Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome

In this study, about 60% of the women with MCS were
found to have been sexually abused, as compared to 25%
of the women in the control group. This seems to indicate
that a large number of cases of MCS have a psychological
origin. For these people, MCS may be their expression of
an underlying psychological state caused by sexual abuse
rather than any sort of toxic or immunological phenomenon.

That's not the same thing as saying that all MCS cases
are psychological in origin -- but about a third seem to be
caused by sexual abuse. It seems indisputable that a large
percentage of MCS cases are psychological in origin,
the only question being whether the actual figure is 100%
or some smaller number.

Ann Allergy 1993 Dec;71(6):538-46
Adult sequelae of childhood abuse presenting as environmental illness.
Staudenmayer H, Selner ME, Selner JC.
Allergy Respiratory Institute of Colorado, Denver 80222.

Sixty-three patients with polysomatic complaints
attributed to sensitivity to environmental
chemicals had detailed clinical assessments and
diagnostic psychologic evaluations. Objective
medical parameters failed to substantiate their
beliefs that multiple chemicals were the cause of
their problems. A group of 64 patients with chronic
medical conditions and defined psychologic
disorders not attributed to chemical exposure
served as controls. Approximately half the patients
in each group underwent long-term psychotherapy,
and in these patients, the prevalence of
physical and sexual childhood abuse was significantly
higher (P < .05) among the cohort of
women who attributed their symptoms to environmental
or chemically related illness. These data
suggest that somatization may reflect sequelae of
childhood abuse and may play an important role
in the illness experienced by women who believe
they are sensitive to environmental chemicals.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome
From: Mark Thorson [email hidden]
Date: 4/18/2004 8:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

In this study, about 60% of the women with MCS were
found to have been sexually abused,

Mark Thorson lackey for Barrett, could care less about suffering people, he is
a member of organized medicine.

An example of stupidity with a world full of chemicals, to blame it on to
sexual abuse.

Protection of chemical companies is well know from organized medicine.

E V I L!

http://www.mcsrr.org/factsheets/mcsdisorders.html

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome
is marked by multiple symptoms in multiple organ systems (usually the
neurological, immune, respiratory, skin, "GI," and/or musculoskeletal) that
recur chronic-ally in response to multiple chemical exposures. MCS usually
starts with either an acute or chronic toxic exposure, after which this initial
sensitivity broadens to include many other chemicals and common irritants
(pesticides, perfumes and other scented products, fuels, food additives,
carpets, building materials, etc.).

MCS Symptoms
commonly include difficulty breathing, sleeping and/or concentrating, memory
loss, migraines, nausea, abdominal pain, chronic fatigue, aching joints and
muscles, and irritated eyes, nose, ears, throat and/or skin. In addition, some
with MCS show impaired balance and increased sensitivity not just to odors but
also to loud noises, bright lights, touch, extremes of heat and cold, and
electromagnetic fields.

MCS Studies
show about 2/3 of those with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Fibromyalgia also
have MCS (and vice versa), as do 1/2 of those with allergies. Like CFS, MCS is
more common in women and can start at any age, but usually begins in late
puberty to mid-life. There is no unique test for MCS, but immune, porphyrin,
EEG, balance, and SPECT scan abnormalities are common.

MCS Treatments
and outcomes vary greatly but--consistent with basic toxicology--the frequency
and severity of symptoms usually can be reduced through the environmental
control and avoidance of exposures that them. A nutritional assessment also is
recommended.

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
A Chronic Condition Characterized by:
multiple symptoms (many and variable)
in multiple organs (min. 2, usually 4+)
affecting multiple senses (usually 2 to 4)
triggered by multiple chemicals
(and often also by other stressors & stimuli)
waxing and waning with exposures
at or below levels previously tolerated
Multiple Symptoms
acute abdominal pain
asthma, headaches, rashes
chronic fatigue & weakness
concentration & memory loss
muscle & joint pains
numbness, tingling, twitching
sore eyes, ears, nose & throat
Multiple Organs
Central Nervous System
Eye, Ear, Nose & Throat
Gastrointestinal
Musculoskeletal
Peripheral Nervous System
Respiratory
Skin

Multiple Senses
hypersensitive to smells
photosensitive, blurred vision
intolerant of loud noises
bothered by abnormal tastes
hypersensitive to touch & temperature extremes
impaired "senses" of balance, coordination & concentration
Multiple Exposures
alcohol & medications
caffiene & food additives
raw fuels & engine exhaust
new carpet & furnishings
paint & renovation materials
perfume & scented products
pesticides & herbicides
solvents & other VOCs

Multiple Overlapping Disorders:
CN LINK: For more info, see: Overlapping Disorders of CFS, FMS, MCS and GWS

17% to 34% of Americans report symptoms of chemical sensitivity
(Bell et al 1993, CA Dept of Health 1995, Meggs et al 1996)
6.3% of Californians report being given MCS diagnosis by a doctor
(CA Dept of Health 1995, random survey of 4,000 adults)
over 85% also have disorders of porphyrin metabolism
(Ziem and McTamney 1997, five others unpublished)
up to 80% also have Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
(Buchwald et al 1994, Ziem 1995)
55% to 65% also have Fibromyalgia
(Clauw et al 1995, Ziem unpublished)
50% also have traditional (IgE) allergies and vice versa
(Meggs et al 1996)

Multiple Theories About MCS:

(From *organized medicine, protecting the chemical comapnies, folow the money
They could care less about suffering people, which is EVIL)

1. Chemical Allergy (a 1960s concept, since disproven)

2. Neurologic / Toxic Encephalopathy

3. Autoimmune Illness (under JHU study)

4. Limbic Kindling (via limbic control of sensory pathways)

5. Neurogenic Inflammation (via the olfactory nerve)

6. Porphyrin Disorder(via heme synthesis)

7. Toxicant-Induced Loss of Tolerance (most recent)

8. Subconscious Reaction to Early Childhood Abuse

9. Iatrogenic (a "belief-system" induced by doctors!)"Belief System"

10. Psychogenic Illness (invented by the patients!)

Multiple Chemical Stupidity?

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/mcs.htm

I have written before about how pseudomedicine supporters and
believers reject the idea of psychological illness. Everything must
have an external cause, which can be treated by the application of the
appropriate magic. Nothing can come purely from within a person. This
philosophy conflicts directly with the concept of helping the body to
heal itself, because if the body has the power to maintain its own
wellness, as stated by many pseudomedicine believers, then surely it
must also have the power to harm itself. Logic, of course, has little
to do with faith in voodoo.

One consequence of the belief that every illness is externally caused
is the irrational fear of "chemicals". The fact that the only
environment free of chemicals is a vacuum (and, some would argue,
inside a high-temperature plasma) is irrelevant. Chemicals are bad.
More chemicals make things worse. Drugs are chemicals. Herbs, spices,
philtres, charms from the medicine man, vitamins and the chelating
agents used by quacks to remove chemicals are, of course, not
chemicals. Did I mention logic and pseudomedicine? Sometimes this fear
of chemicals is focused on a single element or compound like mercury,
fluoride or aspartame, which is blamed for a wide range of illnesses.
Sometimes it is a particular class of chemicals that is feared, as in
the insane opposition to vaccination (although much of this opposition
has nothing to do with fear of chemicals) or the resistance to hormone
replacement therapies for menopausal women. It can almost be left
unsaid that within a theology that rejects the concept of mental
illness, mood altering and management drugs like Ritalin and Prozac
are especially loathed.

