June 15, 2017

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

Brief Outline

Stephen Barret MD is a never-board-certified psychiatrist of early retire-
ment.  He has zero experience as a practicing physician.  He obsessively
asserted that the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity diagnosis is an act of mal-
practice given to those who are merely mentally ill.  He then called Sick
Building Syndrome (SBS) a "fad diagnosis."  He additionally stated that
the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity diagnosis is the fabrication of a "small
cadre of physicians" who identify themselves as "clinical ecologists."  Of
course, this has been a falsehood, all along.  In fact, his anti-chemical
sensitivity article was originally titled, "Unproven allergies."  Well, those
allergies were proven long before he wrote his defamatory article.  To-
day, chemical allergies can be ascertained through the RAST Test.  They
used to be identified through stick prick testing, just like any other allergy.

The Induced Deceptions

Barrett's literature can easily deceive ant novice into assuming that the
MCS diagnosis has yet to be given at an Occupational & Environmen-
tal health clinic, as well as at any world renown medical institution.  Be-
ing that Barrett associated SBS with MCS, it leaves a novice to assume
the same things about Sick Building Syndrome.  Barrett's assertions call
for a response.

The Response

The Association of  Occupational & Environmental Clinics posts updat-
ed profiles of  its members, in State-by-State directory form.  In each
AOEC profile, mention is made of  the profiled member clinic's Most
Common Occupational Diagnoses & Most Common  Environment-
al Diagnoses.  Placed into focus at this point are the AOEC members
listed directly below.  The profile of each one dates from May 2008
to November 2011.

{1}  the world renowned Yale University,
{2}  the world renowned Mount Sinai,
{3}  The world renowned Johns Hopkins University.
{4}  The West Virginia school, Marshall University.

{1}  In the AOEC directory for the State of Connecticut, the second
       member profiled is the Yale University Occupational and Envir-
       onmental Health Clinic.  For years, it marked as one of its Most
       Common Environmental Diagnoses, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.
       At this present time, it simply states it to be Chemical Sensitivity,
       without the word, "multiple."

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

      This can be additionally confirmed at the following Yale University
      web address, under the heading, Chemical Sensitivites:

See:   http://medicine.yale.edu/intmed/occmed/clinical/index.aspx

{2}  We next go to the State of New York. The fourth clinic profiled
        in the New York directory is The Mount Sinai Irving J. Selikoff 
        Center. Among its three Most Common Environmental Diagnoses
        is Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.  In fact, the Occupational Health 
       Clinical Centers, located in Syracuse, New York, also has Multiple 
       Chemical Sensitivity marked as one of its most common environ-
       mental diagnosis.  In addition, the Long Island Occupational and
       Environmental Health Center, in Medford NY, has MCS marked
       as one of its two most common environmental diagnoses.

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

{3} Next comes Johns Hopkins' Division of Occupational and Envi-
      ronmental Medicine.  According to the AOEC directory for the
      State of Maryland, among Johns Hopkins most common envi-
      ronmental diagnosis is Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.


Furthermore, a notable number of AOEC members have Sick Build-
ing Syndrome listed among their most common diagnoses.  This in-

[] 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, 
[] University of California-Davis Medical Center
[] The University of Illinois - Chicago,
[] Wayne State University (Detroit),
[] The University of Pittsburgh,
[] Johns Hopkins, as was previously mentioned.

  Note:  The University of Maryland School of Medicine, Boston's
  Children's Hospital, and Boston University's clinic marks among
  their most common occupational diagnoses Building Related 

In addition, a number of AOEC members have Indoor Air Quality
listed among their most common diagnoses. For example, the world
renown Duke Medical Center has Indoor Air Quality Assessment
listed among its most common diagnoses, while Yale University
has Indoor Air Quality Problems listed.

The 21st Century proposed mechanism for MCS does not come from
the world of the "clinical ecologist."  It comes from a school of molec-
ular bio-sciences via an American university.  The expanded diagram
of that proposed mechanism mentions, in a favorable light, the conclu-
sions about chemical sensitivity which come from the school of  emer-
gency medicine of  yet another American university.  In fact, findings
in chemical sensitivity also come from the technologically advanced
nations of  Germany, Sweden, Austria, France, Italy, South Korea,
Spain, the Netherlands, and Japan.

The Proposed Mechanism for Multiple (body system) Chemical Sensitivity

It's popularly known as Multiple Chemical  Sensitivity (aka MCS.)
However, the diagnostic title does NOT refer to the phenomenon of
sensitivity to multiple chemicals.  It refers to chemical sensitivity
simultaneously afflicting multiple body systems, and not merely
one of them.

