Teaching Kids to Eat Green

Teaching Kids to Eat Green
http://thetruthaboutmcs.blogspot.com/2009/09/teaching-kids-to-eat-green-visit-msnbc.html

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Deadly Vaccines: Garth Nicolson, microbiologist

Deadly Vaccines: Garth Nicolson, microbiologist
http://thetruthaboutmcs.blogspot.com/2009/07/deadly-vaccines-garth-nicolson.html

Are vaccines contaminated? Are they potentially deadly? Garth Nicolson, whistle-blowing microbiologist (see THE DAY LILY PROJECT), addresses these questions in this excerpt from Dr. Nicolson's talk at the Common Cause Medical Research Foundation Conference in Sudbury, Aug 29-31, 2008.



Key Words: multiple chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivities, multiple chemical sensitivities, MCS, EI, environmental illness, sick building syndrome, idiopathic environmental intolerance, fibromyalgia, chronic fatiuge, FM, CFS, mold illness, clinical ecology, alternative medicine, environmental medicine, neuropathy, encephalopathy, toxic, chemical, vaccines, adjuvants, autism

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Beleaguered, Part 3

From: MCS America News, Volume 3, Issue 3, April 2008.

http://www.mcs-america.org/april2008.pdf

Over the past two months, a basic overview of the industry disinformation campaign against multiple chemical sensitivity was presented. Last month we examined the pharmaceutical industry’s influence. This month we will examine the chemical and insurance industry’s influence.

Thomas Orme, Ph.D., a proponent for the insurance industry, was seriously concerned about multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) in 1994. However, his concern was not for those being injured by toxic chemicals, but rather that the injured were requesting that insurance companies cover the cost of treatment and were seeking payment through worker's compensation and Social Security Disability programs when they became disabled.1 He was also fearful of the injured pressing for workplace and housing accommodations under the American’s with Disabilities Act.1

Orme addressed the American Council on Science and Health saying, "The economic implications (of multiple chemical sensitivity) for many industries and insurance programs are potentially catastrophic. Unless the problem is properly addressed, the millions of dollars now changing hands through claims and lawsuits will become billions, wreaking havoc with many industries and insurance programs and ultimately raising costs to all consumers.” 1

Indeed, multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) does have a financial impact, much like that of any other health condition. However, MCS is also a direct threat to the profits of the chemical industry because the products the industry sells are the very toxicants that cause chemical injury and lead to MCS. And that was Orme's biggest fear.

Rather than working on tighter chemical regulations to ensure public safety and reduce costs by reducing the numbers injured, Orme's idea of "properly addressing" MCS was to simply claim MCS was a "perceived" allergy, a somatization that was not real and therefore required no costly treatment or accommodations.1 Chemical companies continued to injure others in the name of corporate profits, a classical case of corporate crime. Corporate crime is the unethical and/or illegal harm to the public by private and public interests.

Claims for insurance were labeled as "false claims" and providers who treated MCS were to be labeled as "pseudoscientific practices that constitute a serious problem in our society.1 Unfortunately, industry has significant funds to spread this disinformation to protect their financial interests. Though fading into the truth, some of these ideas are still alive and well today.

On March 20, 2008, ABC Nightline covered the story of Dr. William Rea, who runs the Environmental Health Center in Dallas, Texas.2 Rea, who treats patients with multiple chemical sensitivity, was set up by an insurance company through a false complaint filed with the Texas Medical Board (TMB).3 The TMB is now attempting to strip him of his license.3

The Los Angeles Times covered a story on Deborah Rice, an award winning toxicologist who was terminated from an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expert panel on fire retardants under pressure from the chemical industry.4 Rice’s research studied low doses of the flame retardant in question and found neurological effects in lab animals. Labeled as “biased”, Rice was dismissed from the panel for speaking out for public safety after the American Chemistry Council, a lobbying group for the chemical industry, complained to a top-ranking EPA official.4

The Environmental Working Group also uncovered pro-industry panelists, raising questions as to conflicts of interest.4 However, Rice has not been reinstated. A firm contracted to evaluate the reproductive hazards of chemicals for the National Toxicology program was fired when it was discovered that the firm had financial ties to over four dozen chemical companies.4

Those who speak out to protect the public and treat the injured in honest appraisal have been systematically quieted since 1990 when the American Chemistry Council (previously the Chemical Manufacturers Association) set out to prevent the recognition of MCS through physicians to avoid loss profits.5 The corporate crime that manufacturers of pesticides, textiles, fragrances, and other chemicals have engaged in has one sole purpose… to make MCS go away and protect their profits.

Slowly but surely the sheer numbers of people with MCS, and those who treat them, are making progress to generate awareness of the real cause of MCS… chemical toxicants that cause injury. With ever growing numbers, industry attempts to silence the truth is being uncovered. It is only a matter of time before intelligent citizens begin to wonder why all the biological studies on MCS are not mentioned or labeled as “unscientific”, while weak claims to psychological origin are made without supporting scientific evidence… the sincerest form of quackery.

References

1. Thomas Orme, Ph.D. MCS: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. The American Council on Science and Health. 1994.
2. Controversial Clinic for the 'Chemically Sensitive'. ABC Nightline. March 20, 2008.
3. Rea, W. State Board Patient Letter. Multiple Chemical Sensitivities America. September 14, 2008. Retrieved on March 28, 2008 from http://mcs-america.org/StateBoardPatientLetter.htm.
4. Cone, M. Outspoken scientist dismissed from panel on chemical safety. Los Angeles Times. February 29, 2008.
5. McCampbell, A. Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Under Siege. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. January 2001.

Copyrighted © 2008 MCS America

Key Words: multiple chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivities, multiple chemical sensitivities, MCS, EI, environmental illness, sick building syndrome, idiopathic environmental intolerance, fibromyalgia, chronic fatiuge, FM, CFS, mold illness, clinical ecology, alternative medicine, environmental medicine, neuropathy, encephalopathy, toxic, chemical

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Beleaguered, Part 2

From: MCS America News, Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2008.
http://www.mcs-america.org/march2008.pdf

Last month a basic overview of the industry disinformation campaign against multiple chemical sensitivity was presented. This month continues to explore this issues in more depth.

As a fitting start to this months exploration, Mary Ebeling’s Beyond Advertising: The Pharmaceutical Industry's Hidden Marketing Tactics was published on February 21st at PR Watch. In her article, Ebeling describes the marketing tactics engaged in by pharmaceutical companies to increase profits, including celebrity endorsements and specific communication targets for direct to consumer drug advertisements aimed at mothers of certain income.

Ebeling shares some startling statistics, including (Ebeling, 2008):

• The biggest 10 pharmaceutical companies spent $1.9 billion on promotional events alone in 2000.
• Pharmaceutical companies spend a whopping $8,290 per doctor to improve their relationship between their sales representatives and the doctor.
• The average family doctor receives 28 visits each week from drug representatives who provide free samples and explain new findings from their company-sponsored drug trials.
• Free events were held for doctors at posh resorts and expensive hotels to educate doctors about so-called new disease states, such as restless leg syndrome. Many of these diseases sates are manufactured to sell drugs.

Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is every pharmaceutical companies worse nightmare because the effective treatments for MCS are avoidance of chemical incitants and various vitamin regimes, neither of which pharmaceutical companies can profit on. There are no known drugs that remedy MCS.

However, dollar signs danced in front of upper management when they manufactured a way to sell drugs to individuals with MCS. Thus, they set out to disprove that MCS is a real medical condition. If MCS is not real, then it’s psychological and in comes their psycho-pharmaceutical drugs for treatment.

Ideal to pull off such a disinformation campaign are pharmaceutical companies that can afford to spend $8,290 per doctor and billions on advertising each year. Unsuspecting doctors, patients, and the general public are viewed as easily duped into believing scientific studies report truthful findings. But do they?

Have doctors taken the time to investigate who funds scientific studies? Remember that pharmaceutical company representatives arrive 28 times a week to chat with each doctor about new findings from “their” company-sponsored drug trials.

Science is supposed to be objective; however, no one questions the conflict of interest created by drug companies sponsoring their own drug trials. In addition, no one questions the fact that drug companies own a large majority of scientific journals. And if drug companies own the journals, is it any wonder why studies showing the benefits of vitamins and physiological basis of MCS are blocked from publication? This is the reason why studies showing harmful effects of drugs are rarely published. The bottom line is a huge conflict of interest.

Ann McCampbell, MD states “Drug companies, which usually work with the medical profession to try to help patients, are working to deny help for those with MCS” (McCampbell, 2001). The reason she gives is that many drug companies are intimately connected to the chemical industry, which also has vested financial interest in proving MCS is not real. The chemical industry makes the very products that make people with MCS sick!

McCampbell (2001) cites 1996 legislation that would have provided funding for a prevalence study, an information and assistance program, an “800” telephone number, hospital accommodation guidelines, and an investigation of housing needs of people with MCS. The legislation was opposed by a Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis) lobbyist who declared that MCS has no physical origin. The company is a pharmaceutical company which also manufactures atrazine, an herbicide, and diazinon, an organophosphate pesticide, doubling their vested interest in suppressing the truth about MCS. Remember these companies own scientific journals and therefore control what is published, so truthful MCS research is often denied publication.

When asked why she stopped researching MCS, a researcher revealed, “I can’t get funding to perform studies and it is difficult to get the studies published in medical literature.” Yes there is plenty of money and space for publishing industry supported studies that attempt to disprove MCS. However, when one looks objectively at these studies, the underlying premise is that if “x” does not cause MCS, it’s psychological. Yet, “y” and “z” are never ruled out.

Tactics often include claiming MCS is caused by depression or anxiety, conditions that legitimate research has shown are no more prevalent in MCS than in any other chronic disease process, including diabetes and cancer.

