Thank you Myrl Jeffcoat!!! The Never-board-certified Stephen Barrett, MD (Part 1)

Prev: Dr. William Rea in the News and on Nightline Tonight
Next: Thank you Myrl Jeffcoat!!! The Never-board-certified Stephen Barrett, MD (Part 1)

From: Ilena Rose on 15 Apr 2008 14:02

---

Thanks to Myrl Jeffcoat for her usual confusion ... she attributes
this article to me, but I didn't write it. I will post it here thanks
to Myrl!

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/myrl.html
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm

http://www.stephenbarrettmd.blogspot.com/

The Never-board-certified Stephen Barrett, MD (Part 1)

Never board certified in anything, his experience as a physician ended
with his 1958 internship. Yet, he proclaimed himself an expert in
medicine, nutrition, & law, as well as having declared himself the
media. He has belonged to private interest groups whose names
deceptively sound like government agencies, and he has been neither a
medical technologist, nor a cytopathologist, nor a biochemist, nor a
vaccinologist, nor a researcher, nor a forensic scientist, nor a ...


January 16, 2007
The Clone of a Salem Witch Hunter



In the Year 2001, a retired
psychiatrist stated: "Today,
I am the media." He repeat-
edly presented himself as an
expert in medicine, nutrition,
and law, while having zero
experience as a practicing
physician, zero training in
nutrition, and zero bar as-
sociation membership.



At the principle website that he operates, he is described
as a "medical communications expert" of national renown.
He even presented himself as a master in spiritual direction,
in book form. Representations of Stephen Barrett insinuate
that he alone can suffice as the voice of medicine. In fact,
representations of him make it sound as if, during any given
election, he should run for God. However, the factual score-
card on Barrett differs drastically from the representations
made of him.

Stephen Barrett's Extensive Lack of Credentials,
Lack of Experience, and Lack of Board Certification

[1] Stephen Barrett, M.D. was never board-certified in
anything, at any time in his life. He has never been
able to speak with the authority of a board-certified
medical expert.

[2] Nor has he been able to speak from the vantage point
of a practitioner in any type of internal or dermatolog-
ical medicine. In fact, Stephen Barrett has not served
in the capacity of a physician since the end of his rotat-
ing internship days. Those days ended over 48 years
ago, in 1958.

The "MD" affixed to his name simply means that he
graduated from a medical school. He did do that.
But, he did it over forty-nine years ago, in 1957.

[3] Moreover, Stephen Barrett has never been a research-
er in any capacity; neither at the clinical level nor at the
murine test level. He has been neither a toxicologist,
nor a vaccinologist, nor a neurologist, nor a biochemist,
nor an immunologist, nor any type of medical technolo-
gist, nor a pharmacologist. This means that he has never
been able to speak from the vantage point of a research
colleague. That is to say, if Stephen Barrett had been
seen in a lab coat after 1958, it was during Halloween.

[4] And Stephen Barrett has zero inventions/patents to his
name. Therefore, he has never been able to speak
from the vantage point of a medical innovator, either.

[5] Furthermore, there is no evidence that Stephen Barrett
is a firsthand witness to illness on either side of the
coin; neither as a practicing physician nor as a patient.
That is to say, he has no known history of severe med-
ical impairment. By all appearances, he is not able to
offer any insight on what it is to intimately know intense
physical suffering in the first person singular. And his
callousness indicates this.

[6] And as far as concerns Stephen Barrett being advertised
as a "medical communications expert," his curriculum
vitae indicates that he:

- never managed disaster relief efforts,
- never developed medical software programs,
- never oversaw ambulance dispatch operations,
- never managed the allocation of medical supplies,
- never networked hospital communication systems,
- never transmitted emergency medical instructions to sea,
- never networked pharmaceutical communication systems,
- never translated medical literature into foreign languages.

So where is the medical communicating that Stephen Barrett
is supposed to do so expertly ?

Stephen Barrett's Allegation of Being a Legal Expert

It was in a 21st Century California court where Barrett
presented himself as an expert in FDA regulatory law. It
concerned a case that he himself instigated, under the name
of a 501c non-profit organization of which he was/is a mem-
ber and even an officer.

Barrett saw to the filing of the lawsuit (under the corporate
name), and then he hired himself as an expert witness, de-
spite the blatant conflict of interest. He then expected
money to be transferred from the 501c non-profit group's
bank account to his own personal account, in the form
of a fee payment.

Needless to say, Stephen Barrett never worked for, with,
over, under, or besides the FDA. And the presiding judge
stated:

"the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient
qualifications in this area."

"He has never testified before any governmental
panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation
of drugs."

"Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony
with respect to any of the issues associated with
Defendant's products."

Furthermore, the judge stated that Stephen Barrett's
testimony should be "accorded little, if any, credibility."

In the end, the 501c private corporation of which Barrett
is a member lost the case. It was ordered to pay the de-
fendant's attorney fees. And as an added note, he claimed
himself to be a 21st Century legal expert in FDA regula-
tory matters, because he completed one and a half years
of correspondence law school in 1963; and because he
had several conversations with FDA personnel, as well as
some sort of continuing education classes that he had not
attended in eight years prior to the judgment.

Stephen Barrett has filed many lawsuits. Each one is an
article of its own. He usually sues for libel, malice, and/or
conspiracy. One report attached Barrett to a multiplicity
of lawsuits filed against forty defendants. And his most re-
cent courtroom loss is dated October 2005, in the Court
of Common Pleas of Lehigh County for the State of Penn-
sylvania. In that court case, Barrett once again claimed that
he was a legal expert.

Barrett lost a court case filed in California, under his own
name. And he also lost cases in Oregon and Illinois, as
well as in Pennsylvania -- also filed under his own name.