This fear of chemicals reaches its absurd nadir in the nonsense of
"Multiple Chemical Sensitivity", or "MCS". In this ailment, the
patient is badly affected by a vast range of unrelated chemicals which
produce an equally large range of symptoms and cause all known
diseases. I am a exaggerating there, of course. The range of symptoms
produced are in fact quite vague and non-specific, and condense down
into a generalised fear of odours and unspecified (and unspecifiable)
chemical compounds. This fear is encouraged by people with vested
interest in "cures" and "treatments" for MCS, and broadcast widely by
people who are ignorant of chemistry, biology, medicine and many other
sciences.

If someone says that they cannot leave their house because of a fear
some unspecified awful circumstances, we say that they are agoraphobic
and offer the appropriate counselling, medication and behavioural
treatment. If someone says that they cannot leave their house because
they might be eaten by the giant spiders that nobody else can see, we
would offer a different diagnosis and offer treatments appropriate for
this particular psychological disorder. If someone says that they
can't leave their house because of the clouds of toxic gasses that
nobody else can see or detect, we might ask how this differs from the
spider story.

One remarkable aspect of MCS is that the disease itself causes the
symptoms, and any attempt to point out that these symptoms are
indistinguishable from those of well-known psychiatric disorders
results in accusations of denial of the reality of MCS. When it is
shown that MCS sufferers look, act and behave identically to people
with anxiety disorders the response is "You would be anxious if you
had MCS". When it is demonstrated that MCS sufferers are just like
people with depressive illnesses, the response is "MCS would make you
depressed, too". When parallels are drawn between phobias and MCS, the
response is "You would be frightened too if you had been poisoned. Are
you calling me paranoid?". When research indicates that people with
MCS are just like, and may even be identical with, the sort of people
who are susceptible to the implantation of false memories, the
response is "Why are you saying that all MCS sufferers have been
sexually abused?". When something looks exactly like something else
and no reason can be found for it to be any different, then it is
reasonable to assume that it is the same thing. MCS looks like anxiety
disorder and phobia. There is little reason to think that it is
anything else.

None of this denies the reality of MCS, except to someone who does not
recognise that psychiatric and psychological disorders are real. There
is no shame in admitting to these sorts of problems, and there are
methods of treatment which work. A person who cannot go to work
because MCS makes it impossible to breathe the air in an office is no
less impacted or disadvantaged than someone who is claustrophobic and
cannot work because of a fear of elevators or an agoraphobic who
cannot work because it is impossible to leave the house without a
panic attack

Lying about the origin of MCS benefits nobody except the quacks who
run MCS clinics or who offer to use chemicals to pretend to chelate or
extract the "toxins" from the affected people. As none of these
"cures" address the real problem, they are merely cruel tricks being
played on people with real disorders. But why should this branch of
quackery be different to any other?

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 4/27/2004 4:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Multiple Chemical Stupidity?

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/psychobabble

I have written before about how pseudomedicine supporters and
believers reject the idea of psychological illness. Everything must
have an external cause, which can be treated by the application of the
appropriate magic

<snip the psychobabble>

Psychobabble...

Thanks once again to this excellent post from Marvin.

The entity *somatization disorder* is psychobabble and is obtained from the
DSM-IV manual and is used by psychologists and psychiatrists.MD's have borrowed
the entity for their own uses. It is a spurious diagnosis with no laboratory
indicators.

that somatization disorder is a kind of junk category into which physicians
dump patients presenting with mind/behaviorialsymptoms and/or a history of such
which the physician does not fancy or understand, especially if the patient
does not present with symptoms or symptoms which are not separate diagnoses
(also anon-scientific way of separating symptoms and causality) . I mentiont
his because mercury and lead are both known to cause primarily "psychiatric"
symptoms, with a history of emotional instability, etc.in patients.

So a "scientist" is someone who makes "a priori" judgements about what
neurological symptoms a heavy metal poisoned patient can and cannot have. A
"scientist" demands laboratory indicators whenever his fraternity does so.
When the fraternity does not do so, the esteemed scientist Rx's Prozac like
*mad*. But if the patient's complaints appear in some kind of package which
don't meet the prejudices of the male clinician/voodoo doctor, then it's
necessary to pull out theDSM-IV manual and wax on about scientific discipline
and create from thin air a "somatization disorder".

It's just another way of saying that one can create a loose definition of a
nebulous condition and then stretch it to label anything which appears bizarre,
so that rather than actually diagnose and solve problems you can dump the ones
you don't like into the recycle bin andlet the DSM-IV manual thumpers profit
from the stash. That way everybody is happy. The male voodoo doctor gets to
see himself as a scientist and the psych therapist gets another client.

I believe that SD is used by doctors who do not like the idea that conditiions
which affect the brain cause certain mental states and behaviors which are not
in keeping with their own requirements for how disease is supposed to manifest
in the human body. I believe the medical profession has an alliance with the
psych profession because they share a common belief system.

No, the starting point is to go back to college and unlearn the psychobabble
taught to physicians in med school. But that cannot be done--with all the
psychological investments involved in the career and selfhood and one's
supremecy of being--so instead one wages war on the Chronic Fatigue,
Fibromyalgia, and Multiple Chemical Sensitivitysyndromes, since these syndromes
are diseases of both body and brain,in which affective disorders are documented
in all three. But since the Freudian-psychobabble-educated physician suffers
cognitivedissonance when presented with these, the syndromes must be attacked.
Continuing education is not an option. Instead, reality must be shaped to fit
the psychological needs of the profession, and the patients need to be hazed.

So rather than counsel with a psychotherapist over issues of selfhood and
megalomania and deep insecurity which interfere with the process of continuing
education--which is also the scientific process itself--it is necessary to
reformulate these disease syndromes so that they fit into the 20th-century
mind-body conceptual dualism taught to physicians, in which brain diseases are
separate from diseases of thebody and mind states are separate from both. This
needs to be done despite the fact that poisons such as lead and mercury have
been known for 100 years to poison the brain, body, and mind all at the same
time. So Science needs to be bent and manipulated to serve a profession which
maintains a conceputal framework which is not rooted in Science, and those
teachings must be maintained for those sychologically inclined to conservatism
and intellectual dominance,all properly wrapped in the impressive rhetoric of
scientific and clinical objectivity.

A lot of your responses are flak garbage which you use to exhaust pariticpants.
I made my position perfectly clear. Decades of psychobiological research,
including century-long scientfically acquired knowledge on the effect of
poisons such as heavy metals on the brain, show that mood and mental states can
and do derive fromorganic origins. Meanwhile state-credentialed MD's are
writing books and articles about how biological psychiatry is "pseudoscience",
a"myth", and a "fraud". On *this* subject the present generation is corrupt,
and is not going to give up its intellectual commitment to the psychobabble it
received in med school.

