The Diversionary Tactic

The fight to breathe, the metallic taste in the mouth, and the stinging

tongue.   Numbness in the upper-respiratory tract,  the dry heaving

episode, and the headache that leaves cheekbones and temples feel-

ing bruised.  It involves a world that has also included hepatic injury,

(liver cell death/necrosis), dermatitis, urticaria, hematotoxicity (the

killing or damaging or red blood cells), and anaphylaxis.  Technical-

ly this condition is regarded as Chemical & Irritant Sensitivities.

The Razor Blades of  Defamation

Mainstream medical science has already established that chemicals,

at nontoxic levels, aren't universally harmless.  Numerous chemicals

have been identified as sensitizers, while other ones were already cat-

egorized as irritants.  Chemical Sensitivity has already been defined in

case-specific and body-system-specific form.  Irritant-induced Asthma

and its subset condition, Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, is

one form, while Airborne Irritant Contact Dermatitis is another form.

Chemical sensitivity is already a well-established component in main-

stream medical science, and so too is the irritant-induced reaction.

However ...

Throughout the past fifteen years, literature has been posted online that

can easily deceive a novice into assuming that no chemical of any kind,

whenever encountered at a nontoxic level, could ever trigger an adverse

reaction in anyone.  The literature accentuated the Multiple Chemical

Sensitivity debate, while simultaneously declining to acknowledge the

existence of the several case-specific forms of chemical sensitivity, such

as Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, Irritant-induced Asthma,

and Occupational Asthma due to Low Weight Molecular Agents which

had already been identified and defined.

Each piece of  propaganda asserted that Multiple Chemical sensitivity is

merely a matter of mental illness.  As a result, persons not familiarized

with Occupational and Environmental Medicine were clueless that suf-

ficient medical findings in a number of chemically sensitive patients were

identified, along with the numerous chemicals that triggered the adverse

reactions.

The Corporate Claim of  Universal Harmlessness

  Contradicted by the Findings of  Medical Science

It had even gotten to the point where insecticide providers boldly pro-

claimed that their product lines were entirely harmless, provided that

they were used according to regulatory guidelines.  This proclamation

was accompanied by the claim that all persons suffering from Multiple

Chemical Sensitivity were merely mentally ill.  However, mainstream

medical science had already established that nontoxic exposure to the

carbamate/organophosphate class of pesticide can cause a build-up of

acetylcholine in one's lungs and cause asthma to develop.

Perfumes Have Been Identified as Triggers of Asthma

The propaganda against the chemically sensitive was relentless.  In

fact, the non-chemically sensitive got caught in the crossfire in 1996,

when the perfume intolerant were called "fragrance phobic fruitcakes."

Now, perfumes contain potent non-chemical ingredients as much as

they contain sensitizing chemicals.  Therefore, Fragrance Intolerance

includes hyperreactivity to non-chemical ingredients as much as it in-

volves hypersensitivity to chemical-bearing agents.  This means that,

in 1996, even persons who were not chemically sensitive were placed

under attack.

Never mentioned in the 1996 character assassination was the 1995

publication detailing a research undertaking which confirmed that

perfume strips found in magazines are asthma triggers.   [Ann Aller-

gy Asthma Immunol., 1995 Nov;75 (5):429-33 ].

In the years to follow, perfumes would come to be acknowledged as

asthma triggers by the American Medical Association, the American

Academy of  Allergy Asthma & Immunology, the American Lung As-

sociation, and the National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Then, in 2001, a published medical report placed perfume among the

triggers of  anaphylaxis.  Yet, no apologies were ever made to the per-

fume intolerant by the propagandist who defamed them. 

            Cleaning Supplies and Household Chemicals

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

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

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

            Asthma Triggers: Gain Control (EPA site)

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

_____________________________________________

Sensitization Is Not Limited To Chemical Exposures

The phenomenon of  sensitization is not new.  Neither is it unproven.

