An Overview of MCS - Very interesting!

[Guest guest]

An Overview of MCS

by

http://www.ciin.org/pages/03-mcs.asp

Back when doctors believed their patients and before

psychosomatic illness and stress became a catch-all

for illnesses doctors couldn't diagnose, there is

evidence to suggest that doctors were diagnosing

chemical sensitivities as vapors. Vapors was described

as an exhalation of bodily organs held to affect the

physical and/or mental condition or as a depressed or

hysterical nervous condition. Then in the early

1950's, Theron Randolph, M.D., recognized that people

were getting sick from their environment, hence the

original name Environmental Illness.

In the 1960s, it finally became evident to the

government that pollution was causing adverse health

affects. Dr. Randolph attended that first conference

on outdoor air quality. He was the only one to

question the effects of indoor air pollution, and his

concerns where ignored and/or ridiculed by the medical

profession as well as the government. In 1992, EPA

conservatively estimated that poor indoor air quality

costs the U.S. $1 billion annually in lost

productivity. That same year, the National Academy of

Sciences estimated indoor air pollution contributes

$15 to $100 billion annually to health care costs.

The energy crisis of the 1970s exacerbated the problem

of chemical sensitivities but did nothing to add to

the understanding of the illness itself. To conserve

energy, the government encouraged weatherization and

energy efficient construction that included reducing

the ventilation requirements of bringing outdoor air

into new buildings. It is this air reduction together

with the increases in volatile chemicals in new,

synthetic materials and products since World War II

that is being blamed for the ever increasing number of

people who are being adversely impacted by chemicals.

Then in 1981, in response to the poisoning of

thousands of people by urea formaldehyde foam

insulation, the National Research Council commissioned

a study called Formaldehyde And Other Aldehydes. The

report estimated that 10 to 20% of the population was

at risk from low level exposure to aldehydes. Though

the report's major focus was the cancer risk, it did

recommend an extensive study be done on chemical

sensitivities. Nothing was done.

Unfortunately, the medical/biologic understanding of

chemical injuries breaks down because of a lack of

knowledge created by a lack of basic research. The

lack of research in further hampered by a lack of a

case definition for the illness. There are several

theories as to how these low level exposures are

poisoning people, and research into detoxification

enzymes found in veterans suffering from Gulf War

Syndrome have provided some clues into how the body’s

inability to process toxics may be playing a critical

role in the initial sensitization process as well as

other long-term health problems.

Chemical sensitivity was once thought to be an immune

system dysfunction or related to allergies. The latest

research strongly suggests that chemical sensitivity

is most probably some combination of central nervous

system and blood-brain barrier damage, low-level

porphyrin abnormalities, and detoxification enzyme

deficiencies. Chemical sensitivity is more often than

not characterized by real, verifiable damage to the

body, though the implications of these anomalies are

poorly understood and need research. MCS is also

usually accompanied by other diagnosable types of

chemically-induced injuries.

The government has been woefully slow to respond with

research money, not only for chemical sensitivities,

but to study many of the adverse, non-cancer health

affects being associated with toxic chemicals in

general. The chemical companies have a vested interest

in promoting the belief that chemically induced health

problems are more psychiatric in nature than a

physical response to their products. It is the

Chemical Manufacturer's Association that stated in its

1991 briefing paper, " The primary impact on society

would be the huge cost associated with legitimization

of environmental illness. " However, with 15% of the

population now suffering from some form of chemical

intolerance, we may be fast approaching the time when

the government will not be able to support the cost of

those suffering the health effects caused by poorly

regulated consumer products.

Two other factors help complicate the process of

unraveling chemical sensitivity. They are masking

(adaptation) and spreading (cross sensitization). A

very simplistic explanation of the very complicated

process of masking is that the body forms an addiction

to a chemical so that if a person doesn't get a

regular dose of the chemical, the body will go into

withdrawal much like that associated with drug or

alcohol addiction. While overt symptoms are being

controlled by the masking, internal damage continues

unchecked. Spreading can turn chemical sensitivity

into a progressive condition. Once a person is

sensitized to one chemical, the sensitivity can spread

to include other unrelated compounds. Once that

happens, repeat exposures reduce the body's tolerance

level by an as yet unknown mechanism so the body

becomes more easily reactive to more and more

chemicals at lower and ower levels until it finally

reaches the point where the person is sick all the

time. If this illness reaches that point, the person

can kiss a life of casual convenience good-bye.

While most MCS research has focused on an immune

system mechanism, MCS critics have repeatedly pointed

out that much of what MCS sufferers claim simply

cannot be immune system mediated. Especially

controversial has been immediate reactions to

chemicals or upon the cessation of an exposure. With

the exception of a histamine response and some

IgE-mediated responses such as anaphylactic shock, the

immune system is not generally capable of reacting as

fast as the symptoms appear. This has led some

researchers to look at the central nervous system

because it can and does have the capacity to respond

within the time-frame most patients’ experience. The

best hypothesis for these fast responses come from

triggering research into neurogenic inflammation.

