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.
        ________________________________________________

Febreze Air Effects: 86 Chemical Ingredients found by the EWG

Febreze is was being sold as "asthma-friendly," and this was unconscionable,
being that it was found to contain respiratory irritants and known asthmatic
allergens.  P&G even began selling Febreze X2, making it a very effective
weapon for those who want to inflict violent assault upon the type of asth-
matic whose respiratory tract is adversely reactive to any of the ingredients
in Febreze,  The victims include those suffering from Reactive Airways
Dysfunction Syndrome, Occupational Asthma due to lmolecular weight
agents, Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction, Irritant-induced Asth-
ma.  Then, a lawsuit was threatened upon P G, for false advertising.

Febreze Air Effects is showcased as
a technological odor eliminator that
will get you to breathe happily; as if
it were happy pills in a spray - even
space age magic that scientifically
makes odors disappear, despite the
fact that it kills no odor-producing
bacteria.

Febreze was heralded as phthalate-
free.  Yet, an ingredient detected
in it turns into Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate, a metabolite implicat-
ed in Sick Building Syndrome.

 

 

Keep in mind that the manipulative nature of the U.S. Congress is such that
it enabled a law which spares the fragrance industry of revealing their pro-
ducts' ingredients to the public.  In fact, there is even a law which spares
frackers from revealing to the public the chemicals used in their industry.
Plus, a chemical doesn't have to be proven safe, in order to be placed in
a fragrance product.  Rather, a chemical needs to be proven harmful, in
order for the regulating of said chemical to occur.

We in America do not get to know which chemicals are tearing into our
bodies and which are flooding our water supplies.  Thus is the nature of
an oligarchy called the United States which consists in government to the
highest bidder.  The highest bidders are known as lobbyists and campaign
funders.  The lobbyist is the one who destroyed national unity.

At this point, enter the 501(c) non-profit charity organization known as
the Environmental Working Group;  the EWG.  Its mission is that of
using the power of public information, to protect public health and the
environment.  The EWG team comprises scientists, engineers, lawyers,
data analysts, and board members, a few of whom have reputable names.

One of the EWG projects was that of analyzing the contents of Febreze
Air Effects Hawaiian Aloha.   According to the scientists, it was nothing
more than a cauldron of chemicals; 87, to be exact.  In as much, Febreze
has a glut of fragrance chemicals combined with noxious non-fragrance
chemicals that easily drowns-out whatever existing odor was in the air
before Febreze was applied to the airspace in question.

Febreze is neither a 'germ killer' nor a fungicide, meaning that it does not
kill the microbiological beings known the produce odors.  Plus, a Consum-
er Reports test likened to the Febreze 'blindfold commercial' proved that
Febreze certainly does not eliminate odors.  If it did so, then a number of
the test subjects would not have reported being sickened by the smell of
the testing chamber.

If Febreze were an odor eliminator, a person would smell nothing, as soon
as Febreze were sprayed into his/her airspace; not even a fresh, light scent,
and certainly not the gaudy odor that announces Febreze's presence like a
clanging gong ... or like a cheap honky-tonk barroom tramp.  Ladies and
gentlemen, Procter & Gamble has become another Monsanto. 

Categories of Chemicals found in Febreze Air Effects Hawaiian Aloha

The cast of characters detected by EWG scientists in Febreze Air Effects
Hawaiian Aloha includes chemicals which fit the following categories:

1} Genotoxins & Mutagenic chemicals, 2} Bronchoconstrictors & Irritants,
3} Oxidative chemicals that produce allergenic compounds upon being ex-
posed to air, 5} Reproductive Toxins, 6} Indoor Air Pollutants,  7} Hepato-
toxins (liver cell killers,)  8} Cell-mediated allergens which produce skin
reactions upon those allergic.  Therefore, Febreze is not hypo-allergenic.

               The results  of Febreze Hawaiian Aloha Analysis,
              According to the Environmental Working Group:

If the report of the Environmental Working Group analysis is correct, and
if the ingredient formula of Febreze Hawaiian Aloha remained unchanged
since the publication of the EWG report, then the following applies:

Eighty-seven chemicals were detected in Air Effects Hawaiian Aloha, along
with water, amounting to 88 ingredients.  The 89th ingredient was regarded
as Fragrance.  But, fragrance is actually a mixture of molecular compounds.
It's not an ingredient unto itself, when measuring compounds.  Therefore, its
more proper to regard Febreze Air Effects Hawaiian Aloha as an 87 chemi-
cal product.

Only three Febreze ingredients were disclosed on the label by name.  The oth-
er ingredients were labeled under the titles "quality control ingredients" and
fragrance, meaning that their exact identities were hidden from the public.
There was one propellant detected in Febreze, incidentally.

In addition, keep in mind that, in the United States, the safety of any chemi-
cal does NOT have to been proven, in order for it to be used as an ingredient
in any household product.  Also in America is what is popularly called, the
"Trade Secret Law."  Such a law excuses require companies from revealing
their product line ingredients on their products' labels or anywhere else.  Of
course, this ever so conveniently hides from the public the reality of what it
inhales.

The Chromosome Chain Breaker

Concerning Febreze's mutagenic chemical it's 1,3-Dichloro-2-Propanol.
It's classified as a Clastogen.  Clastogens break chromosome chains.
_____________________________________________________________

Below is an outline of the ingredients Americans are purchasing, every time
they rush to a store, to get Hawaiian Aloha Air Effects sprayed throughout
their houses, taxi cabs, houses, apartments, offices, reception areas, storage
areas, classrooms, dance floors, shops, and automobiles.

            The Provider of Interleukin 6, the Inflammation Inducer

1] 2-ethyl-hexanol.  This chemical is a news article unto itself, in that it
     has been categorically identified as an indoor air pollutant which was
     found to activate a type of white blood cell which, in turn, produces a
     major inflammatory mediator, called Interleukin 6.  In as much, CD4+
     cells are activated by 2-ethyl-hexanol.  In sequence, 2-ethyl-hexanol
     has been implicated in the development of Building-related Illness, aka
     Sick Building Syndrome.  In fact:

     It has been reported that the number of people suffering 
     from occupational asthma and skin rashes triggered by 
    various chemicals in indoor air have increased markedly.  
    Two-ethyl-hexanol (2-EH) is known to be an indoor air 
    pollutant and its influence on health is of great concern.