Nor is it limited to matters involving Chemical Sensitivity.  The recog-

nition of the medical condition known as sensitization includes:

1] metal dust exposure; Berylliosis (beryllium), etc.

2] mold exposure; Mushroom Worker's Lung, etc.

3] enzyme exposure; Detergent Worker's Lung, etc.

4] organic dust exposure; Byssinosis (cotton dust), etc.

5] chemicals & irritant gases; Irritant-induced Asthma, etc.

The Medical Doctrine of  Concomitant Sensitivity

Concomitant Sensitivity is also known as Cross-sensitization, and it

means that, if you're hypersensitive to one chemical compound, then

you are hypersensitive to all other chemical compounds with similar

characteristics.  An example of  Concomitant Sensitivity exists within

the family of  the acetylated salicylates.  To be adversely reactive to

one of  them is to be adversely reactive to all of  them.

The Undeniable Proof of Mainstream Medicine's Recognition

of Chemical Allergies ... The RAST Test Order Form

You can be tested for IgE-mediated chemical allergies via the RAST

TEST.  The specific chemicals for which a person can be tested are lo-

cated in the Occupational Panel, when filling out the allergy test order

forms.   Case closed.   Mainstream medicine has recognized chemical

allergies for decades.  It's simply that deceptive propaganda, including

that of the unconscionable John Stossel, made society unaware of this.

High Production Volume Chemicals

  and their Ubiquitous Presence in Modern Life

There have been medical professionals who declined to support the re-

cognition of  MCS, but who simultaneously acknowledged that a per-

son can be severely hypersensitive to "one or a few" chemicals.  Such

an acknowledgment needs to be accompanied by a qualifying state-

ment.  That qualifying statement goes as follows:

            Persons who are hypersensitive to a few High

            Production Volume Chemicals are actually

            hypersensitive to the dozens of  commonly

            encountered products that contain those

            HPV chemicals.  Concomitant Sensitivity,

            combined with hypersensitivity to merely

            a few HPV chemicals, easily explains how

            a person can seem to be hypersensitive to

            almost everything.

The Demarcating Factor in MCS

If you're adversely reactive to dozens of chemical-bearing agents, but

have symptoms that affect only one reoccurring symptom, then you

are outside of  the MCS controversy.  This is because the demarcation

factor in MCS is not hypersensitivity to multiple chemicals.  Rather,

the demarcating factor is reactivity that adversely affects multiple

body systems.

As an example, if  bronchial hyper-responsiveness is your only chemi-

cal sensitivity reaction, then only one body system is involved, mean-

ing that there is no presence of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity to assess

in you.  The anti-MCS propagandists will have to find another way in

which to call you mentally ill.  That is to say, your case involves local-

ized chemical sensitivity.  It involves either Reactive Airways Dysfunc-

tion Syndrome or Irritant-induced Asthma; two similar conditions not

in controversy.

Nor does MCS have anything to do with multiple symptoms, per se.

You can have a repertoire of  reoccurring symptoms and be outside

of  the MCS controversy, if those multiple symptoms are limited to

the reactions of only one body system.  In such a case, the anti-MCS

people will have to find another way by which call  you mentally ill,

while simultaneously claiming chemicals to be virtuous and blame-

less at nontoxic levels.

The respiratory system is a body system that can host multiple symp-

toms.  Firstly, asthma can coexist with upper-respiratory ills, and the

upper-respiratory tract can be the host of  a number of  symptoms.  In

fact, within the world of  Occupational and Environmental Medicine,

it's a regular phenomenon to find asthma coexisting with Rhintis or

Rhino-sinusitis in the same one worker (or subset of  workers.)

In summary, it's neither the number of  symptoms nor the number of

chemicals that define Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.  It is the number

of body systems that engage in the hypersensitivity reactions that de-

fines it.  In the world of  Occupational and Environmental Medicine,

chemical sensitivity reactions have been documented as having had

adversely affected two body systems in the same one worker or sub-

set of  workers.  Such coexistence hints of the authentic existence of

MCS.

