[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 14:52:22 07/30/05 Sat
I liked reading your article/paper. Although I have read tons of material on MCS AND RADS ASTHMA, both of which have been diagnosed with, I found information that I had not read before--so thanks--
You mentioned that you live on N carolina coast. I am planning to move from east tn, where I find the air quite intolerable-- what is it like living on the nc coast for mcs/ rads/ ei compromised? What area do you live in? would you reccommend it? I had been reading that the coasts have a pesticide problem-- is that true?
Any info you may provide will be invaluable. thanks
People, mainstream medicine has long since recognized
>the phenomenon of "sensitization", extending its
>definition to: 1] metal dusts, 2] organic dusts, 3a]
>irritant gases, and to 3b] other chemicals.
>Likewise, mainstream medical science has long since
>recognized the phenomenon of "Hypersensitivity to
>Chemicals." In as much, a sample list is provided
>immediately below, consisting in chemicals and
>chemical-bearing agents already recognized as
>"triggers" of adverse reactivity to susceptible
>persons, when encountered by such persons at
>1] Red Cedar, 2] Alkyl Resins, 3] Acetaminophen, 4]
>Pine, 5] Oil of Wintergreen, 6] Tanned Leather,
>7] Ramin Wood, 8] Volatile Organic Compounds, 9]
>Kerosene Heater Emissions (even at nontoxic levels),
>10] FD&C Yellow #5, 11] Tulip,
>12] Diesel Exhausts (even below emission standard
>limits), 13] Isocyanates, 14] Glutaraldehyde, 15]
>Peruvian Lily, 16] Quinine Solutions, 17]
>Environmental Tobacco Smoke, & 18] merely the scent
>of wine preserved with sulfur dioxide.
>The AMA & AAAAI merely declined to assign a medical
>code number to the particular diagnostic title,
>Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. And this was because
>MCS is too vague and non-case-specific of a phrase.
>The AAAAI did not state that MCS is not real. The
>AAAAI instead stated that more research was needed to
>be done on MCS. And the compilation of
>research-results would logically be for the purpose of
>seeking to find if there can be formed a methodical
>"case definition" to MCS that also has a "predictive"
>feature to it. All in all, even though the AMA &
>AAAAI declined to recognize the name of Multiple
>Chemical Sensitivity, they none-the-less continued to
>recognize the reality of Sensitivity to Chemicals.
>Mainstream medical science has already recognized
>Chemical Sensitivity, "in case-specific form." And
>this is illustrated in the following list of
>"medically accepted" diagnostic titles which are
>simply forms of Chemical Sensitivity:
>1a] Irritant-induced Asthma.
>1b] Occupational Asthma due to low molecular weight
>02] Chemical Worker's Lung.
>03] Extrinsic Allergic Alveolitis (chemically-induced).
>4a] Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome (RADS).
>4b] Reactive Upper Airway Dysfunction Syndrome (RUDS).
>05] Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivity.
>06] Acute Generalized Exanthematous Putulosi.
>7a] Occupational Contact Dermatitis.
>7b] Chronic Actinic Dermatitis.
>08] Aspirin Sensitivity.
>09] Acetaminophen Intolerance.
>10] Ramin Wood Alergy.
>11] Red Cedar Allergy.
>12] Peruvian Lily Allergy (same chemical allergen as
>13] Stevens-Johnson Syndrome.
>14] even the Merck Manual recognizes Sick Building
>Moreover, mainstream medicine has long since
>recognized the predominately work-related chemical
>injury diagnoses of:
>1] Chemically-induced Hepatitis, and 2]
>Chemically-induced Aplastic Anemia (bone marrow
>Now, as far as goes the title, Multiple Chemical
>Sensitivity, the following licensed & accredited
>entities, in their Occupational & Environmental
>Medicine Programs, recognize Multiple Chemical
>Sensitivity by name:
>1] Johns Hopkins
>2] Mt. Sinai
>4] Cambridge Hospital (affiliate of Harvard Med.