McCampbell (2001) provides addition evidence of the close ties between the chemical and pharmaceutical industry:

• The pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly used to be a part of DowElanco, the primary manufacturer of chlorpyrifos.
• The manufacturer of the allergy medicine Allegra also makes the insecticide Sevin.
  Monsanto, who manufactures Roundup and other herbicides, is a wholly owned subsidiary of a pharmaceutical company called Pharmacia.
• Zeneca manufactures pesticides and drugs, including drugs used to treat the conditions linked to pesticides.
• Pfizer and Abbott Laboratories make both pharmaceuticals and pesticides.
• BASF makes pharmaceutical ingredients and pesticides.
• Bayer manufactures aspirin and the pyrethroid insecticide Tempo.
• Many pharmaceutical companies are members of the American Chemical Council (formerly the Chemical Manufacturers Association).
  

In addition to controlling what science is published in journals based on findings to support their financial interests, the pharmaceutical industry also influences medical conferences and organizations through funding and corporate sponsorship. By limiting accurate information on MCS at conferences and journals, the pharmaceutical industry has left doctors ill-equipped to treat patients with MCS.

“One example of the pharmaceutical industry’s direct attempt to present anti-MCS information at a medical conference was at the 1990 meeting of the American College of Allergy and Immunology. Sandoz (now Novartis) was scheduled to sponsor a one day workshop that characterized people with MCS as mentally ill. This company was a large manufacturer of pesticides and pharmaceuticals, including anti-psychotic, anti-depressant, and sedative medications. Therefore, Sandoz stood to benefit both from pesticides being exonerated as the cause of MCS and from people with MCS being treated with psychiatric drugs. As it turned out, people with MCS outraged by the workshop risked their health to protest the event and were able to shut it down” (McCampbell, 2001).

Unfortunately for those with MCS, psychiatric drugs are not effective and can cause more damage. Drugs are a chemical and are intolerable for many with MCS. In excess of 80% of MCS patients report no benefit from psychotherapy to cure MCS and 15% have reported further harm (Gibson et al, 2003). Psychiatric drugs such as Zoloft, Prozac, Elavil, and other antidepressants are reported to harm an average of 60% of those who tried them and had no effect on an additional 25% (Gibson et al, 2003). Drugs such as Valium and Xanax proved to harm 45% and had no effect on an additional 30% (Gibson et al, 2003).

The tactics engaged in by the pharmaceutical industry are unconscionable. People’s lives are forever changed by MCS. The unscrupulous tactics engaged in by the pharmaceutical industry have caused people with MCS to be denied appropriate health care. If that’s not enough, employment is limited, disability is difficult to obtain, and housing is extremely challenging. People who could be treated and have otherwise normal, productive lives have been robbed of such normalcy.

But perhaps the worst aspect is the way people with MCS are treated. They suffer loss of dignity, respect, and credibility at the hands of industry disinformation. Often dismissed by doctors and treated with hostility by co-workers, family, and friends, the already small world of those with MCS becomes even smaller. Some become so sick that they cannot live in normal housing.

Pamela Reed Gibson says, “Housing may be the single most crucial element in survival and possible improvement for someone with MCS. Yet it is almost impossible for people with MCS to find places to live that are truly safe for them. I believe that MCS is an important and unrecognized contributor to homelessness. As people disappear from a visible lifestyle and adopt coping mechanisms such as living on porches and in RVs, they approach the divide between those with and without homes. When they slide over that divide there is no record of it and they disappear” (Gibson, 2005).

While politicians attempt to end homelessness, industry disinformation is adding to homelessness and dependence on social services at the cost of taxpayers.

Tune in next month for details on how the chemical industry has contributed to this disinformation campaign.

References

Gibson, PR, Elms, AN, Ruding, LA. Perceived treatment efficacy for conventional and alternative therapies reported by persons with multiple chemical sensitivity. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2003;111(12), 1498-1504.

Gibson, P. Understanding and Accomodating People with MCS in Everyday Living. Independent Living Resource Utilization. 2005.

Mary Ebeling. Beyond Advertising: The Pharmaceutical Industry's Hidden Marketing Tactics. PR Watch. March 21, 2008. Retrieved from:http://www.prwatch.org/node/7026

McCampbell, A. Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Under Siege. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. Jan, 2001.

Copyrighted © 2008 MCS America
---
Key Words: multiple chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivities, multiple chemical sensitivities, MCS, EI, environmental illness, sick building syndrome, idiopathic environmental intolerance, fibromyalgia, chronic fatiuge, FM, CFS, mold illness, clinical ecology, alternative medicine, environmental medicine, neuropathy, encephalopathy, toxic, chemical

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Beleaguered, Part 1

From: MCS America News, Volume 3, Issue 2, February 2008.

http://www.mcs-america.org/february2008.pdf

Several studies published from 1993-2005 suggest that at least 45 million men, women, and children in the US report various symptoms of multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS).1-8 Seventy percent of these people have not been diagnosed properly by a health care provider.1-8 More severe cases often lead to permanent and total disability.

The recurring question is “Why is MCS not yet acknowledged by many medical professionals in the community?” It’s not disregarded because it’s not a real illness, or researchers lack scientific data. It’s not ignored for lack of the epidemic rate of affliction that currently exceeds the rate of autism. It’s not misunderstood for lack of treatment modalities. Rather, multiple chemical sensitivity is intentionally cast aside for industry profits.

Largely to protect their own financial interests and liability, a well-funded pharmaceutical and chemical industry campaign of disinformation was designed to cast manufactured doubt over the existence of MCS. This campaign is crucial to the continued sales and use of chemicals and implies that chemicals are safe and MCS is merely psychological, having nothing to do with chemical exposure. Select doctors have been paid handsome sums by industry to issue industry supported statements, conduct studies to industry specifications, and issue opinions on MCS that lead others, including doctors, lawmakers, and community members, to believe that the biased findings were truthful. We've seen this over and over again in studies that claim child abuse, stress, anxiety, or depression causes MCS. Yet when thinking critically, one can easily see the intended deception.

If confronted with damage their chemicals have caused, industry typically feels threatened, denies the problem, blames the victim, and accepts no responsibility. They turn their backs on those they’ve harmed. Unconscionably, they continue to allow their products to injure people, resulting in chronic and often disabling illnesses, including multiple chemical sensitivity. Admitting MCS is real is damaging to their profits and they want MCS to disappear at the expense of the individuals and families of those they’ve harmed.

This deceptive campaign has convinced many government officials and medical providers that MCS is not real and has led to statements such as this one from Tee Guidotti, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.O.E.M., President, American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. "Occupational and Environmental Medicine does a great, unrecognized service to medicine as a first line of defense against questionable practice. Our role is frequently to explain patiently, to review the evidence, to say no, and sometimes to take abuse. We are a frequent target of activists who disagree with evidence-based medicine on issues such as multiple chemical sensitivity, dental amalgam disease, and toxic mold.”10 And while Dr. Guidotti claims that activists disagree with evidence-based medicine, he fails to address evidence-based, peer-reviewed studies that have shown various abnormalities in MCS patients, including cardiac abnormalities, reactive upper airway disease, vasculitis, thrombophlebitis, impaired Phase 1 and Phase II detoxification clearance, glutathione depletion, tinnitus, thyroid and adrenal abnormalities, gastrointestinal disturbances, T-cell activation/impaired NK cell function/auto-immune disorders, vitamin and mineral deficiencies1, nuerocognitive decline, rhinitis, sinusitis, respiratory inflammation, abnormal methacholine challenge, somatosensory abnormality, peripheral neuropathy, sleep disturbance, impaired balance, reduced blood flow to the brain, and elevated levels of xenobiotics among others.11-40

The supposed controversy over MCS is to be solely credited to industry, who feeds an illegitimate view of MCS. Tactics have been employed to discredit sufferers, doctors, and scientists who pursue MCS. These tactics include labeling evidence-based, peer-reviewed science that shows MCS is real as junk science, labeling doctors who treat MCS as quacks, labeling treatment protocols as quackery, and laboratory tests that show abnormalities in MCS patients as unreliable. Worse, loved ones who try to help sufferers are told they are enabling the person’s “belief” that they are sick.

Industry has also infiltrated MCS support groups, agencies, and organizations in an attempt to create controversy and disagreement among sufferers, their family, and their medical providers. With the MCS community busy fighting among themselves, industry is safe from efforts to reveal the truth. Despite the fact that the community is aware of this, the conflict continues because industry plants assume roles of community members and continue manufacture perceived controversy and trick the community into taking sides.

A recent revelation showed that only studies that supported a dangerous depression drugs safety and efficacy were published. The studies that showed the harmful effects of the drug were not submitted for publication by the pharmaceutical company. This supports the power industry has in suppressing the truth. Doctors are misled because they only see the published studies and rely on them to make decisions when treating patients. Everyone is then led to believe that what these doctors know is the honest truth, rather than the desire of the chemical industry. As misinformation grows rapidly, patients may be harmed, and lives may be ruined, all in the name of industry profits. MCS testimony has even been blocked from admission in lawsuits, likely a result of industry gifts to judges.

Financial ties to industry lead to industry support. This is not limited to the chemical industry. The pharmaceutical industry and chemical industry are hopelessly intertwined, many companies producing both chemicals and drugs. Because the pharmaceutical companies largely control all the peer-reviewed journals that publish evidence-based scientific data, legitimate studies supporting the existence of MCS are denied publication. Many researchers cannot get their legitimate studies published and the information never reaches doctors and medical providers. Studies that can’t be published cannot gain funding. If there is no funding, few independent studies are possible. Medical conferences are often funded by pharmaceutical companies as well, leading to more tight industry control over conference content.

In the interim, people with MCS suffer greatly. They are denied work accommodations, school accommodations, appropriate health care, proper housing, and disability benefits. The doubt that industry casts on MCS carries through to friends, family, and social support services, forcing sufferers to endure hurtful comments, denial of accommodations, disrespect, and in some cases harassment.

Without care and understanding, sufferers who could otherwise go to school, work, and lead normal lives are denied their livelihood, friends, family, and hobbies. Instead they become an unwilling social burden on society.