     See:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19038237

   Asthma symptoms may be related to increased humidity in con-
   crete floor constructions and emission of 2-ethyl-1-hexanol, an
   indicator of dampness-related alkaline degradation of plastici-
   ser DEHP.

   Now, it's important for you to know that DEHP is a phthalate that
   comes from Febreze ingredient, 2-ethyl-1-hexanol.  The offshoot
   chemical is Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.  The pertinence to this is
   that Febreze was showcased as a phthalate-free product.

           See:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20146997

      The Hangover Chemical and Airway Obstructor

 2] Acetaldehyde.  This is the hangover chemical that emerges after
     excessive alcohol consumption.  The Procter & Gamble people
     bring it to you directly.  Incidentally, acetylaldehyde happens to
     be recognized as a cancer risk to the upper digestive tract.  Now,
     as far as concerns its presence in any artificial fragrance product,
     it obstructs the airways.

     See:  Airway obstruction induced by inhaled acetaldehyde in asthma.

               http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12371536

     Death at 180 Parts Per Million and Above

 3] Benzyl Acetate.  Produces respiratory tract irritation.  The con-
      tinued exposure to ambient levels of this compound at 50 parts
      per million will cause kidney damage.  Cats have died from this,
      at 180 parts per million.  See:

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=E87DA8C3-BDB5-82F8-F685ED7A7F920F9C

     A Suspect in Pancreatic Cancer Induction

     According to the University of Berkley, benzyl acetate is linked
     to pancreatic cancer, in addition to it being a respiratory irritant.  
     See:

     www.ehow.com/list_6130016_chemicals-found-fabric-softeners.html

     Automotive Additives and one Plasticizer

 4] Hexadecane.  This is known as cetane, a diesel fuel additive.
 5] Trimethyl  Pentanyl  Diisobutyrate.   A nail polish plasticizer.
 6] Diethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether.  An anti-freeze additive.

     A Literal Triple Threat to Health

 7] Dichlorohydrin, also known as 1,3-Dichloro-2-Propanol and
     1,3-DCP.   Carcinogenic, Hepatotoxic, and Genotoxic.   In fact,
     Dichlorohydrin was  clearly shown through scientifically valid
     testing, and according to generally accepted principles, to cause 
     cancer.  EVIDENCE ON THE CARCINOGENICITY OF 1,3-
     Dichloro-2-Propanol (1,3-DCP; α,γ-Dichlorohydrin)
  
     See:  oehha.ca.gov/prop65/hazard_ident/pdf_zip/13dcp.pdf 

     As was previously mentioned, Dichlorohydrin has been found
     to cause liver damage, commensurate with the level of exposure
     to it.  For example, a 34 year old man suffered from fulminant
     hepatitis after cleaning a tank in which there were traces of
     dichlorohydrin.  In spite of daily plasma exchanges, he died
     10 days after exposure.  A 27 year old man with much lighter
     exposure showed only slight liver dysfunction.

     See:  http://het.sagepub.com/content/13/4/267.abstract

     As far as goes this Air Effects ingredient being a mutagen, it's
     specifically classified as a clastogenic chemical.  As a review,
     a clastogenic chemical literally causes breaks in chromosome
     chains.  Genotoxicity of 1,3-dichloro-2-propanol in the SOS 
     chromotest and in the Ames test.   Elucidation of the geno-
     toxic mechanism.
 
    See:   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1913979

     Poison Roulette.  Pick your additive.

 8] Denatured Alcohol, aka methylated spirits.   This is ethanol
      mixed with a poisonous additive that makes the alcohol unable
      to be consumed without extremely ill effects.  Originally, it was
      10% methanol (CH3OH.)   Today, denatured alcohol might con-
      tain methyl denatonium benzoate, methyl isobutyl ketone, ethyl
      ketone, acetone, denatonium benzoate.  Protecter & Gamble's
      people think nothing of you spraying this in the home of chil-
      dren, asthmatics, and pets.

     The Oxidizing Terpene
    
 9] Linalool.  A terpene that easily oxidizes.  Oxidized linalool is a
     skin sensitizer.  When exposed to air, it readily forms allergenic
     compounds.  It's recognized by experts as something that great-
     ly contributes to fragrance allergy which emphasizes the need 
     of testing with compounds that patients are actually exposed 
     and not only with the ingredients originally applied in com-
     mercial formulations.  Spraying Febreze, therefore, yields
     more chemicals than are in the canister, bottle, clip-on, etc.   

     See:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19125719

      Bronchial Hyperresponsiveness in Spray Form

10] Limonene.  "Bronchial hyperresponsiveness was related to
       indoor concentrations of limonene."  It tortures susceptible
       persons, otherwise known as people who are atopic.  See:
      Asthmatic symptoms and volatile organic compounds,
      formaldehyde, and carbon dioxide in dwellings.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7627316

      Limonene is also a contact allergen of the terpene family.  This
      means that, upon being exposed to air, limonene produces the
      allergenic substance that effects the skin, in addition to it being
      an assault upon the respiratory tracts of atopic persons.

      We continue with more ingredients detected by the EWG ...
     
11] Alpha-pinene.  It's a confirmed allergen.   See:  Gas chrom-
      atography:  an investigative tool in multiple allergies to 
      essential oils.

               http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12534533

12] Butylated Hydroxytoluene.  This food additive happens to be a
       well established asthma trigger for a subset of asthmatics.  This
       is BHT.