In summary, Stephen Barrett was never the member of any
bar association. He never represented himself as his own
attorney in any of his many lawsuits. He was never a dis-
trict magistrate, and he was not a clerk of court. Yet, he
has formally claimed that he is a legal expert. Barrett did
have court appearances as an expert witness in criminal and
parole cases, but only in the capacity of a psychiatrist who
was never board certified. One such venue was the juve-
nile court system in San Francisco during the 1960s.

Barrett's Claim of Being a Nutritional Expert

As far as concerns his allegations of being a nutritional expert,
it was during the 1990s when he once testified against a nutri-
tionist who carried a number of credentials, including that
of a certification. This was at a hearing of the American
Dietetic Association. Barrett was only a non-trained and
honorary member of that association, yet he was presented
as one of its two expert witnesses. As a result of that hear-
ing, the lady against whom Barrett testified lost her registered
dietician credentials. Her reputation suffered harm, and her
future earnings potential was compromised.

The woman then sued the association who presented Barrett
as a nutritional expert. And it was during a cross-examination
when Barrett finally conceded that he was not a nutritional
expert, being that had no training in the subject. He said that
he was an expert in "consumer strategy," instead. As a result,
the woman against whom Barrett testified had her credentials
restored in full. Notification of this was published in the cou-
rier & journal of the American Dietetic Association. The
woman also received an undisclosed settlement.

A Sample of Stephen Barrett's Mode of Communication

Stephen Barrett co-authored a book with a publicly known de-
frauder whose now-defunct paper review company, in providing
health reports to State Farm Insurance adjustors, was de-
clared "a completely bogus operation" by an Oregon judge.

Concerning Barrett's fraudulent co-author, it was the NBC
television network who reported him as the ratifier of fraud-
ulent health reports. He is a Dr. Ronald Gots, founder of a
company named Medical Claims Review Services. That
company went out of business in 1995.

The NBC television network obtained 79 of the reports that
Gots' paper review company provided for State Farm's ad-
justors. And ever-so-coincidentally, 100% of those 79
reports favored State Farm over every auto accident claim-
ant profiled in those reports.

The irony to this is that Stephen Barrett heralds himself as
an exposer of health fraud, as well as a defender of mankind
from persons committing health fraud. Yet, he elected to
have his name placed in print next to a notorious defrauder.

For further information on this matter, see:

The Paper Chase: A 15 month NBC Dateline Investigation

The Barrett/Gots Book, itself

The Barrett/Gots book is titled, "Chemical Sensitivity: The
Truth About Environmental Illness." Needless to say, the
book is a vehement denial of the valid existence of Chem-
ical Sensitivity. However, Chemical Sensitivity comes in
many case-specific and medically acknowledged forms; in
forms such as:

> Red Cedar Asthma (Plicatic Acid Sensitivity),
> IgE-mediated Triethanolamine Sensitivity,
> Pine Allergy (Abietic Acid Sensitivity),
> Formaldehyde-induced Anaphylaxis,
> Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivity,
> Ammonium Persulfate Sensitivity,
> Glutaraldehyde-induced Asthma,
> Phenyl Isocyanate Sensitivity,
> Halothane-induced Hepatitis,
> Sulfite-induced Anaphylaxis,
> Chemical Worker's Lung,
> TDI-induced Asthma,
> NSAID Intolerance, . . .

.. . . and numerous other forms.

Similarly, the Barrett/Gots book is a denial of the existence
of the Environmental Illness which also comes in a number
of medically acknowledged case-specific forms; in forms
such as:

> Vasomotor Rhinitis,
> Occupational Urticaria,
> Irritant-induced Asthma,
> Occupational Rhinosinusitis,
> Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis,
> Photoallergic Contact Dermatitis,
> Airborne-irritant Contact Dermatitis,
> Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome,
> Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction,
> Sick Building Syndrome (Building-related Illness), . . .

.. . . and a few other forms.

In fact, the Barrett/Gots book calls Sick Building Syndrome
"a fad diagnosis." However, Sick Building Syndrome is listed
as one of the "Most Common Diagnoses" at the Occupational
& Environmental Health centers of:

> Iowa University,
> Johns Hopkins University,
> The University of Pittsburgh,
> The University of Stony Brook,
> Detroit's Wayne State University,
> The University of Illinois-Chicago,
> The University of California-Davis,
> Boston Medical Center, as Building-related Illness,
> Washington University's Harborview Medical Center,
> The University of Maryland, as Building Related Disease,
> Nat. Jewish Med. Research Ctr, as Building Related Illness.

Needless to say, the Barrett/Gots book also denies the physi-
ological existence of the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity which
is listed as one of the "Most Common Diagnoses" at the Occu-
pational & Environmental Health centers of:

> the world renowned Yale University,
> the world renowned Mount Sinai Hospital,
> hospitals affilated with Harvard University,
> four other American medical institutions which are
licensed and certified centers of practice.