>5] Northeast Specialty Hospital (also a Harvard
>6] Marshall University
>7] University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
>8] Central New York Occupational Health Clinical Center
>9] HealthPartners Regions Hospital, MN, (NIOSH
>Plus, there is the technologically advanced Nation of
>Germany which coded MCS as an "allergic condition", as
>well as a number of board certified and licensed
>physicians who recognize MCS, also.
>Likewise, the following is a sample list of licensed &
>accredited entities who, in their Occupational &
>Environmental Medicine Programs, each recognize Sick
>Building Syndrome by name:
>1] The University of Pittsburgh (home of the polio
>vaccine & first liver transplant)
>2] The University of Illinois at Chicago
>3] Iowa University
>4] University of California at Davis
>5] Ctr for Occupational & Environmental Med. (Long
>6] Presbyterian Occupational Medicine Clinic
>7] National Jewish Ctr for Immun. & Respir. Med.
>8] Wayne State University (Detroit)
>9] University of Washington Harborview Medical Center
>The ones who recognize "Building-related Illness"
>1] The University of Maryland
>2] The University of Cincinnati
>3] Boston Medical Center
>Now, have you noticed that the anti-MCS propaganda
>machine, in its most frequently circulated literature,
>ever-so-conveniently omitted mention of the fact that
>Chemical Sensitivity also includes "medically
>determinable" ASTHMA; as in the very physiological
>finding of 'failing the arterial blood gases test?'
>The same propaganda lobby also failed to mention the
>following medical findings which happen to have been
>found in the chemically sensitive:
>01] The very physiological finding of turbinate
>02] Other findings of fiberoptic rhinolarynscopic
>03] interstitial inflammation. (in chest x-rays).
>04] erythema (even internal).
>05] visible & measurable wheals in skin testing.
>6a] "the desquamation of the respiratory epithelium."
>6b] "permeability of epithelial cell junctions."
> (see: J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1996;34(4):383-96).
>07] decrease in "P300 auditory" during challenge
>08] elevated alanine aminotransferase (as in liver
>09] overproduction of leukotrienes, such as LTD4.
>10] hyperactive conjugations and deficient
>11] enzyme QPon-1 deficiency, and that of a few others.
>14] IgG mediated reactions (as in delayed reactivity).
>15] The production of N-acetyl-benzoquinoneimine in
>excess of the mercapturate that neutralizes it, as in
>Acetaminophen Intolerance and the overlapping
>intolerance of any other "cytochrome P450 inducer".
>16] Let's not forgot: failing the Arterial Blood Gases
>The anti-MCS propaganda machine has had a way of
>enumerating alleged or real MCS symptoms in such a way
>as to make MCS look ridiculous and inconsequential.
>And of course, in its most frequently circulated
>propaganda, the anti-MCS lobby ever-so-coincidentally
>omitted mention that the following symptoms were also
>those of Chemical Sensitivity sufferers:
>1] Profuse dry heaving.
>3] Central sleep apnea (breathing stops during sleep).
>4] Uncontrollable cramping scenarios at back of neck,
>5] Headaches so assaulting that the cheekbones and
>temples feel bruised even the day after a headache has
>Now, the anti-MCS lobby asserts that the MCS diagnosis
>should be declared malpractice, because the diagnosis
>addresses multiple body systems, instead of merely
>one, and because it attributes a wide range of
>multiple symptoms to it. Thus, because of this
>multiplcity factor, MCS should be judged as
>non-existant, according to the anti-MCS lobby.
>The hypocrisy of this assertion consists in the fact
>that Carbon Monoxide Poisoning also addresses multiple
>body systems, and it has attached to it a very large
>number of symptoms, including that of psychotic
>scenarios in some victims. So too is this the case in
>Aspirin/Salicylate Sensitivity scenarios. Therefore,
>to declare MCS erroneous, on account of its multiply
>factor, is to also declare that Carbon Monoxide
>Poisoning doesn't exist, either.
>Note that any symptom list can be exaggerated in
>number, via the "redundancy technique", by which four
>ways to describe the same one symptom are counted as
>four instead of one.
