October 14, 2024

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

October 13, 2024

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.
===============================================

October 12, 2024

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.
_____________________________________________________

October 11, 2024

Avoidance, aka Environmental Control:
Board-certified doctors' orders.

The AMA, the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology
(the AAAAI), and the American Lung Association (the ALA) have all
acknowledged the following:

They acknowledged the existence of Chemical Sensitivity as it applies
to Asthma and Asthma-like conditions, as well as sinusitis and adverse
skin conditions such as dermatitis and urticaria (rashes.)  This includes

1}  Occupational Asthma due to Low Weight Molecular Agents,
2}  Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction.
3} Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome,
4)  Irritant-induced Asthma, .
5} Small Airways Disease.

All three associations have acknowledged that chemical-bearing agents can
trigger asthma attacks in susceptible persons. This includes chemically laden
fragrance products.  In as much everyone on earth needs air to breath.  No one
needs vain and gluttonous amounts of artificial fragrances products.

Each organization advocates the practice of Environmental Control; 
of avoiding airborne agents which trigger one's asthma.   In fact, the
AMA has formally referred to Avoidance as "Control of Factors Con-
tributing to Asthma Severity."   In French medical Literature, avoid-
ance is known as "Strict Eviction."  

Examples of recognized asthma triggers in the chemical category
include:

[A] "NO2" from gas stoves and fireplaces,  fumes from
        kerosene heaters, and volatile organic compounds
        from carpeting, cabinetry, plywood, particle board,
         and fumes from household cleaning products."

[B] "Air pollutants such as tobacco smoke, wood smoke,
        chemicals in the air and ozone"

      "Occupational exposure to vapors, dusts, gases or fumes"

      "Strong Odors or sprays such as perfumes, household clean-
        sers, cooking fumes (especially from frying), paints, or var-
        nishes"

[C] "Perfume, paint, hair spray, or any strong odors or fumes."

http://www.epa.gov/asthma/chemical_irritants.html

http://asthma.about.com/od/asthmatriggers/qt/chemictriggers.htm

http://www.aaaai.org/patients/publicedmat/tips/occupationalasthma.stm

http://www.lungusa.org/healthy-air/home/resources/cleaning-supplies.html

http://www.lungusa.org/lung-disease/asthma/about-asthma/understanding-asthma.html

http://www.lungusa.org/lung-disease/asthma/living-with-asthma/take-control-of-your-asthma/asthma-triggers.html

An American Lung Association already stated:

"Perfume, room deodorizers, cleaning chemicals, paints, and
  talcum powder are examples of triggers that must be avoided
  or kept at very low levels."

The same American Lung Association furthermore states:

"These 'triggers' can set off a reaction in your lungs and   other 
  parts of your body." Now, place an emphasis on "other parts
  of your body," and keep in mind that:

Avoidance also applies to Anaphylaxis, Chemically-induced Hepatitis,
Irritant Rhinitis, Dermatitis, Urticaria (rashes), Irritant-associated Vo-
cal Cord Dysfunction, Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, etc.

The AMA's Admitting to the Converse Relationship Between 
Pollution Levels and Hospital Admissions Due to Asthma

Five to six thousand people die each year from asthma, in the United
States alone, and one of the highest asthma-related death rates has
been in Harlem, NY, as well as Detroit.   Ever so coincidentally, the
environs of Harlem are venues for NYC waste sites. Concerning this,
the AMA has expressly stated that:

"fluctuations in the levels of air pollution correlate with asth-
 ma symptoms and hospital admissions."   [Report 4 of the AMA's
 Council on Scientific Affairs (A-98)]
===============================================

The segment posted below appears in another Atlantic America article.
This means that it might look familiar to you.  In fact, the information in
quotations, as well as the asthma chart, was provided by the American
Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology, in its publican information
literature.  Needless to say, charts can be invaluable for individuals seek-
ing to learn fact. 

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
     Persulfate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hairdressers
     Isocyanates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spray painters, Insulation
                                                               installers; plastic, rubber,
                                                               foam manufactory workers.

         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
chemical sensitivity need to avoid the chemicals which exacerbate their
medical conditions.
_________________
The following quote is
directly from the AMA 

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)
   ============================================

October 10, 2024

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
________________________________________

October 9, 2024

Corporate Welfare: Government Paying
for Illnesses Caused by Corporations

Concerning the woman whose medical records contain the following
findings, would the reasonably minded person conclude that she has
a psychosomatic illness or a physical one?