References

1. Bell, IR, Schwartz, GE, Peterson, JM and Amend, D. Self-reported illness from chemical odors in young adults without clinical syndromes or occupational exposures. Arch Environ Health. 1993 48:6-13.
2. Bell, IR, Schwartz, GE, Peterson, JM, Amend, D and Stini, WA. Possible time-dependent sensitization to xenobiotics: self-reported illness from chemical odors, foods, and opiate drugs in an older adult population. Arch Environ Health. 1993 48: 315-27.
3. Meggs WJ, Dunn KA, Bloch RM, Goodman PE, & Davidoff AL. Prevalence and nature of allergy and chemical sensitivity in a general population. Arch Environ Health. 1996 Jul-Aug;51(4):275-82.
4. Voorhees, RE. Memo from Deputy State Epidemiologist Voorhees to Joe Thompson, Special Counsel, Office of the Governor. New Mexico Department of Health. 1998.
5. Bell, IR, Warg-Damiani, L, Baldwin, CM, Walsh, ME and Schwartz, GE. Self-reported chemical sensitivity and wartime chemical exposures in Gulf War veterans with and without decreased global health ratings. Mil Med. 1998 163:725.
6. Kreutzer R, Neutra RR, & Lashuay N. Prevalence of people reporting sensitivities to chemicals in a population-based survey. Am J Epidemiol. 1999 Jul 1;150(1):1-12.
7. Caress SM, & Steinemann AC. A national population study of the prevalence of multiple chemical sensitivity. Arch Environ Health. 2004 Jun;59(6):300-5.
8. Caress SM, & Steinemann AC. National prevalence of asthma and chemical hypersensitivity: an examination of potential overlap. J Occup Environ Med. 2005 May;47(5):518-22
9. Multiple chemical sensitivity: a 1999 consensus. Arch Environ Health. 1999 May-Jun;54(3):147-9.
10. Tee L. Guidotti, TL. Viewpoint: The Invisible Specialty: Occupational and Environmental Medicine. AAMC Reporter: April 2007.
11. Elofsson, S, et. a. Exposure to organic solvents. Scandinavian Journal of Work & Environmental Health. 1980;6:239-273.
12. Seppalainen, AM, et al. Neurophysiological effects of long-term exposure to a mixture of organic solvents. Scandinavian Journal of Work & Environmental Health. 1978;4:304-314.
13. Jonkman, EJ, et al. Electroencephalographic studies in workers exposed to solvents or pesticides. Electro Clinical Neurophysiology. 1992;82:439-444.
14. Bokina, AI, et al. Investigation of the mechanism of action of atmospheric pollutants on the central nervous system and comparative evaluation of methods of study. Environmental Health Perspectives. 1976;13:37-42.
15. Ziem, G. and McTamney, J. Profile of patients with chemical injury and sensitivity. Environ Health Perspect 1997;105:417-436.
16. Bell I.R. Baldwin, C.M. and Schwartz, G.E. Illness from low levels of environmental chemicals: relevance to chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. Am J Med. 1998;105:74S-82S.
17. Baldwin, CM and Bell, IR. Increased cardiopulmonary disease risk in a community-based sample with chemical odor intolerance: implications for women's health and health- care utilization. Arch Environ Health 1998;53:347-353.
18. Rea, W.J. Environmentally triggered small vessel vasculitis. Ann.Allergy 1977;38:245-251.
19. Rea, W.J. Environmentally triggered thrombophlebitis. Ann.Allergy 1976;37:101-109.
20. McFadden, S.A. Phenotypic variation in xenobiotic metabolism and adverse environmental response: focus on sulfur-dependent detoxification pathways. Toxicology 1996;111:43-65.
21. Cary, R., Clarke, S. and Delic, J. Effects of combined exposure to noise and toxic substances--critical review of the literature. Ann Occup Hyg 1997;41:455-465.
22. Levin, A.S. and Byers, V.S. Environmental illness: a disorder of immune regulation. Occup.Med. 1987;2:669-681.
23. Jaakkola MS, Yang L, Ieromnimon A, Jaakkola JJ. Office work exposures [corrected] and respiratory and sick building syndrome symptoms. Occup Environ Med. 2007 Mar;64(3):178-84.
24. Heuser G., Wodjani A. and Heuser S. Diagnostic markers in chemical sensitivity. In Multiple Chemical Sensitivities: Addendum to Biologic Markers in Immunotoxicology, 1992l;117-138. Washington DC: National Academy Press
25. McGovern, J.J., Jr., Lazaroni, J.A., Hicks, M.F., Adler, J.C. and Cleary, P. Food and chemical sensitivity. Clinical and immunologic correlates. Arch Otolaryngol. 1983;109:292-297.
26. Galland, L. 1987. Biochemical abnormalities in patients with multiple chemical sensitivities. Occup.Med. 1987;2:713-720.
27. Gibson, PR, Cheavens, J, & Warren, ML Chemical injury chemical sensitivity and life disruption. James Madison University.
28. Bell, I.R., Wyatt, J.K., Bootzin, R.R. and Schwartz, G.E. Slowed reaction time performance on a divided attention task in elderly with environmental chemical odor intolerance. Int.J Neurosci. 1995;84:127-134.
29. Meggs W.J., Cleveland C.H., Jr. Rhinolaryngoscopic examination of patients with the multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome. Arch.Environ.Health 1993;48:14-18.
30. Hummel, T., Roscher, S., Jaumann, M.P. and Kobal, G. Intranasal chemoreception in patients with multiple chemical sensitivities: a double-blind investigation. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 1996;24:Pt2:S79-86
31. Bell, I.R., Bootzin, R.R., Ritenbaugh, C., Wyatt, J.K., DeGiovanni, G., Kulinovich, T., Anthony, J.L., Kuo, T.F., Rider, S.P., Peterson, J.M., Schwartz, G.E. and Johnson, K.A. A polysomnographic study of sleep disturbance in community elderly with self-reported environmental chemical odor intolerance. Biol Psychiatry 1996;40:123-133.
32. Lieberman, A. D. and M. R. Craven. Reactive Intestinal Dysfunction Syndrome (RIDS) caused by chemical exposures. Arch Environ Health 1998;53(5): 354-8.
33. Spinasanta, S. Nuclear Imaging: SPECT Scans and PET Scans. Spine Universe; 2005
34. Matthews, B.L. Defining Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Jefferson, NC: Mcfarland & Co Inc Pub; 1998.
35. Heuser G, Mena I. Neurospect in neurotoxic chemical exposure demonstration of long-term functional abnormalities. Toxicol Ind Health. 1998;Nov-Dec;14(6):813-27.
36. Callender, TJ, et al. Three-dimensional brain and metabolic imaging in patients with toxic encephalopathy. Environmental Res. 1993;60: 295-319.
37. Callender, TJ, et al. Evaluation of chronic neurological sequelae after acute pesticide exposure using SPECT brain scans. Journal Toxicology & Environmental Health. 1995;41:275-284.
38. Heuser, G, et al. Neurospect findings in patients exposed to neurotoxic chemicals. Toxicology & Industrial Health. 1994;10:561-571.
39. Ross GH, Rea WJ, Johnson AR, Hickey DC, and Simon TR: Neurotoxicity in single photon emission computed tomography brain scans of patients reporting chemical sensitivities. Toxicol Ind Health 1999;15(3-4):415-420.
40. Simon TR, Hickey DC, Fincher CE, Johnson AR, Ross GH and Rea WJ: Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography of the brain in patients with chemical sensitivities. Toxicol Ind Health 1994;10:573-577.

---

Copyrighted © 2008 MCS America
---

Key Words: multiple chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivities, multiple chemical sensitivities, MCS, EI, environmental illness, sick building syndrome, idiopathic environmental intolerance, fibromyalgia, chronic fatiuge, FM, CFS, mold illness, clinical ecology, alternative medicine, environmental medicine, neuropathy, encephalopathy, toxic, chemical

Patients Declare Grounds for Medical Skepticism: Complementary & Alternative Medicine Gaining Popularity

Medical skepticism is defined as doubt in the ability of conventional medical care to appreciably alter health status. Callahan and colleagues (2008) set out to determine whether medical skepticism was associated with the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Their goal was to know more about medical skepticism and other causes of CAM provider use so that conventional medical practitioners can target patients with the goal of improving uptake of so-called “appropriate” conventional care.

According to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), CAM is a group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine, such as herbal supplements, meditation, naturopathy, and acupuncture. Callahan found that medical skepticism was indeed associated with CAM provider use.

Patients often turn to CAM when conventional medicine fails or provides dissatisfactory results. If the care a conventional doctor deems “appropriate” is indeed suitable, patient uptake would be self-evident. Truly, the only “appropriate” care is the individualized care which returns a patient to good health. When an individual is ailing, it is natural for them to yearn to get better as soon as possible, regardless of means, and return to living the life they hold dear.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health released news from NCCAM on June 6, 2008 entitled, “Time to Talk About CAM: Health Care Providers and Patients Need To Ask and Tell”. NCCAM’s mission is “to explore complementary and alternative medical practices in the context of rigorous science, train CAM researchers, and disseminate authoritative information to the public and professionals.”

In the news release, NCCAM introduces an educational campaign to encourage patients and their conventional health care providers to openly discuss the use of CAM. Almost two-thirds of people age 50 or older are using CAM. Yet less than one-third of CAM users feel comfortable talking about it with their conventional doctors, largely because doctors do not ask and the allotted time given to office visits does not allow for sufficient dialogue.

Conversing about CAM use with a conventional provider is important to ensure safe, coordinated care among all conventional and CAM therapies in use. According to NCCAM, talking allows integrated care and minimizes the risk of adverse interactions between a patient's conventional and CAM treatments. Josephine P. Briggs, M.D., NCCAM Director, states, "Giving your health care providers a full picture of what you do to manage your health helps you to stay in control."

Doctors are not always willing to discuss CAM, let alone support its use. MCS America asked patients diagnosed with multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), and Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) whether their doctors listened and would be open to discussion CAM. Nearly three-quarters of those interviewed indicated that their doctors would be dismissive of CAM, citing bogus claims such as “lack of scientific evidence”, “ineffectiveness”, or “voodoo medicine”, largely designed by the pharmaceutical industry who has vested financial interests in keeping patients sick in order to sell drugs that manage illness rather than cure it. Patients less likely to reveal their use of CAM may seek a diagnosis from a conventional doctor and subsequently opt for CAM treatment instead of conventional treatment. CAM skepticism is as much alive and well among physicians as “medical skepticism” is among patients, and with good reason.