13] Benzothiazole.  Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis
       showed this to be one of four most toxic chemicals in artificial turf.

       http://www.ehow.com/about_6165648_artificial-turf-asthma.html

14] Cyclamen Aldehyde.  This is member of the Formaldehyde
       family.  Refer to:

http://www.archive.org/stream/formaldehydeando003763mbp/formaldehydeando003763mbp_djvu.txt

15] Geraniol.   A well established B-cell mediated allergen and the
       primary ingredient in Java type citronella oil.  This is a contact
       allergen, even through airborne contact.  See:  Cytochrome
       P450-mediated activation of the fragrance compound 
       geraniol forms potent contact allergens.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18824010

16] Methylpyrrolidone.  In Europe, Methylpyrrolidone is regarded
      as a reproductive toxicant.   It is also an irritant, meaning that it
      will make Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome patients fight
      to get a full breath, for as long as they are exposed to it.

17] Alpha-Ionone.  Respiratory sensitizer and skin sensitizer, mean-
       ing that it's something to which a person can become allergic, in
       repeated exposure thereof.  It's also an irritant, meaning that a per-
       son can have an adverse reaction to it without first developing an
       allergy to it.

       http://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/99250.htm

18]  Butylphenyl Methylpropional.  This is Lilial, a known sensitiz-
        er (an allergen that has the power to make you become allergic
        to it.)  It's also known as Lilialdehyde, a member of the formal-
        dehyde family.  As well as being used as a powerful fragrance,
        it's also an intermediate for the agrochemical synthesis.  See:
        Identification of Lilial as a fragrance sensitizer in a perfume
        by bioassay-guided chemical fractionation and structure ac-
        tivity relationships.

       http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11140386

19] Fragrance.  This is actually a mixture of ingredients, and not an
      ingredient unto itself.  None the less, it's pertinent to note that the
      EWG's Further Toxic Concern for "fragrance" is "Neurotoxicity,     
      Allergies/immunotoxicity, Miscellaneous." 

      Febreze Air Effects additionally contains the following,
      according to the Environmental Working Group, as of 2011:

    | BENZYL ACETATE   |   2-tert-BUTYLCYCLOHEXANOL |
    | ETHYL OCTANOATE   |   DIETHYLHEXYL FUMARATE  |
    | HEXYL SALICYLATE | CYCLAMEN ALDEHYDE | NEROL |
    | PRENYL ACETATE   |   2,6-DIMETHYL-7-OCTEN-2-OL |

    | 1-TRIMETHYL-2-CYCLOHEXENYL-1-PENTEN-3-ONE  |
    | 2,6-DIMETHYL-7-OCTEN-2-OL   |   HEXYL CINNAMAL |
    | 3-METHYL BUTYL ACETATE | DIPROPYLENE GLYCOL |
    | 4-tert-BUTYLCYCLOHEXYL ACETATE  |  ACETATE CIS  |

    | ETHYL BUTYRATE   |   DIMETHYLBENZYL CARBINYL
      BUTYRATE  |  CYCLOHEXYL PROPIONATE  | HEDIONE |
    | P-TERT-BUTYL CYCLOHEXYL-HEXYL BUTYRATE  |
    | 2-METHOXY-p-CRESOL   |  HEXYL ISOBUTYRATE,  | 

      Note:   There were more chemicals found in Febreze
                  Air Effects than what has been posted above.
      ____________________________________________________

      As is cited elsewhere on this site, fragrance is a medically recog-
      nized trigger of flare-ups in Asthma, Rhinitis, Sinusitis, Urticaria,
      and Dermatitis, as well as flare-ups in Vocal Cord Dysfunction
      Syndrome,  Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, and Small
      Airways Disease.  Furthermore, the twenty most common chemi-
      cals found in 31 tested fragrance products are listed at the follow-
      ing web page:
                               http://users.lmi.net/wilworks/ehn20.htm 
       ___________________________________________________

             All the Test Subject Plants Allegedly Died, in Both Tests

There's also the matter of every test plant allegedly dying in a supervised
Quebecois scholastic project.  Febreze was allegedly applied in both series
of tests.  In the second test, Febreze was heavily applied, and it was alleged
to have caused the test subject plants to die in a matter of hours.  In the first
test, it allegedly took a few days for all of the test subject plants to die.  The
conclusion was that Febreze burnt the cell walls of the plants, preventing any
further photosynthesize from occurring.  For the record, I was informed of
this scholastic project, from Quebec, even before it began.

Quebec School Febreze-on-Plant Test
______________________________________________________________

         Lysol undid Procter & Gamble's advertising with one sentence

The 2013 Lysol commercial provides a reality check for Febreze users.  It
mentions that Febreze doesn't kill germs  ...  bacteria  ...  viruses  ...  mold.

Now, the odors of decomposing material usually come from the metabolites
of microbiological beings.  They are the emissions that the microbiological
beings send into the air.  This includes the mycotoxins that emit from mold.
Well, if Almighty & Ever-living Febreze does not kill 'germs,'  then the me-
tabolites and mycotoxins of the various 'germs' are still being emitted into
the air, along with their odors, no matter what quantity of Febreze is spray-
ed into a trash can, on moldy furniture, on a mildewed towel, etc. 

In light of this, Febreze commercials are marked with conflict of interest.
They're designed to persuade you to buy the product line, not to objective-
ly inform the people about Febreze.  After all, Protector & Gamble never
warned the public of the asthma, splitting headaches, etc. that Febreze has
triggered.  Plus, P&G never publicly disclosed the dozens of chemical in-
gredients in Febreze.  In as much, those who do not sale Febreze and who
are not competing against Procter & Gamble in the marketplace are the re-
liable sources of Febreze's metabolic mechanisms.   Thus, whatever Proc-
ter & Gambles' people claim about Febreze must be entirely ignored, due
to Procter & Gamble's conflict of interest and ulterior motive.

There are additional red flags attached to the Febreze product line, along
with the fact that it has triggered brutal asthma attacks and other adverse
reactions.   In fact, the severe reaction scenario was the sole purpose for
having embarked on an extensive research project involving Febreze.

