March 13, 2019

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."


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


{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.


{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.

Statistics hold that the Democrats were the ones who created jobs. Not the Republicans who caused a massive trade balance deficit.

The very Democrat-influenced City of Pittsburgh; home of six
Super Bowl Championships and other professional sports crowns,
as well as the birth place of commercial radio, the drive-thru
gas station, the public television station, robotics institutes,
wire cable suspension bridge, Bingo, motion picture theater,
air brakes, aluminum-shelled skyscraper, Zippo Lighters, etc.
It was thrown into havoc by Reaganomics.
Entry Note, aka ad limine statement, aka preliminary statement:

I am neither a Democrat nor Republican.  Thus, my writings aren't propaganda for
any one side of the two-sided American political system.  In addition, I am neither
a Communist, nor a Socialist, nor a neo-Confederate, a nor Oligarchist, nor a Nazi,
nor an Anarchist, nor Libertarian.  I am neither a member of the Green Party,  nor
the Natural Law Party, nor the Constitutional Party, nor the American Conservative
Party, nor the Modern Whig Party, etc., etc., etc.  All in all, this article is NOT an
advertisement for the Democratic Party.  However, it is a blanket condemnation
of the Republican Party and all things Republican.

A little while ago, I monitored a few minutes of the Rush Limbaugh Show, only to
find that the Viagra smuggler and his advertisers continue to lie to millions of right
wing conservatives, many of whom are located in socially isolated and backward
areas of America.  The following phrase from an advertiser who was selling some
type of book was stated in a tone of indignant certainty and end-of-the-world ur-
gency: "Republicans create jobs and Democrats lose them."

False.  He outright lied.  The opposite has been statistically true, for decades. 

Enter Harry Truman, a president who lost popularity at the end his presidency, to
the tune of an embarrassing 22% approval rating, as of February of 1952.  Now,
the typical Reagan admirer who can barely read his NASCAR program without
moving his lips would immediately assume that Truman's unpopularity was due
to a very high unemployment rate.  However, in 1952, unemployment was never
higher than 3.4%.  In fact, it was as low as 2.9% that year ... under the unpopular
Harry Truman, a Democrat.  The score in the post-WWII survey is Democrats 1
and Republicans coming to bat.

At this point, keep in mind that the way of calculating the U.S. unemployment rate
was changed during the early Reagan years, around the time when the rate was 10.8%.
Therefore, the new way of figuring the unemployment rate made unemployment look
much less than it actually was during Reagan's second term.  This was equivalent to
playing with loaded dice.  Let's continue:

Under Eisenhower, the unemployment rate rose to 7.1%.  Thus, under a Republican,
the rate of unemployment doubled.  It later decreased to 5.1%..  However, when Ike
left the White House, the rate was 6.6%.  Thus, the unemployment rate under Repub-
lican Dwight D. Eisenhower was much higher than when he entered office.  It's now
Democrats 2 and Republicans 0.

At this point, keep in mind that the Republican platform then was much different than
it was today.  The Republican Party, even during the 1972 campaign, committed itself
to LOW military spending.  Let's continue the post-war survey:

At the fourth month of Kennedy's presidency, the unemployment rate was 7.1%.
It then decreased to 5.5% at the tragic end of his presidency.  The score is now
Democrats 3 and Republicans 0.

Under Texas Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, the unemployment rate was never over
5.6%.  When Johnson left office the rate was a very low 3.4%.  It's now very con-
vincing.  Democrats 4 and Republicans 0.  Rush  Limbaugh propagates lies.

When Nixon entered office, the unemployment rate was 3.5%.  It increased to 6.1% and
was 5.5% when he resigned.  Under yet another Republican's presidency, the unemploy-
ment rate rose.  Democrats 5 and Republicans 0.

Under Ford, it rose to 9.0%.  Yet, the economy was vibrant, to the point of the United
States being the #2 exporting nation on earth.  Thus, the health of the economy showed
the moral acceptability of Distributive Justice, in terms of Welfare payments and food
stamp allotments.  None the less, the unemployment rate was 7.5% when Ford depart-
ed from the White House, meaning that is rose 2 percentage points during his presiden-
cy.  Democrats 6 and Republicans 0.

