February 22, 2017

The Diversionary Tactic

One sector seek clean air and the other profit at the expense of many.
Incidentally, this is Palm Springs California during my 12,000 mile road trip.
The fight to breathe, the metallic taste in the mouth, and the stinging
tongue.   Numbness in the upper-respiratory tract,  the dry heaving
episode, and the headache that leaves cheekbones and temples feel-
ing bruised.  It involves a world that has also included hepatic injury,
(liver cell death/necrosis), dermatitis, urticaria, hematotoxicity (the
killing or damaging or red blood cells), and anaphylaxis.  Technical-
ly this condition is regarded as Chemical & Irritant Sensitivities.

The Razor Blades of  Defamation


Mainstream medical science has already established that chemicals,
at nontoxic levels, aren't universally harmless.  Numerous chemicals
have been identified as sensitizers, while other ones were already cat-
egorized as irritants.  Chemical Sensitivity has already been defined in
case-specific and body-system-specific form.  Irritant-induced Asthma
and its subset condition, Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, is
one form, while Airborne Irritant Contact Dermatitis is another form.
Chemical sensitivity is already a well-established component in main-
stream medical science, and so too is the irritant-induced reaction.
However ...

Throughout the past fifteen years, literature has been posted online that
can easily deceive a novice into assuming that no chemical of any kind,
whenever encountered at a nontoxic level, could ever trigger an adverse
reaction in anyone.  The literature accentuated the Multiple Chemical
Sensitivity debate, while simultaneously declining to acknowledge the
existence of the several case-specific forms of chemical sensitivity, such
as Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, Irritant-induced Asthma,
and Occupational Asthma due to Low Weight Molecular Agents which
had already been identified and defined.

Each piece of  propaganda asserted that Multiple Chemical sensitivity is
merely a matter of mental illness.  As a result, persons not familiarized
with Occupational and Environmental Medicine were clueless that suf-
ficient medical findings in a number of chemically sensitive patients were
identified, along with the numerous chemicals that triggered the adverse
reactions.

The Corporate Claim of  Universal Harmlessness
  Contradicted by the Findings of  Medical Science


It had even gotten to the point where insecticide providers boldly pro-
claimed that their product lines were entirely harmless, provided that
they were used according to regulatory guidelines.  This proclamation
was accompanied by the claim that all persons suffering from Multiple
Chemical Sensitivity were merely mentally ill.  However, mainstream
medical science had already established that nontoxic exposure to the
carbamate/organophosphate class of pesticide can cause a build-up of
acetylcholine in one's lungs and cause asthma to develop.

Perfumes Have Been Identified as Triggers of Asthma


The propaganda against the chemically sensitive was relentless.  In
fact, the non-chemically sensitive got caught in the crossfire in 1996,
when the perfume intolerant were called "fragrance phobic fruitcakes."

Now, perfumes contain potent non-chemical ingredients as much as
they contain sensitizing chemicals.  Therefore, Fragrance Intolerance
includes hyperreactivity to non-chemical ingredients as much as it in-
volves hypersensitivity to chemical-bearing agents.  This means that,
in 1996, even persons who were not chemically sensitive were placed
under attack.

Never mentioned in the 1996 character assassination was the 1995
publication detailing a research undertaking which confirmed that
perfume strips found in magazines are asthma triggers.   [Ann Aller-
gy Asthma Immunol., 1995 Nov;75 (5):429-33 ].

In the years to follow, perfumes would come to be acknowledged as
asthma triggers by the American Medical Association, the American
Academy of  Allergy Asthma & Immunology, the American Lung As-
sociation, and the National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Then, in 2001, a published medical report placed perfume among the
triggers of  anaphylaxis.  Yet, no apologies were ever made to the per-
fume intolerant by the propagandist who defamed them. 