On the issue of MCS, ascribing "affective disorders" to "psychologicalf actors"
is an opinion which is rammed through as Science. It is accompanied by
dismissive descriptions of mind states and behavior of the patients, with all
kinds of unscientific judgements andassumptions as to 1) whether those mind
states and behavior arelegitimate (e.g. fear of chemicals, stress of chronic
illness), and 2)whether the mind states and behavior have an organic or
non-organic origin.

MCS *will* receive a fair hearing only when the medical profession gives up its
intellecutal commitment to the teachings of psychology as the only explanation
for how mind states and behavior alter with disease.

You asked me for evidence of "mind-body conceptual dualism" and I just gave an
example from a psychobabbling physician in this thread. Your technique is to
bait and throw out idiotic flak, so that now we can have a separate existential
debate as to whether there really is adualistic mind-body conception in modern
medicine.

Yes, physicians do recognize a connection between the two--they call it
somatization disorder. That is, your boyfriend broke up with you and you are
self-pitiful due to your past child raising and have along history of
maladaptive behaviors and you have sunken into depression and can't concentrate
and now your immunity has sunk and now you have an infection etc etc. They may
*also* talk about a"psychological component" as being the result of chronic
stress from the illness.

But the medical profession is selective about when the connection operates in
one direction vs. the other.

The fact is, there isn't an economy for the problem of chronic mercury and lead
exposure causing maladaptive dysfunctional unhealthy minds and behaviors. Not
because the science doesn't exist to support it. But because the economy
doesn't exist to produce the professional intellect to study, talk about, and
treat it. The psychotherapists and psychologists would be in less demand.
There would be no drugs to patent. Hence the facts are dropped from
consciousness. That mercury and lead f**k up people's emotions and minds (in
addition to a hundred other symptoms) is so dropped out of consciousness that
MD's can write books that argue that Biological Psychiatry is a fraud.

As a result, one must conclude that MCS is not caused by poisons--which just
about everyone who has the illness and has clinical experience treating it
argues--but rather is a somatization disorder.

This is how economy and professional cultures distort reality and allow
ingrained assumptions and bias to manipulate and distort the process of
scientific inquiry.

No, many physicians recognize that they are often dealing with illnesses that
involve both the mind & the body. It would seem as if you are attributing
their admission of this fact to some sort of denial instead. Incorrect. But
commonly the same conclusion that some patients erroneously arrive at if the
doc declines to attribute the illness to physical factors alone.

This thread is in the context of MCS. Within the context of this subject
physicians *do not* generally conceive or discuss depression*or* anxiety in any
terms other than the psychologist's, regardless *how* the psychologist
constructs the relationship, it is the*psychologist's* constructiona and the
psychologist's ideology. The very own terminology employed by the author of
the medical textbook cited, who is at the pro-MCS end of the debate *within*
the mainstream, is that it is an illness with "psychological factors".

Since you mention arthritis in the context of this thread on MCS (which is a
disease its propopents argue is the result of*poisoning*), I will say that
poisons such as lead and mercury commonly causes brain symptoms *first*,
because these poisons are emically attracted to brain tissue. The first stage
of these poisonings is commonly brain symptoms only. Patients may suffer
depression or anxiety for *years* before the symptoms originating in organs
*below neck* emerge in sufficient degree to cause the patient to seek care. So
the depression in these cases does *not* follow arthritis and the depression is
not something "psychological" *asdistinct* from the physical. The depression
is not of the"psychological" domain. It is a physical symptom no less than
arthritis. It is not a "component" and it is not a "factor". It is
a*symptom*.

The problem is conceptualizing depression and anxiety as being in adifferent
category than "physical" symptoms. This division in thought is reflected by
your own use of language and the very manner in which you discuss depression in
relation to other symptoms. Depression commonly bears no relation to the other
symptoms except they both share a similar cause in some *poison* which has
attacked the brain together with other organs in the body.This conceptualizing
is largely responsible for the opposition to these diseases by the medical
profession.>

Depression is not a *component* by "a priori" assumption. If doctors want to
assume the nature of the pathology in a conceptual framework and language
*originated by psychologists*, then they should seek psychology as a career and
*not* human physiology. If doctors want to educate us about how depression
affects human health--but *not* how mercury and lead affect affect brain and
emotional and mental health--then they should be psychologists and lecture on
Ophrah Winfrey, but *not* manipulate the research and interpretation of MCS
research by projecting their own indoctrination onto reality.>

Depression needn't be a *component* and it needn't be a *factor *simply because
psychologists (and physicians loyal to their ideology) insist that it be so.

I do not agree that I am arguing with myself and I do not agree we are simply
talking about terminology. I have a good first-hand understanding of the
disease, I have a good understanding of non-mainstream discussions of the
disease, and I have good understanding of mainstream discussions of the
disease. Within the mainstream the depression/anxiety is presently discussed
as being a"factor" or "component"--*not* a symptom. Ten years ago the
depression/anxiety was discussed as being *causative*. There has beena gradual
shift in language as the disorder has been *grudgingly*accepted as being
somatic, but the acceptance has been gradual, in which the depression/anxiety
has altered from being "primary" to being a "factor" or a "component". No this
is not simply terminology but reflects changing conceptions of the disease as
the medical society isslowly accepting that chemical intolerance exists, but
cannot shake lose its belief system for how depression and anxiety play a role
in these diseases.

You say that much is not understood about the disease. Then I expect that the
medical society which you defend *suspend* its assumptiosn about
depression/anxeity being primary *or* a "component" or "factor"in any causative
way regarding chemical intolerance, and to cease using language which
communicates that very conception.

A neurologist who has decribed what actually happens in MCS is that the brain
is abnormally stimulated by the chemical and an electrochemical reaction occurs
in the brain in which the neurotoxicant glutamate is released and brain cells
swell and the patients suffers debiliitating symptoms. He further states that
this process is a process of ongoing injury to brain cells, a disease of
pre-existing brain cell injury with continuing brain cell injury uponchemical
exposures. He reached these conclusions after studying changes in EEG
measurements in which patients were exposed tochemicals such as paint,
gasoline, perfume, lacquer, etc. He found wildly altering EEG measurements
upon chemical exposure and found evidence of dementia in the patient in various
areas of the brain, with brain function deteriorating upon exposure. This
neurologist'sattempt 10 years ago to gather a scientific audience for his
findingsresearch was frustrated and obstructed while at the same time
descriptions by mainstream medical scientists and professionals of "affective
disorders" being primary or a causitive "factor" or"component" are accepted
without question. I think that if one examines the *neurological* observations
made and explanations advanced for what is happening in the brain upon chemical
exposures, one would find the descriptions of "affective disorders" and
"somatization disorders" as being causitive "components"/"factors" to be
asinine in their utter vacuity with regard to the subject.

So I do not even agree with the primacy which is given to anxiety/depression in
these diseases because examinations of the disease which actually have some
neurobiological depth find that anxeity/depression have little to do with the
disease process. It is a sideshow produced by persons who know nothing of the
disease and are prefectly content to send both the patients and neurological
investigations into their disease into the garbage chute. What has been
occuring has been a type of medical and sociological final solution to a
disease and its sufferers which appear to be bizarre to many uninformed.

