health. 2004 Jul;59(7):363-75.

The vanilloid receptor is implicated as a major target for a number
of chemicals which can activate it. Therefore, vanilloid receptor
activation is proposed to be the point where the vicious cycle be-
gins. The vanilloid receptor paper also addresses the phenomenon
of masking, a phenomenon duly noted in Central Chemical Sensi-
tivity.

Masking is the phenomenon where a chemical exposure scenario
gets muted at the outset by the overshadowing effect of a previous
and different one. That same chemical exposure would have re-
sulted in a notable adverse reaction if it were the first one of that
day. That same chemical exposure will result in an adverse reac-
tion when it becomes the first one, on some future day. The mask-
ingeffect muted the presence of that specific chemical exposure

encounter for that particular day.

Masking is liken to drinking scalding coffee. After having done so,
even cold water gives a scalding effect. Yet, if the cold water were
taken before the scalding coffee, it would have no ill effect. Thus,
after having been exposed to one incitant (trigger), there is an inabil-
ity to differentiate between things to which you are hyper-reactive
and things to which you are not.

The authors of the vanilloid receptor paper propose that masking
occurs during a cyclic phase known as dephosphorylation. It is a
phase triggered by Ca2+ calmodulin phosphatease calcineurin. The
hypothesis is that vanilloid receptor activity is decreased during that
phase; the "desensitization" phase. Conversely, it is during the alter-
nate phase, the one known as phosphorylation, when vanilloid re-
ceptor activity increases, and hypersensitivity reactions resume.
Therefore, the phosphorylation state determines the activity or
inactivity (desensitization) of the vanilloid receptors.

In addition to the paper that Martin Pall co-authored, there is an
article on the vanilloid receptor that he individually authored. Titled,
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: towards the end of controversy. It
was published in in the August/September 2005 edition of Town-
send Letter for Doctors and Patients. It can be accessed by clicking
on the following web address:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_265-266/ai_n15688810/pg_3

The article cannot be regarded as a substitute for the recent paper
on TRPV1. But, it does provide enough information to enable a
reader to become familiarized with the recently added feature of
Dr. Pall's proposed mechanism for MCS.

Now, the proposed mechanism of Dr. Pall is a hypothesis. It is
a hypothesis which involves intricate details and intricate mapping.
This means that the objective medical findings of chemically sensi-
tive patients continue to carry the sole weight in proving that chem-
ical sensitivity is a physiological condition and not a psychiatric one.
The objective medical findings include instances of anaphylaxis
triggered by nontoxic/ambient/therapeutic levels of chemical-bear-
ing agents. The findings include cases where two entirely different
forms of localized chemical sensitivity were found co-existing in the
same one patient. Such co-existence hints of the authentic existence
of MCS.

Peripheral Chemical Sensitivity

This general type of chemical sensitivity is proposed to involve the
peripheral tissues. Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome is
placed in this category, as is Reactive Upper-airways Dysfunction
Syndrome. The contact sensitivity conditions, such as Airborne
Irritant Contact Dermatitis, are also placed in this category.

This type of chemical sensitivity is proposed to involve neurogenic
inflammation. One can obtain more information on this type of chem-
ical sensitivity by clicking on the following links:

Hypothesis for Induction and Propagation of
Chemical Sensitivity Based on Biopsy Studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1469810/

Neurogenic Inflammation and Sensitivity to Environmental Chemicals.

http://www.herc.org/news/mcsarticles/meggs-full.html
________________________________________

Corporate Welfare: Government Paying for Illnesses Caused by Corporations

2012-01-09T18:22:00.000-05:00

Preview:

Concerning the woman whose medical records contain the following
findings, would the reasonably minded person conclude that she has
a psychosomatic illness or a physical one?

1 - Wheezing.
2 - Tachycardia.
3 - Hypopotassemia.
4 - Gruntled breathing.
5 - Rales and crackles.
6 - Erythematous uvula.
7 - Grossly enlarged turbinates.
8 - Erythema of the oropharynx.
9 - Edema of the true vocal cords.
10 - Adenopathy in the left postauricular region.
11 - Productive response in Spiriva challenge testing.
12 - A circumscribed nodule in the left occipital region.
13 - Thickened coating over the dorsum of the tongue.
14 - A firm 1x1 cm nodule in the right postauricular region.
15+ A couple additional findings consistent with Rhinitis.

Unless you are an avowed liar, the answer to that question is
beyond obvious. Therefore, what right do corporate-funded
attorneys and a corporate-funded independent medical exam-
iner have in asserting that the person attached to those findings
is merely mentally ill? What gives them the right to claim that
she has no objective medical findings that would validate her
symptoms? And her symptoms have 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.)
Moreover, diagnoses given to her have included:

(1) Allergic and Irritant Asthma (Reactive Airways).
(2) Glossitis (inflammation of the tongue).
(3) Rhinitis and Turbinate Hypertrophy.
(4) Chemical and Irritant Sensitivities.
(5) Reactive Hyperplasia.
____________________
____________________________
_____________________________________

Introduction

The corporation involved in the following account is one whose
2005 financial report marked its stockholder equity value at
$11.2 billion. Net tangible assets were marked at $4.2 billion.