Formaldehyde:  A Specific Example

Formaldehyde is a suitable example to employ, in showing that hyper-

sensitivity to merely one HPV chemical constitutes hypersensitivity to

dozens of chemical-bearing agents.  Formaldehyde is a known trigger

of  asthma, rhinitis, dermatitis, and anaphylaxis.  It is released from a

number common products.  This includes those liquid soap and sham-

poo products that contain quarternium-15, diazolidinyl urea, DMDM

hydantoin, and imidazolidinyl urea.  In fact, go through the shampoo

and liquid soap section of  any store and see if you can find one pro-

duct free of  the ingredients listed above.

A detailed list of  formaldehyde-releasing agents includes:

[] urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, [] oriented strand board,

[] medium density fiberboard, [] melamine resin, [] plywood,

[] surface coatings, [] joint cement, [] paints, [] wall coverings,

[] durable press drapery, [] permanent press clothing, [] floor

wax, [] kerosene heater emissions,[] burning wood, [] cosmetics,

[] nail hardeners, [] sun screen lotion, [] tanning lotions, [] liquid

soaps, [] moisturizing lotions, [] carpet cleansers, [] liquid scouring

cleansers, [] shampoos, [] medical venues, etc.

Formaldehyde shares common characteristics with benzaldehyde and

the sterilization agent, glutaraldehyde.  Therefore, the products which

bear glutaraldehyde and benzaldehyde are to be included in the list of

formaldehyde-releasing agents.  This includes cinnamon oil, and this

means that the phenomenon of  Concomitant Sensitivity, in combina-

tion with hypersensitivity to a few High Production Volume Chemicals,

can account for the reason why some individuals seem to be hypersen-

sitive to almost everything.

Persistent Vulnerabilities,

aka Pre-existing Conditions

Then there is the matter of  chronically existent vulnerabilities, also

known as atopy.  One example is the upper-respiratory inflammation

known as boney turbinate hypertrophy.  It is a condition not known to

be able to resolve itself,as surgery has been the only treatment offered

for it, by mainstream medicine.

Cases of  chronically existent vulnerabilities can make a person hyper-

sensitive to both chemical and non-chemical odors.  Therefore, such a

person can be adversely reactive to the smell of  cleaning agents and

new vinyl products, as well as cooking odors, and musty cardboard.

Such a person might appear to be allergic to almost everything.

Immunological in Some Cases.

Nonimmunological in Other ones.

An individual can have either an immunological allergic reaction or

a non-immunological irritant reaction to chemical-bearing agents.

It depends on the person, the person's exposure history, the person's

pre-existing vulnerabilities, the chemicals themselves, and the way in

which the chemicals are encountered (by inhaling, ingestion, touch,

or ocular absorption.)

The bottom line is that chemical sensitivity has been proven to exist,

and to state otherwise is to defame the Occupational & Environment-

al Health programs who diagnose such conditions.  To do so is to de-

fame the private practitioners who treat chemical sensitivty, as well

as the patients who develop this type of condition.  Be it Reactive Air-

ways Dysfunction Syndrome, Airborne Irritant Contact Dermatitis,

Limonene Sensitivity, Aspirin Sensitivity, Methyltetrahydrophthalic

Anhydride Allergy, or Oil of  Turpentine Allergy, it is all a matter of

chemical sensitivity.

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is not the only type of chemical sensitiv-

ity proposed to exist.  It was simply one of  the two forms used in a pro-

longed and unconscionable diversionary tactic.  Other variations of the

disease have already been validated.  Therefore, any discussion about

MCS that doesn't admit to the existence of chemical sensitivity (in its

case-specific and body-system-specific forms) invalidates itself.

___________________________________________________

Chemical Allergies Were Proven to Exist Long Ago

Stephen Barrett "MD" is an outspoken individual who retired from

psychiatry in 1993 and then proclaimed himself  "the media" in 2001.