But because the numbers of affected is so high, the culture and the society is
forced to make some kind of adjustments in its willingness to admit the reality
of the disease, but because it resists explanations outside of the intellectual
box it has been taught, it still cannot accept chemical intolerance because it
cannot fit the emical intolerance together with the affective disorders,
because it is not willing to alter its dogma regarding how affective disorders
present themselves with other brain symptoms in body-brain diseases.

No I'm sorry but this is not simply about terminology.

Don't kid yourselves. If you think the debate is resolved by physicians who
like to throw around big terms like "somatization" as if they are experts on
the topic, don't kid yourselves. Go get your Shrink's license and do the kind
psycho babbling and psycho labelling instead of passing yourselves off as
honest scientists. In that role, rather than as the frustrated shrinks you
presently are, you can get all the hard-ons you want writing profiles for
Abnormal Psychology journals.

By the way, I just recently spoke to a mother of an autistic child who said her
child has "raging" chemical sensitivities. This I think will demand some more
inventive, delusional, and self-elevating psychobabble from frustrated
psychologists in the physicians lounge. Autistic children make good meat for
physicians contemptuous of new diseases which stretch their education.

Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
syndromes are beyond the medical education and intellect of the present
generation. The medical textbooks which properly deal with these diseases
medically and scientifically will be written by the next generation. The
present generation of sci/med professionals generally will protect its
intellectual turf until it retires, and hese patients will be scoffed at,
ridiculed, marginalized etc. until fresh yound minds, which will not find these
diseases to be strange, will give these diseases the study and respect they
deserve

Thanks to IIena who posted this on asbi, in reply to Ted Nidiffer's flacking
for Barrett.

Thanks to R for reminding me of this "oldie" ...

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: A 1999 Consensus

ABSTRACT. Consensus criteria for the definition of multiple chemical
sensitivity (MCS) were first identified in a 1989 multidisciplinary
survey of 89 clinicians and researchers with extensive experience in,
but widely differing views of, MCS. A decade later, their top 5
consensus criteria (i.e., defining MCS as [1] a chronic condition [2]
with symptoms that recur reproducibly [3] in response to low levels of
exposure [4] to multiple unrelated chemicals and [5] improve or
resolve when incitants are removed) are still unrefuted in published
literature. Along with a 6th criterion that we now propose adding
(i.e., requiring that symptoms occur in multiple organ systems), these
criteria are all commonly encompassed by research definitions of MCS.
Nonetheless, their standardized use in clinical settings is still
lacking, long overdue, and greatly needed-especially in light of
government studies in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada
that revealed 2-4 times as many cases of chemical sensitivity among
Gulf War veterans than undeployed controls. In addition, state health
department surveys of civilians in New Mexico and California showed
that 2-6%, respectively, already had been diagnosed with MCS and that
16% of the civilians reported an "unusual sensitivity" to common
everyday chemicals. Given this high prevalence, as well as the 1994
consensus of the American Lung Association, American Medical
Association, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission that "complaints [of MCS] should
not be dismissed as psychogenic, and a thorough workup is essential,"
we recommend that MCS be formally diagnosed-in addition to any other
disorders that may be present-in all cases in which the 6
aforementioned consensus criteria are met and no single other organic
disorder (e.g., mastocytosis) can account for all the signs and
symptoms associated with chemical exposure. The millions of civilians
and tens of thousands of Gulf War veterans who suffer from chemical
sensitivity should not be kept waiting any longer for a standardized
diagnosis while medical research continues to investigate the etiology
of their signs and symptoms.

AS RESEARCHERS AND CLINICIANS with experience in the study,
evaluation, diagnosis, and/or care of adults and children with
chemical sensitivity disorders, we support the stated goal of the
National Institutes of Health 1999 Atlanta Conference on the Health
Impact of Chemical Exposures During the Gulf War "to fully
characterize the nature of multiple chemical exposures within the Gulf
War veteran population and to relate this characterization to what is
known about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) and related conditions
and disorders within civilian populations."(1) Based on research
conducted by state and federal government agencies, we already know
that MCS is one of the most commonly diagnosed chronic disorders in
civilians and the most common-but still largely undiagnosed-disorder
of any kind in Gulf War veterans of the United States.

In statewide telephone surveys of randomly selected adults, conducted
by health departments in California in 1995 and 1996 and New Mexico in
1997, investigators found that 6% of adults in California(2) and 2% of
adults in New Mexico(3) indicated that they had already been diagnosed
with MCS or Environmental Illness, whereas 16% in both states said
they were "unusually sensitive to everyday chemicals." When randomly
selected adults in other states were asked if they were "especially
sensitive" (instead of "unusually" sensitive), one-third consistently
maintained that they were.(4-6)

Among Gulf War era veterans, data from the largest random survey
presented by the U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) in 1998
(based on questionnaires completed by 11 216 deployed to the Gulf and
9 761 nondeployed) show that 5% reported chemical sensitivity among
the nondeployed personnel and 15% reported the same among the
deployed.(7) Other VA researchers report much higher rates-but the
same 3-fold difference-in a smaller random sample of VA hospital
outpatients: 86% of ill veterans deployed to the Gulf complained of
chemical sensitivity, compared with 30% of undeployed ill veterans.(8)
In the only study in which MCS was specifically assessed among
veterans selected randomly from the VA Registry, investigators found
36% of 1 004 met common research criteria for MCS.(9) Among randomly
selected Department of Defense (DOD) personnel who remain on active
duty, two larger studies by the Centers for Disease Control found
slightly lower-but still significant-2.1- and 2.5-fold increases in
the prevalence of self-reported chemical sensitivity among those
deployed to the Gulf, compared with those who were not deployed. In
the "Iowa" study, in which the prevalence rates for deployed and
nondeployed individuals were 5.4% and 2.6%, respectively,
investigators used a detailed questionnaire to assess "probable
MCS."(10) In the "Pennsylvania" study,(11) in which prevalence rates
were 5% versus 2%, respectively, only one "yes/no" question was asked
about chemical sensitivity. Canadian Gulf War veterans reported only
approximately one-half the prevalence of MCS (2.4%), but nevertheless
this was 4 times more than their controls.(12) Even in the United
Kingdom where MCS is little known, Gulf War veterans report being
diagnosed with MCS at 2.5 times the rate of military controls.(13)

Clearly, there is a significant need for a standardized clinical
definition of MCS and a comprehensive clinical protocol that VA, DOD,
and other physicians can use to evaluate it. We recommend to our
colleagues and the sponsors of the Atlanta Conference-the Department
of Health and Human Services' Office of Public Health and Science, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of
Health, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry-that
MCS be formally defined for clinical purposes by the top 5 "consensus
criteria" identified in a 1989 survey of 89 clinicians and researchers
who had extensive experience in MCS but who also held widely divergent
views about its etiology.(14) Included were 36 specialists in allergy,
23 in occupational medicine, 20 in "clinical ecology," and 10 in
internal medicine and otolaryngology. We would add only that symptoms
associated with chemical exposures must involve multiple organ
systems, thus distinguishing MCS from specific single-organ system
disorders (e.g., asthma, migraine) that also may meet the first 5
criteria.

Consensus Criteria for MCS

The following consensus criteria for the diagnosis of MCS were gleaned
from the study by Nethercott et al.(14) (funded in part by grants from
US NIOSH and US NIEHS):

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

2.. "The condition is chronic."