December 2006 one-line addition/update:

Until mid-2006, the corporation involved was legally known
as the Cendant Corporation, of Parsippany-Troy Hills, NJ.

Continuing with the Introduction

The geographic region involved in the following account is
Elizabethton, Tennessee. Cendant Corporation once had
a place of business there.

The apex of the following account concerns a year when the
corporation's CEO received $17 million in salary and bonus
income.   During that same year, $1.02 million was placed in-
to the CEO's pension fund. And an additional $4.54 million
of stockholder money was used to pay the premiums on his
$100 million life insurance policy.

The place of work involved in the following account is a former
coal tar pitch research center. The corporation no longer uses
it. It was found to have minute sized monfilament fibers per-
vading the employees' work areas. And needless to say, the
smaller the molecular agent, the greater is its potential to infil-
trate and afflict the complex human anatomy. After all, this
was the case with a number of WTC cleanup crew members
exposed to the Manhattan site's pulverized concrete dust.
It resulted in Small Airways Disease.

This account highlights a former employee of that corporation.
She was in the process of loosing the sum total of everything
during the same year when the corporation's CEO was amass-
ing a multimillion dollar income. Throughout the account, she is
referred to as "the woman." That is to say, her name will not be
used. Furthermore, other persons who worked in the former
research center reported symptoms similar to hers.

The corporation was advertised as: The world's largest real
estate brokerage franchiser. The world's largest vacation
ownership organization. The world's largest "provider of
outsourced corporate employee relocation services." One
of the world's largest hotel franchisors. And one of the
world's largest car rental operators. Operations included
the telemarketing of its services.

                      Not Even a Get Well Card

During her six months with the corporation, the woman high-
lighted in this account generated approximately $500,000 in
sales revenue.   In fact, her sales of hotel room reservations
averaged $2,777 per four hour shift. And in return for her
services, she was rewarded with a chronic disability. To this
day, the corporation has offered her no apology, while the
corporation's insurer has offered her no compensation. She
was not even sent a Get Well card. Instead, the defense
attorneys and independent medical examiner involved in her
workman's comp case sought to have her tagged with a psy-
chiatric label which can conveniently serve as an excuse for
the severe illness which developed during her time of work
at the former coal tar pitch research center.

She Had to Fire Her Attorneys, in their Gross Negligence
       That is to say, she had to file a voluntary dismissal

The woman won her Social Security disability case a year ago.
But, in December 2005, she had to fire the legal counsel in-
volved in her workman's comp case. Technically speaking,
she filed a voluntary dismissal. Her attorneys refused to enter
into evidence recent medical findings that resulted from an
October rhinolaryngoscopy. And in the refusing thereof
was mention of the cost of entering the new evidence.

The attorneys furthermore refrained from emphasizing the
woman's prior medical findings. In fact, they accepted as
uncontroverted truth the averments (assertions/allegations)
of the defense counsel. Such averments would have re-
sulted in the woman loosing her case. And those averments
contradict her medical records. Therefore, the woman had
to dismiss her attorneys. As a result, she is without legal
counsel at a time when she is in need of it. And she is in
need of it. After all, when you have lost all, and remain
severely disabled, you can't easily survive on Social Security
disability income alone, especially when you have a child in
need of your support, and have always been the only parent
in the child's life.

HER OBJECTIVE MEDICAL FINDINGS

The defense counsel in her workman's comp case asserted that
she had no objective medical findings to support her symptoms.
And a "mental health person" diagnosed her as having agora-
phobia, along with panic anxiety. Yet, she has over a dozen
objective medical findings attached to her medical records.
And such findings indicate the presence of a physical illness,
and not a psychiatric one.

Furthermore, three board certified physicians diagnosed her
outside of emergency room settings. And those diagnoses
are much different than the one given by the "mental health
person."

One of the diagnosing physicians is an allergist & immunologist,
while another one is a cytopathologist (a cytopathologist diag-
noses illness at the cellular level.) And the third diagnosing
physician is an ENT specialist who is also a fellow of the
American College of Surgeons. The diagnoses given to the
woman came predominately from the fine-needle biopsy, the
fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopy, and ER room records. In ex-
aminations and testing performed outside of emergency room
settings, the woman was found to have:

(1) Grossly enlarged turbinates
(2) Erythematous uvula.
(3) Edema of the true vocal cords.
(4) Adenopathy in the left postauricular region.
(5) Thickened coating over the dorsum of the tongue.
(6) A firm 1x1 cm nodule in the right postauricular region.
(7) A circumscribed nodule in the left occipital region.

Plus, attending ER physicians recorded the following findings:

(1) Wheezing.
(2) Tachycardia.
(3) Hypopotassemia.
(4) Gruntled breathing.
(5) Rales and crackles.
(6) Erythema of the oropharynx.
(7+) A couple additional findings consistent with Rhinitis.

Her diagnoses were:

(1) Allergic and Irritant Asthma (Reactive Airways).
(2) Glossitis (inflammation of the tongue).
(3) Rhinitis and Turbinate Hypertrophy.
(4) Chemical and Irritant Sensitivities.
(5) Reactive Hyperplasia.