The logic was that something incredibly violent had to have been attached
to Febreze, for it to have triggered asthma no less tortuous than an anaconda
wrapped around your chest.  The respiratory radar turned out 100% correct.
It turned out that there were a number of things deadly wrong with Febreze.
_____________________________________________________________

Next came a supervised Quebecois scholastic project that allegedly resulted
in Febreze killing 100% of the test plants, in two different tests.  News of
the project's outcome necessitated even more research on Febreze.

The logic was that any fragrance product that kills tested plant life as quick-
ly as Febreze did, while triggering violent asthma attacks, has got to have
something attached to it which must be banned from civilization.  It turned
out that the product line should instead be called Febreze Air Defects.
____________________________________________________________

In addition, there is a nexus between the infamous Monsanto corporation
and Procter &Gamble.  Firstly, P&G's Chief Financial Officer ever so co-
incidentally is on Monsanto's board of directors; Jon Moeller.  Secondly,
as is shown at the end of this relatively long article, six of Monsanto's top
ten institutional stockholders are six of P&G's top ten.

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130131-914679.html

Incidentally, Procter & Gamble was recently sued in California, for its vio-
lation of Proposition 65; specifically due to the level of 1,4 dioxane in its
Tide Detergent product.   In fact, according to the Environmental Working
Group, Febreze has a Propostion 65 chemical in its formula: acetaldehyde.
It's outlined below.  Thus, it isn't an exaggeration to state that Procter &
Gamble has become another Monsanto.

http://ens-newswire.com/2013/01/25/procter-gamble-must-scrub-carcinogen-dioxane-from-tide/

The Trade Secret Law and the Violation of Americans'
right to know what's going into their respiratory tracts

In America, chemical ingredients don't have to be proven safe, in order
to be included in a fragrance product that sits for sale on store shelves.
Furthermore, the infamous trade secret laws do not require fragrance
manufacturers to disclose to the public any of the ingredients in their
fragrance products.
____________________________________________________________ 

If it deeply penetrates the fabric, 
it will NOT depart from the fabric.
Such a thing is known as contamination.

Background of that which necessitated further investigations on Febreze

A woman once wrote to me, asking how to get the smell of Febreze out of
her sofa.  The answer is to send it to Procter & Gamble's headquarters and
make its personnel get the Febreze odor out of it.  Another woman wrote to
me and informed me that Febreze is her worst nightmare.  Yet another lady
wrote to me and thanked me for given her the insight to remove Febreze
from her nightstand and entire home, being that the removal of it resulted
in the cessation of her symptoms.  Her letter was the second most detailed
one that I ever received in my life.  In fact, an asthmatic woman who works
in a sporting goods store told me that the Febreze automobile clip-on was
her worse assailant, and that she was able to detect from a notable distance
an automobile that had two Febreze clip-ons attached to its dashboard.  In
addition, another person easily concurs that Febreze clip-ons are the worst
nightmare of any automobile clip-on product, in this age of obnoxiously
invasive chemical fragrance gluttons.

A pharmaceutical ingredient used in 30 drugs 
is heralded as the star of the Febreze Show

The Procter & Gamble Outreach people disseminated the claim that a star
ingredient exists in Febreze which scientifically absorbs odors.  That claim
turned out to be a fraudulent misrepresentation; a severe twisting of the fact.

The heralded Febreze ingredient was/is a pharmaceutical ingredient in 30
or so drugs, mostly oral ones.  It was/is used as a complexing agent and the
transporter of the principle ingredient in a those 30 drugs, thereby making
a drug's active ingredient more readily available to the body.

The heralded Febreze ingredient is a sugar; a cyclic oligosaccharide which
has a cavity at its center that can pick up any one of a number of molecules
temporarily.  Thus, it has the ability to make complex compounds, and thusly
is the reason why it is categorized as a 'complexing agent.'  It's a derivative of  
C42H70O35, a sugar known as cyclodextrin.

This sugar was discovered in 1891.  If it were as divine as Procter & Gamble 
make it out to be, then mankind would have been using it ubiquitously in the 
past 120 years, spraying it everywhere on everything.  The Procter & Gamble 
outreach people make it out to be the ultimate panacea in the history of the 
universe.  But, it isn't a cure of any ailment, especially asthma.  It's a trans-
port molecule. 

This sugar has a cavity at its center which is hydrophobic.  This means that it
will repel water.  Therefore, whatever molecule is absorbed into its cavity will
be released into the first medium of water it encounters.  This is known as be-
ing water soluble.

This sugar was used in 30 or so prescription drugs for the sake of increasing
a drug's solubility in water, thereby increasing the drug's delivery deeper into
the body; to increase the 'bio-availability' of the 30 or so pharmaceutical drugs
that used cyclodextrin as a supporting ingredient.  The cavity is much like a
bomber's bomb bay, opening its doors and dispensing its bombs into a medi-
um of water.

The Impact of this Sugar Molecule on the Human Body

Clearly understand the following:  Cyclodextrin molecules sprayed from a
bottle of Febreze will collect into their cavities any molecule that will fit in-
side of them.  There will be NO covalent bonding involved.  No new sub-
stance is made.  Therefore, cyclodextrin is merely a molecule container;
a molecule's taxi cab - a molecular holding station.  Therefore, Procter &
Gamble lied when it claimed that 87-chemical Febreze eliminates odors
for once and for all.  In fact, in stating that it eliminates odor is to claim
that Febreze has the power to suspend the Law of Conservation of Mass.
Such a claim is psychosis, outside of divine miraculous intervention.

Your lungs are 83% water, and you inhale cyclodextrin molecules whenever
you are in a room where Febreze was sprayed.  This means that those stench-
related molecules you intended to eliminate get carried deeply within your
body and get dropped off inside of you, with NO change in their molecular
constitutions.  Cyclodextin is merely a component in a drug delivery system
that you inhale without a prescription when you enter a room reeking with
Febreze and its other 86 chemical ingredients. 

The one facet in pharmaceutical history which 
proves the Febreze advertisers to be outright liars.