3.. "Low levels of exposure [lower than previously or commonly
tolerated] result in manifestations of the syndrome."

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

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

6.. [Added in 1999]: Symptoms involve multiple organ systems.
Given the only other explicit consensus ever published on MCS-the 1994
statement of the American Lung Association, American Medical
Association, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, that "complaints [of MCS] should not be
dismissed as psychogenic, and a thorough workup is essential" (ALA
1994)-we recommend that MCS be diagnosed whenever all 6 of the
consensus criteria are met, along with any other disorders that also
may be present, such as asthma, allergy, migraine, chronic fatigue
syndrome (CFS), and fibromyalgia (FM). MCS should be excluded only if
a single other multi-organ disorder can account for both the entire
spectrum of signs and symptoms and their association with chemical
exposures, such as mastocytosis or porphyria, but not CFS or FM, which
are not so associated.

To assist physicians who are unfamiliar with the evaluation of MCS, we
recommend that clinical protocols include validated questionnaires for
screening and characterizing chemical sensitivity,(15,16) a list of
overlapping disorders to consider in the differential diagnosis of
MCS, and a list of signs and test abnormalities associated with MCS in
the peer-reviewed literature (summarized by Ashford and Miller(17) and
Donnay(18)). Although no single test is yet considered diagnostic of
MCS, those suggested by signs, symptoms, or history may be helpful in
treating and tracking the disorder.

The presentation of MCS may vary greatly among cases and over time.
Some individuals are totally disabled by severe symptoms suffered on a
daily basis, for example, whereas others are disabled only minimally
by mild symptoms suffered occasionally. We, therefore, recommend that
any clinical diagnosis of MCS be characterized and followed over time
using quantitative and/or qualitative indices of life impact or
disability (e.g., minimal, partial, total); symptom severity (e.g.,
mild, moderate, severe); symptom frequency (e.g., daily, weekly,
monthly); and sensory involvement (identification of which sensory
pathways-olfactory, trigeminal, gustatory, auditory, visual and/or
touch, including perception of vibration, pain and heat or cold-show
altered (+/-) sensitivity and/or tolerance for normal levels of
stimuli, either chronically or in response to particular chemical
exposures).

For research purposes that require greater homogeneity, we encourage
investigators to refine the consensus criteria for MCS with whatever
additional inclusion or exclusion criteria they believe are needed to
test their hypotheses. The indices and domains that are used to
characterize and select both cases and controls in MCS research should
be fully reported so that results from different studies can be
compared and their broader applicability assessed.

Given the significant overlap in clinic populations of MCS with both
CFS and FM, as well as the need to better understand the relationships
between these disorders,(19-21) we recommend that all "solicitations"
and "requests for applications" issued by federal agencies for human
research into any one of CFS, FM, or MCS direct investigators to
screen for all three (regardless of their selection criteria, which
need not be affected) and to report their results in these terms.
There is a precedent for this: the National Institute of Arthritis and
Musculoskeletal Disorders routinely requires that in studies of
fibromyalgia investigators must screen for and report any overlap with
temporo-mandibular joint disorder. CFS, FM, and MCS research could all
benefit from greater collaboration, and so we welcome the
Congressional initiative of Senator Tom Harkin to earmark $3 million
of the DOD's 1999 Gulf War illnesses research budget for
multidisciplinary studies of CFS, FM, and MCS together (solicitation
074&&&-9902-0005 issued 2/12/99) to better understand both their
overlaps and differences. We recommend that such three-way studies be
solicited by all federal agencies funding CFS, FM or MCS research.

References

1.. Eisenberg J. Report to Congress on Research on Multiple Chemical
Exposures and Veterans with Gulf War Illnesses. Washington DC: US
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Public Health and
Science. 15 January 1998.

2.. Kreutzer R, Neutra R, Lashuay N. The prevalence of people
reporting sensitivities to chemicals in a population-based survey. Am
J Epidemiol (in press).

3.. Voorhees RE. Memorandum from New Mexico Deputy State
Epidemiologist to Joe Thompson, Special Counsel, Office of the
Governor; 13 March 1998.

4.. Bell IR, Schwartz GE, Amend D, et al. Psychological
characteristics and subjective intolerance for xenobiotic agents of
normal young adults with trait shyness and defensiveness. A
parkinsonian-like personality type? J Nerv Ment Dis 1998; 182:367-74.

5.. Bell IR, Miller CS, Schwartz GE, et al. Neuropsychiatric and
somatic characteristics of young adults with and without self-reported
chemical odor intolerance and chemical sensitivity. Arch Environ
Health 1996; 51:9-21.

6.. Meggs WJ, Dunn KA, Bloch RM, et al. Prevalence and nature of
allergy and chemical sensitivity in a general population. Arch Environ
Health 1996; 51(4):275-82.

7.. Kang HK, Mahan CM, Lee KY, et al. Prevalence of chronic fatigue
syndrome among US Gulf War veterans. Boston, MA: Fourth International
AACFS Conference on CFIDS, 10 October 1998 (abstract and
presentation).

8.. Bell IR., Warg-Damiani L, Baldwin CM, et al. Self-reported
chemical sensitivity and wartime chemical exposures in Gulf War
veterans with and without decreased global health ratings. Mil Med
1998; 163:725-32.

9.. Fiedler N, Kipen H, Natelson B. Civilian and veteran studies of
multiple chemical sensitivity. Boston, MA: 216th Annual Meeting of
American Chemical Society, Symposium on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity:
Problems for Scientists and Society, 26 August 1998 (abstract and
presentation).

10.. Black DW, Doebbing BN, Voelker MD, et al. Multiple Chemical
Sensitivity Syndrome: Symptom Prevalence and Risk Factors in a
Military Population. Atlanta, GA: The Health Impact of Chemical
Exposures During the Gulf War-A Research Planning Conference. 28
February 1999 (presentation, manuscript submitted).

11.. [censored] K, Nisenbaum R, et al. 1998. Chronic multisymptom illness
affecting Air Force veterans of the Gulf War. JAMA 1998; 280:981-88.

12.. Canadian Department of National Defense (CDND). Health Study of
Canadian Forces Personnel Involved in the 1991 Conflict in the Persian
Gulf. Ottawa, Canada: Goss Gilroy; 20 April 1998. [Online at:
dnd.cahealth study e vol1 TOC.htm<abOpen ↗
out:blank>]

13.. Unwin C, Blatchley N, Coker W, et al. Health of UK servicemen who
served in the Persian Gulf War. Lancet 1999; 353:169-78.

14.. Nethercott JR, Davidoff LL, Curbow B, et al. Multiple chemical
sensitivities syndrome: toward a working case definition. Arch Environ
Health 1993; 48:19-26.

15.. Szarek MJ, Bell IR, Schwartz GE. Validation of a brief screening
measure of environmental chemical sensitivity: the chemical odor
intolerance index. J Environ Psychol 1997; 17:345-51.

16.. Miller CS, Prihoda TJ. The Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity
Inventory (EESI): a standardized approach for quantifying symptoms and
intolerances for research and clinical applications. Toxicol Ind
Health (in press).

17.. Ashford NA, Miller CS. Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High
Stakes (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley, 1998.