He was never board-certified in psychiatry, and he was never board

certified in any other discipline.   He has zero experience as a practit-

ioner in every form of internal, dermatological, and dental medicine.

He was not a researcher in any capacity, either.   Neither was he a

biochemist nor a vaccinologist nor a pharmacologist nor a medical

technologist nor anything similar.  He spent inordinate amounts of

time suing people, including a disabled woman to whom he lost.

In the late 1980s he wrote an article titled, "Unproven Allergies."  Big

problem with that title, though.  Those allergies were proven to exist,

in the world of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, even during

the writing of the deceptive text.  Take note of the following:

       * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

       The testing for IgE-mediated chemical allergies has been con-

       ducted via mainstream medical RAST testing.   The specific

       chemicals tested are found in the OCCUPATIONAL PANEL

       of a  RAST TEST order form.   This means that mainstream

       medical science recognizes the existence of chemical allergies.

       Case closed.  

        * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

An Allegation of  Stephen Barrett that Calls for a Response:

Stephen Barrett alleged, throughout his anti-MCS literature, that

a primary test for chemical sensitivities consists in ...

(I)   ... a very subjective and non-quantitative form of testing ...

(II)  ... by which a diluted chemical solution is placed under ...

           the tongue of a patient (or injected through his skin), ...

(III) followed by nothing more than the patient reporting if whether or

       not he experiences any symptom from the administered chemical

       solution.

       This allegation, in combination with numerous omissions of  fact,

       can easily deceive a beginner into assuming that there has never

       been a test to prove the existence of chemical sensitivities.  This

       allegation, therefore, calls for a response.

The Response:

(1)  The testing for chemical sensitivities has included, but has not been

       limited to, ...

(I) ... the traditional skin prick test, otherwise known as the SPT.

(II)  In skin prick testing, a test-subject is regarded as having  tested

       positive when a visible and measurable wheal, equal to or larger

       than a designated size, appears as a result of the skin test.

(III) The size of  the wheal is then recorded in numerical form, and

        numerical measurement constitutes objectivity.       

IgE-mediated Chemicals, via the Process of Haptenation

(2)  The purpose for the SPT is to test for immediate onset hyperreac-

       tivity.  This is a Type I reaction, and such a reaction occurs within

       one hour of  exposure.

(I)   IgE stands for Immunoglobulin E, and an immunoglobulin is a pro-

       tein produced by plasma cells & lymphocytes, serving the function

       of  an antibody.

(II)  A number of chemicals have been found to trigger immediate on-

       set reactions, and a subset of  those have been discovered to be

       IgE-mediated, via a process known as "haptenation."

(III) Haptein is a greek word which means "to fasten," and a hapten is

        a low weighted molecular agent that reacts with an antibody, but

        cannot induce the formation of an antibody until it is fastened to

        either a carrier protein or to a large antigenic molecule.  Chemi-

        cals happen to be agents of  low molecular weight.     

Type IV Hypersensitivity Reactions

(3)  In addition, there are a significant number of chemicals that have

       been found to induce the Type IV, cell-mediated hyperreactivity.

       This is known as "delayed allergic reactivity," and this type hyper-

       sensitivity results in dermatitis or anaphylaxis.

(I)  Concerning the Type I and Type IV hyper-reactivity, the Practice

      Parameter for Allergy Diagnostic Testing, as is issued by the Joint

      Council of Allergy Asthma and Immunology, states:          

       "Many chemicals (e.g., sulfonechloramides, azo dyes, par-

        abens, fragrances) used as additives in foods, drugs, and

        cosmetics may induce either IgE-mediated reactions or

        contact dermatitis, or both." Ann Allergy 1995; 75:543-625      

Non-immunological Chemical Sensitivity Reactions,      

Including Anaphylaxis

(4)   In addition, a number of chemicals have been identified as irritants,

        being that they trigger "nonimmunological" responses.  There is ev-

        en a nonimmunolgical form of  anaphylaxis, known as the "anaphy-

        lactoid reaction."   Such a reaction produces the same final result

        as doe an immunologic anaphylactic reaction.  The only difference

        between the two types of  reactions is in the triggering mechanism

        of them.  That is to say:             

      "An anaphylactoid reaction is another type of immediate 

       reaction that mimics anaphylaxis.  While symptoms and 

       treatments are the same the reason for the reaction is not.  