Concerning sensitivity to multiple chemicals, that phenomenon had long
since been proven to be real in cases of asthma, sinusitis, rhinitis, vocal
cord dysfunction, dermatitis, and a medical condition known as Reactive
Airways Dysfunction Syndrome.

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

Central Chemical Sensitivity

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

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

While the nitric oxide is engaged in producing peroxynitrite, it is simul-
taneously engaged in an additional function.  This function is "retrograde

Nitric oxide's role in retrograde signaling is proposed to be that of send-
ing an electrical signal to the presynapse cells, thereby stimulating the re-
lease of  two types of neurotransmitters.  The  two types are glutamate
and aspartate.

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

While the NMDA receptors maintain an elevated nitric oxide level, per-
oxynitrite is engaged in causing the cells that contain those receptors to
be depleted of their energy pools.  Adenosine triphosphate is what's be-
ing depleted in the process.  Now, ATP is the carrier of energy in all liv-
ing organisms, and peroxynitrite inhibits mitochondrial function.  There-
for, it inhibits the production of ATP.

When cells containing NMDA receptors become deprived of their ener-
gy 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
process; that of  breaking down the blood brain barrier.  This enables in-
creased chemical access to the brain.

Meanwhile, nitric oxide performs yet another function; that of  inhibit-
ing 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  Washington State.  The afore-
mentioned scenario is called "a vicious cycle mechanism"  and a paper
written by Dr. Pall which describes this vicious cycle.


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 Drs. Pall and Julius Ander-
son, M.D., Ph.D., of West Hartford, Vermont;   The Vanilloid Re-
ceptor 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.

The vanilloid receptor is implicated as a major target for a number of
chemicals which can activate it.  Therefore, vanilloid receptor activa-
tion 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. 

    The Phenomenon of Masking is actually Dephosphorylation

Masking is the phenomenon where a chemical exposure scenario gets
muted at the outset by the overshadowing effect of  a previous and dif-
ferent one.  That same chemical exposure would have resulted in a not-
able adverse reaction if  it were the first one of that day.  The same ex-
posure will result in an adverse reaction when it becomes the first one,
on some future day.  The masking effect muted the presence of  that
specific chemical exposure for that particular day.

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

The authors of  the vanilloid receptor paper propose that masking occurs
during a cyclic phase known as dephosphorylation.  It's a phase triggered
by Ca2+ calmodulin phosphatease calcineurin.  Vanilloid receptor activity
is decreased during that phase; the "desensitization" 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 pub-
lished in the August/September 2005 edition of  Townsend Letter for
Doctors and Patients.  It can be accessed by clicking on the following
web address:


Now, the proposed mechanism of Dr. Pall is a hypothesis.  It is a hypo-
thesis which involves intricate details and intricate mapping.  This means
that the objective medical findings of chemically sensitive patients contin-
ue to carry the sole weight in proving that chemical sensitivity is a physi-
ological condition and not a psychiatric one.

The objective medical findings include instances of  anaphylaxis triggered
by nontoxic/ambient/therapeutic levels of  chemical-bearing agents.  The
findings include cases where two entirely different species of  localized
chemical sensitivity were found co-existing in the same one patient, and
such co-existence hints of the authentic existence of  MCS. 

Peripheral Chemical Sensitivity

This general type of chemical sensitivity is proposed to involve the per-
ipheral 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, as is Occupational Asth-
ma due to low-weight molecular agents..

This type of chemical sensitivity is proposed to involve neurogenic in
flammation.  One can obtain more information on this type of chemi-
cal sensitivity by clicking on the following links:

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


Neurogenic Inflammation and Sensi-

tivity to Environmental Chemicals.


June 14, 2017

Systemic and Co-existing Forms of Chemical Sensitivity, along with some of the chemicals which triggered them

Anaphylaxis:   It impairs multiple body systems in one systemic fashion,
and it has been triggered by a number of chemicals at ambient (nontoxic)
levels.   The chemicals which have thus far been documented as having
triggered anaphylaxis at nontoxic levels include:

[01] the hair bleaching agent, Ammonium Persulfate.
[02] the antimicrobial agent, Chlorhexidine (0.05%).
[03] the medical disinfectant, Ortho-phthalaldehyde.
[04] the fungicide, Chlorothalonil (0.01% aqueous).
[05] the analgesic ingredient, Polyvinylpyrrolidone.
[06] the diagnostic agent, Isosulphan Blue Dye.
[07] the dialysis ingredient, Ethylene Oxide.
[08] the additive, Sodium Benzoate.
[09] the analgesic, Acetaminophen.
[10] the xanthine dye, Flourescein.
[11] the food coloring, Tartrazine.
[12] common aspirin.
[13] formaldehyde.
[14] nitrites.
[15] sulfites ... etc.