18.. Donnay A. A Resource Manual for Screening and Evaluating Multiple
Chemical Sensitivity. Baltimore MD: MCS Referral and Resources, 1999.

19.. Buchwald D, Garrity D. Comparison of patients with chronic
fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and multiple chemical sensitivities.
Arch Int Med 1994; 154:2049-53.

20.. Slotkoff AT, Radulovic DA, Clauw DJ. The relationship between
fibromyalgia and the multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome. Scand J
Rheumatol 1997; 26:364-67.

21.. Donnay A, Ziem G. Prevalence and overlap of chronic fatigue
syndrome and fibromyalgia syndrome among 100 new patients with
multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome. J Chron Fatigue Syndrome
5(2)🙁in press).

Signatories to the
1999 Consensus on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
Liliane Bartha, M.D.
William Baumzweiger, M.D.
David S. Buscher, M.D.
Thomas Callender, M.D., M.P.H.
Kristina A. Dahl, M.D.
Ann Davidoff, Ph.D.
Albert Donnay, M.H.S.
Stephen B. Edelson, M.D., F.A.A.F.P., F.A.A.E.M.
Barry D. Elson, M.D.
Erica Elliott, M.D.
Donna P. Flayhan, Ph.D.
Gunnar Heuser, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.P.
Penelope M. Keyl, M.Sc., Ph.D.
Kaye H. Kilburn, M.D.
Pamela Gibson, Ph.D.
Leonard A. Jason, Ph.D.
Jozef Krop, M.D.
Roger D. Mazlen, M.D.
Ruth G. McGill, M.D.
James McTamney, Ph.D.
William J. Meggs, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.E.P.
William Morton, M.D., Dr.P.H.
Meryl Nass, M.D.
L. Christine Oliver, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.P.M.
Dilkhush D. Panjwani, M.D., D.P.M., F.R.C.P.C.
Lawrence A. Plumlee, M.D.
Doris Rapp, M.D., F.A.A.A., F.A.A.P., F.A.A.E.M.
Myra B. Shayevitz, M.D., F.C.C.P., F.A.C.P.
Janette Sherman, M.D.
Raymond M. Singer, Ph.D., A.B.P.N.
Anne Solomon, Ph.D., M.A.
Aristo Vodjani, Ph.D.
Joyce M. Woods, Ph.D., R.N.
Grace Ziem, M.D., Dr.P.H., M.P.H.

This article was published in the May/June 1999 issue of Archives of
Environmental Health, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 147-149.
The publisher grants permission for the free reprinting and
distribution of this statement.

<<

Multiple Chemical Stupidity? >>

Yes, Peter, I see your last name is in this sentence...Stupidity....

Exactly what is your personal experience in this matter? Just as I
thought.....NONE..

The more you all denounce this syndrome, as more evidence because available,
the more credibility you lose.....

Right now you seem to be at -1000.....

"If you're gonna walk on thin ice, you may as well dance." (Jessie Winchester).

Sadly, "DEBBEE1023" <[email hidden]> crawled out from under her
rock wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Exactly what is your personal experience in this matter? Just as I
thought.....NONE..

That is a lie. There is NO evidence that you think.

<<
That is a lie. There is NO evidence that you think. >>

You are a living lie. You don't want people to deny the holocast, but you are
willing to deny that syndromes don't exist because you don't agree with
it..well, the sun doesn't rise and set on you, pal, and anything you have to
say about this subject matter, I just take with a grain of salt...because
that's about all you are worth...and your advice...

I think Peter should answer for himself.....he wrote it, I'm asking him....

Perhaps Mel Gibson will do a movie about chemical sensitivity....but then
again, you'd deny that too...just like you denied the Passion of the Christ...

"If you're gonna walk on thin ice, you may as well dance." (Jessie Winchester).

"DEBBEE1023" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<<
That is a lie. There is NO evidence that you think. >>

You are a living lie. You don't want people to deny the holocast,

Please, H O L O C A U S T, which is fact based.

but you are

Quoted message said:

willing to deny that syndromes don't exist because you don't agree with
it..

Nope. Not even close. I agree that MCS exists, and it is real to those who
claim to have it. However, I know that it is a psychosomatic illness and not
based on any physical problems.

Quoted message said:

well, the sun doesn't rise and set on you, pal,

Good thing it doesn't. It is a real tough thing to be on both sides of the
Earth at the same time.

and anything you have to

Quoted message said:

say about this subject matter, I just take with a grain of salt...because
that's about all you are worth...and your advice...

A grain of salt may be toxic, if it is the right salt.

Quoted message said:

I think Peter should answer for himself.....he wrote it, I'm asking

him....

Tough. It is a public forum and any publicly posted message is defacto a
request for a response from anyone wishing to express their ideas.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps Mel Gibson will do a movie about chemical sensitivity....but then
again, you'd deny that too...just like you denied the Passion of the

Christ...

I never denied that, so you are a liar. I claimed, erightly so, that the
movie, if not blatantly anti-Judaism, would give the anti-semites, such as
yourself, a further rationalization for their bigotry. Seems I am right.
Thanks for the proof.

<<
Tough. It is a public forum and any publicly posted message is defacto a
request for a response from anyone wishing to express their ideas. >>

My question was directed at Peter. I'm waiting for Peter to answer.

You have no personal experience about MCS other than the biased studies. It is
common knowledge that it exists, and even government agencies know it exists,
and that those that have it experience it in different manners... I take
whatever you say with a grain of salt...sea salt that is...

By the way, I understand that there is a study going on that links Parkinson's
Disease to n-Hexane...and other petroleum products.....real conventional
medicine doctors doing a study.....will you deny this too?

"If you're gonna walk on thin ice, you may as well dance." (Jessie Winchester).

<< give the anti-semites, such as
yourself, a further rationalization for their big >>

My attorney says I am not anti-semetic....but has his own opinions of what
really is going on here, even though if written down, people like yourself
would deny it......

"If you're gonna walk on thin ice, you may as well dance." (Jessie Winchester).

Quoted message said:

<< give the anti-semites, such as
yourself, a further rationalization for their big >>

My attorney says I am not anti-semetic...

I'm sure all of your imaginary friends provide unconditional enabling. I'm
sure they hold you in the highest of regard and always echo your sentiments.

Quoted message said:

but has his own opinions of what
really is going on here, even though if written down, people like yourself
would deny it......

You mean the claim that anyone who ever criticisizes an alt-method or praises a
conventional method is a paid shill for EOM?

"DEBBEE1023" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<< give the anti-semites, such as
yourself, a further rationalization for their big >>

My attorney says I am not anti-semetic....

Has he read your posts? Is he a feloow-traveler in your bund?

but has his own opinions of what

Quoted message said:

really is going on here, even though if written down, people like yourself
would deny it......

Another half-reference, from a half-wit.

"DEBBEE1023" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<<
Tough. It is a public forum and any publicly posted message is defacto a
request for a response from anyone wishing to express their ideas. >>

My question was directed at Peter. I'm waiting for Peter to answer.

As I said, you post in a public setting, you invite responses from anyone
who can read it.

Quoted message said:

You have no personal experience about MCS other than the biased studies.

