Re: Fw: Emailing: multiple_chemical_sensitivity1long article, but good.

[Guest guest]

Interesting article, Lea!

Although I only understood parts of it, it does make sense. I would

attribute my sensitivities to an exposure I had to ammonia when I was 27

years old. I have to wonder now if that was the catalyst to all of the

problems I have had since, similar to implants being the catalyst to those

of you implanted. I do take high doses of antioxidants and supplements for

inflammation and believe they are necessary to my feeling well.

Kenda

> Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

> Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS)

>

>

>

> By P. Casanova

>

>

>

> MCS stands for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. It is often called MCSS

> for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome, or E.I., for Environmental

> Illness. None of the titles address the cause(s) of the disease, but only

> describe the symptom of chemical sensitivity (obviously).

>

> For over 50 years, MCS sufferers have commonly been dismissed and

> misdiagnosed as having a mental/emotional disorder. Some have even been viewed

> as " fakes " . They've been fired from and forced to quit their jobs; forced to

> live in tents in the woods, their cars, or wander streets homeless despite

> financial situations; and often forced to have no social interaction. Some

> cannot pump the gas for their cars or even put on the heaters in the car

> without becoming ill. They cannot go grocery shopping, go malls, movie

> theaters, or even to their friends' homes without becoming ill.

>

> Some of them cannot even read the newspaper because of the ink. Children

> and teens with the condition cannot go to school without becoming ill. Many of

> sufferers end up getting divorced, losing their friends and family (due to

> being perceived as " too weird " ), and end up living alone without any help.

> Many end up committing suicide.

>

> On average, sufferers see 6 or more doctors that refer to them as being

> " stressed " , before receiving the proper diagnosis. Medical and scientific

> literature, particularly from the last decade, offers a large amount of data

> on the nature of the condition. Despite the data, MCS is still not entirely

> recognized as even existing. In addition, there are biased scientists and

> organizations that are actually trying to prevent further research from even

> taking place, let alone being used to form policies to reasonably accommodate

> the sufferers.

>

> Definition:

>

> In 1999, 89 clinicians and researchers reached a consensus definition

> for MCS. The MCS criteria, which are nearly the same as those proposed by

> Cullen, are as follows:

>

> 1. " The symptoms are reproducible with [repeated chemical] exposure. "

>

> 2. " The condition is chronic. "

>

> 3. " Low levels of exposure [lower than previously or commonly tolerated]

>

> result in manifestations of the syndrome. "

>

> 4. " The symptoms improve or resolve when the incitants are removed. "

>

> 5. " Responses occur to multiple chemically unrelated substances. "

>

> 6. " Symptoms involve multiple organ systems. "

>

> See " Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: A 1999 Consensus " : and " Chemical

> Poisoning, Abraham Lincoln, and Flashdarks " by Bonnye s.

>

> IS IT BIOLOGICAL?

>

> A review of medical/ scientific literature on the subject will show that

> MCS can occur on a biological basis, and that it can also occur on a

> psychogenic basis (I describe the model for such later on).

>

> Pall reported that MCS is associated with, and may even be caused

> by elevated levels of nitric oxide/ peroxynitrite-The elevated levels of such

> are said to lead to neural sensitization. As seen next, both parts of the

> theory find strong evidence.

>

> Quote:

>

> 1. Several organic solvents thought to be able to induce MCS,

> formaldehyde, benzene, carbon tetrachloride and certain organochlorine

> pesticides all induce increases in nitric oxide levels.

>

> 2. A sequence of action of organophosphate and carbamate insecticides is

> suggested, whereby they may induce MCS by inactivating acetylcholinesterase

> and thus produce increased stimulation of muscarinic receptors which are known

> to produce increases in nitric oxide.

>

> 3. Evidence for induction of inflammatory cytokines by organic solvents,

> which induce the inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS). Elevated cytokines

> are an integral part of a proposed feedback mechanism of the elevated nitric

> oxide/peroxynitrite theory.

>

> 4. Neopterin, a marker of the induction of the iNOS, is reported to be

> elevated in MCS.

>

> 5. Increased oxidative stress has been reported in MCS and also

> antioxidant

>

> therapy may produce improvements in symptoms, as expected if the levels

> of the oxidant peroxynitrite are elevated.

>

> 6. In a series of studies of a mouse model of MCS, involving partial

> kindling and kindling, both excessive NMDA activity and excessive nitric oxide

> synthesis were convincingly shown to be required to produce the characteristic

> biological response [in other words, if the nitric oxide production is

> blocked, then MCS is blocked. At least in animals anyway].

>

> 7. The symptoms exacerbated on chemical exposure are very similar to the

> chronic symptoms of CFS (1) and these may be explained by several known

> properties of nitric oxide, peroxynitrite and inflammatory cytokines, each of

> which have a role in the proposed mechanism.