Of course, the Procter & Gamble outreach people say that pharmaceutical in-
gredient cyclodextrin does the odor eliminator job.  Well, if cyclodextrin had
the power to absorb molecules and render them inactive, then cyclodextrin
would never have been used as a carrier molecule, in delivering 30 drugs' 
active ingredients into the depths of the human body.  Cyclodextrin would
have eliminated those 30 active ingredients, too.  Therefore, either the man-
ufacturers of 30 pharmaceutical drugs are lying or Procter & Gamble is ly-
ing to humanity.  Either cyclodextrin causes zero change to molecules that
enter its cavity, or it eliminates the active mechanism in all of them.

The decisive difference between cyclodextrin in pharmaceuticals and cyclo-
dextrin sprayed in an airspace of foul odors and putrefying material is this:  

Pharmaceuticals are made in sterile environments, and no appreciable con-
taminants are involved.  An active pharmaceutical ingredient approved by
the FDA is the molecule that medical cyclodextrin will absorb into its cav-
ity and deposit into the watery human body.  Plus, very little is used, when
comparing a bottle of medicine smaller than your hand to an entire living
room, store, office, taxi cab, or locker room flooded with Febreze.

Procter & Gamble's cyclodextrin derivative absorbs molecules that are not
in any type of sterile environment, but rather in an environment of rotting
fish, mildewed fabric, molding mattresses, musty attic trunks, and the con-
tents of a musty trunk.  The molecules of trash absorbed by cyclodextrin
molecules are then inhaled by those in the room, and the molecules from
the trash can are deposited in the body.  Procter & Gamble simply made
trash molecules, mildew molecules, mycotoxins, and the molecules of de-
caying fish more bio-available to the human body.  Keep the following in
mind:

Contamination is synonymous with penetrating deeply, and 
Febreze's sickeningly sweet sugar chemical penetrates & clings,
reminiscient of candida in the intestines.

The P&G Outreach people boldly stated that Febreze is deeply penetrating.
Well, such a thing is known as contamination and/or a staining mechanism.
Blood on fabric/carpeting is an example of how you don't want to penetrate
deeply into fabric.  People experienced in cleaning warn against scrubbing
a blood-ridden carpet too hard, lest the blood penetrate deeply into the car-
peting and never come out of it.

When you are cleaning, you do NOT want deeply penetrating molecules
involved.  Such things are all the more contaminating.  Remember blood
soaked carpeting, all the while keeping in mind that Procter & Gamble
makes  Febreze was made to sound like the air of the gods for no other
purpose than to have Procter & Gamble make hundreds of millions of
fast bucks during this era of the airhead;  during this era marked by the
dumbing down of America.

Febreze's cyclodextrin is an invader that takes over the material it pene-
trates.  It's a thief ... an unwelcome squatter who doesn't go away ... a pig
molecule that settles in fabric and takes control of it.  If you're a notably
sensitive asthmatic adversely reactive to chemicals, or a reactive airways
patient, you will continue to smell Febreze's sugar chemical and the effect
will be like Chinese water torture.

The dominating presence of cyclodextrin becomes obnoxious and sicken-
ingly sweet.  That odor, to persons physically sensitive, doesn't go away.
Rather, the taste of cyclodextrin clings to the mouth.  Such people keep
washing and rinsing clothing reeking with the smell of Febreze to no
avail.  They could not get that smell out. 

No person should be forced to smell the same odor continually.  After all,
you don't eat the same food continually.  You don't look at the same color
continually, and you don't hear the same one song continually.  You should
not be forced to smell the same sickeningly sweet sugar chemical until the
end of days.  Febreze is a contaminant, and certain types of asthmatics, like
coal mine canaries, can smell the contamination of Febreze's deeply pene-
trating substance that will not prevent any kind of bacteriological infection,
will not cure cancer, and will certainly not cure asthma.

Cyclodextrin is attached to a number of toxic drug reactions, notably those
of the lungs and kidneys.  The kidneys are 79% water.  Now, cyclodextrin
was mostly used in drugs that are ingested.  Only once was the cyclodex-
trin world used in a nasal spray; a hormonal spray called 17β-Estradiol,
an estrogenic steroid.  Cyclodextrin was also used rectally and intraven-
ously.

When it comes to Febreze, this chemical is inhaled.  The effects of inhaling
this chemical, and applying it topically, as well as ingesting it are different.
Keep in mind that the safety of chronically inhaling this sugar was not estab-
lished when this sugar was being added to oral drugs, made to be ingested. 
The vast majority of drugs containing cyclodextrin are oral drugs ... NOT
inhalants.

The following is an absolute must-read, in order for you to understand how
irresponsible Procter & Gamble is disseminating throughout modern civili-
zation a pharmaceutical ingredient that should never be ubiquitously sprayed
at will, along with 86 other chemicals ...

 ... and that such a chemical should never be put into the hands of cab drivers
who used it to hide the presence of cigarette smoke in those taxi cabs falsely
advertised as smoke-free ...

... and that such a chemical should never be put in the hands of tourists who
rent no-smoking beach houses and then spray Febreze to the point of toxicity,
in the mistaken belief that the smoke is being absorbed and eliminated from
the beach house that is actually being contaminated by Febreze.

                 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
                  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3147107/ 
                 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   * 

August 2013 Update:

As of August 2013 there is a new TV commercial advertising something
called Febreze Clear, meaning that the new Procter & Gamble product is
alleged to be free of the glut of fragrance chemicals that EWG scientists
reported to have detected in Febreze Hawaiian Aloha.

Keep in mind that some of the harmful chemicals reported to have been de-
tected in Febreze Hawaiian Aloha were NOT fragrance chemicals.  Thus,
Febreze Free, if it is like Hawaiian Aloha minus the fragrance chemicals,
has all of the menacing chemicals within it, including the following:     

2-ethyl-hexanol,  a diesel fuel additive,  an anti-freeze additive,  a nail polish
plasticizer,  one of the most toxic chemicals in artificial turf,  a chemical that
has been known to kill cats at 180 ppm and cause kidney damage at 50 ppm,
and other chemicals.  Therefore, if the non-fragrance ingredients in Febreze
Free are the same as the ones in Febreze Hawaiian Aloha, you will still have
the same contamination.