Of course you would say the studies are biased. That is quite natural, since
you are in denial.

It is

Quoted message said:

common knowledge that it exists,

I agree. MCS exists, but it is a psychosomatic disorder, not a physical one.

Quoted message said:

and even government agencies know it exists,
and that those that have it experience it in different manners... I take
whatever you say with a grain of salt...sea salt that is...

Well thee are other salts that are more potent. Try KCN.

Quoted message said:

By the way, I understand that there is a study going on that links

Parkinson's

Quoted message said:

Disease to n-Hexane...and other petroleum products.....real conventional
medicine doctors doing a study.....will you deny this too?

Your question is a non sequitur.

(DEBBEE1023) said:

<<

Multiple Chemical Stupidity? >>

Yes, Peter, I see your last name is in this sentence...Stupidity....

Exactly what is your personal experience in this matter? Just as I
thought.....NONE..

I have made no secret of the fact that I have a generalised anxiety
disorder. The effects are very real. MCS is a phobia, that is, a
specific anxiety disorder, which has a lot of similarities with
agoraphobia. Because I recognise what I have and admit to having it,
it can be managed. MCS can be managed and treated in the same way, but
it requires the people who have it to accept what it is.

I do not deny the reality of MCS. I just disagree with the
"alternative" explanations for its etiology and suggestions for
treatment.

But you knew all that already, because it was in the article by me
that you responded to.

Quoted message said:

The more you all denounce this syndrome, as more evidence because available,
the more credibility you lose.....

See above.

Quoted message said:

Right now you seem to be at -1000.....

Actually, I am highly positive. Optimism is one of the strategies to
address psychosomatic disorders.

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Quoted message said:

From: Peter Bowditch

Quoted message said:

MCS is a phobia,

ZZzz.

Toxic America: Tracking the Hazardous Chemicals That Seep Stealthily
Into Our Bodies
[Chronic Fatigue Syndrome & Fibromyalgia News] ImmuneSupport.com

04-28-2004

By Alexandra Rome

We learned in high school chemistry class that the human body is
simply a living, breathing mixture of chemicals. What we're not
taught, what few of us grasp, is that increasingly our bodies are part
of a vast chemistry experiment, bombarded daily by industrial and
agricultural toxic substances.

I volunteered to be one of nine people tested for 210 of these
chemicals four summers ago. Thirteen vials of blood were drawn, and
urine samples over a 24-hour period were collected from each
participant and shipped overnight to labs in Kansas and California for
evaluation.

The organizations that collaborated on the study -- the Mount Sinai
School of Medicine; the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit
research and education organization; and Commonweal, a Bolinas-based
nonprofit health and environmental research institute -- wanted to
discover what scientists call our "body burden." Our industrialized
society leaves its chemical imprint on us. Industrial, agricultural
and waste management practices introduce chemicals that linger in
food, air, water and soil -- and enter our bodies when we breathe, eat
and drink. Some chemicals in consumer products also contaminate us.

This is my test result: I have measurable levels of 86 out of the 210
chemicals, including 27 different compounds from the chemical groups
PCB and dioxin, both considered among the most toxic environmental
contaminants. (The manufacture of PCBs was banned in the United States
in 1976 because of concern over their effects on human health. They
are still in use in some electrical equipment. Dioxins are byproducts
of the manufacture and burning of products that contain chlorine.)

To put this number into context: There are more than 75,000 chemicals
licensed for commercial use; more than 2,000 new synthetic chemicals
are registered every year; the Environmental Protection Agency has
tallied close to 10,000 chemical ingredients in cosmetics, food and
consumer products. The 210 we were tested for are just a few of the
industrial chemicals in our world. We can surmise that the actual
number of manufactured chemicals in our bodies is far greater than our
results show. Very few of these chemicals were in our environment, or
our bodies, just 75 years ago.

In 1998, U.S. industries reported manufacturing 6.5 trillion pounds of
9, 000 different chemicals, and in 2000, major American companies --
not even counting the smaller ones -- dumped 7.1 billion pounds of 650
different industrial chemicals into our air and water.

How do I feel knowing I have all these chemicals in my body? Although
I've spent most of my adult life working on environment and public
health issues and, in an intellectual sense, I expected the results,
seeing the list of chemicals was shocking: Heavy metals like lead and
methylmercury, organophosphate and organochlorine pesticides. Numerous
furans -- pollutant byproducts of industry. Volatile and semi-volatile
chemicals widely used in consumer products like gasoline, paints,
glues and fire retardants.

I had secretly harbored the hope that I would find I didn't have much
of the bad stuff in me. After all, I have been privileged to live a
"clean" life. I haven't worked in factories or lived in heavily
industrial areas; I've had access to good, organic food; I'm well
educated and knowledgeable about the dangers of pesticides and have
made a point of not keeping them in my house. (Though I'm an avid
gardener, I haven't used pesticides for years.)

What I discovered is that we are all in this chemical soup together.
Chemicals in our environment don't discriminate.

The findings gave new and pointed meaning to terms I've heard for
years: toxic, persistent, bio-accumulative. One example is Mirex, an
organochlorine pesticide. I became fixated on Mirex because I was the
only one in our group to have a measurable level of it.

Mirex was banned for use in the United States in 1976 -- 26 years ago,
the year the second of my three daughters was born. Manufactured by
the Allied Chemical Corp., it was until then used as an insecticide
and fire retardant.

Here's what the Environmental Working Group found out about Mirex: "As
a class, organochlorine pesticides are toxic, persistent,
bio-accumulative and lipophilic. This means that organochlorines build
up and are stored in fatty tissues and fluids, such as breast milk,
and can be passed on to fetuses and infants during pregnancy and
lactation." And, chillingly, "Extremely little is known about the
effect of Mirex in humans."

I'm 56, and my personal health history includes autoimmune illnesses,
fibromyalgia and a rare cardiac syndrome known as Syndrome X. I've had
three breast biopsies, one of which showed a finding of atypical cells
that are usually considered a precursor to breast cancer.

Although it's unknown to what extent my exposure may have contributed
to the diseases I have that have been diagnosed, learning of these
chemicals in my body has been deeply disturbing. I have many questions
and concerns: How and where was I exposed to each of them? Have they
contributed to my health problems? Had I known, could I have done
anything more to avoid the exposures?

Most importantly, how much of what has bio-accumulated in me have I,
however unwittingly, passed on to my daughters? Living in a world with
ever-increasing numbers of and uses for chemicals, how will this
affect them and their future children, my grandchildren? And why do we
know so little about these chemicals and the ubiquitous, low-dose
exposures we are subjected to daily?

I know that we can seldom link specific health problems to specific
exposures; the science is not yet available for that. But the
prevalence of many illnesses and diseases -- including cancers, birth
and reproductive system defects, asthma, nervous system disorders such
as autism and attention deficit disorder -- is on the rise, and
environmental factors may play a significant role in these increases.
More than 50 of the chemicals I tested positive for are known to have
harmful effects on the immune and cardiac systems.