            Cleaning Supplies and Household Chemicals
http://www.lungusa.org/healthy-air/home/resources/cleaning-supplies.html

            Understanding Asthma - American Lung Association
http://www.lungusa.org/lung-disease/asthma/about-asthma/understanding-asthma.html 

            Chemical Asthma Triggers and Irritants
http://asthma.about.com/od/asthmatriggers/qt/chemictriggers.htm 

            Asthma Triggers: Gain Control (EPA site)
http://www.epa.gov/asthma/chemical_irritants.html 

_____________________________________________
Sensitization Is Not Limited To Chemical Exposures

The phenomenon of  sensitization is not new.  Neither is it unproven.
Nor is it limited to matters involving Chemical Sensitivity.  The recog-
nition of the medical condition known as sensitization includes:

1] metal dust exposure; Berylliosis (beryllium), etc.
2] mold exposure; Mushroom Worker's Lung, etc.
3] enzyme exposure; Detergent Worker's Lung, etc.
4] organic dust exposure; Byssinosis (cotton dust), etc.
5] chemicals & irritant gases; Irritant-induced Asthma, etc.

The Medical Doctrine of  Concomitant Sensitivity


Concomitant Sensitivity is also known as Cross-sensitization, and it
means that, if you're hypersensitive to one chemical compound, then
you are hypersensitive to all other chemical compounds with similar
characteristics.  An example of  Concomitant Sensitivity exists within
the family of  the acetylated salicylates.  To be adversely reactive to
one of  them is to be adversely reactive to all of  them.

The Undeniable Proof of Mainstream Medicine's Recognition
of Chemical Allergies ... The RAST Test Order Form

You can be tested for IgE-mediated chemical allergies via the RAST
TEST.  The specific chemicals for which a person can be tested are lo-
cated in the Occupational Panel, when filling out the allergy test order
forms.   Case closed.   Mainstream medicine has recognized chemical
allergies for decades.  It's simply that deceptive propaganda, including
that of the unconscionable John Stossel, made society unaware of this.

High Production Volume Chemicals
  and their Ubiquitous Presence in Modern Life


There have been medical professionals who declined to support the re-
cognition of  MCS, but who simultaneously acknowledged that a per-
son can be severely hypersensitive to "one or a few" chemicals.  Such
an acknowledgment needs to be accompanied by a qualifying state-
ment.  That qualifying statement goes as follows:

            Persons who are hypersensitive to a few High
            Production Volume Chemicals are actually
            hypersensitive to the dozens of  commonly
            encountered products that contain those
            HPV chemicals.  Concomitant Sensitivity,
            combined with hypersensitivity to merely
            a few HPV chemicals, easily explains how
            a person can seem to be hypersensitive to
            almost everything.

The Demarcating Factor in MCS


If you're adversely reactive to dozens of chemical-bearing agents, but
have symptoms that affect only one reoccurring symptom, then you
are outside of  the MCS controversy.  This is because the demarcation
factor in MCS is not hypersensitivity to multiple chemicals.  Rather,
the demarcating factor is reactivity that adversely affects multiple
body systems.

As an example, if  bronchial hyper-responsiveness is your only chemi-
cal sensitivity reaction, then only one body system is involved, mean-
ing that there is no presence of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity to assess
in you.  The anti-MCS propagandists will have to find another way in
which to call you mentally ill.  That is to say, your case involves local-
ized chemical sensitivity.  It involves either Reactive Airways Dysfunc-
tion Syndrome or Irritant-induced Asthma; two similar conditions not
in controversy.

Nor does MCS have anything to do with multiple symptoms, per se.
You can have a repertoire of  reoccurring symptoms and be outside
of  the MCS controversy, if those multiple symptoms are limited to
the reactions of only one body system.  In such a case, the anti-MCS
people will have to find another way by which call  you mentally ill,
while simultaneously claiming chemicals to be virtuous and blame-
less at nontoxic levels.

