Thank you Myrl Jeffcoat!!! The Never-board-certified Stephen Barrett, MD (Part 1)
in [MCS]
|
Prev: Thank you Myrl Jeffcoat!!! The Never-board-certified Stephen Barrett, MD (Part 1)
Next: Thank you Myrl Jeffcoat!!! The Never-board-certified Stephen Barrett, MD (Part 1)
From: Myrl on 27 May 2008 20:04 Everytime I see Ilena go off like a raving lunatic, I'm reminded of this old joke: QUESTION: "Do you know how to make a hormone?" ANSWER: "Don't pay her!" http://www.ilena-rosenthal.com Read it and weep! On May 27, 2:57 pm, Ilena Rose <B...(a)mundo.com> wrote: > 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! What is so interesting ... is she > spends scores of hours per week on her cause (I hate Ilena Rosenthal > and You should Too) ... while promoting this Quack ... whose non > profit was suspended for over 3 years yet they never stopped, to use > Myrl's words, "begging for donations." > > Thanks to Myrl too for her blathering about the Humantics Foundation > who appears to be the only breast implant foundation to have provided > several explant surgeries for women with no other sources. In Myrl's > Quacklandia ... any amount of donations anyone chooses to give to the > Humantics Foundation is too much and any given to the Quacks of the > Healthfraud team (even when they were suspended for over 3 years) is > not enough! > > www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/ > > Barrett is the King of failed SLAPP suits, and has an army of grannies > like Myrl Jeffcoat & Coleah Penley Ayers promoting his quackery and > his hatreds and SLAPP suits for any non-pharma / chemical industry > products. Barrett promotes vaccinations and sues homeopaths ... and > Myrl Jeffcoat promotes vaccinations and hates homeopaths with Barrett. > > www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/myrl.htmlwww.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htmwww.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm > Barrett & other Vaccination Pushers > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Myrl on 29 May 2008 19:45
|___________________________________|______| 0 20 40 60 80 100 ILENA HYENA INTERNET RODEO CLOWN DETECTOR |