>

> 8. These conditions (CFS, MCS, FM and PTSD) are often treated through

> intramuscular injections of vitamin B-12 and B-12 in the form of

> hydroxocobalamin is a potent nitric oxide scavenger, both in vitro and in

> vivo.

>

> 9. Peroxynitrite is known to induce increased permeabilization of the

> blood brain barrier and such increased permeabilization is reported in a rat

> model of MCS.

>

> 10. 5 types of evidence implicate excessive NMDA activity in MCS, an

> activity known to increase nitric oxide and peroxynitrite levels.

>

> · END QUOTE

>

> The above is taken from " Multiple Chemical Sensitivity - The End of

> Controversy " by Dr. L. Pall, Professor of Biochemistry and Basic

> Medical Sciences, Washington State University.

>

> I very strongly recommend that you review the essay, as it explains the

> mechanism of MCS very clearly and gives supporting evidence for it.

>

> EEGs and P300:

>

> Dudley, M.D., studied twenty patients with MCS (under Cullen's

> definition) and discusses his research in the book " Defining Multiple Chemical

> Sensitivity " , by Bonnye L. s (1998). Auditory and visual P300 were

> influenced " significantly " when the olfactory system was stimulated with

> chemicals that had six or fewer carbon fragments. The patients were exposed to

> perfume, felt tip pen, and other everyday chemicals in an everyday amount.

> Left and right P300 auditory were greatly decreased upon chemical exposure.

> Though the visual P300 was not decreased to the same degree (but decreased

> none the less), there was a significant change in waveform quality that caused

> two patients to have occipital seizures. In other words, the brain waves of

> MCS sufferers go haywire upon being exposed to chemicals they are sensitive

> to. This is not the work of " psychological " disorders. (See Defining Multiple

> Chemical Sensitivity by Bonnye s, pg. 24, summary of " MCS: Trial by

> Science " )

>

> NOTE: According to Dudley, the olfactory system sends signals to every

> part of the brain and uses excitatory amino acids in neuro-transmission.

>

> In 1996, Bell reported abnormal EEGs in MCS sufferers, which was

> disrupting their sleep. See " Biomarkers of MCS " by Albert Donnay.

>

> If EEGs become synchronized, coma can occur. This has occurred in a few

> MCS cases.

>

> SPECT IMAGING:

>

> A tool used by Nuclear Medicine Specialists is the SPECT brain scan.

> SPECT stands for Single Photon Emission Computerized Tomography.

>

> Rather than show brain structure like CAT or MRI scans, SPECT scans show

> functioning of the brain. " Perfusion impairment " means there is a decrease in

> the flow of blood.

>

> 2A. Neurotoxicologist Dr. Gunnar Heuser performed before and after SPECT

> brain scans in many MCS patients. The patients were scanned after chemical

> avoidance, and were then scanned again after being exposed to perfume. His

> research findings are as follows: MCS patients generally have a decreased flow

> of blood to the brain, which becomes further decreased upon exposure to

> perfumes (see Defining Multiple Chemical Sensitivity pgs. 27-30 and a response

> to the Interagency report by Ann Mc, M.D.)

>

> 2B. Nuclear Medicine specialist Dr. Theodore Simon, who trained at

> Harvard, and his colleagues conducted over 1,500 SPECT scans on MCS patients.

> 90% of these patients showed brain abnormalities and deterioration in brain

> function that increased upon chemical exposure. The changes that took place

> upon chemical exposure were " very different from the changes associated with

> psychiatric disease. "

>

> 2C. Dr. Gerald H. Ross (M.D., C.C.F.P., D.I.B.E.M., D.A.B.E.M.,

> F.A.A.E.M., F.R.S.M., Past President of the American Academy of Environmental

> Medicine), in a documentary, discusses before and after SPECT brain scans: MCS

> patients were scanned in a clean environment and then scanned after being

> exposed to a substance that by history they report being sensitive to, " in an

> amount that's an everyday experience (...it's not as if they're sniffing

> glue). " MCS patients have abnormal brain functioning. After the patients were

> exposed to a substance they were sensitive to a " profound " deterioration in

> brain function took place. The area in which this function deterioration is

> present correlates with the brain-related symptoms reported by the MCS

> sufferers. (See MCS documentary " Multiple Chemical Sensitivity[:] How Chemical

> Exposures May Be Affecting Your Health, " directed by ) Dr.