Upon certain environmental exposures, her symptoms repro-
duce themselves in a predictably reoccurring pattern. Nothing
about her symptoms is random. In fact, due to the predictability
of her condition, she quit keeping a diary of her ills as far back
as June 2003. Furthermore, she has been in need of filtered
masks and air cleaners, as well as ready access to oxygen. In
addition, prescription medications posted in her medical records
are consistent with one who has severe asthma. Her medica-
tions have included Albuterol, Ipratropium Bromide, Xopenex,
Levalbuterol Hydrochloride, and Salmeterol, as well as intra-
venous steroids.

And finally, keep in mind that she was exposed to obscenely
inordinate amounts of dust at her place of work (as is de-
scribed in her exposure history account.) Well, she tested
severely positive for dust mites (in RAST testing, I believe),
while having tested negative for every other type of high weight
molecular agent (such as ragweed.) In as much, a person can
become sensitized to dust mite proteins as much as he/she
can become sensitized to formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde,
phthalic anhydride, etc. In fact, barn workers have been
documented as having become sensitized to storage mites.

HER EXPOSURE HISTORY
(transposed from her diary)

THE FIRST 3 MONTHS

April 10th 2002 Health: Perfect
Mental Health: "Optimistic, inspired, forward looking".

She moved from Tuscaloosa, AL to Johnson City, TN. Jogged
and walked everyday. Could go up and down the entire com-
plex; a span of about four miles. Went to the library, to Bristol
Stores and malls. Explored the local university and the book
stores. She generally did what one does when one moves to
a new city.

May 2002 Health: Perfect

She was hired by the previously mentioned corporation,
and put into a two week training program. Near the end
of the two weeks, she developed what appeared to be the
flu. This included a sore throat and fever, along with body
aches and headaches. She did not complete the training at
that time. However, after her health improved, her training
restarted. And shortly afterwards, she was hired as a temp-
orary and part time employee. During the last few days of
training, one of her fellow trainees had an asthma attack.
She noticed some stuffiness in the corridors, along with a
strange chemical odor. But, she did not pay attention to
this at the time.

Late June/July 2002 Health: Perfect (for the final time)
Her group was assigned to work downstairs, at the main call
center. And during her first day there, she noticed a stuffy
stale smell.   The chemical odor downstairs was more intense
than the one on the floor where she was trained. And she also
noticed an inordinate amount of dust everywhere. Furthermore,
on the cubicle walls were tiny and transparent fibers the width
of human hair, embedded into the cubicle walls' fabric. In fact,
the cubicle partitions had a visible layer of brown dust on them.
And upon a slight tap, a cubicle wall would spew out dust.

The agent resource books were laden with dust, also. Picking
one of them up would result in dust spewing out from the pages.
The carpeting was dirty, as well. And pesticides were sprayed
indoors, even with call center employees on duty. Some of the
ceiling titles had apparent water damage attached to them, and
within time, fellow employees would point out blackened mold
to the woman.

THE NEXT 11 MONTHS

July/August 2002
Health: Alternating between well and ill

She began to get a dry cough. Things then worsened, and it
became very difficult for her to talk on the phone. Yet, she
was expected to take a new phone call every three minutes.
She soon felt a degree of tension in her lungs and bronchi,
due to the dust and the continual talking. She resorted to
throat lozenges, Tylenol, and Robutussin.

While the HVAC system was being fixed, her crew was often
told to sit upstairs. The chemical odor was still present up-
stairs, and in addition to that, free standing fans were run at
the far end of the call center. She preferred to sit at that end,
being the other end was an entranceway crowded with smok-
ers and cigarette butts. Every time the door opened, smoke
would waft into the room.

During the hot summer months, whenever the air conditioning
was non-functional, this same door would be left open. And
because of the obvious air quality issues there, she requested
to sit upstairs. Her supervisor agreed. However, another
supervisor spoke of having almost passed out when training
new employees upstairs.

While working downstairs, the former employee had trouble
breathing. It initially started off as a “choking” episode each
time the free standing fans were turned on. The fans were laden
with dust, and they were turned on frequently. The blowing air
would agitate the dust in the room and propel it directly into the
employees' breathing space. Many fellow employees began to
complain about choking.

August 2002 Health: Quite Ill

When upstairs, the sensation of burning eyes was very much
prevalent, as was the dry cough and the choking. Dust was
on the cubicle walls upstairs, also. The woman developed
sinus congestion, a runny nose, headaches, and a continual
low grade fever. And she would get home from work ex-
ceptionally fatigued. Many of her fellow employees who
were stationed upstairs had the same symptoms.

On one occasion, as she was going upstairs to clock in, her
heart began to palpitate furiously. The staircase had not been
cleaned, or if it had been, the cleanliness had not lasted long.
Furthermore, the heavy chemical odor was present. And in
addition to that, there was a strong musty and greasy smell.

Her hands began to sweat, her knees started to shake, and a
tightness in her chest was making it hard for her to take in a
breath. She was also dizzy. She went to her work area and
clocked in. She then realized that if she didn't get fresh air
soon, she would pass out. She went outside, and then to a
nearby gas station, getting Benadryl and something to drink.