For the new Febreze commercial to have had any credibility, a certified ex-
pert in the field needed to state what mechanism in Febreze could eliminate
odors for all time, as if Febreze had the divine power to suspend the Law of
Conservation of Mass.

Of course, Febreze doesn't finish off stench-related molecules for all time.  It
merely delivers molecules deeply into the human body and into mankind's
water supplies.

Here is a quick example as to how Febreze doesn't absorb odors in the way
the Procter & Gamble people claimed:  Did you ever stand near a taxi cab
or a no-smoking-allowed motel room where Febreze was sprayed days prior,
in the attempt to deceptively hide cigarette smoke?  If so, did you notice, on
every occasion, an odor likened to pasty ash and tarry chocolate ... a type of
chocolate that no Belgian confectioner would ever use?  I did.

In the matter of Febreze, the concern is the bio-accumulative effects of in-
haling a pharmaceutical ingredient for absolutely no medical purpose, on a
daily basis. The other concern is why some people still smell the Febreze
months after it was sprayed near linens, upholstery, kitchen wares, etc. 

Odor Eliminators don't emit odors as gaudy as those emitted from Febreze

The initial gaudy smell of Febreze is following by a persistently sickeningly
sweet smell, due to the lingering effect of the synthesized sugar in Febreze.
The lingering effect of that synthetic sugar molecular is equal to the Chinese
water torture.  It clings and does not politely disappear.  In as much, Febreze's
so-called proprietary "odor eliminator" ingredient has an odor; one likened
to sugar that reportedly clings to the mouth in a very irritating fashion.  In
addition, it is neither a poison eliminator nor a toxin eliminator nor an aller-
gen eliminator.  Rather, it's a phthalate creator and allergen creator, as well
as chromosome chain disruptor, and a severe asthma trigger.

None the less, two woman who have neither asthma nor sinus headaches spoke
of Febreze the same way in which less-than-discrete women spoke about Burt
Reynolds and Robert Redford in the 1970s, George Clooney and Don Johnson
in the 1980s, and Brad Pitt in the 1990s.  Their thesis statement seemed to have
been, "With Febreze around, who needs a man."  Those two women didn't own
Febreze.  Febreze owned them.

Products that have light odors do not trigger such crass fetish behavior, as did
Febreze in two instances.  Thus, it is false advertising to claim that the clinging
odor of sickeningly sweet Febreze is anywhere near light and fresh.  The term
"light & fresh" denotes safe & harmless.  Well, Febreze is a violent asthma trig-
ger, as well as a persistent one.  It's assault & battery on the more vulnerable re-
spiratory tracts of humanity ... all for frivolous vanity.

Bio-accumultive Effect

Plus, there are the 86 other chemicals to consider;  the ones reported to have
been detected in Febreze Hawaiian Aloha.  None the less, the first point of
concern is the fact the Febreze has triggered  gnawing, clinching, gripping
asthma attacks, and that it lingers for far too long a time, making it able to
repeatedly trigger asthma.  This is a rude invasion of personal property and
a ruthless imposition upon the respiratory tracts of a certain class of asthma
sufferer. 

Adjuvant Effect

Concerning the pharmacological aspect, there is the matter of Adjuvant
Effect.  This is when a couple of chemicals team-up to cause harm.

Pharmacological Effect

There is additionally the matter of one chemical being consumed by the
body which causes another chemical's level in the same body to be ele-
vated, as if the triggering chemical were a cue ball.  The classic example
of this type of pharmacological reaction is the organophosphate category
of pesticide.  Its presence elevates the level of acetylcholine in the lungs.

Oxidation Effect

There is also the oxidation effect in this falsely advertised product, at
least with the terpenes in Febreze.  Very simply, exposing an oxidative
chemical to the air will result in the formation of allergenic substances.
Such is the case with the fragrance ingredients Linalool and Limonene.
That is to say, spraying Febreze causes the formation of chemicals in
addition to what was put into Febreze at the factory.

Exorbitantly gaudy levels of chemical spray products,
when used by those with deadened senses.

Enter those members of the elderly who never achieved discipline, in
this hedonistic age.  These are the pathological pleasure seekers.  Con-
cerning them, realize the following pattern:   The elderly are known to
crank up the volume on a radio and blow out everyone else's ears in
the process.  Elderly women, unaware of how addicted to chemicals
they have become, are known to crank up the volume on the chemic-
ally-laden fragrance products, thereby suffocating nearby asthmatics.

Why would you want to make your home, workplace, auto,
meeting hall, waiting room, or rec room a toxic waste dump?

In light of all the chemicals in Febreze, if you do use this product,
you are doing nothing more than contaminating your home, your
motor vehicle, your taxi cab, your apartment, your office, your
store.  In addition, if you happen to have an asthmatic neighbor,
you are suffocating that person out of house and home.

Now, autism has been statistically linked to the presence of certain
chemical classes and pesticide types.  Therefore, it is advisable to
keep Febreze away from developing children, as well as people
with allergic dermatitis and respiratory disease.

Consumer Reports Magazine wasn't impressed.

Consumer Reports Magazine did its blind test also, and reported that
the responses of the test subjects included those which were less than
laudatory.  There were people sickened by Febreze.  In fact, I received
emails by persons who were ill in an unexplainable fashion, and then,
as soon as they got rid of the Febreze in their bedrooms, kitchens, etc,
their symptoms completely vanished.

The 1980s Cigarette Commercial

In the 1980s, there was a TV commercial which pointed out the truth that
cigarette smoke nestles into all of the clothes in the closet of any cigarette
smoker, thereby resulting in the smell lingering in every piece of clothing
owned by a smoker.  Febreze, with its dozens of synthetic chemicals, in-
vades your life in the same way.  Clothing, upholstery, etc can easily reek
with Febreze.  However, the lingering effect is the sickeningly sweet one.
If you don't notice the smell, then welcome to the world of the neurotoxin
effect. 