Most patients find validation and relief of what ails them when they turn to CAM. CAM providers honor what a patient conveys about their health and recommend treatments based on an extended examination with copious discussion designed to address the whole person, rather than a single symptom. Many CAM consultations last an hour or longer with regular follow-up to track progress and make adjustments to treatment programs as required.

CAM is geared towards uncovering and correcting the underlying cause of illness, while conventional medicine applies “Band-Aid” treatment, addressing only the symptoms. The concept of conventional medicine’s “Band-Aid” approach often leads to a snowball effect. All drugs have side effects, often leading to additional drugs to manage the outcome. Many older American take a plethora of drugs, many of which merely manage the effects of one other. This method of altering the body’s homeostasis and burdening the liver detoxification process increases fatigue and leads to health decline. CAM on the other hand, works to return homeostasis to the body by correcting the underlying cause of the ailment.

Conventional doctors spend less than seven minutes with each patient, relying heavily on first proving an ailment exists via clinical testing before making a diagnosis or offering any helpful treatment. The very nature of conventional medicine is evidence oriented and dismisses patient testimony until an ailment is extreme enough to show up on a clinical test. By the time clinical tests reveal an ailment, it is far more advanced than necessitated. Major life disruption often occurs, time may have been lost from work or school, and countless “all your tests are all normal; try relaxing a little” reports leave the patient feeling lost, invalidated, and may lead to depression and anxiety in the face of uncertainty.

CAM providers, on the other hand, also base diagnosis and treatment on patient disclosure. Symptoms are noted, questions are asked, and the whole person is interviewed in a holistic approach. That often reveals the reason for an illness. A CAM provider may solve the patient’s chief complaint before the ailment had a chance to worsen, while conventional medicine is still “stuck” seeking evidence to prove the ailment exists. From the patients perspective, proof is irrelevant. What is relevant is swift relief.

Ultimately, it is the patient whose body and health is at stake… something the patient owns outright and has every right to command control of. Patients, therefore, must be empowered to choose between conventional medicine, CAM, and integrated treatments. Health care decisions need to be returned to the patient.

NCCAM says that doctors can help by including a question about CAM use on medical history forms, asking patients to bring a list of all therapies they use (including prescription, over-the-counter, herbal therapies, and other CAM practices), and training medical staff to initiate conversation regarding CAM.

Patients can help by ensuring they include all therapies and treatments when completing patient history forms, making a list in advance, and mentioning all therapies and treatments during the examination.

Patients who are dissatisfied with conventional medicine are entitled to seek CAM, ought to be encouraged to do so, and must not be pressured to return to so-called “appropriate” conventional care. Ideally, all forms of care, whether medical, complimentary, or alternative, should be embraced. Continuing treatments that work, and eliminating those that don’t, can provide for an overall healthier patient. Unbiased openness between doctors and patients may lead to better quality integrated care.

Providers interested in tools and resources, such as wallet cards, posters, and tip sheets, may obtain them free on the NCCAM Web site http://www.nccam.nih.gov or order them from NCCAM's information Clearinghouse at 1-888-644-6226 .

References
Callahan LF, Freburger JK, Mielenz TJ, Wiley-Exley EK. Medical skepticism and the use of complementary and alternative health care providers by patients followed by rheumatologists. J Clin Rheumatol. 2008 Jun;14(3):143-7.

National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). Time to Talk About CAM: Health Care Providers and Patients Need To Ask and Tell. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Healht NIH News. Retrieved on June 6, 2008 from:
http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2008/nccam-06.htm

---

Note: This article appeared in the MCS America News, July 2008, Volume 3, Issue 7
at http://mcs-america.org/July2008.pdf

---
Key Words: multiple chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivities, multiple chemical sensitivities, MCS, EI, environmental illness, sick building syndrome, idiopathic environmental intolerance, fibromyalgia, chronic fatiuge, FM, CFS, mold illness, clinical ecology, alternative medicine, environmental medicine, neuropathy, encephalopathy, toxic, chemical

Kid Safe Chemical Act

In a press release from the office of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, United States senator for New Jersey, Lautenberg introduces the ‘Kid Safe Chemical Act’ to protect Americans from the hazardous chemicals used in consumer products.

The legislation, first introduced by Lautenberg in 2005, and now reintroduced along with Congresswoman Hilda L. Solis of the 32nd District of California and Representative Henry Waxman of the 30th District of California, would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act in various ways.

Manufacturers of chemical substances “distributed in commerce” would be required to certify within one year that their products will cause “no harm” to unborn children, infants, children, workers. or any other sensitive group.

Manufacturers would also be required to certify that products for infants and children meet a safety standard that is tenfold higher than the standard established for adults.

The EPA would have to systematically review whether industry has met its burden of proof for all industrial chemicals within fifteen years.

Hazardous chemicals detected in human cord blood would be immediately targeted for restrictions on their continued use.

The EPA would be authorized to require additional testing as new science and testing methods emerge. This would include new evidence of health effects at lower doses or during fetal or infant development.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would be required to expand existing analysis of pollutants in people and to help identify chemicals that threaten the health of children, workers, and other vulnerable populations.

An Internet-accessible public database on chemical hazards and uses would be started to inform companies, communities, and consumers. In addition, government funding and incentives would be provided for development of safer alternatives and green chemistry.

Many parents have hailed the Kid Safe Chemical Act as a “real solution” to the current problems of environmental toxicity and pollution that have been correlated with increases in autism, asthma, multiple chemical sensitivity, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, and other modern day maladies.

The bill would provide a much needed fundamental overhaul of the way the United States currently handles chemical regulation. It would bring the precautionary principal back into being. Solis confirmed, "The Kids-Safe Chemicals Act is needed to repair the fundamentally flawed chemical regulatory structure.”

At the present time, chemicals are not required to be tested for safety before marketing. Frequently, testing is only conducted when numerous similar health complaints or deaths are discovered after a product reaches the market. This sell now, worry later approach has been too little to late for those injured, including workers, children, and other susceptible individuals. "It is critical that we modernize our nation's chemical safety laws,” said Waxman.

The Kid Safe Chemical Act was introduced on the Senate floor on May 20, and subsequently referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

"Every day, consumers rely on household products that contain hundreds of chemicals. The American public expects the federal government to keep families safe by testing chemicals, but the government is letting them down," Lautenberg said.

Shocking Statistics

Over 80,000 chemicals are used in various products in our homes, yet the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has only required testing of 200. This is the lack of testing that has put Americans, especially children, in danger. This new bill would force the EPA to evaluate every chemical product to ensure its safety before it is allowed onto the market.

“A real solution” indeed. The Kid Safe Chemical Act comes at a crucial time when bisphenol A, found in many baby products, and phthalates, found in dangerous levels in common air fresheners used in the home, have been proven harmful to health.

It’s high time for radical changes in the way chemicals are regulated in the United States! The Kid Safe Chemical Act holds the potential to be this much needed change.

Note: This article appeared in the MCS America News, July 2008, Volume 3, Issue 7 at http://mcs-america.org/July2008.pdf

---

Key Words: multiple chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivities, multiple chemical sensitivities, MCS, EI, environmental illness, sick building syndrome, idiopathic environmental intolerance, fibromyalgia, chronic fatiuge, FM, CFS, mold illness, clinical ecology, alternative medicine, environmental medicine, neuropathy, encephalopathy, toxic, chemical

Mercury Migrates from Dental Amalgams to the Human Body

After decades of controversy and denial, the FDA has finally acknowledged that dental amalgams are harmful to pregnant woman and children, potentially causing neurological disorders and other health problems.

According to researchers in Australia, exposure to mercury from dental amalgams with possible negative health effects has generally been considered to occur via either erosion or evaporation directly from the surface of fillings, followed by ingestion. When amalgam filings are placed and removed, they release mercury vapor. Chewing foods also releases mercury vapor.

Researchers examined evidence that has now shown that mercury also directly migrates through the amalgam filled tooth and into the body via dentinal tubules.

The FDA is scheduled to reclassify amalgam filings by the summer of 2009 as part of a settlement in a lawsuit, Moms Against Mercury v. Eschenbach, filed Dec. 28, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging purposeful delays by the FDA in classifying the amalgam. The judge, Ellen Segal Huvelle of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, chastised the FDA for failure to act to classify amalgam fillings.

Interesting to note is that the manufacturers of amalgam say it should not be used in children age 6 and under, or in pregnant women. Yet, the FDA is just now getting around to possibly enforcing this recommendation. The agency is now considering classifying dental amalgam as a Class II substance, which would enable imposition of special controls to increase safety.

Mercury is a known neurotoxin, especially dangerous to young brains during development. Activists have worked long and hard to gain protection for unsuspecting adults and innocent children.
The legal settlement resulted in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has changing its website to include a disclaimer that amalgams “may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetus.” However they advise people not to avoid seeking dental care and to instead discuss options with their dentist.

The effects of mercury are not always immediately apparent and may increase over time. The aging brain may be increasingly affected. Mercury may cause a loss of IQ points, fatigue, seizures, tremors, cognitive impairment, fatigue, behavioral problems, and numerous other debilitating symptoms. It has also been implicated in autism.

Approximately 25% of the US population has genetic variants leading to increased susceptibility to the negative health effects of mercury. Some studies indicate that this genetic variation may be the result of damage by mercury and other environmental toxicants, causing concern that anyone could become more susceptible over time via mercury induced DNA changes.

The good news is that there are alternatives in the form of composite fillings made of glass, porcelain, and other materials that can be used to replace amalgam fillings. Cost varies from dentist to dentist to replace fillings. The best recommendation is to do extensive research into the safety protocols for removing amalgams and ensure the selected dentist is familiar with them. The Holistic Dental Association and International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology offer referral lists to holistic dentists familiar with amalgam removal, as does MCS America. To view these lists, see:
http://mcs-america.org/dentistlist.pdf.