September 4th, 2002. First ER Visit.
Health: Declining

She was now starting to feel fairly bad on an everyday basis.
She noticed that she felt better at home. It was only when she
was at work when her symptoms were induced. This included
the dry cough, the burning eyes, the choking, and the palpita-
tions which would begin soon into the shift. In addition, her
nasal passages, throat, and lungs felt as if they were filled with
grittiness. This was the time when she first went to an ER. She
was treated for allergies there, and then prescribed Claritin and
Biaxin. She was diagnosed as having Allergic Rhinitis. The
doctor noted on her records that she had a fever, rhinorrehea,
and erythema of the oropharynx, along with post nasal drip.
He also noted abnormal constitutional signs.

She continued to treat herself with Benadryl, as it was getting
progressively difficult for her to work. After twenty minutes
into a work shift, she would start coughing. She could now
hardly speak on the phone, and the Benadryl made her sleepy.
Her throat hurt and her voice squeaked, breaking off frequently.
The heart palpitations continued.

A co-worker told her that he had begun to have these same
types of symptoms soon after he had started working there.
He also said that it seemed to be getting worse for him in 2002.
Another fellow employee told her that he had frequent heart
palpitations when at work, in addition to the dry cough.

September 8th 2002 Second ER Visit

She began work at 8 p.m and worked until 2 am. Throughout
this time she felt a tightness forming in her chest area. She was
taking Children's Benadryl and thought that this anti-histamine
would be sufficient. Because of these exposures, she had a lot
of congestion, along with a suppressed level of dry coughing.
She completed the shift with much difficulty.

After work, as she was driving out of the parking lot, she be-
gan to choke. She tried to cough but no phlegm emerged.
She pulled over at a gas station and called Emergency Med-
ical Services. The EMS crew gave her a breathing treatment
in their vehicle. It was albuterol. She was then taken to a
hospital. The treating physician prescribed Volmax and an
inhaler. In fact, he stated in her medical records that she was
allergic to the work environment. And he noted the following:
"Constitutional signs: abnormal; Tachycardia."

The Icy Numbing

2012-01-08T17:13:00.000-05:00

    "Imagine a strange metallic taste and magnify it at
      at least 50 times. Then imagine it pervading your
      nose, throat, larynx, tongue, bronchi, and brain,
      smashing you completely."

    "A very weird state. Hard to explain. Almost
      the feeling one gets when exposed to subzero
      temperatures. Your membranes seem to get
      anesthetized. Yet, they make their presences
      known, despite the absence of sensation."

March 2003 Health: fair/fatigued
Emotional Outlook: well/optimistic

She was now practicing Avoidance. This is the practice of
avoiding the airborne agents that trigger one's asthma. And
it is a practice advocated in Report 4 (A-98) of   the AMA's
Counsel on Scientific Affairs.

On the woman's mind at this point in time was her plan to go
to Huntsville, Alabama, and to search for an apartment there.
This created hopeful optimism in her. Job opportunities were
opening up for her in Alabama, and a physician told her that
moving away from Johnson City could reduce her frequency
of asthma. This optimism negates any suscipion that her ills
were triggered by anxiety or depression during this time span.

March 16, 2003

She went to a grocery store, in order to buy some last minute
items for her trip. She had been in the store for only a minute,
when an asthma attack was triggered. After all, the store was
laden with strong odors, and the AMA has already defined
strong odors as asthma triggers. On this occasion, her inhal-
er took much longer than usual to work. And on this occasion,
she became disoriented for the first time. She had entirely lost
her sense of direction. An EMS crew had to drive her home.

March 18, 2003 EMS call - hospitalized.
Health: severe illness
Mental outlook: scared after the attack

Being that her trip had been arranged, she convinced herself
that she could travel. So, she and her son left for Alabama.
En route to her destination, she suddenly became sensitive to
vehicle exhaust fumes. Her face seemed to get hot and swollen,
while a gland near her tonsils seemed to enlarge. Chest tight-
ness & asthma then set in. It felt as if a 10 inch ball of burning
fire (exhaust fumes) hit her in the chest, spreading throughout
her entire body. She could even taste the petroleum odors.

In having become too weak to continue the trip, she searched
for an environmentally friendly hotel. Her son finally located a
room that seemed suitable for her. But, the result was that the
irritants in the hotel area triggered yet another asthma attack.
She was placed on oxygen for six hours, and given breathing
treatments with Xopenex, Atrovent, and Salmeterol. She was
also given the intravenous form of steroids every four hours.
That night, while in the hospital, her blood pressure dropped
drastically.

She had been diagnosed with: (a) Acute and severe asthma
attack, and (b) Hypopotassemia. Her objective medical
findings, as noted on record, were:   (a) labored breathing,
(b) wheezing, (c) rales, (d) rapid heart beat, (e) gruntled
sounds. This negates the defense attorneys' allegation of
mental illness. And the October 2005 rhinolaryngoscopy
indicated the presence of a physical illness much more so.