       An anaphylactoid reaction doesn't involve IgE antibodies' 

       immune system and is not considered a true allergic reac-

       tion.  Even so, the reaction can be just as serious."  [Amer-

       ican College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology]  See:

       http://www.acaai.org/public/advice/anaph.htm

(I)    Thus, there is Allergic Asthma, and then there is Irritant-induced

        Asthma. One type of asthma is immunologic, while the other type

        is not. You are not inclined to run a 26 mile marathon whenever

        you are exposed to your asthma triggers.      

Allergic Sensitization, Direct Irritation, 

and Pharmacological Reactions

(5)  Hypersensitivity reactions can be triggered via:

(a)  Allergic Sensitization.   This is induced by repeated exposure to

       a sensitizing agent such as formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, or phenyl

       isocyanate.  Then, upon becoming sensitized, further exposure to

       the same agent results in an antibody release or an inflammatory

       chemical release.

(b)   Direct Irritation.   This is induced in those who are "atopic," in

        person who possess chronic vulnerabilities aand/or pre-existent

        conditions.   Such persons develop "symptoms immediately af-

        ter exposure to substances such as chlorine, ammonia, sul-

        fur dioxide, and environmental smoke."

(c)   Pharmacological Reaction.   This comes as a result of the fact

        that some chemicals and nonchemical agents elevate the produc-

        tion of chemicals that naturally exist in the body.  An example of

        a naturally existent chemical in the body, able to have its level ele-

        vated by nontoxic chemical exposure, is acetylcholine.   A case

        in point is the organophosphate/carbamate class of pesticide.  At

        nontoxic levels, it can elevate the level of acetylcholine in the lungs,

        because that class of  pesticide inhibits acetylcholinesterase, the

        enzyme which displaces/dissolves acetylcholine.

        For further understanding on this, see the Mayo Clinic's teaching

        on Occupational Asthma.   It is found at:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/occupational-asthma /DS00591/DSECTION=3&

A Sample of IgE-mediated Chemicals

(6)   For confirmation purposes, examples of IgE-mediated chemicals

        which can be involved in skin testing, include the following:

(a)   The disinfectant Ortho-phthalaldehyde.        

        It has even resulted in anaphylaxis, via "Cidex OPA." See:

<>  Nine episodes of anaphylaxis following cystoscopy caused by 

       Cidex OPA (ortho-phthalaldehyde) high-level disinfectant in 

       4 patients after cystoscopy.  {J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004 Aug;

       114(2): 392-7}

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15316522&dopt=Citation

(b)  Formaldehyde.

        It is masked behind a number of aliases, and it outgases from the

        shampoo and liquid soap ingredients, imidazolidinyl urea, DMDM

        hydantoin, diazolidinyl urea, and quaternium-15.   See:

<>   IgE-mediated urticaria from formaldehyde in a dental root 

        canal compound.  (The full text describes 28 cases of Formalde-

        hyde Sensitivity.  {J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol., 2002;12(2):

        130-3}

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=12371530&dopt=Abstract

<>   Exposure to gaseous formaldehyde induces IgE-mediated 

        sensitization to formaldehyde in school children. {Clin Exp

        Allergy, 1996 Mar;26(3): 276-80}

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=8729664&dopt=Abstract

<>   IgE allergy due to formaldehyde paste during endodontic

        treatment.  Apropos of 4 cases:  2 with anaphylactic shock 

        and 2 with generalized urticaria. {Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac.

        2000 Oct;101(4):169-74}

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=11103423&dopt=Abstract

(c) Vinyl Sulphone Reactive Dyes.