Under Jimmy Carter, the unemployment rate dropped to 5.6%.  Then came April 1980.
The rate started rising.   At the end of Carter's presidency, the rate was the same as it
was when Ford left office.  This is a tie.  Thus, it's still Dems 6 and Repubs 0.

Under Reagan, the unemployment rate sky-rocketed to 10.8%.  Then came a change
in the calculation of the unemployment rate, making the statistic look not as bad as
it was.  Plus, Reagan increased federal jobs, and used the taxpayer to get the unem-
ployment rate to drop.  The added feature was that the pay rate of certain types of
jobs recaptured by those previously laid-off dropped dropped.  Therefore, Reagan's
unemployment decline was artificial in more than one way.

Even though the way to calculate the unemployment rate was changed for Reagan's
second term, the rate still would have decreased a bit, if the calculation method used
during the Carter years was used during Reagan's second term.  This means that the
Republicans get one point, even though the decline in the rate was done at the ex-
pense of taxpayers ... and also done at the expense a private citizen's purchasing
power, in as far as concerning housing costs and disposable income.

This is the Republicans' only score.  You now see why the Republican campaign
managers throughout America create Ronald Reagan Hype.

They don't use Ike, because he was vehemently against exorbitant military spending.

They don't use Nixon, on account of him resigning in disgrace.

They don't use Ford, even though he managed to get unemployment to drop to 7.5%.

They don't use George Bush the First, because he championed the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and today's Republican is heartless and ruthless.

George Bush the Second destroyed the future of America.  So, Republicans sing the
praises of the unemployment rate decrease during Reagan's second term, while never
admitting that Reagan caused the rate to sky-rocket in the first place.  Quite frankly,
any action would have gotten the Reagan-induced 10.8% unemployment rate to go
down.  Do not be deceived.  Ronald Reagan was exceptionally stupid, exceptional-
ly worthless, and void of any foresight.  He was a very fake actor.

Concerning the other recent presidents:

Under the first George Bush (Herbert Walker Bush), the rate was as low as 5.0%,
early in his presidency.  It then rose to 7.8%.  When he left the White House, the
rate was  down to 7.3%.  Thus, it was almost the same unemployment rate as the
one in existence when Jimmy Carter left office.

When George Bush the First entered office, the rate was 5.4%, meaning that it rose
1.9% during his presidency.  He elected to not use the artificial means to lower the
rate as did Reagan, because the Berlin Wall had collapsed.  There was no cause to
increase the size of the military and the non-military federal government.  In as
much, the score is now Democrats 7 and the Republicans 1.

During the Clinton years, the unemployment rate steadily dropped.  Arkansas native,
William Jefferson (as in Jefferson Davis) Clinton, inherited a 7.3% unemployment
rate.  Under him, it went as low as 3.8%.  When Clinton left office, it was 4.2%.
Democrats 8 and Republicans 1.

Under the second George Bush, the rate did a roller coaster act.  He inherited a 4.2%
rate.  It elevated to 6.3%, dropped to 4.6%, and then rose to 7.8% at the end of his
presidency.  The Great Recession ensued.  Democrats 9 and Republicans 1.

Under Obama, the rate was as high as 10%.  It is presently at 7.4%.  There is no
debate that the 112th Congress deliberately sought to sabotage the Obama presi-
dency, displaying hypocrisy in the process.  One example of its hypocrisy goes
as follows:

The US Congress liberally gave debt ceiling limit increases to Republican Ronald
Reagan (18 times) and Republican George WMD Bush (7 times.)   Yet, the TEA
Party congressional members used the ceiling increase as a weapon of economic
blackmail during the Obama years, sending America's credit rating downward in
the process ... thereby sabotaging all of America, in the attempt to unseat Obama.

The final score is Democrats 10 and the Republicans 1 in Job Creation.

In conclusion, the unemployment statistics are on the side of the Democrats, show-
ing that Rush Limbaugh and TEA Party politicians lie, in order to gain popularity.
This constitutes Republicans gaining power and influence by fraud.