The existence of Systemic Chemical Sensitivity has already been docu-
mented under the name, anaphylaxis and even urticaria.   It is not a pro-
posed hypothesis yet to be proven.

An Assertion Negated by Evidence Gathered
in the Field of Occupational Medicine

An objection to the recognition of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity exist-
ed in the assertion that a chemical, whenever encountered at a nontoxic
level, cannot impair more than one body system in the same one person.
However, chemicals have individually done this during anaphylaxis.

In the world of occupational medicine there have been DOCUMENTED
instances where the same one chemical, at an ambient level, has impaired
two body systems in the same one worker (or subset of workers.)   This
phenomenon can be regarded as dual chemical sensitivity.  It has thus far
involved the integumentary system (the skin) in combination with the re-
spiratory system in the following forms:

[1] airborne irritant urticaria (hives) accompanied by rhinitis.
[2] asthma and rhino-conjunctivitis accompanied by dermatitis.
[3] asthma accompanied by dermatitis.
[4] asthma accompanied by urticaria.

Dual Chemical Sensitivity has already been documented.  It appears
in documentation under the title "co-morbid conditions," as well as
"coexisting conditions."   It is a documented phenomenon and not a
hypothesis yet to be proven.  The chemicals which have thus far been
documented as having induced it, in the world of Occupational Medi-
cine, include:

[1] dental acrylates;
[2] dusts of persulfate salts;
[3] epoxy resin diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A;
[4] leather tanning ingredient potassium dichromate;
[5] spray paint additive, polyfunctional aziridine cross-
linker CX-100.

The coexistence of different forms of localized chemical sensitivity en-
tirely negates the assumption that a chemical sensitivity reaction can
impair no more than one body system in a person at a time.  Clicking
on each of the following titles will connect you to the documentary evi-
dence, concerning dual chemical sensitivity

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

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

Occupational asthma and dermatitis after exposure to dusts of persulfate salts in two industrial workers (author's transl).

Dentist's occupational asthma, rhino-conjunctivitis, and allergic contact dermatitis from methacrylates.

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

Then there are cases where pronounced chemical exposure (such as
in the case of chemical spills) has resulted in adverse affects to dual
body systems.   It has furthermore resulted in chronic hypersensitivity
to a number of chemicals other than that which was encountered dur-
ing the chemical overexposure.

One case study involves a tank truck hauler who developed symptoms
during and after an eight and a half hour stay around an alleged tank of
paraffin, due to the fact that he experienced a tire blowout while driving,
and had to wait for a road crew to get him back on the road.

Within one hour of the blowout, the driver underwent racking cough,
a severe headache, and an irritated throat.  Within forty hours, his feet,
hands, and abdomen started to swell.  The swelling continued to the
point triggering shortness of breath and chest pains.  The medical ex-
amination of the driver resulted in the following objective 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

When the driver was examined a year after the blowout, he stated that
exposure to chemical agents resulted in his suffering gastrointestinal dis-
tress, fatigue, weakness, neuralgia, and irritability.  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 reported symptoms.  This driver had seven objective medical find-
ings at the outset of his illness.

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

That case study and seven other ones are described in medical article
titled,  Reactive Intestinal Dysfunction Syndrome Caused by 
Chemical Exposures - RIDS.


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

Needless to say, anti-MCS literature asserts that persons suffering from
MCS are merely mentally ill, despite the fact that there is no consensus
as to what particular type of mental illness this might be.  Nonetheless,
a few propagandists assert that persons suffering from MCS are mere-
ly phobic of chemical exposure, and that the fear of chemicals causes
them to imagine illness.   However, a number of persons suffering from
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity are those  who worked in chemically lad-
en environments for extended periods of time.   If such persons were
phobic of chemical exposure, they would have never taken the chemi-
cally laden jobs they took.   They would have never even applied for
those jobs.  The propagandists' assertion completely falls apart.

The Objective Medical Findings of Chemically Sensitive Patients

Mainstream medical science has already proved the existence of
chemical allergies.  Immediate onset and delayed reactions have
long since been proven to exist.  The reaction occurring within an
hour are known as an Immunoglobin-E reaction.  It occurs by the
process of "haptenation."  Haptenation is simply the act of a low-
weight molecule taking a piggy-bank ride on a much larger mole-
cule, thereby enabling an allergic reaction to transpire.