March 20, 2003 Health: debilitated.

She recalled being barely able to function in Huntsville. Yet,
she and her son attempted to explore the city. When waiting
for a traffic light to change, she started to become hypersensi-
tive to exhaust fumes once again. She had another asthma
attack. This time, her inhaler did not seem to help. And
when driving back toward the hotel, she completely lost her
sense of direction once again. This is the second time that
this happened. EMS personnel escorted her back to the
hotel.

March 21, 2003 E.M.S call/Huntsville hospital

On this day, she went to a health food store. Her son went
inside, while she waited outside. He purchased rosemary juice,
and suggested that she put some in her bath water, thinking that
a warm bath would help her. And being that she had always
enjoyed the odor of Rosemary, she put a small capful into
the bath. It was a mistake to have done that. The bath was
relaxing, but upon coming out of the tub, she starting to feel
warm, and then faint, being unable to take in a full breath. For
the third time on this trip, she became totally confused,
while feeling very lightheaded Her son called EMS, and en route
to the hospital, she was administered oxygen and an IV. At
the hospital, she was given saline.

March 22, 2003 Health: very bad; EMS call

She realized that it was not possible for her to live in Huntsville,
being that it seemed to have a lot more “ vehicular exhaust”
than did Johnson City. However, she felt that she had to com-
plete the trip to Tuscaloosa as planned. She did.

March 23, 24, 25, 2002

She spent 3 days in Tuscaloosa with friends. And she had
trouble breathing outside their house as much as inside of it.
Her friend smoked indoors, so she stayed with her friend's
sister. She went to a Chinese restaurant with friends, but had
to leave it, because of its indoor air quality. It was the familiar
type of irritant airspace.

She and her friends then went to Books-a-Million. This was
the store where she would spend many hours when she lived
in Tuscaloosa. This time, however, she had been seated for
no more than five minutes, when the aroma of the coffee be-
came too heavy, full, and noxious to her. Another asthma
attack was triggered.   So, she went outside and resorted to
her inhaler.

Late that night, her friend's sister turned on a gas heater.
The odor made the woman sick, bringing her close to
another asthma attack. She had to sleep next to a window,
while wearing a filtered mask throughout the entire night.
Her friends then took her to church the next day, and she
sat next to the open back door, wearing two filtered masks.

She went back to Johnson City that week. And on the way
back, she got stuck in traffic. She became ill once again. When
she finally reached home, she collapsed out of weakness, a
headache, a sore throat, and chest inflammation. This collapse
mode lasted for the next few years. Since April, 2003, she has
had varying degrees of tightness in the chest, along with asthma,
nasal pain, burning, and congestion. She took all of her pre-
scribed medications, and resorted to wearing activated carbon
masks much of the time. In addition, she has a car air cleaner,
as well as dust screens for the car. This helps her a lot. How-
ever, she can still smell odors, even through the carbon masks.

There were two doctor's appointments that she was unable to
keep. One was missed because she couldn’t find the doctor’s
office in the midst of another irritant response to exhaust fumes.
And the other physician had his office in a commercial building
downtown. As she was approaching the entrance, she caught
sight of nurses smoking. She knew that she would not be able
to make it down the smokey, fragranced, and cleaning agent
laden corridor. Her need to find a primary care physician was
pressing.

May 31st, 2003 Health: Depends on exposures.
Mental: Good/Fair

She found two doctors at a nearby university who understand
her type of medical condition. And they did all they could to
help her. She was very apprehensive on her first visit to one
of the newly found physicians. And it was with the utmost
self-control that she waited in the waiting room. This was due
to her extreme sensitivity to temperatures, fragrances, and
cleaning agents. Blood tests were ordered after a lengthy
consultation. And en route to the testing area, she started to
feel ill again; yet more so than previously.

She was once scheduled to take a CT scan. And the center
where the scan was to be taken was a bit worse than the
building where she had previously been. The technician had
the woman in the machine promptly, and performed the scan.
Meanwhile, the woman began to feel light headed. It seemed
as if a metallic smell were causing it. She had to be helped out
of the room, after the scan. She felt dizzy, even to the point
where she felt that she was about to pass out.

She remained ill up to 48 hours after the CT scan. After the
scan, she was short of breath. But, this form of shortness of
breath was much different than the previous bouts. It appeared
to be a tissue reaction, she said; one accompanied by a hollow
lack of sensation and even a numbness. This absence of sen-
sation extended to her nose, bronchi, esophagus, trachea, and
lungs. She said that her lungs hurt. But, it was a dull chronic
inflammation that she felt. And she described it in the following
manner:

      "A very weird state. Hard to explain. Almost the feeling
      feeling one gets when exposed to subzero temperatures.
      Your membranes seem to get anesthesized. Yet, they
      make their existences known, despite the absence of
      sensation."

      "All this is very strange. It is anxiety-causing, because
      if not ameliorated, it leads to a strange sort of “in-
      ability" to breath. It's not like congestion, in the usual
      sense. It leads to the desire to cough, but the cough
      does lead to a cessation of symptoms. Also, I feel
      as if I am in the process offainting at times. I feel
       shakey."