The listing thereof is done by the Association of Occupational
& Environmental Clinics. For more information, see:

http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_MA.htm

http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_NY.htm

http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_CT.htm


The Objective Medical Findings of Chemically Sensitive Patients which
Stephen Barrett Ever-so-coincidentally Neglected to Disclose

For the record, there do exist objective medical findings in
the world of Chemical Sensitivity. The following findings
have been documented in the records of chemically sensitive
patients:

> dermatitis,
> anaphylaxis,
> angioedema,
> turbinate swelling,
> glandular hyperplasia,
> excessive nasal pallor,
> edema of the adenoids,
> edema of the true vocal cords,
> nasal and/or laryngeal erythema,
> protuberant/distended abdomen,
> permeability of epithelial cell junctions,
> hepatotoxicity in the absense of viral hepatitis,
> paradoxical adduction of the true vocal cords,
> marked cobblestoning of the posterior pharynx,
> inflammation of the alveoli (air sacs of the lungs),
> a 20%+ drop in FEV1 during inhalation challenge testing,
.... and a few other things, such as visible and measurable
wheals produced during placebo-controlled skin testing,

Barrett's Contradiction

Barrett also wrote a 64 page booklet on Multiple Chemical
Sensitivity. Furthermore, Barrett wrote a text of much short-
er length, titled: "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: A Spurious
Diagnosis." In that article, Barrett states:

"Legitimate cases exist where exposure to large
or cumulative amounts of toxic chemicals has
injured people."

Well, such exposure scenarios are the causes of Chemical
Sensitivity. That is why lay persons regard it as "Chemical
Injury." In as much, Barrett first denies the existence of
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in name. Yet, he describes
Chemical Sensitivity in function. But, he does so in such a
way that he leaves the reader uncertain as to what his state-
ment is intended to mean. After all, a novice might assume
that Barrett is referring to resovable acute toxicity cases,
instead of long-term chemical sensitization illnesses.

A Duly Noted Hypocrisy

Stephen Barrett markets fear. For example, he has marketed
fear of the formerly overrated echinacea flower which is only
harmful to persons severely allergic to the inulin that it contains;
to the inulin which is also present in Jerusalem artichokes,
leeks, bananas, garlic, and onions. Yet, has Stephen Barrett
ever warned people about bananas, onions, and Jerusalem
artichokes, as he did echinacea? Has he ever warned people
about VIOXX, BEXTRA, ZYPREXA and the other pharma-
ceuticals that caused harm to mankind?

All in all, when you attack as many persons and entities as
does Stephen Barrett, the statistical probability is that you
are going to be correct some of the time. However, the
same statistical probability is that you are going to be wrong
some of the time, especially when you are unqualified to
comment. Being that Stephen Barrett neither scored a
100% nor a passing grade on his board exams, he cannot
be reasonably expected to be 100% correct in his vol-
umes of writings.

Moreover, people have brain cells. They can recognize
"quackery" by ill effect or lack of effect. They don't have
need of a "Stephen Barrett" to tell them. And not only can
reasonable people detect a "quack" when they see one,
they can just as easily detect a disingenuous political
operative when they read one.

Stephen Barrett's Cookie Cutter Techniques

It is not an incident of unheard proportions for Stephen
Barrett to have cited an obselete reference, as well as an
outdated and isolated instance, in order to have mankind
adhere to an assertion of his. For example, in order to
convince mankind that Chemical Sensitivity is nothing more
than a mental illness, Barrett cited an incident which was put
into writing 120 years ago, in 1886, concerning one woman
and one woman only. And that incident was not about
chemicals. It was about roses.

Now, concerning the medical practices and medical doctrines
that Stephen Barrett opposes, he is repeatedly found stating,
"inconclusive and not yet proven." And if he cannot discredit
something on technical merits, he cites an isolated case here
and an isolated case there, concerning an unauthorized billing
or a marketing violation committed by a person engaged in
something that Barrett wants deleted from the face of the
Earth. Yet, Barrett never mentions the dozens of frauds
that were committed under the supervision of his co-author,
Dr. Ronald Gots. And Barrett never mentions the vast num-
ber of lawsuits filed against pharmaceutical companies.

Barrett often mentions what treatments and tests the Aetna
Insurance Company will not cover, as if Aetna is a charity
organization founded by Mother Theresa; as if Aetna is not
a profit minded corporation which benefits from the denial
of claims. In as much, an insurance company will not pay
for redundant treatment or redundant testing, and therefore
a similar test or treatment will not be covered. Furthermore,
an insurance company will not pay for anything that is regard-
ed as being in the experimental & investigational stage. And
as a side note, everything in established medicine today was
at the experimental & investigational stage yesterday.

The Ironies about Dr. Stephen Barrett,
in Light of the Fact that He is a Retired Psychiatrist

The great irony about Barrett is that a psychiatrist is expected
to be a master at procuring peace in the minds and hearts of
men. A tree is known by its fruits. Stephen Barrett's fruits
have been made known.

Another great irony is that a psychiatrist is expected by the
reasonably minded person to be a master in neurology. Bar-
rett failed the Neurology section of his board exams.

And yet another irony is that a psychiatrist is expected to have
a reflex action for keeping confidentiality, being that patients
confide intimate details to a psychiatrist. However, Barrett
has placed person after person in an unfavorable spotlight.
He is even known to have revealed the tax problems of one
of his opponents; not to make notice that the man can use
someone's help, but rather, to provoke ill regards for the man.
Yet, when has Stephen Barrett ever placed the spotlight on the
exorbitant price mark-ups of pharmaceuticals in America?
After all, Barrett claims that he is a consumer advocate. So,
where is the consumer advocating in one of the most taxing
impositions on the American economy and consumer?

posted by Atlantic America | Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Formaldehyde

The Most Deadly & Irresponsible Thing that
the Never-board-certified Stephen Barrett
Has Thus Far Asserted

The AMA, the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and
Immunology (the AAAAI), and the American Lung Associ-
ation (the ALA) all acknowledge the following:

They acknowledge the existence of Chemical Sensitivity as
it applies to Asthma. That is to say, all three associations
acknowledge that chemical-bearing agents can trigger as-
thma attacks in susceptible persons.

Each organization advocates the practice of Avoidance;
of avoiding the airborne agents which trigger one's asthma.
In fact, the AMA formally refers to Avoidance as "Control
of Factors Contributing to Asthma Severity." And in
French medical Literature, avoidance is known as "Strict
Eviction."