For unemployment stats, additionally refer to:

March 12, 2019

Opposite Directions

We were traveling
 in the same car,
 when, all of a sudden,
 our minds crashed into each other.

We both got out and started to run
 fast away from each other.

One of us wanted to run away from lies,
while the other one wanted to run away from truth.

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:


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.

March 11, 2019

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)

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

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-

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


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.


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,

"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.


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:

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

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 ... 62 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?

The Nature of Politics, in a line itemized summary

They overthrew the monarchs and replaced them with politicians who 
brought us worse wars, chattel slavery, John Calhoun, the Trail of Tears,
Teapot Dome, Tammany Hall, politicians bribed by Al Capone, Watergate, 
Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Jim Crow, Goldman 
Sachs, gasoline price gouging, medical price gouging, Goldman bankruptcy-capacity 
military spending, the Lockheed Bribery Scandal, water supplies drowning in endocrine 
disruptor chemicals, a massive American trade balance deficit, lying propaganda, etc.

The lesson is that you can implement the best form of government in your 
estimation, but if you have unconscionable manipulators running it, then you have 
an evil government.  It's the people in government that count; not the form of government.
1a] Politics is a tug of war where manipulation and
      compromise hold opposite ends of the same rope.

  2] The common man possesses something known as common sense.  This means
       that he should be granted easy access to common law courts, as well as class-
       ical chancellery offices without the exorbitantly high attorney fees of this era.
       In fact, the America Organization of States' 1948 Universal Declaration of Hu-
       man Rights needs to be enforced.

 3a] Where there is the presence of organized crime, there
        are police officers and government officials on the take.

 3b] The system of local police breeds corruption and abuse.  Their arrogance comes
        from believing that they have immunity.  Firstly, it's known as qualified immun-
        ity, and no such immunity exists in the presence of malice.

   4] Deregulation is lawlessness and lawlessness is anarchy.  Republicans are no-
       thing more than self-seeking anarchists, being that they are obsessed with de-
       regulation.  Democrats are far more a bunch of cold-blooded killer than a pack
       of polar bears.   You can land 12 Americans on the moon, but you can't pro-
       duce a descent political party in America.  This would only be because poli-
       tics, per se, is intrinsically evil.

  5] Campaign mud slinging is White Trash Politics.

6a]  If the French are such gutless cowards who instantaneously surrender to an
       invading army, then how do you explain: 1] Charles Martel, 2] Charlemagne,
       3] the Norman Conquest, 4] the French victory over the Vikings during the
       Siege of Paris,  5] Saint Joan of Arc,  6] Simon of Montfort,  7] Simon V of
       Montfort,  8] King Louis XIV,  9] Napoleon's army,  10] the French Empire,
      11] the Comte de Rochambeau,  12] the Marquis de Lafayette,  13] the Battle
      of the Somme,  14] the Battle of the Marne,  15] the French Underground,
      16] the French Exocet Missile?   Remember that France was the third high-
      est military spender in the Year 2010.

7b] When referring to the French as cowardly sissies, keep in mind that some of
       the northwestern French are the descendants of Danish Vikings.  As a gener-
       al rule, French towns ending in "x" were once Viking settlements.  It's foolish
       to call Viking descendants a bunch sissies.

7c]  The animosity between the French and British was explained to me by a na-
        tive of England in the following way: "The French look down on everyone,
        and the English don't like being looked down upon."

  8] Donating to a political campaign is no different than bribing a politician,
       when the candidate knows that you made the donation.

  9] The most asinine campaign maneuver is that of a candidate giving voters a card
       which states only the candidate's name, without mention of the candidate's pol-
       itical stance, telling the voter to vote for the candidate.  This leaves a voter en-
       tirely clueless as to the politician's stance on the issues.  When you say, "Vote
       for Joe American Shmoe," you have to give cause why people should vote
       for him.

10a]  A person who states that monarchy is intrinsically evil is a paranoid in-breeder
        at heart.  He doesn't believe that God has the power to make anyone good.