  1 - Wheezing.
  2 - Tachycardia.
  3 - Hypopotassemia.
  4 - Rales and crackles.
  5 - Gruntled breathing.
  6 - Erythematous uvula.
  7 - Grossly enlarged turbinates.
  8 - Erythema of the oropharynx.
  9 - Edema of the true vocal cords.
10 - Adenopathy in the left postauricular region.
11 - Productive response in Spiriva challenge testing.
12 - A circumscribed nodule in the left occipital region.
13 - Thickened coating over the dorsum of the tongue.
14 - A firm 1x1 cm nodule in the right postauricular region.
15+ A couple additional findings consistent with Rhinitis.

Unless you are an avowed liar, the answer to that question is beyond
obvious.  Therefore, what right do corporate-funded attorneys and an
independent medical examiner have in asserting that the woman found
to have these objectively observed ills is mentally ill?  What gives them
the right to claim that she has no objective medical findings that would
validate her symptoms?  Her symptoms have 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.)

Moreover, diagnoses given to her have included:

(1)  Allergic and Irritant Asthma (Reactive Airways).
(2)  Glossitis (inflammation of the tongue).
(3)  Rhinitis and Turbinate Hypertrophy.
(4)  Chemical and Irritant Sensitivities.
(5)  Reactive Hyperplasia.
____________________
____________________________
_____________________________________

Introduction

The corporation involved in the following account is one whose 2005
financial report marked its stockholder equity value at $11.2 billion.
Net tangible assets were marked at $4.2 billion.

December 2006 one-line addition/update:

Until mid-2006, the corporation involved was legally known as the
Cendant Corporation, of  Parsippany-Troy Hills, NJ.  In addition,
the geographic region involved in the following account is Elizabeth-
ton, Tennessee.  Cendant Corporation once operated business there.

The apex of  the following account concerns a year when the corpora-
tion's CEO received $17 million in salary and bonus income.   During
that same year, $1.02 million was placed into the CEO's pension fund.
An additional $4.54 million of  stockholder  money was used to pay
the premiums on his $100 million life insurance policy.

The place of work involved in the following account is a former coal tar
pitch research center.  The corporation no longer uses it.  It was found
to have minute sized monfilament fibers pervading the employees' work
areas.  And needless to say, the smaller the molecular agent, the greater
is its potential to infiltrate and afflict the complex human anatomy.  After
all, this was the case with a number of  WTC cleanup crew members
exposed to the Manhattan site's pulverized concrete dust. It resulted in
Small Airways Disease.

This account highlights a former employee of that corporation.  She
was in the process of  loosing the sum total of  everything during the
same year when the corporation's CEO was amassing a multimillion
dollar income. Throughout the account, she is simply referred to as
"the woman."  That is to say, her name will not be used.  In addition,
other persons who worked in the former research center reported
symptoms similar to hers.

The corporation was advertised as the world's largest real estate brok-
erage franchiser, the world's largest vacation ownership organization,
and the world's largest "provider of outsourced corporate employee
relocation services," as well as one of  the largest hotel franchisers in
the world and one of  the world's largest car rental operators.  Opera-
tions included the telemarketing of its services.

                      Not Even a Get Well Card

During her six months with the corporation, the woman highlighted in
this account generated approximately $500,000 in sales revenue.   In
fact, her sales of hotel room reservations averaged $2,777 per four
hour shift.  In return for her services, she was rewarded with a chron-
ic disability.  To this day, the corporation has offered her no apology,
while thecorporation's insurer has offered her no compensation.  She
was not even sent a Get Well card.  Instead, the defense attorneys and
independent medical examiner involved in her workman's comp case
sought to have her tagged with a psychiatric label which can conveni-
ently serve as an excuse for the severe illness which developed during
her time of work at the former coal tar pitch research center.

She Had to Fire Her Attorneys, in their Gross Negligence
       That is to say, she had to file a voluntary dismissal

The woman won her Social Security disability case a year ago. But, in
December 2005, she had to fire the legal counsel involved in her work-
man's comp case.  Technically speaking, she filed a voluntary dismissal.
Her attorneys refused to enter into evidence recent medical findings that
resulted from an October rhinolaryngoscopy.  And in the refusing there-
of was mention of  the cost of entering the new evidence.

The attorneys furthermore refrained from emphasizing the woman's pri-
or medical findings.  In fact, they accepted as uncontroverted truth the
averments (assertions/allegations) of  the defense counsel.  Such aver-
ments would have resulted in the woman loosing her case, and those
averments contradict her medical records.  Therefore, the woman had
to dismiss her attorneys and start anew.