June 05, 2003

She finally began to feel better, two days after the CT scan.
That “hollow” & “metallic” syndrome finally resolved itself.
About this she wrote: "Just that little exposure to the
CT Scan environment made me ill for two days!"

She had to go to the bank one day. And it was a hot and/or
humid 84 degrees outside. She started to feel ill in the heat,
with the activated carbon mask on. The mask itself was start-
ing to emit traces of exhaust odor. She never made it to the
bank that day.

An Examation Report

2012-01-07T12:02:00.000-05:00

This is a supplement to The Chemically Sensitive Woman
Who Has More Than a Dozen Objective Medical Findings:

Let us review. The stereotypical pro-chemical and pro-corporate
propaganda has repeatedly been that chemically sensitive persons
have no objective medical findings to validate their symptoms, de-
spite the fact that RAST TESTING includes tests for chemical al-
lergies ... despite the recognition of Reactive Airways Dysfunction
Syndrome ... despite the fact that the golden rule for diagnosing
Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction is the very objective
Fiberoptic Rhinolaryngoscopy ... and despite the existence of the
diagnosis of Occupational Asthma due to Low Weight Molecular
Agents.

Posted below is one of the pages in the medical record of the patient
high-lighted in The Chemically Sensitive Woman Who Has
More Than a Dozen Objective Medical Findings. The report
records grossly enlarged turbinates, shoddy adenopathy, and
a thickened coating over the dorsum of tongue, among other
things. Quite frankly, the grossly enlarged turbinates were enough
to illustrate the presence of a physical illness. In the total tally, the
woman's medical records report her as having:

- Wheezing.
- Tachycardia.
- Hypopotassemia.
- Gruntled breathing.
- Rales and crackles.
- Erythematous uvula.
- Blistering of the tongue.
- Grossly enlarged turbinates.
- Erythema of the oropharynx.
- Edema of the true vocal cords.
- Adenopathy in the left postauricular region.
- Thickened coating over the dorsum of the tongue.
- Productive response in Spiriva challenge testing.
- A circumscribed nodule in the left occipital region.
- A firm 1x1 cm nodule in the right postauricular region.
- A couple additional findings consistent with Rhinitis.

The bottom line concerning this woman is that, whatever be her ill-
ness, it's one of a physical nature and not a matter of psychiatric
illness. The more universal bottom line is that there are chemically
sensitive people who have objective medical findings that validate
their sufferings. In all such cases, allegations of mental illness con-
stitute a defamation of character hurled against an entire class of
people. Clicking on the photo below will enable you to read the
medical report. In addition, Glossitis mentioned in the follow-
ing report is inflammation of the tongue.

Case Was Closed, Due to a Technicality

2012-01-06T16:00:00.000-05:00

Late in the Year 2010 the woman's son was in an auto accident
several states away. So, she went to see her son. The hearing
was scheduled during the time when she was out of state, tend-
ing to her son who was in a serious accident. The judge refused
to grant a continuance, stating that the case was granted contin-
uances so often that no more could be granted. HOWEVER, it
was the corporation's defense attorneys who kept requesting the
continuance. The woman never asked for a continuance until the
time of her son's automobile collision.
______________________________________________

A 1999 AAAAI Position Statement and the AAAAI's Reading Material on Occupational Asthma

2012-01-04T12:11:00.000-05:00

Stephen Barrett is co-author of "Chemical Sensitivity: the Truth
about Environmental Illness." The book is an attempt to convince
mankind that Chemical Sensitivity is merely a matter of mental ill-
ness. In his relentless campaign, which has shown itself to have
been solely a money making venture, Barrett repeatedly cited a
1999 position statement issued by the American Academy of Al-
lergy Asthma & Immunology.   The position statement is titled
"Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances."

Abbreviated IEI, Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance replaced
the name, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, in meeting rooms where
position statements are drafted. However, IEI did not replace
MCS at Johns Hopkins, Mount Sinai, Yale, and Harvard.

Perhaps Barrett Should Have Read
the Entire Text Before Citing It

The irony to Barrett's citing of the 1999 text, in order to strength-
en his assertion, consists in the fact that the 1999 position state-
ment expressly recognizes the existence of:

       "true environmentally caused diseases."

Within that same published text appears examples of such true
environmental illnesses.   The examples in the text include:

1) "hypersensitivity pneumonitis,"
2) "sick building syndome,"
3) "reactive airways dysfunction syndrome."

[The aforementioned diseases appear by name at the
section nearest to the Summary. That section is titled,
"Comparison with Other Illnesses."]

In as much:

1) Stephen Barrett called Sick Building Syndrome "a fad diag-
nosis." The AAAAI did not do so.

2) Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome (RADS) is regard-
ed by the AMA as "a subset of Irritant-induced Asthma." It's
a chemical sensitivity disease and a form of environmental ill-
ness.   Yet, has Barrett ever acknowledged the existence of
that particular chemical sensitivity disease in his writings?