Reactions such as nausea or vomiting are being

neurologically mediated unless the patients also has

indigestion.

Neurologic testing is finally proving subtle nervous

system dysfunction and damage. While it may be years

before the full implications of these tests are

understood, at least they are available to objectively

show abnormalities. With the use of challenge QEEG

evoked potentials, SPECT scans, and PET scans, great

strides are being made in documenting the effects of

chemicals on the nervous system. However, the lack of

controlled blind studies on the central nervous system

effects of MCS patients is problematic.

The neurological phenomenon known as time-dependent

sensitization (TDS), which has been primarily studied

in animals for the last 20 years, has an amazing and

uncanny similarity to MCS and not only helps to

explain how the brain becomes sensitized to low-level

chemical exposures in the first place, but the role

that stress plays in adverse reactions. It also

provides a mechanism for cross sensitization to

unrelated chemicals. Until TDS was discovered and

applied to MCS, this cross sensitization phenomenon

was thought to be impossible by MCS adversaries

because no immune system mechanism has even been

established for it. Because classical toxicology makes

no allowances for cross sensitization either, the

impossibility of cross sensitization became a critical

element in most theories of why MCS had to be a

psychological rather than a physiological disorder.

In 1963, research conducted by Eloise Kailin, M.D.,

strongly suggested that MCS was a metabolic (enzyme

deficiency) disorder. Dr. Kailin’s findings were

rejected by both clinical ecologists and MCS

adversaries because both sides maintained that to

exist at all, MCS had to be immune system mediated.

Follow-up research on metabolic problems in MCS

sufferers was not conducted for 31 years.

Then in 1994, testing showed that over 90% of MCS

sufferers have developed a condition known as

Disorders of Porphyrinopathy (an acquired form of the

porphyrias). The porphyrias are a group of rare

metabolic, enzyme deficiency disorders involving the

production of heme (a component of blood) and liver

and/or bone marrow damage and has many symptoms in

common with MCS. The most significant symptom MCS

shares with the porphyrias is chemical

intolerance/sensitivity and any estrogen mimicking

chemical or drug can trigger an attack.

Disorders of Porphyrinopathy are also showing up in

people with chronic fatigue, fibromylagia, amalgam

problems, and silicone implants.

Estrogen load may be one reason females (human and

animals) are more susceptible than males to metabolic

disorders, time-dependent sensitization, and MCS. In

addition, a study on Gulf War veterans discovered the

plasma butyrylcholinesterase deficiencies may playing

a significant role in how people get poisoned. A

Danish study found that women in their 30s and 40s are

at an all time low for the production of this

scavenger detoxification enzyme that protects the

central nervous system.

Autoimmune disorders are also a major problem for the

chemically sensitive. Autoimmunity is not suspected as

the triggering mechanism for MCS, but rather it is a

consequence of the body’s inability to convert toxins

in to harmless by-products fast enough. Toxic

exposures can and do trigger autoimmune responses

which MCS sufferers must deal with on a regular basis.

Being chemically sensitive makes a person more

vulnerable to all the possible health consequences

associated with chemical exposures -- only for MCS

sufferers these toxic responses are occurring at

extremely low (thought to be safe) levels.

In spite of these medical advances, product warning

labels that advise of adverse reactions such as

headaches, nausea, blurred vision, etc., mounting

animal research that links specific reactions to

specific chemicals, and numerous double-blind clinical

studies with humans that demonstrate a direct

connection between exposure and symptoms; our

subjective symptoms still remain highly controversial.

Double-blind studies are routinely discounted by

critics because there is no way to verify if a patient

is nauseous. In science, humans are still not

considered reliable indicators. With TDS and enzyme

deficiencies, animal models are now available to study

MCS, however, lack of funding for basic research is

still a major problem and getting what research is

available into an established medical journal is even

more difficult. For example, the Journal for

Occupational Medicine is controlled by doctors

employed by Dow Chemical Company, Eastman-Kodak,

General Motors, and ITT Corporation.

While things are changing, chemical injuries resulting

in chemical sensitivities are still controversial. So

given the controversial nature of this illness, the

best advice I can offer you is the same advice I got

from one of my doctors. He told me I had to become the

expert on me. And you need to become the expert on

you.

Two books to consider in looking for information on

explaining chemical injuries and protecting yourself:

The Human Consequences of the Chemical Problem by

Duehring and , $7.20, TT

Publishing, PO Box T, White Sulphur Springs MT 59645

Human Exposure and Human Health by ,

$55.00 plus shipping, McFarland & Co., PO Box 611,

Jefferson NC 28640; 800-253-2187.