Reference
Harris HH, Vogt S, Eastgate H, Legnini DG, Hornberger B, Cai Z, Lai B, Lay PA. Migration of mercury from dental amalgam through human teeth. J Synchrotron Radiat. 2008 Mar;15(Pt 2):123-8.

Note: This article appeared in the MCS America News, July 2008, Volume 3, Issue 7
at http://mcs-america.org/July2008pg131415.pdf

Key Words: multiple chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivities, multiple chemical sensitivities, MCS, EI, environmental illness, sick building syndrome, idiopathic environmental intolerance, fibromyalgia, chronic fatiuge, FM, CFS, mold illness, clinical ecology, alternative medicine, environmental medicine, neuropathy, encephalopathy, toxic, chemical

Environmental Causes of Disease Often Missed By Doctors

Our environment is becoming increasingly more polluted. Chemical toxicants are nearly impossible to avoid with daily exposure to our own fragrances, personal care products, pesticides, plastics, rubber, glues, office equipment, flame retardants, and a myriad of chemicals that is increasingly called “toxic soup”. Even those who choose safer, less toxic products are forcibly exposed to the fragrances and chemicals of neighbors, coworkers, fellow students, and others around them.

Unexplained illnesses seem to be increasing in leaps and bounds and include autism, SIDS, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and multiple chemical sensitivity. Many have been linked to the environment, yet the connection is largely overlooked.

Genuis, a researcher in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Alberta, Canada, confirms “Environmental causes for familiar medical problems are frequently undiagnosed; it is recommended that, where appropriate, a screening tool for evaluation of environmental exposure to toxics be incorporated into primary care assessment and management of patients.”

Genuis’s statement was the result of a patient complaining of depression, emotional instability and various physical symptoms which revealed no objective and diagnosable abnormality.

More new health conditions are emerging that cannot be explained by conventional medical wisdom. Yet all of these ailments have been linked to environmental exposures. This link is repeatedly missed by doctors. All too frequently a “garbage pail” diagnosis of anxiety or depression is given while patients’ conditions deteriorate.

As it turned out, Genuis’s patient was a hairdresser whose neuropsychiatric symptoms were the result of occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals such as those commonly found in hair spray, lotions, shampoo, and conditioner. After a leave of absence from her position, she was no longer exposed to occupational chemicals and reported cessation of her symptoms. Armed with the knowledge to practice exposure avoidance, the patient was able to regain her life.

In most conventional medical establishments, the patient would have been placed in a managed care situation in which her symptoms were merely managed with various pharmacological drugs while she was taught coping skills and cognitive behavioral therapy and continued to suffer.

Genuis hit the nail on the head. It is crucial, if not critical, to public health that environmental correlates are considered in the face of otherwise unexplained symptoms.

Reference
Genuis, SJ, Genuis, SK. Human Exposure Assessment and Relief From Neuropsychiatric Symptoms: Case Study of a Hairdresser. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2004;17:136–41.

Note: This article appeared in the MCS America News, July 2008, Volume 3, Issue 7 at http://mcs-america.org/July2008pg12.pdf

Key Words: multiple chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivities, multiple chemical sensitivities, MCS, EI, environmental illness, sick building syndrome, idiopathic environmental intolerance, fibromyalgia, chronic fatiuge, FM, CFS, mold illness, clinical ecology, alternative medicine, environmental medicine, neuropathy, encephalopathy, toxic, chemical

The Seven Challenges of MCS

Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), as defined by Spenser et al (2008), is an acquired disorder characterized by recurrent symptoms, referable to multiple organ systems, occurring in response to demonstrable exposure to many chemically unrelated compounds at doses far below those established in the general population to cause harmful effects. One proposed causation is a chemically induced injury of the liver, which may generate injury of the enzymatic detoxification systems, triggering a myriad of end organ responses.

In the 1950’s, Theron Randolph was the first to recognize the process that later became known as multiple chemical sensitivity. Victims suffer negative health effects, such as rapid heart rate, dizziness, difficulty breathing, fatigue, flushing, nausea, coughing, shortness of breath, and seizure activity when exposed to pesticides, fragrances, air fresheners, household cleaning products, cigarette smoke, paint fumes, and many other chemically unrelated compounds found in nearly every indoor environment, as well as many outdoor environments.

MCS results in significant morbidity and mortality, and economic, healthcare, and social burdens. As many as 13.5% of cases result in job loss and countless costs are incurred seeking out medical interventions, which also burdens the health care system.

Roughly 15% of the population report negative health effects upon exposure to chemicals, which presents the scientific, medical, legal, and political communities with many challenges.

The first challenge of MCS is the persistent difficulty in defining an underlying disease process. Industry, ready to protect its financial interests in the chemicals it produces, has supported a psychological causation. This has created a debate in the medical and political communities, which is complicated by the lack of an accepted diagnosis test, such as a blood test, to confirm the condition.

The second challenge of MCS is called masking, a process by which ongoing exposures hide the effects of a specific exposure, making identifying triggers and diagnosis difficult. In severe cases, the patient may be in a constant state of reaction, requiring a controlled setting devoid of triggers to unmask routine exposures over a period and then diagnose the specific effects of individual acute exposures.

The third challenge of MCS is that it is not consistent with current ideas in toxicology, which rely heavily on visible and lethal effects to label a substance as toxic. A new paradigm in toxicology is needed to establish toxic effects at lower, non-lethal doses. Then, the precautionary principle can be adopted to regulate potentially harmful chemicals when scientific evidence is convincing.

The fourth challenge of MCS is a lack of ongoing federally supported research. The EPA and CDC have been woefully deficient, and according to Spenser, “government funding and support impacts the legitimization of the experiences of millions of ill Americans, independent of whatever the etiology may be.”

The fifth challenge of MCS is that policy makers currently fail to regulate a chemical until it is later discovered to be harmful. Newly proposed regulations, such as the Kid Safe Chemical Act, would place the onus on industry to prove their products safe before they go to market.

The sixth challenge of MCS is that it falls within the realm of government regulation, since environmental triggers from air pollution and toxic waste are at fault. Some have recommended establishing a disease registry with MCS as a reportable condition, while increasing funds and programs and minimizing use of toxic chemicals.

The seventh challenge of MCS is that if it is proven scientifically valid, MCS would significantly impact public health. Spenser asserts, “MCS could fundamentally alter our understanding of pathophysiology, affecting disease research design and disease prevention measures. On a much broader level, the government, private sector, consumers, and general population would be engaged in a partnership that would benefit all of public health.”

Spenser concludes, “The question of whether MCS is a legitimate physiologic disease process is, to some degree, only incidental. Even if MCS does not prove to be the disease its proponents claim, this does not negate the need for appropriate treatment for the illness. The health care system and public health as a whole should respond appropriately. A public health community that is unable or unwilling at a minimum to contemplate paradigm-altering possibilities neglects its duty. With such significant implications, neglect would be insensitive.”

Indeed, many individuals with MCS suffer great neglect at the hands of the health care system. Often being denied care altogether, those that can find adequate care can rest assured most of it will not be covered by insurance. The stigma and financial burden of acquiring MCS assures most victims of societal rejection.

One has to consider that the nature of MCS, being defined by chemically induced injury by chemicals that are virtually unavoidable, means that you or your loved ones could suddenly become affected. What then?

We must fight now for funding for more research, EPA and CDC involvement, and tighter chemical regulations. We must assist and learn from our citizens who have been injured by chemicals. Our future depends on it!

Reference
Spencer TR, Schur PM. The challenge of multiple chemical sensitivity. J Environ Health. 2008 Jun;70(10):24-7.

Note: This article appeared in the MCS America News, July 2008, Volume 3, Issue 7 at http://mcs-america.org/July2008pg1011.pdf

Key Words: multiple chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivities, multiple chemical sensitivities, MCS, EI, environmental illness, sick building syndrome, idiopathic environmental intolerance, fibromyalgia, chronic fatiuge, FM, CFS, mold illness, clinical ecology, alternative medicine, environmental medicine, neuropathy, encephalopathy, toxic, chemical

Injurious Inoculation: Is Vaccination Behind Children’s Declining Health?

The herd immunity concept is a mathematical theory that states that a vast majority of the community must be immunized to protect the entire community from disease. Both politicians and medical providers work hard to force vaccinations upon every man, woman, and child in the world.

Remarkable controversy exists on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations in the United States. Research supporting vaccine safety is scant yet crucial to the well being of every American citizen. Every day, parents are coerced, cajoled, and even bullied at gunpoint into vaccinating their children. Parents who make conscious choices not to vaccinate after weighing the risk benefit ratio of vaccinations are sometimes turned over to Child Protective Services for so-called child endangerment. But who is really endangering the children?

Here is a glance at just a tiny portion of the many 2008 vaccination statistics:

January 4: A 45-day-old child in Hanoi died after being vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine.

January 25: A 2-month-old in the central province of Thua Thien – Hue died after getting hepatitis B vaccine and diphteria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine.

January 31: French authorities opened an investigation for manslaughter against a vaccination campaign in the 1990s that resulted in 30 plaintiffs who have launched a civil action for vaccine damages, including the families of five people who died after vaccination.

February 19: A 4-month-old child died after vaccination with diphteria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine and drinking two drops of anti-polio medicine named Poliovax.

February 25: Damage suits were filed in Japan by hundreds of people who contracted hepatitis B through mandatory childhood vaccinations

February 28: A study found that 9 out of every 10,000 children vaccinated with ProQuad, a combination measles, mumps, rubella, and chickenpox vaccine, have seizures and convulsions.

March 2: A 2-month-old child in Ca Mau died after being injected with hepatitis B, pertussis and tetanus vaccines.

April 23, 2008: 4 infants died after receiving measles vaccinations,

April 30: A 3 month old baby died after being vaccinated for whooping cough, diphtheria and jaundice.

May 13: A 17-year-old boy died after measles inoculation.

May 15: 60 people in eastern Ukraine were hospitalized after measles vaccination.

May 16: 32 additional people in eastern Ukraine were hospitalized after measles vaccination.