> Ross, MD. is board certified in both Family and Environmental Medicine, and is

> a Fellow of England's Royal Society of Medicine. In addition he has treated

> over one thousand patients with MCS. He is quite far from a " quack. " These MCS

> brain abnormalities are not found in normal controls. (See " Response to Errors

> Prevalent in the Understanding of Environmental Illness " by Dr. Gerald H. Ross

> [M.D., C.C.F.P., D.I.B.E.M., D.A.B.E.M., F.A.A.E.M., and F.R.S.M. Past

> President, of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine])

>

>

>

> PET IMAGING:

>

> PET scans were used to discover the roll of a specific gene in

> Alzheimer's Disease. PET scans are very accurate at showing brain function and

> metabolism. PET stands for Positron-Emission-Tomography. Function

> abnormalities on PET scans show up as holes in the brain that one medical

> scientist refers to as " function holes. " Dr. Gunnar Heuser, M.D., Ph.D., FAC.P

> has also performed before and after PET scans. According to his studies, PET

> scans reveal that the brain stem, hypothalamic, and limbic areas of the brain

> are harmed by chemical exposures. In regards to radioactive glucose uptake,

> these areas of brain become hypermetabolic upon chemical exposure to a degree

> that resembles " focal seizure activity. " Dr. Heuser wrote, " Since the limbic

> system contributes emotional reactions and interpretations to sensory input,

> and since patients with amygdaloid (the amygdala is part of the limbic system)

> seizures can develop panic and related attacks during an amygdaloid seizure,

> our data appear to explain the emotional instability during a reaction to

> chemicals. The previously mentioned structures also serve memory and cognitive

> as well as neuroendocrine and autonomic nervous system functions, all of which

> can be deranged in a patient with MCS. " The limbic area of the brain is where

> the nervous, endocrine and immune systems interact.

>

> See " The Role of the Brain and Mast Cells in MCS " by Gunnar Heuser,

> M.D., Ph.D., FACP ; " PET Scanning - Alzheimer's Disease " .

>

>

>

> SUMMARY and CLARIFICATION of BRAIN-RELATED STUDIES:

>

> Auditory and visual evoked potentials are " a measure of the ray at which

> nerves transmit messages from the eyes and ears to the brain " , and are not

> influenced by emotional factors. 's 20 patients were having serious,

> non-allergic reactions to everyday chemicals on a biological basis. I must

> ask, what condition did they have? SPECT and PET scans are very accurate and

> valid tools: " S.P.E.C.T. and P.E.T. can clearly be used to delineate

> functional abnormalities of the brain regardless of the cause " (Ethical

> clinical practice of functional brain imaging, Society of Nuclear Medicine

> Brain Imaging Council, J Nucl Med 1996, 37, 1256-9).

>

> Doesn't it strike you as very bizarre that hundreds of MCS sufferers

> would consistently have decreased blood flow to the same areas of the brain,

> if each one were simply experiencing a psychological disorder. That would be

> one fascinating coincidence. In addition, the brain functioning of the MCS

> sufferers improved after going on a detoxification plan. Also, 90% of Simon's

> MCS patients showed the brain dysfunction, not 100%. If Simon's observations

> were tainted, then wouldn't he have had it so ALL (100%) of his patients

> showed brain damage? It doesn't make sense to question his research and say

> that he is biased, and that his studies are tainted. He is a qualified,

> independent researcher specializing in Nuclear medicine.

>

> Furthermore, in regards to PET scans, if an area of the brain does not

> receive the glucose, it's because that part of the brain is not working

> properly, or at all. PET studies on MCS patients with a control group show

> that, in general, the limbic area of MCS sufferer's brains is not working

> properly. This has not been found in control groups.

>

> In addition, research by Schwartz, Ph.D., has shown that brain

> abnormalities occur when the patients are unaware of the chemical's presence.

> That's at least " blinded. " Although this does not show the cause of the

> disease, it does show that chemicals actually are the cause of symptoms. This

> is important to know since it is often claimed that " there is no evidence that

> chemicals actually trigger the symptoms in MCS. "

>

> NOTE: FRMI brain scans are probably the best to have done, yet are less

> frequently done in MCS. In the few times they've been performed in MCS,

> abnormalities appeared.

>

> ENZYME DEFICIENCIES and MAST CELLS:

>

> 70% of the Mayo Clinic's MCS patients tested positive for disorders of

> porphyrin metabolism. Many of Grace Ziem's (M.D.) MCS patients tested positive

> for multiple blood enzyme deficiencies, including ALA-D, PBG-D, UPG-D (Ziem

> 1997). In 1996 Heuser discovered that some MCS sufferers had a disorder of

> mast cells. In 1987 Schwartz reported that during reactions, some MCS

> sufferers had variably abnormal serum tryptase.

>

> [NOTE: In the overlapping disease FM(S), fibromyalgia (syndrome), it is

> reported that some of the sufferers have an excess of mast cells, as well as

> elevated levels of nitric oxide.]

>

> Pall has written papers on the above, stating that nitric oxide

> is known to stimulate mast cells and may be able to slow the porphyrin

> pathway, causing the changes of such reported in MCS.