Examples of recognized asthma triggers in the chemical
category include:

[A] "NO2" from gas stoves and fireplaces,
fumes from kerosene heaters, and
volatile organic compounds from
carpeting, cabinetry, plywood,
particle board, and fumes from
household cleaning products." See:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13603.html

[B] "Air pollutants such as tobacco smoke,
wood smoke, chemicals in the air and ozone"

"Occupational exposure to vapors, dusts,
gases or fumes"

"Strong Odors or sprays such as perfumes,
household cleansers, cooking fumes
(especially from frying), paints or vanishes"

See:

http://www.aaaai.org/patients/publicedmat/tips/asthmatriggersandmgmt.stm

[C] "Perfume, paint, hair spray, or
any strong odors or fumes."

See: http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=22916

In fact, the above-cited American Lung Association text
furthermore states:

"Perfume, room deodorizers, cleaning
chemicals, paints, and talcum powder are
examples of triggers that must be avoided
or kept at very low levels."

The same American Lung Association furthermore states:

"These 'triggers' can set off a reaction in your lungs and
other parts of your body." Now, place an emphasis on
"other parts of your body," and keep in mind that:

Avoidance furthermore applies to Urticaria (rashes), Ana-
phylaxis, Chemically-induced Hepatitis, Irritant Rhinitis,
Dermatitis, Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction,
Reactive Upper-airways Dysfunction Syndrome, etc. The
remedy for any chemically sensitive person is Avoidance.

Stephen Barrett has called Avoidance "detrimental" in those
writings of his which condemn the Multiple Chemical Sensi-
tivity diagnosis. He stated that "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
is a label, and not a disease." He advises all to forbid the suf-
ferers of MCS to avoid the chemical-bearing agents that harm
them, because the Stephen Barrett who has zero experi-
ence in every form of internal and dermatological medicine
claims that chemical-bearings agents do not harm them.

Firstly, this assertion contradicts the diagnostic histories of
the Occupational & Environmental Health centers of Johns
Hopkins, Yale, Mt. Sinai, and the Harvard-affiliated hospitals,
as well as certain Ear Nose Throat and Allergy Specialists.
And more importantly, Irritant-induced Asthma is certainly
a disease and not a label; not visa-versa. Irritant Rhinitis
is not a label, either. It is a medically accepted condition
that has been known to co-exist with Irritant-induced
Asthma. In as much, the chemical-bearing agents which
are sought to be avoided by persons diagnosed with Multi-
ple Chemical Sensitivity are the same ones which the AMA,
the AAAAI, and the ALA instruct susceptible asthmatics
to avoid.

The bottom line is this: Stephen Barrett has caused confusion
in having created the illusion that Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
is the only type of chemical sensitivity in existence.

The AMA's Admitting to the Converse Relationship
Between Pollution Levels and Hospital Admissions
Due to Asthma

Five thousand to six thousand people die each year from
asthma, in the United States alone. And, one of the highest
asthma-related death rates has been in Harlem, NY. Ever
so coincidentally, the environs of Harlem are venues for
New York City waste sites. Concerning this, the AMA
has expressly stated that:

"fluctuations in the levels of air pollution correlate
with asthma symptoms and hospital admissions."
[Report 4 of the AMA's Council on Scientific
Affairs (A-98)]

Stephen Barrett's Hit & Run Narration of Ecology
House's First Two and Half Years of Operation

In his effort to convince mankind that Avoidance is a "detri-
mental" practice for Chemical Sensitivity sufferers, Barrett
cited the 1989 account of a house constructed in California
for the benefit of chemically sensitive people. It was a newly
built dwelling that could only house eight chemically sensitive
persons at a time.

Barrett gave an exceptionally short narration of the account,
and then he concluded, by stating, "Although the building
was intended to be free of synthetic chemicals, most of
the initial tenants said it still made them sick."

A Lesson in Stephen Barrett's
Slight-of-hand Deception Techniques

Firstly, Stephen Barrett stated that, "the building was intended
to be free of synthetic chemicals." He did not say that the de-
signers succeeded in acheiving their intentions. After all, it was
the 1980s. How easy was it to locate additive-free building
materials in every phase of the project's construction? In
fact, the report is that the builders of the safe house used cer-
tain building materials that the environmental experts advised
against using.

Secondly, Barrett did not say that the designers intended
to make that house free of naturally occurring chemicals.
After all, chemicals exist in unprocessed nature, too. And
those chemicals can trigger adverse reactions in suceptible
people as much as can synthetic ones. For example, the
most untreated and organically grown pine can trigger
severe respiratory reactions in persons sensitive to pine.

Thirdly, "most of the initial residents" constituted five to
seven people. That is not large enough a number to justifiably write
off the entire population of chemically sensitive patients.

And most importantly, Barrett did not say that any subsequent
tenant of Ecology House experienced illness while in that house.
This is because no subsequent tenant reported illness while in that
same
house.

That account ever-so-coincidentally concurs with the present
understanding of chemical sensitivity, as it applies to new build-
ing materials. A new house must first outgas its volatile organic
compounds for an extended period of time, before it can be in-
habitable for any chemically sensitive person. In fact, it was
reported that the California safe house became tolerable two
and a half years after its construction. Therefore, the event
of 1989, which was resolved by the elapsing of time, is in ac-
cordance with the 21st Century understanding of Chemical
Sensitivity. That account does not debunk it.