       They are also known as fiber-reactive dyes, as well as azo dyes.

       They include Remazol Black B.   See:

<>   Roll of skin prick test and serological measurement of  

        specific IgE diagnosis of  occupational asthma resulting 

        from exposure to vinyl sulphone reactive dyes.  {Occup

        Environ Med. 2001 Jun;58 (6):411-6}

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=11351058&dopt=Citation

<>   Asthma, rhinitis, and dermatitis in workers exposed to re-

        active dyes. {Br J Ind Med. 1993 Jan;50(1):65-70}

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=8431393&dopt=Abstract

(d)  Cyanuric Chloride.

     It is used in the production of  plastics, herbicides, pharmaceuticals,

     and fiber-reactive dyes.  It is also a structural component of mono-

     chlorotriazine and dichlorotriazine dyes. See:<>   Immunologic cross-reactivity between respiratory chemical

       sensitizers: reactive dyes and cyanuric chloride.    {J Allergy

       Clin Immunol. 1998 Nov;102(5): 835-40}

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9819302&query_hl=9

(e)  The disinfectant Chlorhexidine.  It even triggered anaphylaxis:<>   

       FDA Public Health Notice:  Potential Hypersensitivity Re-

        actions to Chlorhexidine-Impregnated Medical Devices

         http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/PublicHealthNotifications/ucm062306.htm

<>   Immediate hypersensitivity to chlorhexidine: literaure re-

        view. {Allerg Immunol (Paris) 2004.  Apr;36(4):123-6}

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15180352&query_hl=16

(f)   Phthalic Anhydride.

       Nail polish ingredient, ingredient in specific spray paints, and

       an agent used in the making of  unsaturated polyester resins,

       alkyd resins, polyester polyols, and insect repellents.     

<>   Detection of specific IgE in isocyanate and phthalic anhy-

        dride exposed workers:  comparison of RAST RIA, Im-

        muno CAP System FEIA, Magic Lite SQ.  {Allergy. 1993

        Nov;48(8);627-30}

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=8116862&dopt=Abstract

<>   In vitro demonstration of  specific IgE in phthalic anhydride 

        hypersensitivity.  Am Rev Respir Dis, 1976 May;113(5):701-4

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=1267268&dopt=Abstract

(7)  The test which Barrett condemns in his anti-MCS literature is the

       provocation-neutralization test.  In fact, the only type of medical

       practitioner that he mentions in the same literature is the so-called

       clinical ecologist.  Barrett inaccurately explained the provocation-

       neutralization test, in his omitting of pivotal fact, and he additional-

       ly gave the illusion that the only people on earth who test for chem-

       ical sensitivity are the so-called clinical ecologists.

(I)   Firstly, the diagnosing of  the various forms of chemical sensitivity

       has been occurring in the worlds of the Nose, Throat, & Allergy

       Specialist, the Occupational and Environmental Health Specialist,

       the Dermatologist, and even the Chest Physician.   In fact, from

       the world of  the chest physician came the golden rule for diag-

       nosing Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction.  In addition,

       two pivotal papers on chemical sensitivity were produced by the

       head of  the department of  emergency medicine of an American

       university.  Yes, Emergency Medicine.      

(II)  Secondly, Stephen Barrett failed to mention that the provocation-

       neutralization test has included the measuring of objective skin

       wheals, and it was also used to detect allergies to insect stings.

Barrett Failed to Mention that it is an Offshoot

of  the Serial Endpoint Titration Skin Testing

Procedure, Covered by Aetna Insurance

(8)   The provocation-neutralization test is actually an offshoot of the

        serial endpoint titration skin testing procedure, covered by Aetna

        Insurance.  This is pertinent to note in light of the observation that

        Stephen Barrett has repeatedly stated what Aetna covers, as if

        Aetna alone is the ultimate benchmark in diagnostic testing.