>

> See " Biomarkers of MCS " by Albert Donnay; " The Role of the Brain and

> Mast Cells in MCS " by Gunnar Heuser, M.D., Ph.D., FACP, at; " Defining Multiple

> Chemical Sensitivity, " pgs 31-58; and Irene Ruth Wilkenfeld's response to the

> interagency MCS draft report.

>

> TEENAGER MAKES SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGH:

>

> In 1999 an Etobicoke teenager named Dilnaz Panjwani performed double

> blind studies that revealed and confirmed a biomarker for MCS, sufficient

> enough to serve as a diagnostic test for MCS, FM, and CFS. The double blind

> studies showed that MCS sufferers have an excess of a metabolite (2,

> 3-diphosphoglycerate) that prevents the bloodstream from delivering oxygen to

> cells, tissues, and organs. The symptoms include severe fatigue, muscle

> inflammation, weakness, brain fog, and " complete debilitation. " The US Military

> invited Panjwani to use her " simple " blood test in military research. For more

> information see " Teenager Makes Scientific Breakthrough " ; and " Teenager's

> discovery termed a medical breakthrough " By Latafat Ali Siddiqui.

>

> CHEMICALS, ASTHMA, and SENSITIZATION:

>

> In a MCS documentary, J. Meggs, M.D. discussed the data on

> asthma and its relationship to chemicals. There is a type of asthma, which

> most MCS sufferers have, that Meggs refers to as " chemical irritant asthma " .

> This type of asthma works as follows: When certain chemicals (typically

> solvents and perfumes) are inhaled they bind to the neurons in the airways and

> produce inflammation, which leads to an asthma attack. It's an impressive

> documentary. Speakers include Meggs, Ashford, , Ross, and Heuser.

>

> I am unaware of whether or not Meggs was referring to RADS: Reactive

> Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, which was described by in 1985 and is

> caused by a massive exposure to chemicals, which leads to airway

> sensitization. From that point on, low level exposures to common chemicals -

> perfumes, detergents, etc - result in airway constriction. This is a known,

> accepted and recorded phenomenon of sensitization, resulting in chemical

> intolerance of the airways. In the second edition of their scholarly book,

> Ashford and put forth the argument from logic that if such

> sensitization can occur in the airways due to chemical exposure, then why

> could not such sensitization occur in the Central Nervous System [AKA, MCS]?

> (See Ashford and 's book, 2nd edition, pg. 9)

>

> NOTES: The ALA and AMA both state that perfumes are triggers of asthma.

> In fact, statistics show there is a higher incidence of asthma among persons

> who live near perfume manufacturing areas. I am writing a paper on the

> formulas of perfumes and how they relate to public health, which will be more

> detailed with many references.

>

> PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE and MEDICAL OPINION:

>

> MCS is accepted as a biological disease by " 4 Canadian Federal

> Agencies " ; " 6

>

> Canadian Provincial Agencies " ; " 8 Federal Court Decisions " ; " 13 Local

> Government Agencies, Commissions, Councils & Departments " ; " 14 State Workers'

> Comp. Board Decisions " ; " 20 State Court Decisions " ; " 22 Federal Government

> Agencies, Commissions, Institutes & Departments " ; and " 23 State Government

> Agencies, Commissions, Legislatures & Departments " (Donnay) -- including the

> Department of Housing and Urban Development, Social Security Administration

> and the Americans with Disability Act [of July 26, 1990]. Go to

> http://www.mcsrr.org and http://www.dgmcs.de/pub/usa-publ.htm for more

> information.

>

> Dr. Gerald H. Ross [M.D., C.C.F.P., D.I.B.E.M., D.A.B.E.M., F.A.A.E.M.,

> F.R.S.M. Past President of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, May

> 2000; Fellow of England's Royal Society of Medicine] describes the growing

> body of evidence for MCS's physical causation in his May 2000 essay " Response

> to Errors Prevalent in the Understanding of Environmental Illness " . Ross was

> invited to a meeting on MCS by the American Chemical Society. There he

> presented his research on MCS patients and brain damage. He noted that about

> 75% of all the speakers there presented data that supported a physical origin

> of MCS, while the other 25% presented, for the most part, opinions that MCS is

> psychological.

>

> From 1952 to 1997 there were 425 published articles on MCS (Excluding

> articles in the Journal of Clinical Ecology). Of these, 59 discuss both

> perspectives, 25 are research protocols, 104 support the psychogenic view, and

> 231 of the papers present data supporting a physical origin of MCS. Almost all

> of the psychogenic papers were written before 1993. As of 1999, there had been

> 609 published peer-reviewed articles on MCS. Of these, 311 present data

> supporting a physical origin while 137 present findings (mostly opinionated)

> of psychological origin. This gap is continuing to grow. To argue that those

> 311 pro-MCS articles, which show or discuss physical/ biological abnormalities

> in MCS patients and, again, exclude articles in the Journal of Clinical

> Ecology, were all tainted/ biased is absolutely ludicrous.

