March 13, 2019

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1] an elevated CD 26 cell count;
[2] a protuberant/distended abdomen;
[3] a decreased T-suppressor cell count;
[4] the presence of the antinuclear antibody;
[5] and the presence of the anti-thyroid antibody.
[6] the presence of the anti-smooth-muscle anti-body;
[7] liver function test results consistent with hepatotoxic
      injury.

When the driver was examined a year after the blowout, he stated that
exposure to chemical agents resulted in his suffering gastrointestinal dis-
tress, fatigue, weakness, neuralgia, and irritability.  This is a description
of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, and this is pertinent to note in light of
the fact that the detractors of MCS have repeatedly claimed that persons
manifesting signs of MCS have no objective medical findings to support
their reported symptoms.  This driver had seven objective medical find-
ings at the outset of his illness.

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

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

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a920920118~frm=titlelink 

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


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

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

Brief Outline

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

The Induced Deceptions

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

The Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seehttp://www.aoec.org/content/directory_MD.htm

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

[] 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 
  Disease/Illness. 

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.

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_for_president_term.jsp?president=Harry%20S.%20Truman

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.

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_for_president_term.jsp?president=Lyndon%20Baines%20Johnson

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.

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_for_president_term.jsp?president=Richard%20Milhous%20Nixon

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.

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_for_president_term.jsp?president=Gerald%20Rudolph%20Ford

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.

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_for_president_term.jsp?president=James%20Earl%20Carter

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:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

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-
ditions.

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:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=17093

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:

              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9766481

The Objective Medical Findings of Chemically Sensitive Patients

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

The human body is regarded as exceptionally complex.  Therefore, the
reasonably minded person should understand that the cursory physical
exam and garden variety testing do not detect everything.  This under-
standing, in addition to the preceding paragraphs, offers insight as to
why a number of  chemically sensitive persons have been declared to
have no objective medical findings.

The narration posted directly below should offer more detailed insight
to this.  It involves a case study which teaches us that, simply because
corporate defense attorneys assert something in a workman's comp
case, it doesn't automatically mean that it's true.

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


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

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

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

Her Symptoms

The woman's symptoms included:

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

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

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

She received the diagnosis of agoraphobia & panic attacks, by a "men-
tal health person."   The corporate attorneys involved in her workman's
comp case asserted that she had no objective medical findings to sup-
port her claims.   However, an allergist and immunologist gave her the
diagnoses of  Asthma, Rhinitis, and Chemical Sensitivities.  Meanwhile
a cytopathologist gave her the additional diagnosis of  Reactive Hyper-
plasia.   In fact, in emergency room settings, she received the Asthma
and Rhinitis diagnosis.   Yet, assertions of mental illness had been set
forth on record and asserted in court depositions as the cause of  her
ills.   The assertions were significantly weakened in less than an hour. 

Grossly Enlarged Turbinates, for Starters

On October 13, 2005, a fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopic exam was per-
formed on her.  The exam was conducted by an ear nose throat and
allergy specialist who also happened to be a fellow of the American
College of  Surgeons.   The woman who was said to have no objec-
tive medical findings to support her symptoms was found to have:

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

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

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

The conclusion is that, whatever be the medical condition this lady has,
it is one of  a physical origin and mechanism.   If she were not made ill
from workplace exposure, then she was made ill by some other physi-
cal cause. 

Gruntled Breathing and Rales Were Already Observed

The story isn't over, of course.   Objective medical findings had been
entered into her records even before the October exam.  She was doc-
umented as having "gruntled breathing" during an ER visit.   She was
also recorded as having wheezed and crackled during other ones. In
fact, she already was found to have adenopathy.  Plus, tachycardia,
erythema of  the oropharynx, and hypopotassemia had also been
entered into her medical records before the October 13th rhinolaryngo-
scopy.   Yet, she was branded with the "mental illness stigma," by the
corporate defense attorneys and one independent medical examiner
hired by the antagonistic corporation.

Furthermore, after she had become ill, she tested severely positive for
dust mites and no other high weight molecular agent (such as ragweed,
tree pollen, etc.)   Yet, she has no prior history of  allergies.  Now, she
was exposed to inordinate amounts of  dust at her former place of  work,
and a person can become sensitized to dust mites.   After all, there exist
cases where barn workers became sensitized to storage mites.

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

Corporate Welfare: Government paying for illnesses caused by corporations.

The Icy Numbing 

Chemical Exposure During Testing is Often a Necessity

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

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

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


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

Objective Medical Findings in the Chemically Sensitive

 Bronchial hyperresponsiveness in inhalation challenge testing.
         This includes things such as the drop in FEV1:
      Forced Expiratory Volume after 1 second of time.

        Objective skin whealing resulting from skin testing;
   See the article in Part 1, titled, Visible & Measurable
          Wheals Have Been Repeatedly Documented
.

   Simultaneous release of Leukotriene B4 and Interleukin-8;
    (LTB4 is a chemokine.  IL-8 is a toxin to neutrophils.)

     Permeability of upper-respiratory epithelial cell junctions;
      found in biopsy studies, via the electron micrograph

       Abnormal liver function in the absense of viral infection.

         Exorbitant presence of  n-acetyl-benzoquinoniemine;
            a toxic liver metabolite associated with P450
            cytochrome inducers such as acetaminophen.


             Paradoxical adduction of the true vocal cords.

                Testing positive in traditional patch testing.

                     Peripheral nerve fiber proliferation.

                       Nasal and/or laryngeal erythema.

                        Turbinate swelling/hypertrophy.

                         Edema of the true vocal cords.

                              Lymphocytic infiltrates.

                               Glandular hyperplasia.

                                     Angioedema.

                                      Anaphylaxis.

                                       Dermatitis.

Note 1:  There are fiber optic rhinolaryngoscopic exam find-
              ings that were not posted above.  In order to read
             of  the additional findings, see:  Rhinolaryngoscopic
             Examination of Patients with Multiple Chemical 
            Sensitivity Syndrome, found at:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8452394

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

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

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-
nitrite.

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

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.

http://www.allergyresearchgroup.com/Explaining-by-Martin-Pall-PhD-sp-35.html 

Vanilloid Receptor TRPV1

Recently added to this proposed mechanism is the first member of the
Vanilloid Receptor family, TRPV1.  The involvement of  TRPV1 in
MCS is the subject of a paper written by 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:

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Paper/6500302

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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1469810/

Neurogenic Inflammation and Sensi-

tivity to Environmental Chemicals.

http://www.herc.org/news/mcsarticles/meggs-full.html
________________________________________

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
Hospital.

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

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

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
triggers.

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 
            asthma."

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

           "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.

Conclusion

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
conditions.

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
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.
_____________________________________________________