Most vaccine related deaths, particularly in the US, are classed as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) instead of vaccine induced. SIDS is the single most common cause of death in the post neonatal period. Between the years1983 and 1994, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that SIDS was listed as the cause of death for 61,882 infants.

Since 1980 the amount of vaccinations required for children began to rise quite dramatically. These vaccines contain various toxicants including thimerosal, a mercury (Hg) containing neurotoxicant, which may contribute to neurodevelopmental disorders including SIDS, autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), which are all on the rise (Hertz-Piccioto et al, 2006; Losiniecki & Prahlow, 2006; Braun et al, 2006; Meggs et al, 1996; Szpir, 2006).

According to the U.S. Census Bureau autism, ADHD, and other neurodevelopmental disorders may affect as many as 1 in 6 children in the U.S. totaling over 12 million citizens (Ball, 2001).

Many of these conditions developed or expanded around the time of increased vaccinations. Comparison of data on the increase of neurodevelopment disorders and the growth of synthetic chemical production show the data began to merge around 1970 (Colborn,v 2004) much the same time the number of vaccines given to children began to increase. Vaccines warrant further investigation as possible causation of neurodevelopment disorders.

The pharmaceutical industry and government do a great job quelling the fears of Americans when it comes to vaccinations. This is accomplished in numerous ways, largely through the media, by creating fear of disease, publicizing statistically insignificant measles cases to create fear of pandemics, employing catchy vaccine campaigns, and working to create guilt for choosing not to vaccinate.

Guilt is created by campaigns which claim that good parents vaccinate and if a parent loves their child, they should vaccinate. Critical thinking tells us that the statement “good parents vaccinate” is faulty reasoning or logical fallacy, known as an appeal to popularity.

Another logical fallacy that government and medical providers engage in is the appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is something that is claimed to be true, in this case vaccinations are good for health, on the basis of an assertion by an authority figure who is not an expert, such as a politician. Yet politicians regularly enact laws requiring children to be vaccinated before entering school.

New Jersey parents were recently told they would be jailed if they did not show up at court on a Saturday morning to prove their children were vaccinated or be led to vaccination by gunpoint at the courthouse. The individual health of the children was not taken into account and the judges and politicians involved did not have medical degrees to make determinations as to the appropriateness of vaccination for a given child.

In some cases vaccinations have contraindications for certain populations. Yet parents were coerced by the logical fallacy, appeal to authority, that these authority figures had their children’s best interests at heart.

What is really crucial to know is do vaccines and work? And more important, are they safe? What are the risks? Finally, does the child or individual have any contraindications to the vaccine in question? With that information, a risk/benefit analysis for the child can be completed. This is what the pharmaceutical industry and government don’t want… thinking parents. There is money to be made in vaccinations by drug companies, some of which is then passed on to politicians in the form of campaign contributions. Amongst all of this, parents must make decisions that could change their child’s life, cause seizures, inflict their death, impair them with autism, or save them from disease.

Government would like parents to believe that vaccines are perfectly safe, that there is no connection to any neurological disease, and deaths which occur immediately post-vaccination have nothing to do with the vaccination. Researchers with conflicts of interest are often employed or paid sums of money to produce studies finding that there is no connection to any death or illness from vaccines, especially autism. Yet, truly independent studies are finding just the opposite. There is indeed a correlation between increasing vaccination and simultaneously increasing childhood illness, and even death.

The first research project to examine effects of the total vaccine load received by children has found autism-like signs and symptoms in infant monkeys receiving the same vaccinations. Wakefield and colleagues found functional brainstem anomalies in vaccinated animals that may be relevant to some aspects of autism, an acquired neurodevelopmental disorder.

Hewitson examined behavioral, functional, and neuromorphometric consequences of the childhood vaccine regimen and also found it mimics certain neurological abnormalities of autism.

Walker and colleagues (2008) found many significant differences in the GI tissue gene expression profiles between vaccinated and unvaccinated animals.

There are many more studies with similar findings, including many which have been denied publication by medical journals, which are largely owned by pharmaceutical companies with vested interest in selling their vaccines.

Which is worse… the risk of disease or an injurious inoculation? Only you can decide and each of us should have the right to decide what is best for our bodies and the bodies of our loved ones.

References

Ball LK, Ball, R, Pratt, RD (2001). An assessment of thimerosal use in childhood vaccines. Pediatrics. 107:1147-1154.

Braun, JM, Robert SK, Froehlich, T, Auinger, P, & Lanphear, BP (2006). Exposures to environmental toxicants and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in U.S. children. Environmental Health Perspectives. 114:12, 1904-1909.

Colborn, T (2004).Neurodevelopment and endocrine disruption. Environmental Health Perspectives. 112:9, 944-949.

Hertz-Picciotto, I, Croen, L, Hansen, R, Jones, C, Van De Water, J, & Pessah, I (2006). The CHARGE study: an epidemiologic investigation of genetic and environmental factors contributing to autism. Environmental Health Perspectives. 114:7, 1119-1125.

Hewitson, et al. Pediatric Vaccines Influence Primate Behavior, and Amygdala Growth and Opioid Ligand Binding. IMFAR . May 16, 2008.

Japan facing vaccination lawsuits. United Press International. February 25, 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2008/02/25/japan_facing_vaccination_lawsuits/6883/

Losiniecki, A, & Prahlow, JA (2006). Sudden Infant Death Due to Neurofibromatosis Type 1. American Journal of Medical Pathology. 27:4, 317-319.

Meggs, WJ, Dunn, KA, Bloch, RM, Goodman, PE, & Davidoff, AL (1996). Prevalence and nature of allergy and chemical sensitivity in a general population. Environmental Health Perspectives. 51(4), 275-82.

Over 90 hospitalized after measles vaccination in east Ukraine. Russian News and Information Agency. May 18, 2008. Retrieved from: http://en.rian.ru/world/20080518/107670116.html

Parents worry about post-vaccination deaths. VietNamNet Bridge. March 6, 2008. Retrieved from: http://english.vietnamnet.vn/social/2008/03/772057/

Protocol broken in lethal vaccination case. The Times of India. April 27, 2008. Retrieved from: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Chennai/Protocol_broken_in_lethal_vaccination_case/articleshow/2986732.cms

Stobbe, M. Kids vaccine linked to fever, seizures. Associated Press. February 28, 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/health/5576512.html

Szpir, M (2006). New thinking on neurodevelopment. Environmental Health Perspectives. 114:2, A100-A107.

Wakefiled, Stott, C, Lopresti, B, Tomko, J, Houser, L, Sackett, G, Hewitson, L,. Pediatric Vaccines Influence Primate Behavior, and Brain Stem Volume and Opioid Ligand Binding. IMFAR. Saturday, May 17, 2008.

Walker, SJ, Lobenhofer, EK, Wakefield, A, Hewitson, L. Microarray Analysis of GI Tissue in a Macaque Model of the Effects of Infant Vaccination. IMFAR. May 17, 2008.

Note: This article appeared in the MCS America News, June 2008, Volume 3, Issue 6
at http://mcs-america.org/june2008pg12345.pdf

-----

Key Words: multiple chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivities, multiple chemical sensitivities, MCS, EI, environmental illness, sick building syndrome, idiopathic environmental intolerance, fibromyalgia, chronic fatiuge, FM, CFS, mold illness, clinical ecology, alternative medicine, environmental medicine, neuropathy, encephalopathy, toxic, chemical, autism, immunity, immunization, vaccine, vaccination, innoculation.

Researchers Say Your House Affects Your Health… And you May Not Realize It

Asthma, respiratory problems, behavioral changes, and fatigue are only a few manifestations of exposure to various indoor air pollutants. When a building is contaminated with everyday toxic materials which have rendered inhabitants ill, the building is referred to as a sick building. The inhabitants have sick building syndrome.

The prevalence of sick building syndrome is increasing rapidly. Teachers and students regularly report illness from mold, cleaning chemicals, and poor ventilation in their classrooms. Office workers report negative health effects from renovations and particulates from copiers and printers.

It is rare that staff, workers, and students fully understand the dangers of toxicity from these materials. Imai and associates, researchers at Mie University in Japan, state that “Public awareness of sick house syndrome and the dangers of toxicity from construction materials are vital to eliminate these aggravating factors and to prevent illness."

Imai states that “in Japan, there has been a 10% increase in the number of people suffering from sick house (building) syndrome due to toxic chemicals released from construction materials and wallpaper.” Sick building syndrome can lead to multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), which now affects more than 45 million men, women, and children and may lead to permanent and total disability.

Imai says, “Preventing early exposure to toxins at home is critical in reducing the likelihood of health problems in the community.” Toxic substances found in the home include air fresheners, cleaning products, pesticides, new furniture and carpets, paints, and clothing.

The generalized lack of public understanding of the dangers of toxicity from these everyday materials extends the period of exposure, leading to further injury. Denial of the toxic dangers can lead to permanent injury. Public awareness of sick house syndrome and the dangers of toxicity from construction materials is vital to eliminate these aggravating factors and to prevent illness.

Imai cites the most aggravating factors that worsen sick building syndrome as a lack of knowledge about the disorder, the difficulty in establishing a diagnosis, and the difficulty of taking radical measures to improve the home environment.

New furniture is often treated with fire retardants, which have been implicated in reproductive disorders and do not outgas quickly. They gradually release vapors into the air where they are carried into the body via the lungs.

Clothing is treated with formaldehyde, which resists washing out and can cause allergies, toxicity, and respiratory irritation. Bedroom closets generally release copious amounts of formaldehyde into the air where most people spend many hours each night.

Fragrances and air fresheners are asthma and allergy triggers containing many toxic ingredients, including phthalates. Fragrances are unique in that there are as many of 3,000 – 5,000 fragrance chemicals, 95% of which are toxic petrochemicals, and none of which are regulated by any governing agency outside of the fragrance industry itself. Fragrances can contain any number of chemicals which have not been tested for human safety, as well as those which have been tested and shown to be toxic.