HER OBJECTIVE MEDICAL FINDINGS

The defense counsel in her workman's compensation case asserted that
she had no objective medical findings to support her symptoms.  In fact,
a mental health person diagnosed her as having agoraphobia, along with
panic anxiety.  Yet, she has over a dozen objective medical  findings at-
tached to her medical records.  Such findings indicate the presence of a
physical illness, and not a psychiatric one.

Furthermore, three board certified physicians diagnosed her outside of
emergency room settings.  And those diagnoses are much different than
the one given by the "mental health person."

One of the diagnosing physicians is an allergist & immunologist, while
another one is a cytopathologist (a cytopathologist diagnoses illness at
the cellular level.) And the third diagnosing physician is an Ear, Nose,
& Throat specialist who is also a fellow of  the American College of
Surgeons.  The diagnoses given to the woman came predominately
from the fine-needle biopsy, the fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopy, and
ER room records.  In examinations and testing performed outside of
emergency room settings, the woman was found to have:

(1)  Grossly enlarged turbinates
(2)  Erythematous uvula.
(3)  Edema of the true vocal cords.
(4)  Adenopathy in the left postauricular region.
(5)  Thickened coating over the dorsum of the tongue.
(6)  A firm 1x1 cm nodule in the right postauricular region.
(7)  A circumscribed nodule in the left occipital region.

Plus, attending ER physicians recorded the following findings:

(1)  Wheezing.
(2)  Tachycardia.
(3)  Hypopotassemia.
(4)  Gruntled breathing.
(5)  Rales and crackles.
(6)  Erythema of the oropharynx.
(7+) A couple additional findings consistent with Rhinitis.

Her diagnoses were:

(1)  Allergic and Irritant Asthma (Reactive Airways).
(2)  Glossitis (inflammation of the tongue).
(3)  Rhinitis and Turbinate Hypertrophy.
(4)  Chemical and Irritant Sensitivities.
(5)  Reactive Hyperplasia.

Upon certain environmental exposures, her symptoms reproduce them-
selves in a predictably reoccurring pattern.  Nothing about her symp-
toms is random.  In fact, due to the predictability of  her condition, she
quit keeping a diary of  her ills as far back as June 2003.  Furthermore,
she has been in need of filtered masks and air cleaners, as well as ready
access to oxygen.  In addition, prescription medications posted in her
medical records are consistent with one who has severe asthma.  Her
medications have included Albuterol,  Ipratropium Bromide, Xopenex,
Levalbuterol Hydrochloride, and Salmeterol, as well as intravenous
steroids.

Keep in mind that she was exposed to obscenely inordinate amounts
of dust at her place of work (as is described in her exposure history
account.)  Well, she tested severely positive for dust mites (in RAST
testing, I believe), while having tested negative for every other type of
high weight molecular agent (such as ragweed.)  In as much, a person
can become sensitized to dust mite proteins as much as he/she can be-
come sensitized to formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, phthalic anhydride,
etc.  In fact, barn workers have been documented as having become
sensitized to storage mites.

HER EXPOSURE HISTORY
(transposed from her diary)

THE FIRST 3 MONTHS

April 10th 2002 Health:  Perfect
Mental Health:  "Optimistic, inspired, forward looking".

She moved from Tuscaloosa, AL to Johnson City, TN.  Jogged and
walked everyday. Could go up and down the entire complex; a span
of about four miles.  Went to the library, to Bristol Stores and malls.
Explored the local university and the book stores.  She generally did
what one does when one moves to a new city.

May 2002 Health:  Perfect

She was hired by the previously mentioned corporation, and put into
a two week training program.  Near the end of the two weeks, she de-
veloped what appeared to be the flu.  This included a sore throat and
fever, along with body aches and headaches.  She did not complete
the training at that time.

After her health improved, her training restarted.  Shortly afterward,
she was hired as a temporary and part time employee.  During the
last few days of training, one of her fellow trainees had an asthma
attack.  She noticed some stuffiness in the corridors, along with a
strange chemical odor.  But, she did not pay attention to this at the
time.

Late June/July 2002 Health:  Perfect (for the final time)

Her group was assigned to work downstairs, at the main call center.
During her first day there, she noticed a stuffy stale smell.  The chemi-
cal odor downstairs was more far intense than the smell on the floor
where she was trained.  She also noticed an inordinate amount of dust
everywhere.  Plus, on the cubicle walls were tiny and transparent fibers
the width of a human hair.  They were embedded into the cubicle walls'
fabric.  In fact, the cubicle partitions had a visible layer of brown dust
on them.  Upon a slight tap,  a cubicle wall would spew out dust.