In as much, chemically sensitive persons should not be housed
in newly built structures. They should be housed in older ones;
in ones with well-aged cementitious plaster walls, etc. Further-
more, Barrett did not explain that the drapery, furniture, cooking
odors, plants, shampoos, lotions, spices, laundry detergent, and
the smell of new appliances within any dwelling can cause chem-
ically sensitive persons to get ill whenever in that dwelling. Bar-
rett never admitted that a strong odor of itself, be it chemical or
nonchemical, can trigger an adverse reaction in a sufferer of
Environmental Illness. This can happen no matter how "toxin-
reduced" the dwelling's building material is.

Fair Warning About Stephen Barrett's Assertion

If you elect to fanatically act upon Stephen Barrett's assertion
that the chemically sensitive have no medical need to practice
Avoidance, you might one day find yourself on the defendant's
end of either a Toxic Battery criminal case or a "Deliberate
Intent" civil action. And Stephen Barrett, having never been
the member of any bar assocation, will not be there to defend
you. And Stephen Barrett, possessing zero experience in
every type of physical medicine, as well as zero board certi-
fication even in psychiatry, will not be there to testify for you.

posted by Atlantic America | Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Visible & Measurable Wheals Have Been Repeatedly Documented

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 psy-
chiatry, and he was never board-certified in anything else.
He has zero experience as a practitioner in every form of
internal, dermatological, & dental medicine. And he was
not a researcher in any capacity, either. That is to say, he
was neither a biochemist, nor a vaccinologist, nor a med-
ical 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:

(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 hyperreactivity. 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 hyperreactivity, 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 does
an immunologic 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 required to undergo hundreds of indi-
vidual 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, phenyl isocyanate, azo dyes,
& phthalic anhydride. Tested patients produced the
objective medical finding of visible and measurable
wheals. This has included forms of testing other than
that of the neutralization-provocation test, and it has
included the neutralization-provocation test, itself.

(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. And yet other
ones were found to have upper-respiratory erythema
& swelling. Chemical Sensitivity exists in a number of
forms. It is very real, and it can be quite brutal. In as
much, it has been repeatedly documented that chemicals,
at ambient (nontoxic) levels, are not universally harmless.

posted by Atlantic America | Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Johns Hopkins, Mt. Sinai, Harvard, Yale & the MCS Diagnosis

Keep in mind that Dr. Stephen Barrett "MD" has zero exper-
ience in every field of internal and dermatological medicine,
(outside of the internship that he completed in 1958.) Also
keep in mind that there are a number of forms of chemical
sensitivity which have already been identified and defined by
mainstream medical science. This means that entire popula-
tions of the chemically sensitive are not dependent upon the
universal recognition of MCS, in order to have their medical
conditions validated.

Brief Outline

Stephen Barrett has repeatedly asserted that the Multiple Chem-
ical 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 Sensi-
tivity 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 occupa-
tional & environmental health clinic, as well as at any world
renown medical institution. And being that Barrett associated
SBS with MCS, it leaves a novice to assume the same things
about Sick Building Syndrome. Therefore, 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 direc-
tory 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 be-
low. The profile of each one is dated 03/05.

{1} the world renowned John Hopkins,
{2} the world renowned Yale University,
{3} the world renowned Mount Sinai,
{4} Harvard affiliated Cambridge Hospital,
{5} Harvard affiliated Northeast Specialty Hospital.

{1} We begin with the directory for the State of Maryland.
The first member profiled in the Maryland directory is
the Johns Hopkins University Center for Occupational
and Environmental Health. At the section of the Johns
Hopkins profile titled, "Most Common Environmental
Diagnoses," Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and Sick
Building Syndrome are both listed.

See: http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_MD.htm

This can be additionally confirmed at the Johns Hop-
kins web address posted below. Toward the bottom
of that web page, under the subheading Specialty
Programs, one can see that Johns Hopkins provides:

"Clinical evaluation of occupational
and environmentally related condi-
tions/disease (i.e. multiple chemical
sensitivities, chemical exposures,
indoor air quality)"

See: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hse/coeh/services.htm

{2} In the AOEC directory for the State of Connecticut, the
second member profiled is the Yale University Occupa-
tional and Environmental Health Clinic. Among its Most
Common Environmental Diagnoses is Multiple Chemi-
cal Sensitivity.

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://info.med.yale.edu/intmed/occmed/clinical_services.html

{3} 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 Com-
mon Environmental Diagnoses is Multiple Chemical
Sensitivity.

See: http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_NY.htm

{4} We now come to the AOEC directory for the State of
{5} Massachusetts. The third and fourth listed clinics are
the Harvard affiliates, Cambridge Hospital and North-
east Specialty Hospital. Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
is listed as one of Cambridge Hospital's Most Common
Environmental Diagnoses, while the exact same Mul-
tiple Chemical Sensitivity is listed as one of Northeast
Specialty's Most Common Occupational Diagnoses.

See: http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_MA.htm

Furthermore, a notable number of AOEC members have
Sick Building 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 com-
mon 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 molecular biosciences of an american
university. The expanded diagram of that proposed mech-
anism mentions, in a favorable light, the conclusions 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 techno-
logically advanced nations of Germany, Sweden, Austria,
France, Spain, Italy, South Korea, the Netherlands, and
Japan.

An outline of the 2002/2004 proposed mechanism for
MCS can be accessed by clicking on the link provided
directly below.

The 2002/2004 Proposed Mechanism for MCS.
(Clicking here will take you there.)

posted by Atlantic America | Tuesday, January 16, 2007
The Invalidating Feature of the Staudenmayer Test


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 never-board-certified Stephen
Barrett repeatedly cited a "research undertaking" conducted
in Denver during the 1980s. That test is formally titled:

"Double-blind provocation chamber challenges in 20 patients
presenting with "multiple chemical sensitivity."