Chemicals have also been proven to trigger what is known as cell-
mediated delayed allergic reactions.  These mostly affect the skin.
Next comes the delayed Immunoglobin-G reaction.  This reaction
adversely affects the respiratory system.  In summary, these involve
adverse reactions to non-toxic levels of chemical exposure.  Such
low levels are known are ambient levels. 

Today, testing for IgE-meditated chemical allergies is done through
RAST testing.  It used to be done through the traditional skin prick
test.   In as much, it's at the OCCUPATIONAL PANEL where the
request for chemical allergy testing is listed on ye olde RAST TEST
ORDER FORM.  Therefore, don't look for any "chemical panel" on
a RAST TEST form.  Look for the occupational one.

Plus, there are other objective medical findings attached to those suf-
fering from Chemical & Irritant Sensitivities, in addition to the presence
of classical allergic inflammatory mediators.  In fact, Irritant Sensitivities
involve sensitivity to those chemicals which don't provoke the classical
allergic reaction.   Some chemicals were found to trigger other kinds of
"inflammatory mediators."  In as much, Chemical Sensitivity is basically
an inflammatory disease.  Very simply, it triggers physical inflammation
somewhere in the body.

Posted below is a partial list of objective medical findings that have en-
tered into the records of chemically sensitive patients and into research
documentation.   It appears after an introduction and a narration of a re-
latively recent case study.   The introduction shows how objective med-
ical findings can be entirely missed during a "cursory medical examine.
The case study also confirms that, simply because insurance company
attorneys allege something in a workman's comp case, it doesn't mean
it's true.

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

A January 2002 article that remains posted on the Fox News website
declared it "junk science."   It was/is the emergent illness which afflict-
ed persons exposed to the debris of  the World Trade Center collapse.
Unofficially called "World Trade Center Syndrome," its distinctive fea-
ture was the "the WTC Cough,"  and its symptoms included shortness
of  breath.

The article attributed the ills of  the afflicted WTC cleanup crew mem-
bers to the 2002 "flu season."   It furthermore attributed the ills of Man-
hattan residents to "anxiety salted with hypochondria."  Its conclusion
was that only "minor and transient health effects from the site" were
to be expected.   The conclusion was wrong.

A newly emerged illness had just made the scene, and just as quickly on
the scene was a political operative ridiculing people's notice of it.  Then
came November 30, 2004, when it was officially disclosed that some of
the afflicted crew members of  the ground zero cleanup operation were
actually suffering from the trapping of  air.   These workers were suffer-
ing from Small Airways Disease, and it was the end-expiratory CT scan
that confirmed it to be true.   The standard chest CT scan overlooked it. 

The Fiberoptic Rhinolaryngoscopy Detects that
which the Garden Variety Cursory Exam Overlooks

The upper airway endoscopy is recognized by mainstream medicine as
an effective means by which pathologies of the septum, nasopharynx,
turbinates, mucosa, adenoids, eustachian tube orifice, tonsils, posterior
tongue, epiglottis, glottis, and vocal cords can be easily seen.   It was
the fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopic exam which resulted in researchers
realizing (in the early 1990s) that the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
Syndrome which was presumed to involve no objective medical find-
ings showed signs of being a physical pathology.  In fact, the golden
rule for diagnosing Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction came
to be that of  a flexible fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopic examination, per-
formed upon a patient only when he/she is symptomatic. 

The human body is regarded as exceptionally complex.  Therefore, the
reasonably minded person should understand that the cursory physical
exam and garden variety testing do not detect everything.  This under-
standing, 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 narration posted directly below should offer more detailed insight
to this.  It involves a case study which teaches us that, simply because
corporate defense attorneys assert something in a workman's comp
case, it doesn't automatically mean that it's true.

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

A woman whose workplace was a former coal tar research building be-
came ill six months after having worked there.   A laboratory confirmed
that her workplace was laden with very fine monofilament fibers.   The
smaller the molecular agent, the greater is its potential to infiltrate and
afflict the inner recesses of the complex human anatomy.   Furthermore,
there was also the matter of pesticide exposure, ambient solvent expos-
ure, and mold exposure to take into account, concerning her workplace

After the woman had initially become ill, she kept going to work, making
her condition worsen and making her have to quit work entirely.  In fact,
 a fellow employee of quit working and then moved to Arizona.  Other
fellow employees mentioned that they were being sickened, too.

The business no longer operates in the former coal tar research center.
Moreover, a large corporation was involved in this matter, despite the
fact that the antics of  a small fly-by-night business are described.   In
fact, the corporation's total stockholder equity was marked as being
over eleven billion dollars in 2005.