>Moreover, no one MCS sufferer has all of the symptoms
>listed in any genuine or invalid MCS symptom list.
>Each sufferer only endures a subset thereof.
>Likewise, no one MCS sufferer is "allergic" to
>everything. If this were the case, then no MCS
>sufferer could live in even an "allergy-free" living
>quarter, such as in a beach house along the Carolina
>Coastline, where this message is being written, and
>where its writer is not being tormented by
>chemical-bearing triggers/irritants/allergens; whereas
>its writer is one who is:
>1] no stranger to alkaline concrete dust clouds in
>small concrete boxes, while simultaneously inhaling
>the fumes of a target saw emitting burning oil, and
>only concerning himself with preventing the saw from
>buckling and hitting in the face; the saw he can't see
>through the gray alkaline cloud.
>2] no stranger to sewer fumes while in or around
>manholes, during borough renovation projects, where
>within each, a person can detect smells likened to
>that of restaurant dishwasher fumes, dry-cleaner
>fumes, and even fabric softener fumes, depending on
>3] no stranger to a repertoire of solvents and acids,
>from xylene to muriatic acid, and all points in
>4] no stranger to formaldehyde-treated drywall and the
>dust that covers you white.
>5] no stranger to the layers of soit in the rafters of
>a historical renovation site, and the dust that covers
>you pitch black.
>6] no stranger to asphalt fumes.
>7] no stranger to heavy equipment fumes.
>8] and no stranger to falling asleep on a floor while
>reaking of asphalt fumes or heavy equipment fuel
>fumes, thinking that he was only going to take an
>hour-long nap before a shower, only to find himself
>waking up at 4:00 AM, inhaling the fumes all along.
>(Or falling asleep at an interstate rest stop shortly
>after work, so as not to fall asleep at the wheel, in
>the small cab of his pickup truck, with the windows
>closed during autumn and winter).
>7] and no stranger to the fact that no inspector ever
>told him to wear a respirator.
>8] and no stranger to a long-term carbon monoxide
>exposure scenario whose narration thereof ended up in
>federal court documents, in a case that was settled
>out of court.
>Now, the point to mentioning this is that the anti-MCS
>propaganda machine asserted that "allergy-free" living
>quarters are of no avail to Chemical Sensitivity
>sufferers. I testify that this is a falsehood.
>"Allergy-free" living quarters are most certainly
>necessary. Of course, if the "allergy-free" living
>space involves newly installed formaldehyde-treated
>drywall, then you have a situation where it is NOT an
>allergy-free living quarter, though you might think
>that it is.
>This brings us to another assertion used by the
>anti-MCS propaganda machine. And of course, it
>concerns the fact that the most necessary thing for a
>Chemical Sensitivity sufferer to observe is the
>practice of AVOIDANCE; that of avoiding all
>chemical-bearing 'triggers' that torment the Chemical
>Sensitivity sufferer. And of course, certain Anti-MCS
>lobbyists, calling themselves "medical journalists,"
>assert that Avoidance is detrimental, "nonsense",
>"hogwash", etc. Of course, they assert that MCS is
>solely a process of mental illness, instead of a
>physiological process, likened to that of an allergic
>Well, the AMA, AAAAI, and American Lung Association
>all recognize Chemical Sensitivity, as it applies to
>the ASTHMA symptom. And all of those mainstream
>associations advocate the practice of AVOIDANCE. (By
>the way, Irritant-induced Dermatitis and all Aspirin
>Sensitivity symptoms are recognized, also). Anyway,
>the following mainstream medical websites prove that
>mainstream medicine recognizes Chemical Sensitivity,
>at least as it applies to the ASTHMA symptom, while
>simultaneously advocating AVOIDANCE. And needless to
>say, each association enumeerates the exact same
>chemical-bearing triggers that MCS sufferers have long
>since been avoiding, out of instinct. Thus, the
>anti-MCS lobbyists proved themselves to be the real
>quacks, willing to pursuade, yet declining to teach,
>and speaking contrary to mainstream medicine. Note:
>one of the reference sources posted immediately below
>is an excerpt of the Merck Manual.