Why would you want your nerve cells killed-off?  Febreze isn't divine, in
any fashion.  Febreze doesn't bring enlightenment, and it doesn't cure any
disease.  It smells like a vandalized fragrance warehouse.

Plus, there is another series of questions you must consider:

Is or is not the Febreze pump and plug-in mostly water, and is or is not the
cyclodextrin ingredient immersed in that base of water, thereby negating the
purpose of the cyclodextrin derivative in Febreze?  Remember, cyclodextrin
is hydrophobic.  It doesn't absorb anything in water, including water spray,
from a Febreze bottle.  Yet, it emits that sickening sweet smell that eventual-
ly has the effect of a perpetual Chinese Water Torture session.  When it's wet
it collects nothing into its cavity.  It's emitted in wet-spray form.

The pharmaceutical world advocated that cyclodextrin be used as a means to
prevent the stomach irritation caused by certain drugs.  However, this involves
orally ingesting a drug ... not inhaling it with 86 other chemicals.

This brings us to a reality check for the users of Mr. Clean with Febreze.  Well,
is Mr Clean or is it not mostly water?  Is or is not cyclodextrin unable to absorb
anything in water?  Plus, is there or is there not dozens of other chemicals in
Mr. Clean?  In as much, is this product Mr. Clean or Mr. Contaminant?

In review:

Procter & Gamble makes that one chemical sound like a cure-all ... as if it were
the solution to all of mankind's ills.  Yet, it was discovered as far back as 1891
and registered in 1953, only having been used in limited drug preparations, and
as an occasional food stabilizer until Proctor & Gamble starting their Febreze
campaign, making it sound like magical fairy dust.  If cyclodextrin is so effec-
tive for the good of manking, then why wasn't it used decades sooner in house-
hold products?

The point in contrasting pharmaceutical preparations with Febreze goes as fol-
lows:  A patient only encountered cyclodextrins in small quantities, such as in
one pill every 2 to 4 to 24 hours.  A person is glutted with the cyclodextrin de-
rivative in Febreze for as long as a person, a dashboard clip-on, a plug-in, or a
canister releases Febreze into the air.

 There are 86 other chemical ingredients to consider

No matter what you say about cyclodextrin and its derivatives, you still need to
justify the inclusion of the other 86 chemicals that qualified scientists detected
in Febreze Hawaiian Aloha.  You must furthermore justify the asthma attacks
and incapacitating headaches that some people were forced to endure, on ac-
count of the rude imposition of Febreze in their airspace.

Quite frankly, the cyclodextrin in the Febreze product line immediately becomes
so overburdened with the task of absorbing the other 86 chemicals in Febreze that
it does not have the room to absorb the stench molecules in your trash can, the
mildew molecules in your towels, musty collectors' items, and moldy furniture.

http://www.ewg.org/research/greener-school-cleaning-supplies/school-cleaner-test-results?schoolprod=219 

 The Ultimate Red Flag:  Monsanto's Connection to Procter & Gamble

Here is your reality check, America:  The top institutional stockholders of
Monsanto were mostly the same as those of Procter and Gamble.  A tree
is known by its fruits.  A corporation is known by its affiliations.   Now, it
has been sufficiently ascertained that Monsanto is the corporate personifica-
tion of evil, making Darth Vader look like a merit badge boyscout in com-
parison.  Whatever corporation is owned by the entities who own Monsanto
can reasonably be assumed to operate according to the same unconscionable
lack of moral standards.  Well, observe the major stock owners of Monsanto
and P&G.  Deja vu.  The following is NOT a misprint:

Monsanto's                                             Procter & Gamble's
top institutional stockholders               top institutional stockholders

  1} Fidelity Investments, aka FMR,        1}The Vanguard Group, Inc.
       otherwise known as Fidelity
       Management & Research Co.           2} State Street Corporation.
  2} The Vanguard Group, Inc.                3} BlackRock Institutional Trust Co.
  3} State Street Corporation.                  4} Fidelity Investments, aka FMR,
                                                                     otherwise known as Fidelity
  4} (one which hasn't P&G stock)              Management & Research Co.
  5} BlackRock Institutional Trust Co.   5} (one which hasn't Monsanto stock)
  6} (one which hasn't P&G stock)         6} Northern Trust Corporation.
  7} Northern Trust Corporation.            7} Bank of New York Mellon Corp.
  8} (one which hasn't P&G stock)         8} (one which hasn't Monsanto stock)
  9} Bank of New York Mellon Corp.    9} (one which hasn't Monsanto stock)
10} (one which hasn't P&G stock)       10} (one which hasn't Monsanto stock)

Monsanto's 1st,  2nd,  3rd,   5th,  7th,  and  9th  top institutional stockholders
are  P&G's  4th,  1st,   2nd,  3rd,  6th,  and  7th  top ones.  Keep in mind that
corporate management does what pleases the major stockholders.

There are additional red flags attached to the Febreze product line, along
with the fact that it has triggered brutal asthma attacks and other adverse
reactions.   In fact, the severe reaction scenario was the sole purpose for
having embarked on an extensive research project involving Febreze.

The logic was that something incredibly violent had to have been attached
to Febreze, for it to have triggered asthma no less tortuous than an anaconda
wrapped around your chest.  The respiratory radar turned out 100% correct.
It turned out that there were a number of things deadly wrong with Febreze.

Next came a supervised Quebecois scholastic project that allegedly resulted
in Febreze killing 100% of the test plants, in two different tests.  News of
the project's outcome necessitated even more research on Febreze.

The logic was that any fragrance product that kills tested plant life as quick-
ly as Febreze did, while triggering violent asthma attacks, has got to have
something attached to it which must be banned from civilization.  It turned
out that the product line should instead be called Febreze Air Defects.