The article detailing that 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 chemist Martin P. Buhr (Ph.d).

The title of that test is misleading, being that it was not based
on standard challenge testing, such as the methacholine chal-
lenge test which measures FEV1 and the such. In fact, it was
subjective testing; the type of testing that Barrett condemns as
invalid. Thus, we see another instance of contradiction, and
even hypocrisy, in Stephen Barrett's anti-MCS literature.

Background in Brevity

1) The test consisted in 145 occasions where a test subject
received into his/her chamber an injection of air. The test
subject was then instructed to discern if whether or not
the injected air was accompanied by a chemical agent.

Each of the twenty test subjects participated 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 were defined as
"active" challenges, and they were recorded as injections 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
demonstrated a reliable response pattern across a series of
challenges." The conclusion was that persons diagnosed with
Multiple Chemical 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 reactions in susceptible persons. And they are
chemical-bearing agents.

Now, concerning anything aromatic, keep in mind that the
AMA, the world-renown Mayo Clinic, the American Lung
Association, and the American 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 be-
cause they are strong odors. And this includes 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 "Stauden-
mayer 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 injection, 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 an aldehyde
bearer. In fact, the naturally occurring trans-cinnamaldehyde
unassistedly becomes 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,
limonene, aka 4-isopropenyl-1-methyl-cyclohexene. Limo-
nene develops a potent sensitizing capacity when it is oxidized,
and it is a reputed skin sensitizer. In addition, a Swedish re-
search undertaking recorded the following about limonene:
"Bronchial hyperresponsiveness was related to indoor concen-
trations 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 is also the bearer of the sensitizing agents (a) limonene,
(b) phellandrene, and (c) alpha-pinene. It is additionally
the bearer of (d) methyl acetate, (e) menthofurane, and
(f) methone.

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 sensitivity responses;" a phenomenon attributed to the in-
volvement of Ca2+ calmodulin phosphatase calcineurin and
the ensuing dephosphorylation that it induces.

Barrett's Predictable Response to the Test

As is to be expected, in an article written by him, Stephen
Barrett recommended that clinical researchers conduct more
tests likened to the one conducted by Staudenmayer and
his colleagues; anise oil, cinnamon oil, and all.

You should be able to conjecture why he recommended this.

posted by Atlantic America | Tuesday, January 16, 2007
The Bridge to Part 2

Part 2 can be accessed by clicking on the web address
posted directly below.

http://www.stephenbarrettmd2.blogspot.com

posted by Atlantic America | Tuesday, January 16, 2007

From: Ilena Rose on 15 Apr 2008 14:03

---

anuary 16, 2007
Objective Medical Findings in the Chemically Sensitive that were Never
Disclosed by Stephen Barrett


Posted below is a list of objective
medical findings in chemically sen-
sitive patients. It appears after an
introduction and the narration of a
recent case study. The introduction
illustrates how objective medical
findings can be entirely missed dur-
ing cursory exams. And the case
study reminds us that, simply be-
cause corporate attorneys allege
something in a workman's comp
case, it doesn't mean it's true.

Not Detected by the Standard Chest CT Scan.
Yet Detected via the End-expiratory CT Scan.

A January 2002 article that remains posted on the Fox News
website declared it "junk science." It was/is the emergent ill-
ness 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 include shortness of
breath.

The article attributed the ills of the afflicted WTC cleanup
crew members to the 2002 "flu season." It furthermore at-
tributed the ills of affected Manhattan residents to "anxiety
salted with hypochondria." Its conclusion was that only
"minor and transient health effects from the site" were
to be expected.

A newly emerged illness had just made the scene, and just
as quickly on the scene was a political operative ridiculing
people's notice of it. Then came November 30, 2004,
when a press release reported 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. And it was the
fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopic exam which resulted in re-
searchers 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 diagnos-
ing Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction came to be
that of a flexible fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopic exam per-
formed upon a patient while the patient is symptomatic.

The human body is regarded as exceptionally complex. There-
fore, 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 account posted directly below should
offer more detailed insight to this. It involves a recent case
study. And, as was previously stated, the lesson derived
from it is that simply because defense attorneys assert some-
thing in a workman's comp case, it doesn't automatically
mean that it's true.

She Was Claimed to Have No Objective Medical
Findings to Verfiy Her Symptoms. Multiple Medical
Findings Were Documented in One Day.

A woman whose workplace was a former coal tar research
building became ill six months after having worked there. A
laboratory would come to confirm that her workplace was
laden with very fine monofilament fibers. And the smaller
the molecular agent, the greater is its potential to infiltrate
and afflict the inner recesses of the complex human anatomy.
Furthermore, there is also the matter of pesticide exposure,
ambient solvent exposure, and mold exposure to take into
account, concerning the woman's workplace environment.

After the woman had initially become ill, she kept going to
work. Her condition then worsened and she had to quit
work entirely. A fellow employee also quit working, and he
moved to Arizona. Other fellow employees mentioned that
they were being sickened, too. In fact, the business no long-
er operates in the former coal tar research building. And it
is a large corporation that is involved in this matter, even
though the antics of a small fly-by-night business are de-
scribed. In fact, the corporaton's total stockholder equity
was marked at 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
agents, simply because she unavoidably tasted them on her
tongue. 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. And this included
solvents, fragrances, engine exhausts, and musty cardboard
boxes. In addition, she lived in the american state which
presently has the fourth worse air quality in the entire United
States. Plus, 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." And the corporate attorneys in-
volved in her workman's comp case asserted that she had
no objective medical findings to support her claims. However,
an allergist & immunologist gave her the diagnoses of Asthma,
Rhinitis, and Chemical Sensitivities, while a cytopathologist
gave her the additional diagnosis of Reactive Hyperplasia.
In fact, in ER settings she received the Asthma and Rhinitis
diagnosis. Yet, assertions of mental illness had been set forth
on record and asserted in court depositions as the cause of
her ills. The assertions were significantly weakened in less
than an hour.