>AMA Report 4 of the Council on Scientific Affairs
>(A-98), found at
>The other mainstream sources are:
>The following is basically an insert for those who
>arre reasonable familiar with anti-MCS propaganda:
>1] Keep in mind that there is such a thing as a
>negating effect in 'exposure-redundancy', when done
>within the constraints of a short amount of clinical
>test time. A duly aged 20-patient-test, often cited
>by the anti-MCS lobby, was subjective. And the lobby
>condemns all subjectivity, except of course, when it
>serves their blatant and self-evident objective. All
>in all, when a Chemical Sensitivity sufferer is
>blitzed with one irritant, he/she is not going to be a
>Sherlock Holmes with any further irritant sprayed in
>his/her test chamber, on the subjective basis, in the
>very near future. Now, quantitative physiological
>test findings, in the same time span, is a different
>matter. By the way, if the "fresh air" used in that
>test came from an aerosol can, then the
>chemical-bearing propellants needed to have been
>regarded. Without the propellants, no air gets
>2] The same lobby cited a 1986 test that did not test
>for that which the 21st Century would. MCS was an
>emergent illness at that time. That 1986 test is a
>dinosaur test. Everyone was searching in the dark at
>that time. It is now the year 2005.
>3]The third major clinical test concerned food
>allergens, and not chemical irritants. And concerning
>the anti-MCS lobby's purpose for inserting it into
>their propaganda, as far as I understand, it is now
>the 21st Century, and skin testing is measured by
>visible and measurable wheals.
>4] Concerning the allegations of "simple psychological
>depression", if you are treated ruthlessly and
>slanderously, you are logically going to be sad or
>upset, at least at the initial stages. In fact, if
>you are not sad in such a case, then there is a mental
>5] By the way, concerning the credibility of the
>psychiatric/psychology world, it has lost its
>credibility in the nationwide predator priest scandal.
> The world of psychiatry/psychology gave
>life-destroying predator priests clean bills of
>health, so that they could return to the scenes of
>their crimes. Yet the same the world declared
>Multiple Chemical Sensitivity sufferers mentally ill
>and nothing more. And then there is the Ritalin
>Scandal, in repetitively declaring mentally ill mere
>children who, a few years ago, would be called nothing
>more than "fidgity kids". All in all, a tree is known
>by its fruits. The psychiatric/psychologist world is
>backward and upside down. It must prove itself to us.
> We do not have to prove ourselves to it. It already
>lost its credibility.
>At this point, let's think Philosophy, instead of lab
>coats and clipboards. Let's think "Wisdom & the
>Reason Why." Let's consider a lesson which comes from
>human experience. In as much, there is a very
>common-sensed logic that supports the validity of the
>Chemical Sensitivity medical condition. That is this:
>Experience has shown that every physical thing on
>earth, which has any volatility or any interactive
>propensity, has served as an allergen/irritant/trigger
>to somebody somewhere, be it in the form of:
>1] bee venom or fragrance products,
>2] horse hair or floor wax,
>3] ragweed or acetaminophen,
>4] peanuts or pesticides,
>5] dust mites or polyurethane,
>6] apples or aspirin,
>7] birch or tanned leather.
>Very simply, Planet Earth is active and reactive. Its
>inhabitants are also active and reactive. In as much,
>some of the earth's inhabitants suffer from adverse
>reactivity. Needless to say, it was during the 20th
>Century when the world greatly expanded its categories
>of volatile and reactive things, via inventions and
>assembly line manufacturing. Thus, there are more
>things to which to react, even if the reaction is an
>allergic one. There has long since been an axiom
>amongst civilization which states,
>"One man's meat is another man's poison." That is the
>summation of allegic/irritant-induced scenarios.
>MCS is very real and very brutal. MCS sufferers
>already had more than enough to endure. The
>defamation committed against them, as a entire class
>of people, by the anti-MCS propaganda machine, has
>gone beyond the sound barriers of obscenity.