The respiratory system is a body system that can host multiple symp-
toms.  Firstly, asthma can coexist with upper-respiratory ills, and the
upper-respiratory tract can be the host of  a number of  symptoms.  In
fact, within the world of  Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
it's a regular phenomenon to find asthma coexisting with Rhintis or
Rhino-sinusitis in the same one worker (or subset of  workers.)

In summary, it's neither the number of  symptoms nor the number of
chemicals that define Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.  It is the number
of body systems that engage in the hypersensitivity reactions that de-
fines it.  In the world of  Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
chemical sensitivity reactions have been documented as having had
adversely affected two body systems in the same one worker or sub-
set of  workers.  Such coexistence hints of the authentic existence of
MCS.

Formaldehyde:  A Specific Example


Formaldehyde is a suitable example to employ, in showing that hyper-
sensitivity to merely one HPV chemical constitutes hypersensitivity to
dozens of chemical-bearing agents.  Formaldehyde is a known trigger
of  asthma, rhinitis, dermatitis, and anaphylaxis.  It is released from a
number common products.  This includes those liquid soap and sham-
poo products that contain quarternium-15, diazolidinyl urea, DMDM
hydantoin, and imidazolidinyl urea.  In fact, go through the shampoo
and liquid soap section of  any store and see if you can find one pro-
duct free of  the ingredients listed above.

A detailed list of  formaldehyde-releasing agents includes:

[] urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, [] oriented strand board,
[] medium density fiberboard, [] melamine resin, [] plywood,
[] surface coatings, [] joint cement, [] paints, [] wall coverings,
[] durable press drapery, [] permanent press clothing, [] floor
wax, [] kerosene heater emissions,[] burning wood, [] cosmetics,
[] nail hardeners, [] sun screen lotion, [] tanning lotions, [] liquid
soaps, [] moisturizing lotions, [] carpet cleansers, [] liquid scouring
cleansers, [] shampoos, [] medical venues, etc.

Formaldehyde shares common characteristics with benzaldehyde and
the sterilization agent, glutaraldehyde.  Therefore, the products which
bear glutaraldehyde and benzaldehyde are to be included in the list of
formaldehyde-releasing agents.  This includes cinnamon oil, and this
means that the phenomenon of  Concomitant Sensitivity, in combina-
tion with hypersensitivity to a few High Production Volume Chemicals,
can account for the reason why some individuals seem to be hypersen-
sitive to almost everything.

Persistent Vulnerabilities,
aka Pre-existing Conditions


Then there is the matter of  chronically existent vulnerabilities, also
known as atopy.  One example is the upper-respiratory inflammation
known as boney turbinate hypertrophy.  It is a condition not known to
be able to resolve itself,as surgery has been the only treatment offered
for it, by mainstream medicine.

Cases of  chronically existent vulnerabilities can make a person hyper-
sensitive to both chemical and non-chemical odors.  Therefore, such a
person can be adversely reactive to the smell of  cleaning agents and
new vinyl products, as well as cooking odors, and musty cardboard.
Such a person might appear to be allergic to almost everything.

Immunological in Some Cases.
Nonimmunological in Other ones.


An individual can have either an immunological allergic reaction or
a non-immunological irritant reaction to chemical-bearing agents.
It depends on the person, the person's exposure history, the person's
pre-existing vulnerabilities, the chemicals themselves, and the way in
which the chemicals are encountered (by inhaling, ingestion, touch,
or ocular absorption.)

The bottom line is that chemical sensitivity has been proven to exist,
and to state otherwise is to defame the Occupational & Environment-
al Health programs who diagnose such conditions.  To do so is to de-
fame the private practitioners who treat chemical sensitivty, as well
as the patients who develop this type of condition.  Be it Reactive Air-
ways Dysfunction Syndrome, Airborne Irritant Contact Dermatitis,
Limonene Sensitivity, Aspirin Sensitivity, Methyltetrahydrophthalic
Anhydride Allergy, or Oil of  Turpentine Allergy, it is all a matter of
chemical sensitivity.