Her Symptoms

The woman's symptoms included:

[1]  a stinging tongue.
[2]  shortness of  breath.
[3]  burning nasal passages.
[4]  a metallic taste in the mouth.
[5]  an adrenal-like stream throughout her solar plexus.
[6]  headaches accompanied by the bruised feeling at the
         cheekbones and temples.
[7]  ice-like numbness pervading her upper-respiratory
        tract (on specific occasion.)

She detected the presence of particular airborne substances, simply be-
cause she unavoidably tasted them on her tongue.  In fact, one of her
symptoms was the metallic taste in her mouth.   She could no longer go
to the places she used to frequent without becoming symptomatic, be-
ing that a number of  airborne agents would now trigger her ills.  This
included fragrances, engine exhausts, and musty cardboard boxes.

She lived in the American state which, at the time, had the fourth worse
air quality in the United States.  In addition, she had no prior history of
asthma, no history of chronic upper-respiratory ills, and no history of

She received the diagnosis of agoraphobia & panic attacks, by a "men-
tal health person."   The corporate attorneys involved in her workman's
comp case asserted that she had no objective medical findings to sup-
port her claims.   However, an allergist and immunologist gave her the
diagnoses of  Asthma, Rhinitis, and Chemical Sensitivities.  Meanwhile
a cytopathologist gave her the additional diagnosis of  Reactive Hyper-
plasia.   In fact, in emergency room 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 per-
formed on her.  The exam was conducted by an ear nose throat and
allergy specialist who also happened to be a fellow of the American
College of  Surgeons.   The woman who was said to have no objec-
tive medical findings to support her symptoms was found to have:

[1]  postauricular adenopathy.
[2]  grossly enlarged turbinates.
[3]  shoddy posterior cervical adenopathy
[4]  some erythematous changes of the uvula.
[5]  some mild edema of the true vocal cords.
[6]  thickened coating over the dorsum of  the tongue.

The physician's impressions, as are stated on record, were:

[1]  multiple chemical and irritant sensitivities.
[2]  rhinitis and turbinate hypertrophy.
[3]  glossitis (tongue inflammation).

The conclusion is that, whatever be the medical condition this lady has,
it is one of  a physical origin and mechanism.   If she were not made ill
from workplace exposure, then she was made ill by some other physi-
cal 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 doc-
umented as having "gruntled breathing" during an ER visit.   She was
also recorded as having wheezed and crackled during other ones. In
fact, she already was found to have adenopathy.  Plus, tachycardia,
erythema of  the oropharynx, and hypopotassemia had also been
entered into her medical records before the October 13th rhinolaryngo-
scopy.   Yet, she was branded with the "mental illness stigma," by the
corporate defense attorneys and one independent medical examiner
hired by the antagonistic corporation.

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.)   Yet, she has no prior history of  allergies.  Now, she
was exposed to inordinate amounts of  dust at her former place of  work,
and a person can become sensitized to dust mites.   After all, there exist
cases where barn workers became sensitized to storage mites.

The account of  the chemically sensitive woman who has over a dozen
objective medical findings attached to her medical records can be ac-
cessed by clicking on the web link provided directly below. 

Corporate Welfare: Government paying for illnesses caused by corporations.

The Icy Numbing 

Chemical Exposure During Testing is Often a Necessity

There is one thing to note about a plurality of chemical sensitivity con-
ditions.   In order to acquire objective medical findings, you have to 
be examined while exposed to a chemical agent that assails you.  In
fact, you have to be tested /examined while symptomatic.  You will 
not acquire objective medical findings in a vaccuum, in most testing.

In light of this, it was not an unheard event for a chemically sensitive
patient to be found hunched over a waste basket after having been
administered a skin prick test.  Furthermore, patch testing has result-
ed in a few occasions of anaphylaxis, and being made symptomatic
before a rhinolaryngoscopic exam is not a painless event.   Moreov-
er, the inhalation challenge test that measures FEV1 and the such is
not recommended for those who are extremely hyperresponsive.

If the Detractors of  MCS Admit to Even One Objective
Medical Finding in any Type of Chemically Sensitive
Patient, the Effect of their Propaganda Will Be Diluted

If the detractors of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity disclose even one ob-
jective medical finding in chemically sensitive patients, they will risk ex-
tinguishing the disrespect and indifference that their literature serves to
incite.    This will incline people to take a very respectful view of envi-
ronmental illness.   In learning that there exists a spectrum of chemical-
specific, case-specific, single systemic, and systemic forms of chemical
sensitivity have already been found to exist, the public will surmise that
it will only a matter of  time before the controversy involving Multiple
Chemical Sensitivity will be resolved.  In light of this, a list of objective
medical findings in chemically sensitive patients is posted 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.