>

> " It amazes me that in spite of all these publications on MCS, that some

> people continue to loudly proclaim that [it] is a non-existent illness " writes

> Ross, who later writes that people who say there is a " lack of evidence " in

> regards to " the prevalence and organic origins of chemical sensitivity are

> completely at odds with the weight of evidence and opinion in the published

> medical and scientific literature. " Skeptical position statements on MCS by

> the American Academy of Allergy and Immunology and American College of

> Occupational and Environmental Medicine are in direct opposition to the

> majority of actual [solid] research on MCS and fail to even take such into

> account. Thus, skepticism from such authorities is irresponsible and

> unwarranted. [NOTE: I recently wrote to the American Academy of Allergy and

> Immunology and shared with the ls' Editor-in-Chief a small piece of the

> literature showing consistent biological abnormalities in MCS. As I write,

> 3/20/2003, he is still reviewing the letter.]

>

> In 1995, the California Medical Association had been aware of the MCS

> literature and reclassified its anti-MCS position statement of 1985 as " a

> historical document only " . Likewise, the American College of Physicians now

> has no position statement on MCS (which in my opinion is also irresponsible).

>

> In 1994 a MCS consensus was reached by the U.S. Environmental Protection

> Agency, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, American Lung Association,

> and American Medical Association, which stated that " [MCS] should not be

> dismissed as psychogenic, and a thorough workup is essential. " In 1999,

> another consensus, which involved 89 clinicians and researchers (whose MCS

> definition I quoted from earlier), was reached which agreed with the one in

> 1994.

>

>

>

> PSYCHOGENIC CHEMICAL SENSITIVITY:

>

> There are data showing that some people who believe they have MCS

> actually have a psychogenic disorder. I call it " psychogenic chemical

> sensitivity, " or PCS. I hope this is the title given to the phenomenon in

> question. An example of how this can occur is as follows: A young person (say

> age 6 or so) is molested, raped, or undergoes some other traumatic event.

> However let's say that during that traumatic event, there was a perfume scent

> in the air.Later on in life, when that person smells perfume or fragrance

> similar to the smell present during the trauma, then the person may have a

> sub-conscious reaction to the smell, which is then manifested physically. For

> such people, some form of therapy that goes into the sub-conscious would most

> likely be beneficial. (See Ashford and s' book, " Chemical Exposures -

> Low Levels and High Stakes " , 2nd edition, pgs. 221-222) When Chemical

> Intolerance is not MCS: Chemicals are known to worsen eczema so if a person

> only has a skin reaction to chemicals, but is unaffected in other

> organs/systems, then it is not MCS. And some people have chemical irritant

> asthma, but not MCS. People who believe they have MCS need to have challenge

> testing done. There are imaging and blood tests that can be done in alleged

> MCS cases under challenge conditions. There are other challenge tests to do as

> well, if necessary. If the results are positive, then the person most likely

> really does have MCS. Barrett is aware of this fact but has not once

> countered it.

>

> SUMMARY of SCIENTIFIC DATA:

>

> Barret wrote, " With these, however, the range of symptoms is

> virtually endless and typically does not correlate with physical findings or

> science-based laboratory tests. " (See

> www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/fadindex.html ) Barrett can be

> contacted at sbinfo@.... Clearly, Barrett is either dishonest, or

> alarmingly ignorant of scientific literature. Professor Ashford wrote, " People

> don't read the literature... 'The science isn't there' means 'I haven't read

> it.'.... You don't need ironclad evidence when a variety of disparate compass

> needles are all pointing in the same direction. In my 30 years in the area of

> environmental health, I see that in no case have we been wrong about

> environmental problems. The problem either got worse, or the evidence became

> stronger. Only the most robust environmental and occupational problems ever

> get noticed: That's why we've never been wrong. " (Ashford, who has a degree in

> chemistry, is an environmental scientist who serves as a public health advisor

> for the United Nations.)

>

> In summary, although the etiology of chemical sensitivity is not known

> for certain (though Pall's theory has more evidence supporting it than any

> other theory on MCS, with possible exception of the Carbon Monoxide theory

> advocated by Donnay), there are clear and abundant enough data to confirm the

> existence of chemical sensitivity on a biological basis. Excluding clinical

> ecologists, the majority of researchers who actually study MCS believe it does

> exist on a biological basis or at least that it can. Claims to the contrary

> are no longer justifiable. MCS " skepticism " is no longer a respectable opinion

> as it ignores the vast majority of medical/ scientific data. Indeed, the

> scientific literature unquestionably shows that there are two groups of

> chemically sensitive sufferers: In group #1, there is a genuine sensitivity to

> -or intolerance of-- chemicals on a biological basis, which may lead to

> psychiatric problems if the limbic area of the brain is affected (in most

> cases it is). In group #2, the sufferers react to chemicals on a psychogenic

> basis, often due to an early childhood trauma.