There is a wide variety of safer building materials, though consumers should be alert to “green washing”, or false “green” claims. Green does not mean that something is non-toxic. It is advisable to investigate building materials carefully when renovating or building.

One of the best things that can be done to reduce airborne pollution is to ensure proper ventilation, filtering air, and allowing adequate circulation. Opening windows daily to allow fresh air exchange can go a long way to reducing stale and toxic air. Lack of adequate air circulation is common in schools and office buildings, where vents are often closed in the name of energy efficiency. However, good health requires vents remain open and fresh air allowed in.

If fresh air does not eliminate stale or foul odors, there are many ways to improve the air quality without the use of toxic air fresheners.

Adding a few indoor plants in each room limits carbon dioxide and increases oxygen. Some plants, including ferns, bamboo, and spider plants actually help to purify the air. The caveat to using plants is to ensure proper watering so mold and mildew does not grow in the soil.

Air purifiers, preferably whole house systems, do a wonderful job of eliminating airborne pollutants.

The best measure is to keep the toxic substances out in the first place by choosing products wisely and airing them out before brining them into the home. Sun and fresh air can help to off gas new items. If you can smell an odor, like that “new car smell”, you are breathing toxic vapors. Allowing items to air out in the sun for several days or several weeks before bringing them inside will greatly reduce family exposure to these substances. A good gauge on how long an item needs to air out is whether or not it still has an odor.

Before bringing the items inside, wash them thoroughly. Clothing can be soaked and washed in baking soda, white vinegar, and/or borax to reduce formaldehyde and dye chemicals.

Air can be kept safe in the home selecting fragrance free personal care and laundry products.

Integrative pest control involves treating when there is a problem developing rather than for prevention. This limits family contact with pesticides, which have been implicated as initiators of MCS. Pests can be managed in the home with safer alternatives to commercial pesticides. Some alternatives include:

• Sprinkle cinnamon, bay leaves or cayenne pepper in problem areas to control ants.
• Sprinkle equal parts of baking soda and confectioners’ sugar in problem areas for roaches. Also, mix borax with mashed potatoes and add enough water to make balls which can be placed out of reach of children in cupboards and corners.
• Mice are repelled by kitty litter and peppermint oil, which can be placed on a cloth or cotton swab.
• Fresh live basil or mint will discourage flies, as will dried mint and basil.
• A bit of apple cider vinegar mixed with water and applied on person or left in a dish will discourage mosquitoes, as will wearing a cover-up to limit available biting places.

Lastly, if someone you know develops sick building syndrome, it is important for them to limit all chemical exposure and have their complaints taken seriously. People vary in susceptibility and one person developing sick building syndrome or multiple chemical sensitivity is a beacon of warning to everyone else who shares the same environment. It is crucial to take remedial action to prevent further injuries to both the affected and the unaffected.

Reference
Imai N, Imai Y, Kido Y. Psychosocial factors that aggravate the symptoms of sick house syndrome in Japan. Nurs Health Sci. 2008 Jun;10(2):101-9.

Brown, E. The Hazardous Chemistry of Everyday Things. AARP Bulletin Today. May 5, 2008.

Note: This article appeared in the MCS America News, June 2008, Volume 3, Issue 6 at http://mcs-america.org/August2008pg2627.pdf

Copyrighted © 2008 MCS America

Key Words: multiple chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivity, chemical sensitivities, multiple chemical sensitivities, MCS, EI, environmental illness, sick building syndrome, idiopathic environmental intolerance, fibromyalgia, chronic fatiuge, FM, CFS, mold illness, clinical ecology, alternative medicine, environmental medicine, neuropathy, encephalopathy, toxic, chemical

What You Should Know About Mold

by Christiane Tourtet, B.A.

Molds are fungi that grow best in damp, humid, warm conditions and reproduce and spread by making tiny spores that are not visible to the naked eye and float through the air indoors and outdoors. It is estimated that there are tens of thousands, to even perhaps three hundred thousand or more species.

The spores of mold may survive in dry conditions as well. Molds may be found outdoors and indoors in virtually every environment all year round, especially when there is lot of moisture. They may be found in damp, shady places or areas where vegetation such as leaves, for instance, are decomposing.

Some common indoor molds are Aspergillus, Penicillium, Cladosporium, Alternaria. Indoor molds may also be found in showers and basements where humidity levels are high.

Areas that have unusually high mold counts are summer cottages, construction areas, flower shops, antique shops, saunas, mills, farms and green houses.

Molds may cause health problems, as they produce irritants, allergens, and mycotoxins. Touching or inhaling mold spores or mold may cause allergic reactions in sensitive individuals. Stuffy, runny nose, skin rash, red eyes, sneezing and wheezing are quite common. These reactions can be immediate or delayed. People who are allergic to mold and also asthmatic may develop asthma attacks upon exposure to molds and have severe reactions that may include shortness of breath and fever. People with obstructive lung disease may develop mold infections in their lungs. Even in people that are not allergic to molds, irritation of the eyes, nose, skin, throat and lungs may occur.

Symptoms, other than the irritant and allergic types, are not commonly reported as a result of inhaling mold, however there is ongoing research on mold and it's health effects. To get more information on mold, you may want to consult a health professional, or your local or state health department.

Sensitive persons should try to avoid cut grass, compost piles, or wooded areas, as these are most likely to have mold. Inside a home, keeping the humidity levels between 40% to 60% and ventilating cooking areas and showers may slow the growth of mold. If at all possible, between 30% to 50% humidity would be ideal. Relative humidity can be measured with a humidity or moisture meter, which is an inexpensive (approximately $10- $50), small instrument available at various hardware stores.

It is recommended to use an air conditioner or a dehumidifier during humid months, make sure that the home has adequate ventilation and exhaust fans, and, preferably, no carpet in the basement and bathrooms. It is also advisable to replace or remove previously soaked upholstery and carpets.

When spills or water leaks occur indoors, it is important to act quickly to dry areas within 24 - 48 hours to try to prevent the growth of mold. Usually, it is not necessary to identify the species of mold in a home and CDC does not recommend sampling routinely for mold. No matter what type of mold it is, it should be removed. If the moldy area that is to be cleaned up is less than 3 ft. by 3 ft. you most probably can handle the job yourself. Mold growth can be removed from hard surfaces with soap and water, commercial products, or a bleach solution of 1 gallon of water with no more than 1 cup of bleach. If you decide to clean up mold using bleach, never mix ammonia or other household cleaners with bleach as it may produce dangerous and toxic fumes. Make sure that you open doors and windows to provide fresh air, and wear protective eye wear, such as goggles that do not have ventilation holes, and avoid getting mold spores or mold in your eyes. Wear long and non-porous gloves that extend to the middle of the forearm when using water and a mild detergent.

If you are using chlorine bleach, a strong disinfectant, or a cleaning solution, you should wear gloves made from neoprene, natural rubber, nitrile, polyurethane (PCV). Avoid touching moldy items or mold with your bare hands and avoid breathing in mold spores or mold. You may want to wear an N-95 respirator, to limit your exposure to air born mold, which can be purchased at many hardware stores. They usually cost about $12 to $ 25. To be effective, the mask or respirator must fit properly, so it is important to carefully follow the instructions supplied with the mask or respirator. When used in an occupational setting, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires that respirators have fit testing.

If there is more than 10 square feet of mold growth, it is best to consult the EPA's Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings. Even though it focuses on schools and commercial buildings, it is applicable for other buildings as well.

If you decide to hire a professional service provider or a contractor be sure that this person has experience in cleaning mold. Check references carefully and ask the contractor to follow the guidelines from government or professional organizations, such as the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), or recommendations from EPA's Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings.

If you suspect that the ventilation/air conditioning/heating (HVAC) system may be contaminated with mold, you should consult EPA's guide before you take further action. If you suspect or know that the HVAC system is contaminated with mold, do not run the system, as mold could be spread throughout the building. If contaminated water, or sewage caused the mold damage, it is advised to call a professional who has experience in fixing and cleaning buildings damaged by contaminated water, and if you are concerned about health effects, before starting cleaning up, consult with a health professional.

-Christiane Tourtet, B.A.

© 2007 Christiane Tourtet
Reprinted with Permission

References:

CDC, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

EPA, United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Pictures for this article provided by
Certified Mold Strategies, Ltd.
www.certifiedmoldstrategies.com

Author's Biography
Christiane Tourtet graduated with an Associate in Science and an Associate in Arts degrees, both with high honors, from Florida Junior College. Then she graduated with a Bachelor in Arts, from Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, Florida. She is a well-known, writer, photo-journalist, photographer, poetess, former teacher and college instructor, radio producer/air personality, publicity model, television voice over talent, and artist. Her biography has been included in numerous world wide publications, notably in Who's Who in America and Who's Who in the World. As a role model for Society, her biography has been published in the Millennium 54th Edition of Who's Who in America and chosen to be included in the White House Millennium Time Capsule.

Community Spotlight: An Interview with Marti F. Wolfe, PhD

Tell us a little about yourself and your background.

My hometown is San Jose, California; I lived there most of my life until I ran away to graduate school. I've always been a science nerd. I had my first chemistry lesson when I was four and my brother was six. My mother used stuff in the kitchen, water and alcohol, baking soda and vinegar, and taught us to write a balanced chemical equation. I started college as chemistry major, but it didn't take long for me to be seduced by biology – and this is our time in the sun, no question about it – biologists rule! I got a BS in Conservation from UC Berkeley, then an MS in Biological Science from San Jose State; in those years my concentration was organismal biology, ecology, and evolution. I became interested in toxicology when I was working in industry, so I went off to get a PhD in Pharmacology/Toxicology from Washington State University. The divide between the two major arms of biology is about the size of the Grand Canyon, so it's rather unusual for a person to change from one to the other. But I think it's been helpful to me – I can look at diseases from an evolutionary perspective, and ecosystems and cells share many features, just at different scales. The more ways you have to view a problem, the greater your chances of solving it.

How did you become interested in MCS?