The agent resource books were laden with dust, also.  Picking one of
them up would result in dust spewing out from the pages.  The carpet-
ing was dirty, also.  Pesticides were sprayed indoors, even with call
center employees on duty.  Some of the ceiling titles had the marks of
water damage attached to them, and within time, her fellow employees
would point out blackened mold to the woman.

THE NEXT 11 MONTHS

July/August 2002
Health:  Alternating between well and ill

She began to get a dry cough.  Things then worsened, and it became
very difficult for her to talk on the phone.  Yet, she was expected to
take a new phone call every three minutes.  She soon felt a degree of
tension in her lungs and bronchi, due to the dust and the continual talk-
ing.  She resorted to throat lozenges, Tylenol, and Robutussin.

While the HVAC system was being fixed, her crew was often told to
sit upstairs.  The chemical odor was still present upstairs, and in addi-
tion to that, free-standing fans were run at the far end of the call cen-
ter.  She preferred to sit at that end, being that the other end was an
entranceway crowded with smokers and cigarette butts.  Every time
the door opened, smoke would waft into the room.

During the hot summer months, whenever the air conditioning was not
functional, this same door would be left open.  Because of the obvious
air quality issues there, she requested to sit upstairs.  Her supervisor
agreed.  However, another supervisor spoke of having almost passed
out when training new employees upstairs.

While working downstairs, the former employee had trouble breath-
ing.  It initially started off as a “choking” episode each time the free
standing fans were turned on.  The fans were laden with dust, and
they were turned on frequently.  The blowing air would agitate the
dust in the room and propel it directly into the employees' breathing
space.  Many fellow employees began to complain about choking.

August 2002 Health:  Quite Ill

When upstairs, the sensation of burning eyes was very much prevalent,
as was the dry cough and the choking.  Dust was on the cubicle walls
upstairs, also.  The woman developed sinus congestion, a runny nose,
headaches, and a continual low grade fever.  She would arrive home
from work exceptionally fatigued.  Many of her fellow employees who
were stationed upstairs had the same symptoms.

On one occasion, as she was going upstairs to clock in, her heart be-
gan to palpitate furiously.  The staircase had not been cleaned, or if it
had been, the cleanliness had not lasted long.  Furthermore, the heavy
chemical odor was present.  In addition, there was a strong musty and
greasy smell.

Her hands began to sweat, her knees started to shake, and a tightness
in her chest was making it hard for her to take in a breath.  She was al-
so dizzy.  She went to her work area and clocked in.  She then realized
that if  she didn't get fresh air soon, she would pass out.  She went out-
side and then walked to a nearby gas station, getting a package of Ben-
adryl and something to drink.

September 4th, 2002.  First ER Visit.
Health:  Declining

She was now starting to feel fairly bad on an everyday basis.  She no-
ticed that she felt better at home.  It was only when she was at work
when her symptoms were induced.  This included the dry cough, the
burning eyes, the choking, and the palpitations that would begin soon
into the shift.  In addition, her nasal passages, throat, and lungs felt as
if they were filled with grittiness.

This was the time when she first went to an ER.  She was prescribed
Claritin and Biaxin, having been diagnosed as having Allergic Rhinitis.
The doctor noted on her records that she had a fever, rhinorrehea, and
erythema of the oropharynx, along with post nasal drip.  He also noted
abnormal constitutional signs.

She continued to treat herself with Benadryl, as it was getting progress-
ively difficult for her to work.  After twenty minutes into a work shift,
she would start coughing.  She could now hardly speak on the phone
and the Benadryl made her sleepy.  Her throat hurt and her voice now
squeaked, breaking-up frequently.  The heart palpitations continued.

A co-worker told her that he had begun to have these same types of
symptoms soon after he had started working there.  He also said that
it seemed to be getting worse for him in 2002.  Another employee told
her that he had frequent heart palpitations when at work, in addition to
the dry cough.

September 8th 2002 Second ER Visit

She began work at 8 p.m and worked until 2 am. Throughout this time
she felt a tightness forming in her chest area.  She was taking Children's
Benadryl and thought that this anti-histamine would be sufficient.  Due
to these exposures, she had a lot of congestion, along with dry cough-
ing.  She completed the shift with much difficulty.

After work, as she was driving out of the parking lot when she began to
choke.  She tried to cough but no phlegm emerged.  She pulled over at
a gas station and called Emergency Medical Services.  The EMS crew
gave her an albuterol breathing treatment in the vehicle.  She was then
taken to a hospital.  The treating physician prescribed Volmax and an
inhaler.  In fact, he stated in her medical records that she was allergic to
the work environment.  He noted the following: "Constitutional signs:  
abnormal; Tachycardia."
=================================================