>

> There may also be cases where the sufferer is reacting to chemicals on

> both a biological and psychogenic basis (i.e., subconsciously reacting due to

> a trauma, but also due to biological mechanisms). " Etiologies for these

> conditions can be wholly physical, wholly psychological, or varying

> combinations of the two " , write Ashford and . (See their book, 2nd

> edition, pgs. 221-222) An analogy can be drawn from a recent study on food

> allergies. In the study, many people who reacted to chocolate and thought they

> were allergic only reacted to the food when they thought it was chocolate

> (placebo study). It is well known that food allergies exist, but it is now

> also known that many people have reactions to foods on a psychological basis.

> MCS skeptics commonly ignore the data on group #1, and focus entirely on group

> #2. This is made clear in the articles written by the MCS skeptic

> Fumento. He appears to be unaware of a great deal of data that contradict his

> generalized conclusions. Fumento is on record as referring to MCS sufferers

> and advocates as " fragrant-phobic fruit cakes " (see

> www.fumento.com/washtimesscent.html ).

>

> Whenever someone asks me what MCS is I usually try to define it in an

> understandable way: A condition in which the sufferer is extremely sensitive

> to various chemicals, usually man-made, and reacts to such whether being aware

> of the chemicals' presence or not (to distinguish from psychological

> sensitivity). Sufferers are often 1,000 times more sensitive to --or

> intolerant of-- chemicals than average people are. Symptoms are often chronic

> and occur in response to, and are worsened by chemicals and often include

> anxiety and depression.

>

> WHY SO MUCH SKEPTISM?

>

> There are seven major studies that are used to show MCS is a psychogenic

> condition. In these seven studies, there were a total of 334 patients studied.

> However, no more than thirty-three of these patients actually had MCS. In five

> of the studies, none of the patients had MCS. Of the remaining two, in one

> study, eighteen out of forty-one had MCS, and in the other study no more than

> fifteen out of fifty-three had MCS. Thus, it is fair to state that the studies

> have nothing to do with the real MCS, since it was not studied. (See Defining

> Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, pgs 111-130)

>

> Since no consistent laboratory abnormalities were found, these studies

> have been used to say that there are no consistent laboratory abnormalities

> found in MCS patients, despite the fact that these seven studies did not

> involve MCS patients. Due to these seven studies, policies were made denying

> accommodations to people with MCS, more anti-MCS essays were written, and

> millions of MCS sufferers have been left in the dark to suffer with their

> disease without the medical support they deserve.

>

> I am trying to keep this letter as brief as possible, but if you would

> like me to list the seven studies and go into detail on them, please do not

> hesitate to ask me.

>

> Ann Mc wrote detailed essay titled " MULTIPLE CHEMICAL

> SENSITIVITIES UNDER SIEGE " at

> http://users.lanminds.com/~wilworks/ehnlinx/mcssiege.htm .Dr. E. Gots

> testifies in court against MCS. He is depended on more than any other person

> is to discredit MCS. Yet, he is one of the most under qualified doctors to

> speak on MCS.

>

> Gots said that MCS " defies classification as a disease. It has no

> consistent characteristics, no uniform cause, no objective or measurable

> features. It exists because a patient believes it does and a doctor validates

> that belief. " -- A comment known to be inaccurate as it ignores the data on

> emission tomography brain scans, ERPs, porphyrin metabolism, etc. Gots likes

> to focus on the fact that the cause of MCS has not yet been proven and that

> the mechanisms are unknown (though this may change due to Pall's research).

> That is not a rational approach: MS (Multiple Sclerosis) has no known " uniform

> cause " , nor even a diagnostic laboratory test (I believe MCS now does

> however), yet those would not be excuses to deny its harsh biological reality.

>

> Ashford and talk about Gots' earlier work in 95 and 96. Gots

> wrote, " [e]verything that is known about MCS to date strongly suggests

> behavioral and psychogenic explanations for symptoms. " Ashford and said

> Gots' statement was " unjustifiable, " and that, " Even if he were correct about

> the absence of physiological evidence (and he is not), the presence of

> psychological problems in patients is not proof of psychological causation.