Note 1:  There are fiber optic rhinolaryngoscopic exam find-
              ings that were not posted above.  In order to read
             of  the additional findings, see:  Rhinolaryngoscopic
             Examination of Patients with Multiple Chemical 
            Sensitivity Syndrome, found at:

Note 2:  There are also instances of hematotoxicity triggered
             by nontoxic benzene exposure.  See:  Hematotoxcity
             in workers exposed to low levels of benzene, found
             at:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15576619

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

June 13, 2017

A List of Single System & Systemic
Forms of Chemical Sensitivity

Identified & Defined Forms of Chemical Sensitivity

The forms of chemical sensitivity listed below are those which have al-
ready been identified and defined by mainstream medical science.  The
list automatically illustrates that nontoxic\ambient levels of chemicals
are not universally harmless.  The list, therefore, illustrates the need for
a plurality of people to avoid pertinent chemical exposures.  In main-
stream medical science, environmental illness conditions are diagnosed
in the world of Occupational & Environmental Medicine.  Pulmonary
specialists and dermatologists have confirmed chemical sensitivity con-

The bottom line is this:  There exist chemical sensitivity conditions that
are not called "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity," and which involve sensi-
tivity to numerous chemicals and irritants.  Reactive Airways Dysfunction
Syndrome and Occupational Asthma due to low weight molecular agents
are two examples.

The Merit in Making the List Known

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

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

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

   3] persuade marketers into declining to provide consumer product
       lines free of those chemical-bearing agents which are known to

       trigger adverse reactions such as asthma.

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

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

             Generalized\Systemic and Localized Forms

                               Irritant-induced Asthma
                            Irritant Rhinitis\Rhinosinusitis
                           Halothane-induced  Hepatitis
                         Photoallergic Contact Dermatitis
                        Benzene-induced Aplastic Anemia
                       Airborne Irritant Contact Dermatitis
                       Formaldehyde-induced Anaphylaxis
                   (chlorhexidine-induced & other forms)

                   Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome

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

                 Acute Generalized Exanthematous Pustulosi
                               Chemical Worker's Lung
                    (a type of Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis) 
       Occupational Asthma due to low-weight molecular agents

     Occupational Urticaria (due to low-weight molecular 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 ex-

              clusively caused by ambient chemical  exposure.  It can also
              be caused by viral and mold exposure.

Note 3:  Reactive Upper-Airways Dysfunction Syndrome doesn't ap-

              pear 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.  Yet, it was found to

              exist in some of  the WTC clean-up crew members who be-

              came ill during or after the clean-up.  See: CT helps find
              cause of puzzling cough in WTC Rescue workers.  It's
              found at:


Note 5:  There are a multiplicity of contact sensitivity conditions that
              were not posted.  They were omitted, in order to avoid the
              appearance of redundancy.
Note 6:  The diagnostic title, Reactive Intestinal Dysfunction Syndrome
              (RIDS), has been proposed.   See: Reactive intestinal dys-
              function syndrome caused by chemical exposure - RIDS.
             It is found at:


June 11, 2017

Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Formaldehyde: The 84 yr old Stephen Barrett, MD

In the Year 2001, a retired psychiatrist
who was never board certified in any-
thing stated: "Today, I am the media."
He repeatedly presented himself  as an
expert in medicine, nutrition, and law,
while having zero experience as a prac-
ticing physician, no training in nutrition,
and zero bar association membership.
He is a naysayer of everything which
competes for big pharma dollars.  He
is too obvious.

At the principle website that he operates, he is described as a medical
communications expert of  national renown.  He even presented him-
self  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 scorecard
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 au-
       thority of  a board-certified medical expert.

[2]  Nor has he been able to speak from the vantage point of  a practi-
       tioner in any type of  internal or dermatological medicine.  In fact,
       Stephen Barrett has not served in the capacity of  a physician since
       the end of  his rotating internship days.  Those days ended over 57
       years ago, in 1958.  Thus, we have a 59 year lapse in time involved
       with Stephen Barrett's writings on non-psychiatric subjects.

       The "MD" affixed to his name simply means that he graduated from
       a medical school.  He did do that.  But, he did it over a half century
       ago, in 1957 ... 60 years ago.