3) Furthermore, a subset of Hypersenstivitiy Pneumonitis is
"Chemical Worker's Lung." Now, the Stephen Barrett who
has zero experience in internal medicine, zero experience in
dermatology, zero experience in cytopathology, zero experi-
ence in immunology, and zero experience in biochemistry has
mocked "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity" by name.   But has he
ever acknowledged that there exists Chemical Worker's Lung?

The Chemical-bearing Agents that MCS patients Avoid
Are the Same Ones that the AMA, AAAAI, and ALA
Recognize as Triggers of Asthma and Rhinitis

4) The 1999 position statement acknowledged the following:

       "Certain environmental irritants, including some of
         those mentioned above, are recognized as triggers
         for patients with asthma and rhinitis."

[The above-cited quote appears at the section titled,
"Clinical Description of IEI."]

The environmental irritants mentioned in the same section of
the AAAAI's 1999 position statement are:

   - "perfumes and scented products, pesticides, domes-
      tic and industrial solvents, new carpets, car exhaust,
      gasoline, diesel fumes, urban air pollution, cigarette
      smoke, plastics, and formaldehyde."

   - "certain foods, food additives, and drugs"

   - two things not claimed to trigger asthma and/or rhinitis.

In order to confirm that the above-mentioned things are recog-
nized as asthma triggers by mainstream medical science, see:

Cleaning Supplies and Household Chemicals

http://www.lungusa.org/healthy-air/home/resources/cleaning-supplies.html

Understanding Asthma - American Lung Association

http://www.lungusa.org/lung-disease/asthma/about-asthma/understanding-asthma.html

Chemical Asthma Triggers and Irritants

http://asthma.about.com/od/asthmatriggers/qt/chemictriggers.htm

Asthma Triggers: Gain Control (EPA site)

http://www.epa.gov/asthma/chemical_irritants.html

The above-cited web addresses are those of the American Lung
Association, the AMA, and the same AAAAI Barrett elected to
use in his campaign to convince mankind that Chemical Sensi-
tivity is nothing more than a psychological illness.   In as much,
count the number of chemical-bearing agents that the three main-
stream associations regard as asthma triggers.

The AAAAI's public education material
on the subject of Occupational Asthma

Concerning the AAAAI that Barrett cited in his campaign to
convince mankind that Environmental Illness is merely a mat-
ter of mental illness, it published an instructional website about
Occupational Asthma.   The AAAAI has already acknowledged
that Occupational Asthma can be caused by a number of chem-
icals at nontoxic/ambient levels, afflicting a number of workers
employed in a number of industries.

     Acrylates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adhesive handlers
     Amines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shellac & lacquar handlers
   Anhydrides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plastic, epoxy resin users
   Chloramine-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Janitors, cleaning staff
   Dyes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Textile workers
     Fluxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Electronic workers
   Formaldehyde/glutaraldehyde . . . Hospital staff
     Isocyanates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spray painters, Insulation
                                                       installers; plastic, rubber,
                                                               foam manufactory workers.
     Persulfate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hairdressers

     The same public education material of the AAAAI states:

          "The cause may be allergic or nonallergic in nature,
            and the disease may last for a lengthy period in some
          workers, even if they are no longer exposed to
          the agents that caused their symptoms."

           "Inhalation of some substances in aerosol form can di-
            rectly lead to the accumulation of naturally occurring
            chemicals in the body, such as histamine or acetylcho-
            line within the lung, which in turn lead to asthma."

            "For example, insecticides, used in agricultural work,
            can cause a buildup of acetylcholine, which causes
            airway muscles to contract, thereby constricting air-
            ways."

           "Allergic occupational asthma can occur in workers
            in the plastic, rubber or resin industries following re-
            peated exposure to small chemical molecules in the
            air."

          "If occupational asthma is not correctly diagnosed early,
           and the worker protected or removed from the expo-
           sure, permanent lung changes may occur and asthma
           symptoms may persist even without exposure."

          "Up to 15% of asthma cases in the United States may
           have job-related factors."

          "Isocyanates are chemicals that are widely used in many
           industries, including spray painting, insulation installa-
           tion, and in manufacturing plastics, rubber and foam.
           These chemicals can cause asthma in up to 10% of
           exposed workers."

The aforementioned illustrates that Chemical Sensitivity, as it
applies to asthma and rhinitis, is acknowledged as valid and
authentic by the same AAAAI that Barrett elected to use, in
order to support his assertion that chemical sensitivity is mere-
ly a psychological illness.

Conclusion

Stephen Barrett can mock the diagnostic title, Multiple Chem-
ical Sensitivity, all that he wants to. It will not take away the
fact is that chemical sensitivity has already been recognized
in case specific form. And it will not take away the fact that
the sufferers of those case-specific forms of chemical sensi-
tivity need to avoid the chemicals which exacerbate their
medical conditions.