>

> The work of Fiedler et al. (1992), and that of Simon et al. (1990, 1993)

> amply demonstrate that there are MCS patients with no premorbid or subsequent

> psychological problems " (pg. 280). They go on to describe Gots' work of 95 and

> 96 as " recycled opinion. "

>

> In his 1998 book, " Chemical Sensitivity: The Truth About Environmental

> Illness " , co-written with Barret, Gots wrote (admitted that), " people

> do exist who are very sensitive to various micro-organisms, noxious chemicals,

> and common foods. " [Emphasis added] He then goes on to say that " there is no

> scientific evidence that an immunologic basis exists for such a symptom

> pattern. " [Emphasis added]

>

> Dudley, M.D., wrote, " Multiple chemical sensitivity has none of

> the characteristics of an immunologic disease, and as long as immunologic

> criteria are required as proof of its [MCS's] existence, it will be seen as a

> non-disease. " MCS is not an immunologic disease, yet Gots and Barret require

> the criteria of such for proof of MCS -- but MCS does not meet the criteria of

> an immunologic disease, hence, they conclude that MCS is non-existent. That is

> poor judgement on the their part, as it is a flawed scientific approach. This

> is the exact same method used by other " skeptical doctors " to discount MCS. So

> much for " objective. "

>

> Dr. Gots has never treated a patient with MCS. He is trained in

> pharmacology, and neither he, nor Barret have any training or certification in

> toxicology. I bring this up because Gots is often introduced as being " a

> Toxicologist. "

>

> In addition, Gots and Barrett have not actually done any peer-reviewed

> studies on MCS. They only offer their interpretations on anti-or-non-MCS

> studies, and completely ignore peer-reviewed publications that contradict

> them. That is not in line with scientific integrity.

>

> Despite this, Barrett finds it necessary to write anti-MCS essays on his

> " Quack Watch " web site. And Gots, well he's the head of the " Environmental

> Sensitivities Research Institute " (ESRI)-- an Institute whose contributors and

> board members consist of pesticide manufacturers; representatives from The

> Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association; and other industry dominated

> representatives. Those representatives each pay Gots 10,000 dollars per year.

> This is not conspiracy theory or speculation. I am simply listing the

> financial conflicts of interest since ESRI almost always fails to do so. (See

> Ashford and , 2nd edition, pg.279) Believing what Gots says about MCS is

> like believing a representative from the Tobacco Industry saying " there exist

> no data that show cigarettes are unsafe. " Thus, the MCS " skeptics " have

> managed to twist the data that show groups #1 and #2, and make it appear as

> though there is only group #2. " They [MCS sufferers] have lost health, careers,

> financial resources, friends, family, and some have committed suicide because

> the pressure upon them was too great. This while the media makes of them a

> laughingstock and doctors play word games and chase geese. The barbaric

> treatment afforded these people is ignorant, unethical, and amoral " , writes

> s.

>

>

>

> BIBLIOGRAPHY:

>

> Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: A 1999 Consensus. Arch Environ Health

>

> 54:147-149. By Bartha, L., W. Baumzweiger, D.S. Buscher, T. Callender,

> K.A. Dahl, A.L. off, A. Donnay, S.B. Edelson, B.D. Elson, E. Elliott,

> D.P. Flayhan, G. Heuser, P.M. Keyl, K.H. Kilburn, P. Gibson, L.A. , J.

> Krop, R.D. Mazlen, R.G. McGill, J. McTamney, W.J. Meggs, W. Morton, M. Nass,

> L.C. Oliver, D.D. Panjwani, L.A. Plumlee, D.J. Rapp, M.B. Shayevitz, J.

> Sherman, R.M. Singer, A. , A. Vodjani, J.M. Woods, and G. Ziem.. -

> started in 1989, ended in 1999

>

> " Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: A Spurious Diagnosis " by

> Barrett, M.D.; (Questionable integrity) The Interagency Workgroup on Multiple

> Chemical Sensitivity, August 24, 1998 (the report can be read online at

> http://www.health.gov/environment/mcs/toc.htm)

>

> Responses to the above report at

> http://members.aol.com/enviroknow/ATSDR/main.html; " Defining Multiple Chemical

> Sensitivity " by Bonnye E. s. The book has chapters by 5 highly

> qualified Doctors. Also her online essay " Chemical Poisoning, Abraham Lincoln,

> and Flashdarks " at http://www.fedworkerscomp.net/matthews.htm;

>

> " Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS): What It Is, What It Is Not, And

> how It Is Manifested " by Dr. Sheila Bastien, Ph.D.;

>

> " MCS - A Medical Perspective " by Dr. Mark Donohoe, MB BS;

>

> " Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) " by Rabin Prusty, MSCE:

> http://www.nettally.com/prusty/forma.htm;

>

> " MULTIPLE CHEMICAL SENSITIVITIES UNDER SIEGE " by Ann Mc, M.D. at

> http://users.lanminds.com/~wilworks/ehnlinx/mcssiege.htm. Also check out

> http://www.mcsrr.org;

>

> " Multiple Chemical Sensitivity [:] How Chemical Exposures May Be

> Effecting Your Health " , MCS documentary Directed by Alison ;