10b]  This paranoiac inbreeding mentality includes persons who have stated that the
         papacy is intrinsically evil.  Such defamatory people include the preachers who
         see themselves in competition for tax-free collection basket money.  This speak-
         ing ill of the Catholic Church becomes a business venture, in the quest to get as
         many Catholics as possible to leave the Catholic Church and put money into the
         preachers' tax-free collection baskets.  Yee haw there, Reverend Jim Bob.

10c]  Popes come and go.  Some were holy.  Some were heart touching.  Some were
        negligent.  Some caused the Catholic world grief.  No individual pope defines
        the papacy of the past 2,000 years.

11]   If America remained a colony of England, slavery
        would have been made illegal decades prior, in 1834.

12]   Why exchange one tyrant located 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants located
        one mile away?  Republics, as opposed to merely Republicans, have provid-
        ed humanity with unconscionable politicians such as George "WMD" Bush,
        Dick "the Waterboarder" Cheney, Richard "Watergate" Nixon, Mitt "Factory 
        Gate Padlock" Romney, John "Shackle them" Calhoun, NAFTA Newt Gingrich,
        Jefferson "Confederacy" Davis, George Segregation Wallace, those on the pay-
        roll of Al "Buy a Judge"Capone, Ronald "Triple the National Debt" Reagan,
        and Joe "there's a commy under your bed" McCarthy.   Add to this Jim Crow
        laws, the klan, Teapot Dome,
        Gerrymandering, the Wickersham Commission, Tammany Hall, the Lockheed
        Bribery Scandals, The Knapp Commission, MK-Ultra, and much more.

        In fact, George Washington proved his dictatorial prowess in the Whiskey Re-
        bellion that never was, along with him having his own soldiers shot to death at
        various firing squads.  In addition, the American South became a chattel slave
        dictatorship, despite it claiming itself to be the Land of Liberty.  This was ac-
        companied by a slave owner saying, "Give me liberty or give mes, death."  To
        him, liberty was the ability to keep people enslaved.  Patrick Henry, hypocrite
        extraordinaire, was a slave owner.

       The lesson learned from the many American outrages throughout the centuries
        is that it isn't the form of government that matters.  It's the type of people in
        government that does. The kings were overthrown and replaced with multiple
        tyrants.  Thus, effacing monarchy cured nothing.  What is required in govern-
        ment is that it be run by persons with consciences.  Today, an honest politician
        is an oxymoron.

13]  The Duke of Wellington was not named Wellington.  He was Arthur Wellesley.
       In fact, he was the prime minister of England when slavery was made illegal
       and Catholicism was once again made legal for the first time in 1834.

14] Abraham Lincoln's fatal error was that of not prosecuting Jefferson Davis.  If he
      would have hung Davis from the gallows, he would not have been assassinated.
      No one would have had the audacity to have even tried.

15] Mao Tse Tung's writings have ZERO social value.

16] Prince Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli was a borish windbag.

17] An activist Republican is someone who doesn't want to pay his workers and who
      doesn't want to pay his taxes, all the while whining and complaining as a martyr 
      if he doesn't own all the money in the world.

18]  An activist Democrat is someone who wants to have sex, drugs, and rock & roll,
       as well as an abortion after having messed up having sex, drugs, and rock & roll.

19] A non-activist Republican is either someone who thinks that the Republican party
      platform was brought down from Mount Sinai by Moses or someone who would
      like to belong to a country club without partaking in right wing fanaticism.  They
      are two types of people.

20]  A non-activist Democrat is someone who doesn't want to have to live out of trash

21]  The Eternal God does not recognize State's Rights; only human rights.  Instead,
       God follows the rule of a leader's accountability.  It's based on the premise that
       the more given to you results in the more being expected from you.  At this point
       in time, Remember Nuremberg, because history repeats itself.  In fact, always re-
       member Nuremberg.  Today's politicians obviously do not do so.  In fact, send
       them a history book about the French Revolution and the European revolutions
       of 1848 as soon as you can.  If they don't learn from history, they will be repeat-
       ing it very soon.  Qaddafi already did.