[3]  Barrett has never been a researcher 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 bio-
       chemist, nor an immunologist, nor any type of  medical tech-
       nologist, nor a pharmacologist.  This means that he has never
       been able to speak from the vantage point of  a research col-
       league.  That is to say, if  Stephen Barrett had been seen in a
       lab coat after 1958, it was during Halloween or a masquerade

[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 first-
       hand 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 medical impairment.  By all appear-
       ances, he is not able to offer any insight on what it is to know
       intense physical suffering in the first person singular.  His ruth-
       lessness and 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 him-
self as an expert in FDA regulatory law.  The matter concerned a case
that he himself  instigated, under the name of a 501c non-profit organi-
zation of  which he was/is a member 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, despite 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.  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 defendant's attorney fees.  As
an added note, he claimed himself to be a 21st Century legal expert
in FDA regulatory 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

Stephen Barrett has filed many lawsuits.  Each one is an article of its
own.  He usually sues for libel, malice, and/or conspiracy.  One re-
port attached Barrett to a multiplicity of  lawsuits filed against forty
defendants.  This is reminiscient of a con artist who pretends getting
hit by autos ... repeatedly.  This is ridiculous.

Barret had acourtroom loss is dated October 2005, in the Court of
Common Pleas of Lehigh County for the State of  Pennsylvania.  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.  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 as-
sociation.  He never represented himself as his own attorney in any
of  his many lawsuits.  He was never a district magistrate, and he
was not a clerk of  court.  Yet, he has repeated claimed that he is a
legal expert.  Barrett did have court appearances as an expert wit-
ness in criminal and parole cases, but only in the capacity of a
psychiatrist who was never board certified.  One such venue
was the juvenile court system in San Francisco during the 60s.

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 credentialed and
certified nutritionist.  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 hearing, the lady against whom Bar-
rett 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 nu-
tritional 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 testi-
fied had her credentials restored in full.  Notification of  this was pub-
lished in the courier & 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 defrauder
whose now-defunct paper review company, in providing health reports
to State Farm Insurance adjustors, was declared "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 fraudulent health reports.
He is a Dr. Ronald Gots, founder of Medical Claims Review Services.
The 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 adjustors.  Ever-
so-coincidentally, 100% of those 79 reports favored State Farm
over every auto accident claimant 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 com-
mitting 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 ve-
hement denial of the valid existence of  Chemical Sensitivity.  How-
ever, Chemical Sensitivity comes in many case-specific and medi-
cally 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, such as

Similarly, the Barrett/Gots book is a denial of  the existence of the En-
vironmental Illness which comes in 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 di-
agnosis."  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 physiological
existence of  the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity which is listed as one
of the "Most Common Diagnoses" at the O&E Health centers of:

> the world renowned Yale University,
> the world renowned Mount Sinai Hospital,
> the world renowned Johns Hopkins University,
> a hospital affiliated with Harvard University,
> and a few 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:





The Objective Medical Findings of Chemically Sensitive 
Patients that Barrett Conveniently Neglected to Disclose

For the record, there do exist objective medical findings in the world
of Chemical Sensitivity.  The following findings have been document-
ed 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, he wrote a text of much shorter length, titled: "Multiple
Chemical Sensitivity: A Spurious Diagnosis."  In that article, Barrett

          "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 statement 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 per-
sons 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 Barrett ever warned people about bananas, onions,
and Jerusalem artichokes?   Has he ever warned people about things
as tragic as VIOXX, BEXTRA, ZYPREXA and the other pharma-
ceuticals that caused harm to mankind?

All in all, when you attack as many persons 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're go-
ing to be wrong some of the time, especially when you're unqualified
to comment.  Being that Stephen Barrett neither scored a 100% nor
a passing grade on his board exams, he cannot be reasonably expect-
ed to be 100% correct in his volumes of writings.

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.  Not only can reasonable people detect a "quack" when they
see one, they can just as easily detect a disingenuous political opera-
tive when they read one.

Stephen Barrett's Cookie Cutter Techniques

It is not an incident of unheard proportions for Barrett to have cited
an obsolete 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 writ-
ing 120 years ago, in 1886, concerning one woman and one woman
only.  That incident was not about chemicals.  It was about roses.

Now, concerning the medical practices and medical doctrines that
Barrett opposes, he is repeatedly found stating, "inconclusive and not
yet proven."  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.

Barrett never mentions the vast number 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 found-
ed by Mother Theresa; as if it's not a profit minded corporation that
benefits from the denial of claims.  In as much, there is no insurance
company which will pay for redundant treatment or redundant testing.
Therefore a similar test or treatment will not be covered.  Furthermore,
insurance companies will not pay for anything that is regarded as being
in the experimental & investigational stage.  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.  Barrett's fruits have been made known.