First, I need to say that I don't view MCS as a unique disease, but rather a one member of the family of diseases and syndromes for which Claudia Miller coined the term "multisystem illnesses". The core group of MSIs are MCS, CFS, FM and PTSD, but there are other candidates and evidence for their inclusion is accumulating rapidly. MCS and I go back to the mid-80s, first when I was still working in the semi-conductor industry, and then when I was working for an industrial hygienist while I was in graduate school at San Jose State. I have a BS in Conservation from UC Berkeley, MS in Biological Science from San Jose State, PhD in Pharmacology/Toxicology from Washington State. That's when I first got into the MCS literature, which was really in its infancy then. I partly supported myself in graduate school by writing briefs for attorneys who handled worker's comp and toxic tort/chemical injury cases. My PhD dissertation work was on interspecies and age-dependent differences in toxic response to organophosphorus insecticides. I wasn't specifically working on MCS directly, but it just continued to pop up in my life; when I was working for another industrial hygienist in Seattle, when I was at the EPA, and at National Pesticide Information Center. CFS came into my life when my best friend Rini, also a toxicologist, developed it so she and I got into that literature while I was trying to help her out. I think even that early, Rini and I had some conversations about some correspondences between CFS and MCS. Then my daughter developed fibromyalgia, and I while I was in Corvallis I became friends with a psychiatrist whose specialty is PTSD. And about that time, the first GWS articles started coming out, so there were hints at mechanism there. I was intrigued by the underlying commonality and annoyed by the articles proposing a psychogenic mechanism. I just knew that eventually an organic cause would be found, but it was always peripheral to whatever I was doing, so I didn't do much more than glance the literature.

In 2003, I was diagnosed with interstitial cystitis and mastocytosis, so plunged into that literature and joined patient support organizations for both diseases and I was struck, and I mean just bowled over by the degree of co-morbidity with CFS, MCS, FM, and I thought "There it is again, I really have to look into it, try to figure something out", but felt out of my depth, and also I was really sick. And of course, by that time the literature had just mushroomed. But, if you are marooned on your sofa with fatigue, you have lots of time to read.
So in the spring of 2004 I was PubMed crawling and what pops up but

Pall, M. L. 2001. Common etiology of posttraumatic stress disorder, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome and multiple chemical sensitivity via elevated nitric oxide/peroxynitrite. Med Hypotheses 57: 139-45.

People use 'jaw-dropping' as a metaphor, but my jaw really did drop! I was just dumbstruck! It was just an absolute eureka moment!!! I mean, here was this idea that had been nibbling at the edge of my consciousness for 10 years or so and there it was AND it was accompanied by a mechanism which I found extremely compelling. AND, I saw immediately that it had potential links to IC and masto. AND then I saw who wrote and I nearly fell out of my chair!!! Because Marty Pall was my biochemistry professor when I was in graduate school. It was just such a funny coincidence.

I didn't make any real contact with Marty for another year, but spring 2005 was my last semester of teaching, so I sort of invited myself to work for Marty. I did sort of a post-doc with him for two years, helped him with his book and so forth. And learned tons!

And, I continued to accumulate and read articles, which you have a lot of time for if all your mitochondria tell you Adios and leave you velcroed to the sofa. After I'd been working with Marty for about three months, I
started on his protocol, and it produced an almost miraculous effect. That awful fatigue that makes you feel like your bones have turned to lead just lifted. It was very dramatic, I've always been an energetic person, so fatigue made me feel like I was trapped in someone else's body and when the NO/ONOO- protocol banished my fatigue, I felt as though I'd gotten my life back.

Do you believe toxicology plays a role in MCS and what, in your opinion, is the most likely cause of MCS?

Of course toxicology plays a role! Toxicology is simply the study of the adverse effects of xenobiotics on organisms. I have heard folks state that MCS doesn't belong to toxicology because toxicology is confined to effects that have a discernable dose-response relationship. In fact, some of the old guys were still saying that when I was in grad school. Some dose-response relationships are just more complex, but as more sophisticated statistical tools become more widely available, toxicologists are getting braver about tackling those tougher relationships to. And MCS is definitely one of the more challenging ones, no denying that.

Institutionally, toxicologists haven't contributed much to the task of unraveling MCS's mysteries, but it isn't so much a rejection, or official resistance as we see in some of the other professional societies, it's more like benign neglect. I submitted a proposal for a Special Session on MCS at the 2008 Society of Toxicology meeting – SoT is the largest organization of professional toxicologists in the country with 6000 attendees at the 2007 meeting. We just have to raise the profile of MCS among toxicologists.

And causal mechanism is the area in which toxicologists potentially have the greatest contribution to make to MCS. Of all the MSIs, MCS is the thorniest one to tackle, because there are so many odd features that any mechanistic model must account for. All the mechanisms currently under consideration – oxidative stress, free radical damage, redox disruption, NO/ONOO- vicious cycle, can be thought of collectively as Oxygen Behaving Badly.

Oxygen is dangerous stuff, so the cell handles it with utmost care, passing it gingerly from enzyme to enzyme until it can be reacted with something that will hold onto it. Because if it gets loose from the cell's careful controls, it acquires a charge – this is sort of like handing a juvenile delinquent a gun – and goes on a rampage in the cell, raising hell with various cell structures, including the very ones evolved to make oxygen behave itself. When you look beneath the proposed mechanisms, neurogenic inflammation, neural switching, long-term potentiation, etc, the front-runners share in common an impaired ability in the cell's handling of oxygen.

One of the most vexing mysteries of MCS – and the one that may mislead people into thinking that MCS lies beyond the domain of toxicology – is that the dose-response relationship is so obscure. Another conundrum is the latency phenomenon, the lag-time between exposure and the appearance of symptoms. Latency can make it difficult to connect the disease to the exposure that launched it. And the fact that symptoms may persist even after all contact with the initiating exposure has ceased was another factor that challenged investigators looking for the etiological mechanism.

Marty Pall's NO/ONOO- vicious cycle model ties these observations together into a coherent explanation. There are other vicious cycles in medicine, and certainly the role of free radicals/redox disturbances in many diseases is well documented. The NO/ONOO- vicious cycle draws on both those bodies of knowledge and is both explanatory and predictive – that's the part that makes the model so compelling. The model predicts a therapy; in the last two years or so, MCS and other MSI victims on this therapy are enjoying an improvement in their health and a return to normal life. So this is a very exciting time to be working on the MCS and the other MSIs.

What do you feel is the biggest block to MCS being recognized as a biological illness?

I've described what I call the 'natural history of emerging diseases' in which a syndrome when first described is almost automatically ascribed to psychogenic causes, especially if all its victims are mostly women, so both the patients and the doctors who care for them become marginalized. Then someone, often someone working on a completely different disease, or on some aspect of basic cell physiology, discover a key to a mechanism, more experiments are done, which ideally lead to a clinical test that's conclusive, and at that point the syndrome 'graduates' to the status of a disease and work on treatment accelerates. The unique and biggest challenge of MCS is the huge body of resistance against its recognition – for most diseases maybe a few academic reputations are on the line, but not multi-billion dollar industries pouring money into opposing the recognition of the disease. It's a David-and-Goliath battle; it scares me if I let myself think too much about the odds. Another barrier is that no clinical specialty 'owns' MCS, and some professional organizations actively oppose it, such as the AAAAI. It has helped fibromyalgia emerge from the shadows of psychogenesis, for instance, that it belongs to rheumatology; interstitial cystitis was always understood to be a urological problem even before all urologists believe it was a real disease. This is one reason I'm trying to raise the profile of MCS among toxicologists – it is a chemically-induced disease, we should embrace it as our disease and start doing our share.

Another challenge is the lack of a specific biomarker or clinical test. When you can identify a factor that is present in all or almost all of your affected cohort and completely absent from your control population, you've got a biomarker you can take to the bank. But associated with that challenge is the frustrating fact that we have many assays, tests, potential biomarkers that are used in research, but that just aren't being made available to the clinician or other end-user. We discussed that problem at this year's meeting of the International Society of Environmental BioIndicators and decided it is so important that we need to devote an entire session to it at next years meeting.

Do you think that MCS should be renamed?

Ouch! You can really tie your synapses in knots thinking about this! There are many proposed names, with arguments for and against, as well as for and against retaining MCS. What makes the problem so gruesome is that almost all the names and arguments have merit from someone's quite valid point of view, so a universally acceptable name will continue to elude us, I fear. I think I'll stop there, because I'm on the case definition team, and our deliberations are embargoed for the time being.

Where do we go as a community of researchers and patients from here?

Well, of course we need more research funds, that's so obvious it hardly needs mentioning. But I think we hamstring ourselves if we think money will solve all our problems. What really solves problems is good thinking. Marty Pall didn't have a grant to work on the NOI/ONOO- vicious cycle model, he sat in his office for a couple of years using only his brain. Activists and advocates like you and Cynthia Wilson of CIIN didn't wait around for big grants, you rolled up your sleeves and got to work. And physicians who have stuck with MCS and other MSI patients often take a financial hit to do it. Money is great stuff, but it doesn't take the place of dedication and brains.

So for researchers, that means keeping your mind open to new ideas. If you come into this field as an outsider, as I did, you can discern a pattern in which investigators come to conferences and present the latest development on one part of the problem and they do that year after year, but no one steps back and says "How do all these fit together?" And I say that to clinicians, as well. Stay up with the literature, don't keep doing the same things. And PUBLISH. I've been discovering that there are physicians who have been helping MSI patients with protocols they've worked out themselves, based on their reading of the literature on oxidative stress, free radical damage in cell chemistry. We need to have some system that makes it easier for practitioners to share these experiences, something more flexible and nimble than the traditional refereed journal approach that takes a year to get an article into print,

Collectively, I think we need to make common cause with the organizations supporting the other MSIs, to exploit the strengths that come with the recognition that these diseases are all connected in a very fundamental way.

And lastly, I think your word community is key. If we are a community with a common cause, then we need more cooperation. Many of the resources we need to solve the problem of MCS are already within reach. What's needed now is creative thinking and sustained cooperative, coordinated effort.

Thank you so much for inviting me, Sal. I'm always happy to answer questions on the toxicology aspects of MCS:

mfwolfe@csuchico.edu