>

> " Understanding & Accommodating People with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

> in Independent Living " by Pamela Gibson, Ph.D. Madison University;

>

> " A Brief Overview of MCS " by at www.ciin.org/what;

>

> " Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: Potential Role for Neural Sensitization "

> by Barbara A. Sorg;

>

> " The Role of the Brain and Mast Cells in MCS " by Gunnar Heuser, M.D.,

> Ph.D., FACP at www.tldp.com/issue/210/roleoftheb;

>

> " Response to Errors Prevalent in the Understanding of Environmental

> Illness " by Dr. Gerald H. Ross, M.D., C.C.F.P., D.I.B.E.M., D.A.B.E.M.,

> F.A.A.E.M., F.R.S.M., Past President, American Academy of Environmental

> Medicine: http://www.environmentalhealth.ca/Ross2000.html (I strongly

> recommend visiting that site);

>

> " The MCS Debate: A Medical Streetfight " by , The Free Press

> (Quote: " a growing body of evidence and literature - rarely cited by the

> proponents of psychological explanations for MCS - indicates that neurotoxic

> chemicals can irreversibly disrupt the central nervous system. " )

>

> " Corporate Manipulation of Scientific Evidence Linking Chemical

> Exposures to Human Disease: A Case in Point -- Cigarette Science at s

> Hopkins " by The Law Firm and , Hawes & Audet, LLP.

>

> " Porphyria - Another Connection with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities " by

> A. , M. Div.

>

> " Comprehensive Protocol for Evaluating Disorders of Porphyrin Metabolism

> in Chemically Sensitive Patients " by Albert Donnay, MHS, and Grace Ziem, MD,

> DrPH;

>

> " ENZYMATIC INFLUENCES causation of BRAIN CELL DAMAGE " by Dr E.

> Goble Ph.D., Professor Physiological Toxicologist:

> http://www.kin.net.au/goble/Acta/research/enzymes.htm;

>

> " Testing for Toxic Metal- and Chemical-Induced Porphyrinuria " by Carl P.

> Verdon, Ph.D., Terry A. Pollock, M.S. and J. Bralley, Ph.D., C.C.N.

>

> " Porphyria-How Modern Chemicals Trigger the Vampire Disease " by Hart

> Brent: http://www.healthcalls.net/hh_porphyria.html;

>

> " Integrated Defense System Overlaps as a Disease Model: With Examples

> for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity " by S.C. Rowat

>

> " Multiple Chemical Sensitivity " by Heidi M. Hawkins, MAc, LAc

>

> " Multiple Chemical Sensitivities " by the U.S. Department of Labor

> Occupational Safety & Health Administration

>

> " CAN A MOTHER WITH CHEMICAL SENSITIVITY GIVE HER BABY CHEMICAL

> SENSITIVITY? " by Ann -Willis, M. D. (Research)

>

> " Water and Health " by W.J. Rea, MD

>

> " Pesticides & brain-function changes in a controlled environment " by

> J. Rea, MD, FACSCDirector Environmental Health Center-Dallas, Dallas,

> TX, R. , PhDCNorth Texas State University, Denton, TX, L.

> Laseter, PhDCCenter for Bio-Organic Studies of the University of New Orleans

>

> " Multiple Chemical Sensitivity - The End of Controversy " by Dr.

> L. (Marty) Pall, Professor of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences,

> Washington State University, at

> http://molecular.biosciences.wsu.edu/Faculty/pall/pall_mcs.htm

>

> " Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome " by K. Magill, M.D., and

> Suruda, M.D., M.P.H.

>

> " Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (Environmental Illness) " by B.

> Edelson, M.D., F.A.A.F.P., F.A.A.E.M.

>

> " Dubious Allergy-Related Practices: Clinical Ecology and the Feingold

> Diet " by T. Jarvis, Ph.D.

>

> " Chemical Exposures-Low Levels and High Stakes " , second edition, by

> Ashford, Ph.D. (United Nations Public Health advisor with a degree in

> chemistry) and , M.D.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yes Lea . . . They do have environmental friendly

paints . . . But you have to demand them. They cost

more. I know because some friends who have severe

sensitivites had a new house built and used these

paints.

I don't have the names of them, but I'm sure you could

find them with a web search.

Love,

Rogene

[Guest guest]

Lea,

The thing to do to get rid of the stuff is to heat the

house as hot as possible for 2-3 days . . . That will

cause the paint to outgass more quickly. . .

I had trouble in this house months after we moved in!

.. . . I thought my problems were outside allergies, so

I stayed in. Once I opened the windows, I started

feeling better.

Love,

Rogene

[Guest guest]

Lea,

It would be wonderful if you started getting well

after the mold is eliminated! . . . I know that has to

have been a horrible load on your immune system!

Love,

Rogene