Grossly Enlarged Turbinates, for Starters

On October 13, 2005, a fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopic exam
was performed on her. It was conducted by an Ear Nose
Throat & 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).

Whatever be the medical condition that this woman has, it
is one of a physical origin and mechanism. It is not a mat-
ter of mental illness. Therefore, 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 recorded as having wheezed
and crackled during other ones. And she had already been
found to have the previously mentioned adenopathy. In
fact, tachycardia, erythema of the oropharynx, and
hypopotassemia had also been entered into her medical
records before the October 13 rhinolaryngoscopy. Yet,
she was branded with the "mental illness stigma," especially
by the corporate attorneys and independent medical exam-
iner involved in her workman's comp case.

Furthermore, after she had become ill, she tested severely
positive for dust mites and no other high weight molecular
agent (such as ragweed, tree pollen, etc.) And she has no
prior history of allergies. Now, she was exposed to inordi-
nate amounts of dust at her former place of work, and a
person can become sensitized to dust mites. In fact, 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 re-
cords can be accessed by clicking on the web link provided
directly below.

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 chemical sensitivity condi-
tions. In order to acquire objective medical findings, you
often have to be tested/examined while exposed to a chem-
ical agent that assails you. You have to be tested while you
are symptomatic. You will not acquire objective medical
findings in a vaccuum, in most testing/examing. Thus, it is
not an unheard event for a chemically sensitive patient to be
found hunched over a waste basket after having been ad-
ministered a skin prick test. Patch testing has resulted in
a few occasions of anaphylaxis. And being made sympto-
matic before a rhinolaryngoscopic exam is not a painless
event. Moreover, the inhalation challenge test that mea-
sures 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 a
number of chemical-specific & case-specific forms of chem-
ical sensitivity have already been found to exist, people will
surmise that it is only a matter of time before the controvesy
involving Multiple Chemical Sensitivity will be resolved. In
light of this, a list of objective medical findings in chemically
sensitive 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 fiberoptic 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:

Click here for the fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopy article

Note 2: There are also instances of hematotoxicity triggered
by nontoxic benzene exposure. See: Hematotoxicity
in workers exposed to low levels of benzene:

Click here for the benzene hematotoxicity article

Note 3: There is more that can be included, but the afore-
mentioned things should suffice in proving a point.

posted by Atlantic America | 1/16/2007
Case-specific Forms of Chemical
Sensitivity, Plus a Proposed
Mechanism for MCS


Provided is an outline of
the 2002 proposed mecha-
nism for MCS. A pivotal
feature was added to the
diagram, in 2004. It, too,
is discussed 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 main-
stream medical science. The list automatically illustrates
that nontoxic\ambient levels of chemicals are not univers-
ally 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 accomodation;

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

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 sensi-
tiity that have already been found to exist, you illustrate the
need of an entire class of people to avoid ambient levels
of the chemical-bearing agents 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, was all that
was 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 chem-
ical sensitivity. Matters involving formaldehyde-releasing
agents, the organophosphate\carbamate class of pesticide,
perfume ingredients, additives, & reasonable accomoda-
tion will still have to be addressed. Here is the list, con-
structed 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 con-
ditions 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.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0907/is_n5_v53/ai_21230719


The Most Recently Proposed Mechanism for MCS

The 21st Century proposed mechanism for MCS identifies
two general categories of chemical sensitivity. They are
Central Chemical Sensitivity 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 activation (action potential.)

Specific chemoreceptors, upon their activation, elevate
nitric oxide levels in the body. The nitric oxide then reacts
with superoxide, producing peroxynitrite.

While the nitric oxide is engaged in producing peroxynitrite,
it is simultaneously 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 stimulating the release of two types of neurotrans-
mitters. The neurotransmitters involved are glutamate and
aspartate.

Those types of neurotransmitters then stimulate receptors in
the post synaptic cells, known as N-methyl-d-aspartate
receptors. Abbreviated "NMDA receptors", they react
by producing nitric oxide from their own sites, thereby
maintaining the inordinately high level of nitric oxide al-
ready 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 or-
ganisms. 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 hypersensitive to stimulation. And while the cells
containing NMDA receptors are being deprived of energy
replenishment, peroxynitrite is engaged in yet another pro-
cess; 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 inhibiting cytochrome P450 activity. Therefore,
nitric oxide is proposed to inhibit the process by which
chemicals get metabolized and become harmless. The
result is heightened sensitivity to chemical exposure.

The aforementioned scenario was proposed by Dr. Martin
L. Pall, of the School of Molecular Biosciences of Wash-
ington State. And the aforementioned scenario is called
"a vicious cycle mechanism." 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/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 Chemicals in
Multple Chemical Sensitivity. The bibliographical citation
for it is Arch Environ Health. 2004 Jul;59(7):363-75. (I
could not find it posted anywhere on the Internet, except
for the abstract of it at the ncbi website. And that was
only a paragraph or two in length.)

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 begins. The vanilloid receptor
paper also addresses the phenomenon of masking, a
phenomenon duly noted in Central Chemical Sensitivity.

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 chemi-
cal exposure would have resulted in a notable adverse
reaction if it were the first one of that day. That same
chemical exposure will result in an adverse reaction when
it becomes the first one, on some future day. The masking
effect muted the presence of that one chemical exposure
encounter for that particular day.