In addition, there is a nexus between the infamous Monsanto corporation
and Procter &Gamble.  Firstly, P&G's Chief Financial Officer ever so co-
incidentally is on Monsanto's board of directors; Jon Moeller.  Secondly,
as is shown at the end of this relatively long article, six of Monsanto's top
ten institutional stockholders are six of P&G's top ten.

 https://biography.omicsonline.org/china/monsanto/jon-r-moeller-239825

Incidentally, Procter & Gamble was recently sued in California, for its vio-
lation of Proposition 65; specifically due to the level of 1,4 dioxane in its
Tide Detergent product.   Incidentally, according to the Environmental
Working Group, Febreze has a Propostion 65 chemical in its formula,
namely acetaldehyde which is outlined below.  Thus, it is not a lie to
state that Procter & Gamble has become another Monsanto. 

 https://ens-newswire.com/procter-gamble-must-scrub-carcinogen-dioxane-from-tide/

At this point, we need to review the one observation which 
indicts the false advertising of Procter & Gamble's Febreze . . . 

If Febreze were the odor eliminator that Procter & Gamble claimed it was,
a person would smell nothing as soon as Febreze were sprayed into the air.
If Febreze is an odor eliminator, then it would also eliminate the odors of
the many aromatic chemicals that it contains.  In fact, test subjects of a Con-
sumers' Report test smelled, at times, the very things that Procter & Gamble
claims to be eliminated whenever Febreze is used.  Some of the test subjects
where sickened by what they smelled.

The irony is that the ingredient which Procter & Gamble falsely calls an
odor eliminator has an odor.  It's likened to a toxic form of sugar.  It has,
more than once, been reported to cling to the mouth persistently, in a very
annoying way.  It has been a rude intrusion.

In addition, take to heart the following, when you encounter someone who
has a literally fetish for Febreze:  Animals have found anti-freeze to smell
and taste wonderful.  They died after lapping-up a puddle of it.  Simply be-
cause these animals found anti-freeze to have been wonderful in taste and
odor, it didn't make it any less deadly than it is.  Sometimes the most dead-
ly blades are the shiniest.  Sometimes the sharpest shards of glass which
can effectively slit your wrists reflect the colors of the rainbow.
_________________________________________________________ 
     ______________________________________________________

 © Patrick Anthony Pontillo: except for the 1892 satirical masterpiece
                                               drawn by Charles Allan Gilbert titled,
                                                All is Vanity.
    ______________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________

Monitored Scholastic Febreze Experiment: Every test subject plant died, went the report.

If Febreze is not registered as an herbicide, it should be, according to the
findings of a supervised Quebecois scholastic project.   Febreze was re-
ported ... to me directly ... as having killed the test-subject plants, in two
distinct tests.  The plants were doing fine, in Canada, until the spraying
of the Febreze product line was commenced.

It took three weeks for the plants to die in the first recreated Febreze atmos-
phere, and it only took hours for Febreze to kill all of the test-subject plants
in the second test.

In the second test, Febreze was used in a high dosage.  In that environment,
not even a day passed, before the test-subject plants were dead.

The basic summary of the test is that Febreze burnt the plant cells, thereby
preventing the plants from making photosynthesis.  If the Febreze product
line is as harmless and as detoxifying as Proctor & Gamble's advertisers
make it out to be, then the test-subject plants wouldn't have been killed
during both phrases of the test.  Rather, Febreze would have made the
plants more vibrant.

You now have a general idea of what Febreze can do to you, your family
members, your students, your regular customers/clients, your employees,
your apartment neighbors, your taxi cab passengers, your house guests,
and your pets, as well as the sufferers of low-weight molecular asthma,
Reactive Airways Dysfuncfunction Syndrome, Irritant-associated Vocal
Cord Dysfunction, and other valid environmental illnesses.

http://www.bluemarblealbum.com/2013/10/chemically-laden-febreze.html

Consumer Reports Magazine Chimes in on Febreze

Before all else, you need to understand that the pertinence of this outline
is that Febreze has been a nightmare to certain patients who suffer from
specific types of respiratory disease.  That is to say, Febreze has been
assault & battery to these persons.  Plus, it was found to contain 87
chemical ingredients, by the scientists of the Environmental Working
Group.

http://www.bluemarblealbum.com/2013/10/chemically-laden-febreze.html

http://www.bluemarblealbum.com/2013/10/the-plant-killing-properties-of-febreze.html
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Update:  The Consumer's Union of the U.S. Incorporated  has report-
ed that their tests have found Proctor & Gamble to be apparently lying
to the public about its Febreze product line.  All that was surmised was
Febreze's inability to eliminate odors, as this site has long since stated. 

In fact, Consumer Reports Magazine stated that the Febreze product line
is NOT the magical eliminator of odors that it has been advertised to be. 
Thus, those two affiliated entities concur with the article posted below.
The article was originally posted in the Summer of 2011.

Concerning the report, test subjects were placed in a setting which con-
tained long-standing sardines and the litter box scoopings of two large
cats, along with an odor of the Febreze product line.  The non-profit or-
ganization, as well as Consumer Reports, reported that the test subjects
described the affected area in the following ways:

“I wanted to throw up.”  ...  “Flowers gone bad, dirty diapers, old
garbage.”  ...  “Like a men’s room in a truck stop.”   ...   “It’s not
exactly pleasant, and I don’t want to inhale.”  ...  “air freshener,
cat urine, and a hamster cage.”

The bottom line is that Febreze didn't eliminate or successfully mask
the other odors that were deliberately placed in the same setting.  More-
over, to people with reactive respiratory diseases, the Febreze odors per-
petually linger in absorbent material such as clothing and upholstery.
The Febreze odor clings and remains, torturing those with Reactive Air-
ways Disease, Irritant-induced Asthma, and other reactive conditions.

In fact, people not chemically sensitive have complained about getting
the smell of Febreze out of fabrics.  This product is a rude invasion of
privacy, where Proctor & Gamble infiltrates clothing & upholstery, in
having Febreze set in fabrics of other people, as if to rule the people
who own the contaminated fabrics.  It's a rude imposition to say the
least.

For Further Reading:

http://shopping.yahoo.com/news/does-febreze-air-effects-give-odors-the-boot--20121011.html

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/11/does-febreze-air-effects-give-odors-the-boot/index.htm 
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________