Avoidance and AMA (CSA) Report 4 (A-98)

Avoidance is not 'detrimental.' Nor is it nonsense. Avoidance
is a medical necessity. And as it applies to asthma, the AMA
has stated:

       "Regardless of the efficiency of clinician assessment
         and patient self-monitoring, if the patient's exposure
         to irritants or allergens to which he or she is sensitive
         is not reduced or eliminated, symptom control and
         exacerbation rate may not improve. Formerly titled
         "Environmental Control," the key points in this area
         logically include efforts by clinicians to pinpoint caus-
         ative agents and to provide specific advice on how
         to avoid or reduce exposures to environmental or
         dietary triggers and drugs that may provoke or ex-
         acerbate symptoms." [AMA Report 4, Council on
        Scientific Affairs (A-98)]

A List of Single System & Systemic Forms of Chemical Sensitivity

2012-01-02T11:29:00.000-05:00

Provided is an outline of the 2002 proposed mechanism for MCS.
A pivotal feature was added to the diagram, in 2004. It, too, is di-
scussed herein. The outline follows a listing of the case-specific
forms of chemical sensitivity. Nine web links are also included in
this post.

Identified & Defined Forms of Chemical Sensitivity

The forms of chemical sensitivity listed below are those which have
already been identified and defined by mainstream medical science.
The list automatically illustrates that nontoxic\ambient levels of chem-
icals are not universally harmless. The list, therefore, illustrates the
need for a plurality of people to avoid pertinent chemical exposures.

The Merit in Making the List Known

The list serves to counter that which anti-MCS literature serves
to provoke. Needless to say, anti-MCS literature serves to:

1] provoke the powers-that-be into depriving chemically
       sensitive persons of reasonable accommodation;

2] provoke the powers-that-be into depriving severely impaired
       chemically sensitive persons of disability compensation;

3] persuade marketers into declining to provide consumer product
       lines free of those chemical-bearing agents which are known
       to trigger adverse reactions such as asthma.

When you illustrate that there are forms of chemical sensitivity that
have already been proven to exist, you illustrate the need of an entire
class of people to avoid ambient levels of those chemical-bearing agents
that are known to harm them. You don't have to wait for the universal
recognition of MCS, in order make this illustration. The recognition of
irritant-induced asthma alone, along with its subset condition, Reactive
Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, is all that is needed to accomplish this.

Even if MCS comes to be declared a non-reality, there will still exist
the ethical requirement to consider the needs of those who suffer from
the case-specific forms of chemical sensitivity. Matters involving for-
maldehyde-releasing agents, the organophosphate\carbamate class of
pesticide, perfume ingredients, additives, & reasonable accommodation
will still have to be addressed. Here is the list, constructed in two parts:

         Generalized\Systemic and Localized Forms

                               Irritant-induced Asthma

                            Irritant Rhinitis\Rhinosinusitis

                           Halothane-induced Hepatitis

                         Photoallergic Contact Dermatitis

                        Benzene-induced Aplastic Anemia

                       Airborne Irritant Contact Dermatitis

                       Formaldehyde-induced Anaphylaxis
                   (chlorhexidine-induced & other forms)

                   Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome

                  Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction
                   (symptoms include shortness of breath)

                 Acute Generalized Exanthematous Pustulosi

                               Chemical Worker's Lung
                    (a type of Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis)

           Occup. Asthma due to low-weight molecular agents

          Occ. Urticaria (due to low-weight molec. agents),
                  as well as systemic forms of urticaria
_____________________________________

                            Chemical-specific Forms

            Pine Resin/Rosin Allergy Albietic Acid Sensitivity

               Peruvian Lily Allergy (Tuliposide A Sensitivity)

                Red Cedar Allergy (Plicatic Acid Sensitivity)

                 Methyltetrahydrophthalic Anhydride Allergy

                   IgE-mediated Triethanolamine Sensitivity

                      Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivity

                       (Acetylated) Salicylate Sensitivity

                          Cyanuric Chloride Sensitivity

                           Ethylene Diamine Sensitivity

                            Acetaminophen Sensitivity

                            Glutaraldehyde Sensitivity

                             Chlorhexidine Sensitivity

                             Methacrylate Sensitivity

                              Sulfite Hypersensitivity

                               Isocyanate Sensitivity

                                Chromate Sensitivity

                                  Paraben Sensitivity

                                  ... etc., etc., etc.

Note 1: The list of chemical-specific forms is long. None the less,
              the subset provided should suffice in proving a point.

Note 2: Sick Building Syndrome was not listed because it is not
              exclusively caused by ambient chemical exposure. It
              can also be caused by viral and mold exposure.

Note 3: Reactive Upper-Airways Dysfunction Syndrome doesn't
appear in the list, being that Irritant Rhinitis was listed. None the
less, RUDS is the subset of irritant-induced rhinosinusitis or rhinitis
that works on the upper-respiratory tract the same way that RADS
works on the lower respiratory tract.

Note 4: Small Airways Disease was not listed, either. Yet, it was
found to exist in some of the WTC clean-up crew members who
became ill during or after the clean-up. See: CT helps find cause
of puzzling cough in WTC Rescue workers. It is found at:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=17093

Note 5: There are a multiplicity of contact sensitivity conditions
              that were not posted. They were omitted, in order to
              avoid the appearance of redundancy.

Note 6: The diagnostic title, Reactive Intestinal Dysfunction
              Syndrome (RIDS), has been proposed.   See:
              Reactive intestinal dysfunction syndrome caused
              by chemical exposure - RIDS. It is found at:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9766481