Unfortunately, way too little is known about the vast majority of
chemicals we have unleashed into our environment and bodies. There is
no information available on the chemical uses or health effects of
more than one- third of the chemicals for which the nine body burden
study participants tested positive in a review of eight standard
industry or government references used by the EPA. The chemical
industry continues to claim that low- dose exposure to hundreds of
chemicals simultaneously is safe. Yet, for most of the chemicals found
in us, there are almost no studies done on such exposures, much less
on related questions about how they may interact with each other in
our bodies, how the timing of exposure may affect us, or how genetic
vulnerability plays into the mix. It is not acceptable for any of us
to be participants, without a choice, in this chemical soup about
which we have so little knowledge.

The main reason so little is known is this: Companies are under no
legal or regulatory obligation to understand how their products might
harm human health, except in the case of certain ingredients in drugs
or food or used as pesticides. That is also unacceptable. We must have
more reliable scientific information about these chemicals. We must
reform the Toxic Substance Control Act (the nation's chief regulatory
statute for commercial chemicals) and incorporate into it the
precautionary principle, which would require industries to show
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from putting chemicals
on the market. Companies are already required to do this before
marketing some pesticides.

Where scientific evidence shows that industrial chemicals are likely
to contribute to diseases, and their benefits don't outweigh their
harmful effects, exposures should be reduced or eliminated. We have to
change our laws and regulatory practices relating to the chemicals
pouring into our world.

It's no less important to support independent research and public
health facilities, like the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, which will pioneer the science that must lie behind the
decisions we need to make.

I hope that the cumulative effect of many efforts like our body burden
study will lighten the body burdens that my daughters -- and all of
our children -- have to carry. A complete report on our study,
information about the chemicals we were tested for, and profiles of
the participants are available at www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden/.

The other participants in the "body-burden" study

Andrea Martin: A Corte Madera environment and public health activist
who founded the Breast Cancer Fund in San Francisco. She died in
August of brain cancer.

Bill Moyers: Broadcast journalist who shared results of his body
burden tests in his Emmy award-winning PBS special on the chemical
industry, "Trade Secrets: Bill Moyers Reports."

Davis Baltz: A senior projects director for Bolinas-based Commonweal,
a nonprofit environmental and health research organization. Lucy
Waletzky: A psychiatrist and board member of the National Audubon
Society who serves on the board of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer
Society.

Michael Lerner: Founder of Commonweal and a longtime environmental
activist.

Sharyle Patton: Co-founder of the International Persistent Organic
Pollutants Network and co-director of the Collaborative on Health and
Environment, focusing on links between health and the environment.
Monique Harden: A New Orleans attorney with expertise in
anti-pollution litigation.

Charlotte Brody: A registered nurse who founded the Health Care
Without Harm Campaign to make health care more environmentally
responsible.

KEY TO CONTAMINANTS

Alexandra Rome's body was found to contain measurable levels of 86 out
of the 210 chemicals tested in the "Body Burden" study. In most cases
there is no official standard for what constitutes unsafe levels of
these chemicals within the human body and scientists haven't
determined what levels of exposure cause disease. But several of these
chemical compounds are listed by the official U. S. National
Toxicology Program as "known" or "reasonably anticipated" human
carcinogens. They fall into one of the following eight categories:
PCBs: PCBs were used for industrial insulation and lubrication until
they were almost entirely banned in 1974. Based on animal studies, the
government has concluded that several mixtures of PCBs are "reasonably
anticipated" to cause cancer in humans.

Dioxin: The byproducts of PVC production, industrial bleaching and
incineration, dioxin can cause cancer in humans and is toxic to
developing endocrine systems.

Furans: Pollutant byproduct of plastics production, incineration and
industrial leaching. Toxic to developing endocrine systems.
Organochlorine insecticides: DDT, chlordane and other pesticides.
Largely banned in the United States, these chemicals can accumulate in
the food chain and be ingested by humans.Some of them can cause cancer
and reproductive effects.

Organophosphate insecticide metabolites: Byproduct of malathion and
other insecticides, can be toxic to the nervous system. Indoor uses
were recently banned. A common exposure is from food.

Phthalates: Plasticizers found in some cosmetic and personal care
products and inks. The National Toxicology Program found these may
cause birth defects of male reproductive organs.

Volatile and Semi-volatile organic chemicals: Gasoline, varnishes,
glue and industrial solvents contain chemicals from this family, as
does tobacco smoke. Some are poisonous to the nervous system. Benzene,
a gasoline additive also present in tobacco smoke, is identified by
the government as a cancercauser in humans.

Metals: Lead, found in old paint chips, can cause lowered IQ. Mercury,
which may befound in swordfish, shark and canned albacore, can trigger
developmental delays. Arsenic exposure from treated lumber and
contaminated drinking water, is linked to behavioral disorders.
Cadmium, found for example in pigments and bakeware, is classified by
the government as a "known carcinogen."

Alexandra Rome was co-director of the Sustainable Futures Group at
Commonweal, a nonprofit health and environmental research institute,
until 2000. She lives in Mill Valley.

http://www.immunesupport.com/library/bulletinarticle.cfm?ID=5627&PROD=P204

<< I have made no secret of the fact that I have a generalised anxiety
disorder. The effects are very real. MCS is a phobia, that is, a
specific anxiety disorder, which has a lot of similarities with
agoraphobia. >>

MCS is not a phobia. I have no idea where you have gained this incorrect
information, but it is wrong. There are no set guidelines for MCS, as it
effects those that have it differently. I do know of a study, of individuals
that worked at chemical companies and those that lived around those companies
in place, and part of the criteria was finding folk to be in the study that
have panic attacks or anxiety attacks.
<< MCS can be managed and treated in the same way, but
it requires the people who have it to accept what it is. >>

MCS is different for everyone. For you to say this broad statement, is horse
puckey. You keep trying to generalize it. Maybe this is true for you, but not
everyone.

<<
I do not deny the reality of MCS. I just disagree with the
"alternative" explanations for its etiology and suggestions for
treatment. >>

Well, cowboy, there are no conventional methods for this diagnosis, so what is
left?
<< Actually, I am highly positive. Optimism is one of the strategies to
address psychosomatic disorders. >>

You sound positive alright...not.....the only personal experience you can speak
from about MCS is how it has effected you personally, and that's just not true
for everyone...

"If you're gonna walk on thin ice, you may as well dance." (Jessie Winchester).

<<
I agree. MCS exists, but it is a psychosomatic disorder, not a physical one. >>

You have your opinion, but as usual, you are generalizing, because you have no
personal experience with MCS, and do not know personally how it physically
attacked your body. You obviously have no sympathy to any of the thousands of
people that worked with chemicals whose lives were destroyed along with their
body parts. And for what....greed and high profit on the side of the employer
and/or chemical companies....

When are you, and the rest of your friends that try to deny that chemicals harm
people and other living things, going to start telling the truth? If it
happened to one of your children, or your wife, or even yourself, I would bet
you'd be dancing to another tune..

Wake up and smell the coffee, Probert...you fool no one around these parts with
your hogwash.

"If you're gonna walk on thin ice, you may as well dance." (Jessie Winchester).

<<
Has he read your posts? Is he a feloow-traveler in your bund? >>

He's become a regular reader to this newsgroup, and has read your remarks, and
the rest of the individuals on this board....keep 'em coming...you all are
doing a mighty fine job....

"If you're gonna walk on thin ice, you may as well dance." (Jessie Winchester).