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is not the only type of chemical sensitiv-
ity proposed to exist.  It was simply one of  the two forms used in a pro-
longed and unconscionable diversionary tactic.  Other variations of the
disease have already been validated.  Therefore, any discussion about
MCS that doesn't admit to the existence of chemical sensitivity (in its
case-specific and body-system-specific forms) invalidates itself.
___________________________________________________

February 19, 2017

Staudenmayer's erroneous test conclusion, concerning Multiple Chemical Sensitivity patients

Whenever you scald your tongue on
hot tea, your tongue will still feel the
scalding sensation, even if you drink
cool water shortly after having been
scalded.  Well, there is a very similar
phenomenon in the lives of chemical
sensitivity patients. It's called masking.

The failure to consider this phenome-
non was the fatal error in a 1980s test
that ended up being obsessively used
in the anti-MCS propaganda of retired
psychiatrist, Stephen Barrett, MD.  He
once said that he was the media,  even
though he was never a household name.
It's important to keep in mind that the blatant attack dog of Big Pharma,
namely retired psychiatrist Dr Stephen Barret, MD, never worked in the
field of Occupational & Environmental Medicine.  Therefore, he has no
professional experience with those suffering from Chemical Allergies
and/or Irritant-induced illnesses.  Such conditions include Reactive Air-
ways Dysfunction Syndrome, Occupational Asthma due to Low Weight
Molecular Agents, Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction, etc.  In-
cidentally, low-weight molecular agents are more commonly known as
chemicals.
_________________________________________________________

In his attempt to convince mankind that Chemical Sensitivity is merely
a mental illness, the Stephen Barrett who never examined any chemical
sensitivity patient repeatedly cited a "research undertaking" which was
conducted in Denver during the 1980s.  The test is formally titled:

Double-blind provocation chamber challenges in 20 patients presenting 
with "multiple chemical sensitivity."   The article which detailed the re-
search undertaking was published on August 18, 1993.

The research team who conducted that test consisted in psychologist
Herman Staudenmayer (Ph.d),  allergist John Selner (MD), and chem-
ist Martin P. Buhr (Ph.d).  I was told by someone very well known in
the Chemical Sensitivity world that Herman Staudenmayer appeared
as a brooder, to state it politely.

The title of the test is misleading, in that it was not based on standard
challenge testing, such as the methacholine challenge test which mea-
sures changes in  FEV1.   Rather, the Staudenmayer test was subject-
ive testing;  the type of testing that Barrett condemned as invalid.   So,
we see another instance of hypocrisy in the psychiatrist of early retire-
ment.

Incidentally, FEV1 is the measurement of Forced Expiratory Volume
after one second of exhaling.  In addition, pulmonary experts, from my
experience, will not allow severely sensitive people to take the metha-
choline challenge test, in fear that they "might not recover" the ability
to breath.  For example, an Ivy League trained pulmonary expert for-
bid me to take the test.  In the State where I was at the time, the law
only permitted pulmonary specialists to order methacholine testing.    

Background in Brevity

1) The test consisted in 145 occasions where a test subject had sent in-
     to into his/her chamber an injection of air.  The test subject was then
     instructed to discern if whether or not the injected air was accompa-
     nied by a chemical agent.  Each of the twenty test subjects participat-
     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 categorized as "sham"
challenges, and they were recorded as injections of chemical-free air.
The other fifty-seven challenges were defined as "active" challenges,
each of which was recorded as the injection of chemical-bearing air.

3) The sham challenges came in two forms:

a) clean air injected alone,
b) clean air accompanied by an aromatic agent.

4) The active challenges also came in two forms:

a) the injection of an airborne chemical alone,
b) an airborne chemical accompanied by an aromatic agent.

5) The aromatic agents were called "maskers."

Maskers used in the "Staudenmayer Test" included:

a) anise oil,
b) cinnamon oil,
c) lemon oil,
d) peppermint spirit (10% oil and 1% leaves.)