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

Yet another irony is that a psychiatrist is expected to have a reflex
action for keeping confidentiality, being that patients confide inti-
mate details to a psychiatrist.  However, Barrett has placed person
after person in an unfavorable spotlight.  He's even known to have
revealed the tax problems of one of  his opponents; not so 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's a consumer advocate.  So, where
is the consumer advocating in one of  the most taxing impositions
on the American economy and consumer?

June 10, 2017

A 1999 AAAAI Position Statement on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity contrasted with chemically-triggered Occupational Asthma

Stephen Barrett is co-author of "Chemical
Sensitivity:  the Truth about Environmental
Illness."  Of course, the truth is missing from
the book.  The book was an attempt to  con-
vince mankind that Chemical Sensitivity is
mental illness.  This is in contradiction to
Barrett's own writings, being that he once
stated that there are legitimate cases where
repeated chemical exposure caused harm.
None the less, the campaign of Barrett and his associates lost its last ves-
tige of credibility with the 911 clean-up crew members who developed
Small Airways Disease and Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome.
Concerning this, the experts at Mt. Sinia in NYC discovered that it was
the pulverized concrete dust, with all its alkalinity, which caused those
specific respiratory diseases to develop.  Those diseases consisted in
sensitivity to a plurality of synthetic chemicals and naturally occurring
ones, as well.

In Barrett's relentless campaign which has shown itself  to have been
solely a money-making venture, he cited a 1999 position statement
issued by the American Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology.
The position statement is titled Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances,
and the title refers to the claim that Environmental illness has no identi-
fiable cause.  This is deceptive, because Occupational Illness has easily
identifiable causes, namely the chemicals, molds, and irritants in one's
place of work.  Needless to say, the symptoms of Occupational Illness
are often the same as the ones involved in Environmental Illness.

In contrast to the chemical attacks of WWI, 21st Century mankind under-
goes a pernicious, execution style chemical attack, with tens of thousands
of synthetic chemicals used in commerce and industry with such prevalence
that those  chemicals reach the common household, even its drinking water.

The odd thing about the AAAAI position statement is that it admits to the
authentic existence of specific environmental illnessess.  Yet, it denies the
existence of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity so much so that its author(s)
changed the name of the illness to Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance.
However, IEI did not replace MCS at Johns Hopkins, Mt. Sinai, Central
New York Occupational Clinic, Marshall University, and Cambridge

Perhaps Barrett Should Have Read 
the Entire Text Before Citing It

As I previously stated, the irony to Barrett's citing of the 1999 text, in
order to strengthen his anti-MCS assertion, consists in the fact that the
1999 position statement expressly recognizes the existence of "true en-
vironmentally caused diseases.

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

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

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

In as much:

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

2)  Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome (RADS) is regarded by
     the AMA as "a subset of Irritant-induced Asthma."   It's a chemical
     sensitivity disease and a form of environmental illness.   Yet, has the
     never-board-certified Stephen Barrett and his fellow propagandists
     ever acknowledged the existence of this particular form of chemical
     and irritant sensitivity disease in their writings?

3)  Furthermore, a subset of Hypersenstivitiy Pneumonitis is Chemical 
     Worker's Lung.  Now, the Stephen Barrett who has absolutely zero 
     experience in internal medicine,  zero experience in dermatology,
     zero experience in cytopathology, zero experience in immunology,
     and zero experience as a biochemistry professional has mocked the
   "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity" by name.   But has he ever acknowl-
     edged that there exists Chemical Worker's Lung ... or Occupational
     Asthma due to Low Weight Molecular Agents?

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

4) The 1999 position statement acknowledged the following:

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

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

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

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

   - "certain foods, food additives, and drugs"

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

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

Cleaning Supplies and Household Chemicals


Understanding Asthma - American Lung Association


Chemical Asthma Triggers and Irritants


Asthma Triggers: Gain Control (EPA site)


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

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

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

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

     The same public education material of the AAAAI states:

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

           "Inhalation of  some substances in aerosol form can
            directly lead to the accumulation of  naturally oc-
            curring chemicals in the body, such as histamine or 
            acetylcholine within the lung, which in turn lead to 

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

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

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

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

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

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


Stephen Barrett can mock the diagnostic title, Multiple Chemical Sensi-
tivity, all that he wants to.  It will not take away the fact is that chemical
sensitivity has already been recognized in case specific form.  Nor will it
take away the fact that the sufferers of those case-specific forms of chem-
ical sensitivity need to avoid the chemicals which exacerbate their medical

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

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

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