(I)    Now, the Skin Endpoint Titration seeks to first identify a patient's

        allergens or hymenoptera venom hypersensitivities (such as to that

        of hornets, bees, wasps, fire ants, and/or yellow jackets.)   That is

        to say, the Skin Endpoint Titration first seeks to find the triggering

        dose of  a hypersensitivity reaction.

(II)   The same testing then seeks to find the neutralizing dose of the

         same allergen or venom.  Now, this is done for immunotherapy

         purposes and the neutralizing dose is found in a series of skin

         prick tests.  The dose at which a patient no longer experiences

         a hypersensitivity reaction is the "endpoint."   It constitutes the

         neutralizing dose.    It then becomes the "safe starting dose" for

         immunotherapy.   Thus originates the name "neutralization" in the

         provocation-neutralization test.  The set goal of a provocation-

         neutralization test is to identify the "neutral dose."

(III)   In summary, the provocation-neutralization test looks for 

         objective skin wheals, while simultaneously asking the pa-

         tient how he/she feels when, of  course, such testing involves

         skin prick testing.  The appearance of wheals have been docu-

         mented in such testing.

(IV)  The diagnostic parameters become exceeded when the testing is

         considered positive on an either/or basis; on the basis of either

         the appearance of an objective skin wheal or the subjective re-

         porting of a symptom.  However, this is test concerns itself with

         prognostic parameters, also.

(V)   Nonetheless, to consider a test positive exclusively on the merits

         of an objective skin wheal is to keep the diagnostic part of skin

         prick testing within acceptable parameters.  It's the sublingual

         drops version of such testing which raises eyebrows.

Wheal Reactions Showed a Distinct Pattern

(9)   Objective skin whealing was consistently documented

        during a research undertaking that tested the reliability

        of the provocation-neutralization test.   The result of

         the research goes as follows:            

       "Reaction by symptoms to foods, chemicals, and normal sa-

        line solution showed a random pattern, although wheal

        reactions showed a distinct pattern."

(I)   Thus, in the skin test version of the provocation-neutralization

       test, "wheal reactions showed a distinct pattern."

(II)   The conclusion of that research undertaking goes as follows:          

         "Skin response alone may be a more reliable indicator

          and require cross-validation with other tests, such as

          oral and inhalation challenges and comparison with 

          a control population." See:

<>    Intradermal skin testing for food and chemical sensitivities:  

         a double-blind controlled study.  J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999

         May;103(5 Pt 1): 907-11}

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10329827&dopt=Abstract

(III)  Concerning the prognostic aspect of the provocation-

         neutralization test, the Aetna Insurance Company states:

        "Since provocation-neutralization requires the provoking 

         and neutralizing of symptoms to a single item at a time, 

         a patient could be required to undergo hundreds of indi-

        idual tests requiring weeks or months of full-day testing."

         (Well, this is what Aetna states and its bottom line is money.)

(IV)   The bottom line is that skin testing has been used to identify indi-

          vidual chemical sensitivities to chemicals such as formaldehyde

          and phenyl isocyanate, and phthalic anhydride.  Tested patients

          produced the objective medical finding of visible and measurable

          wheals.  This has included forms of testing other than that of the

          neutralization-provocation test.  In fact, this has included RAST

          Testing.

(V)   Chemically sensitive patients have tested positive in inhalation

         challenge testing, as well as in patch testing (the testing which

         seeks to detect delayed hypersensitivity responses.)  Chemical-

         ly sensitive patients were also documented as having objective

         medical findings via the fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopy and even

         the fine needle biopsy.  Some chemically sensitive patients were

         found to have inflamed air sacs of the lungs, while other patients

         were found to have hepatic injury in the absence of viral infection.

         Other ones were found to have upper-respiratory erythema and

         swelling.

         Chemical Sensitivity exists in a number of forms.   It's very real,

         and it can be quite brutal.   It has been repeatedly documented

         that chemicals, at ambient (nontoxic) levels, are not universally

         harmless.

        ________________________________________________

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.
              _____________________________________

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

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

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.

See:  http://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.
==============================================