4) The overall result of the test, as recorded by the research team, goes
     as follows:  "Individually, none of these patients demonstrated a re-
     liable response pattern across a series of challenges."  The conclu-
     sion was that persons diagnosed with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
     are merely psychologically ill.

The Invalidating Feature of that Test

The maskers that Barrett cited in his anti-MCS propaganda as having
been used in the "Herman Staudenmayer Test" are known triggers of
adverse reactions in susceptible persons.   That is to say, the maskers
were chemical-bearing agents.

Concerning anything aromatic, keep in mind that the AMA, the world-
renown Mayo Clinic, the American Lung Association, and the Ameri-
can Academy of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology each recognize, in
publicly accessible print, that "strong odors" can be triggers of adverse
upper and/or lower respiratory reactions in susceptible people, simply
because they are strong odors.   This has included anise oil, cinnamon
oil, lemon oil, and peppermint spirit.

The Chemical Ingredients in the Sample List of Maskers
Used in 'the Staudenmayer Test' that were Alleged to be

Chemical-free

Concerning the sample list of maskers used in the "Staudenmayer Test,"
observe the following:

Anise Oil:

- An active ingredient in it is anethole.
- Anethole's chemical composition is C10H12O.
- Its CAS No. is 104-46-1.
- It is a known trigger to those adversely reactive to it.
- In fact, Anethole is known as p-1-propenylanisode.
- It is also known as 1-methoxy-4-(1-propenyl)benzene.
- Thus, anise oil is a chemical-bearing agent.

In all occasions where anise was used as a masker in a clean air inject-
ion, a chemical-bearing agent was being injected into the test subject's
chamber.   Therefore, to have recorded such an injection as one of
chemical-free air was to have recorded a falsehood.

Cinnamon Oil:

Along with being a "strong odor," cinnamon oil is a bearer of aldehyde.
In fact, the naturally occurring trans-cinnamaldehyde unassistedly be-
comes benzaldehyde in the presence of heat.

In as much, to have recorded a cinnamon oil air injection as a chemical-
free one was to have recorded yet another falsehood.  Cinnamon oil is
a chemical-bearing agent.

Lemon Oil:

The most prevalent constituent in lemon oil is the monoterpene, limo-
nene, aka 4-isopropenyl-1-methyl-cyclohexene.   Limonene de-
velops a potent sensitizing capacity when oxidized, and it's a reputed
skin sensitizer.   In addition, a Swedish research undertaking record-
ed the following:   "Bronchial hyperresponsiveness was related to in-
door concentrations of limonene, the most prevalent terpene."  Lemon
oil also includes the same alpha-pinene that was implicated in oil of
turpentine allergy.

Peppermint:

This aromatic agent is the bearer of Methyl Salicylate, and as is shown
below, it is among the salicylate allergy triggers.   It's also the bearer of
the following sensitizing agents:   (a) alpha-pinene, (b) phellandrene,
and (c) limonene.   It's also the bearer of (d) methone, (e)  mentho-
furane, (f) and methyl acetate.

Now, as far as concerns methyl salicylate, Supplement 5 of the Journal
of the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists, 1999 / Vol. 14,
states:

"Of note, methyl salicylate carries the same warnings as oral 
salicylates and has the potential to cause Reye's Syndrome in 
children with flu-like symptoms, as well as adverse reactions in
those with aspirin allergy, asthma, or nasal polyps."

In as much, to record an airborne injection of peppermint spirit as a
chemical-free one, is to record yet another falsehood.

Dephosphorylation

The research team gave no consideration to the the masking of sensi-
tivity responses; a phenomenon attributed to the involvement of Ca2+
calmodulin phosphatase calcineurin and the ensuing dephosphorylation
that it induces.  Phosphorylation is explained in the following text:

http://www.chemicalsensitization.com/2011/01/proposed-mechanism-for-mcs.html

Barrett's Predictable Response to the Test

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

You should be able to conjecture why he advocated Kangaroo Court
research.
_____________________________________________________