The authors of the vanilloid receptor paper propose that
masking occurs during a cyclic phase known as dephos-
phorylation. It is a phase triggered by Ca2+ calmodulin
phosphatease calcineurin. The hypothesis is that vanilloid
receptor activity is decreased during that phase; the "de-
sensitization" phase. Conversely, it is during the alternate
phase, the one known as phosphorylation, when vanilloid
receptor 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 Townsend Letter for Doctors
and Patients. It can be accessed by clicking on the fol-
lowing 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.

In fact, clicking on the following web addresses can help
familiarize a reader with the basic of elements of the bio-
science involved in Martin Pall's proposed mechanism:

Concerning Chemoreceptors, one can refer to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemoreceptors

Concerning Action potential, one can refer to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential#Underlying_mechanism

Concerning Synapses, one can refer to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapse#Signaling_across_chemical_synapses


Now, the proposed mechanism of Dr. Pall is a hypothesis.
It is a hypothesis which involves intricate details and in-
tricate mapping. This means that the objective medical
findings of chemically sensitive patients continue to carry
the sole weight in proving that chemical sensitivity is a
physiological condition and not a psychiatric one. The
objective medical findings include instances of anaphy-
laxis triggered by nontoxic/ambient/therapeutic levels
of chemical-bearing 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 in-
volve 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 informa-
tion on this type of chemical sensitivity by clicking on
the following links:

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

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/1997/Suppl-2/meggs-full.html

Neurogenic Inflammation and Sensitivity to Environmental Chemicals.

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/1993/101-3/meggs-full.html

posted by Atlantic America | 1/16/2007
Systemic Chemical Sensitivity
and Dual Chemical Sensitivity

Anaphylaxis: It impairs multiple body systems in one
systemic fashion, and it has been triggered by a number
of chemicals at nontoxic levels. The chemicals which
have thus far been documented as having triggered ana-
phylaxis ( 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] the anesthesia, Propofol.
[13] common aspirin.
[14] formaldehyde.
[15] nitrites.
[16] sulfites. ... etc.

The existence of Systemic Chemical Sensitivity has already
been documented under the name, anaphylaxis. 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 Sen-
sitivity consists 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, chemi-
cals have individually done this during anaphylaxis. And then
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 (one which can be
regarded as Dual Chemical Sensitivity) has thus far involv-
ed the integumentary system (the skin) in combination
with the respiratory system in the following forms:

[1] airborne irritant uritcaria (hives) accompanied by rhinitis;
[2] asthma and rhinoconjunctivits accompanied by dermatitis;
[3] asthma accompanied by dermatitis;
[4] asthma accompanied by urticaria.

Dual Chemical Sensitivity has already been documented,
and it appears in documentation under the name "comorbid
conditions," as well as under "coexisting conditions." It
is not a hypothesis yet to be proven. The chemicals which
have thus far been documented 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 distinctly different forms of localized
chemical sensitivity 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, concern-
ing dual chemical sensitivity):

Occupational allergic airborne contact dermatitis and delayed
bronchial asthma from eposy resin revealed by bronchial
provocation test.

Occupational Asthma and Contact Dermatitis in a Spray
Painter after Introduction of an Aziridine Cross-Linker.

Allergic contact dermatitis and new-onset asthma.

Occupational asthma and dermatitis after exposure to dusts
of persulfate salts in two industrial workers (author's transl)
Dentist's occupational asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis,
and allergic contact dermatitis from methacrylates.

Acrylates induced rhinitis and contact dermatitis.

Pronounced Short-term Chemical Exposure
Causing Long-term Illness in Dual Body Systems

And 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 over-exposures. One case study involves a
tank truck hauler who developed symptoms during and
after an eight and a half hour stay around a tank of par-
affin, 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 a
racking cough, a severe headache, and an irritated throat.
And 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 following 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 chemical exposure scenarios precede gastrointest-
inal distress, fatigue, weakness, arthralgia, & irritability. Now,
this is a description of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, and this
is pertinent to note, in light of the fact that the detractors of
MCS have repeatedly claimed that persons manifesting signs
of MCS have no objective medical findings to support their re-
ported symptoms. This one driver had seven objective medical
findings documented at the outset of his illness.

In meeting rooms where position statements are drafted, the
name, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, was changed to Idiopathic
Environmental Intolerance. This substitute title is an entirely
erroneous title in the case of the tank truck hauler, being that
"iodiopathic" means "of unknown origin," and the hauler's ills
originated at a known time and a known place, with already-
identifed mechanisms, and objective medical findings.

That case study and seven other ones are described in a
medical article titled, Reactive Intestinal Dysfunction
Syndrome Caused by Chemical Exposures - RIDS. It
is already cited in the article posted above. However, for
the sake of convenience, a link to the full text is reposted
directly below:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/
mi_m0907/is_n5_v53/ai_21230719

An Assertion in anti-MCS Literature
Negated by Evidence Gathered in
the Field of Occupational Medicine

Needess to say, anti-MCS literature asserts that persons suf-
fering from MCS are merely mentally ill, despite the fact that
there is no consensus as to what particular type of mental ill-
ness this might be. Nonetheless, a few anti-MCS 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 suf-
fering from MCS are those who worked in chemically laden
environments. If such persons were phobic of chemical expo-
sure, they would have never taken the chemically laden jobs
that they took, in the first place. They would have never even
applied for those jobs.

posted by Atlantic America | 1/16/2007
The Bridge to Part 1


Part 1 can be accessed by clicking on the web address
posted directly below.

http://www.stephenbarrettmd.blogspot.com

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Dr. William Rea in the News and on Nightline Tonight
Next: Thank you Myrl Jeffcoat!!! The Never-board-certified Stephen Barrett, MD (Part 1)