The Way Out: Supps, More Testing and Diagnostic Proof of CIRS (Mould Illness)

The potential harmful effects of exposure to molds in inhabited buildings were recognized in early Biblical times. In the Old Testament ~ King James Version, Oxford 1888 Edition, Chapter XIV: Verses through to 34 to 37

Dr Mark Donohoe

I recently saw one of the most famous MCS Doctors in Australia, Dr Mark Donohoe, expecting to get a diagnosis of MCS. But, low and behold, to my surprise I was given one of CIRS almost on the spot, instead. Also of note about this doctor, he’s very ‘conventional-medicine like’ when it comes to my diagnosis and treatments: Plenty of pharmaceuticals, the NeuroQuant MRI plus research to back it all up was provided. On the flip side he lived up to the ACNEM reputation and has me on such high does of probiotics, that, thankfully, are working out quite well and I’m very grateful for.

However, I had to stop the probiotics for 4 weeks before this last Bioscreen test, which caused all my digestive symptoms to come back. The good thing about that painful situation is that it proves the probiotics are working. I can even get away with Kettle Salt and Vinegar chips; I find this amazing! Gluten containing foods, no.

One test I’m waiting on is the non Celiac gluten sensitivity gene test, HLA DRB1 and HLA-DQ (“coeliac”) genotyping, which goes with the CIRS. I used to be able to eat gluten until 2012 when I live in 1st WDB.

I already know I have the HLA-DQA2 in my results (from 23andMe) and two other HLAs but in case you haven’t realised it, you need a science degree to work this stuff out. The following makes a great read if you feel like getting off to sleep. HLA DQ is not necessarily good if you have breast implants and that gene. Makes me wonder if CIRS. Mould illness, can’t impact on those. I also have HLA B27, also not good with breast implants for those with an auto-immune disease, which I don’t have.

Ankylosing spondylitis is another auto-immune disease related to HLA-B27. 9 out of 10 people who have it have HLA-B27, which still doesn’t mean you’ll get that just because you have that gene, however, related family have a much higher likelihood of developing ankylosing spondylitis. More from Breast Implant

“Some notable autoimmune diseases that have a strong association with HLA antigens include Hashimoto’s thyroiditis (an autoimmune disorder involving underproduction by the thyroid gland) associated with HLA-DR5; Graves’ disease (an autoimmune disorder associated with overproduction by the thyroid gland), associated with HLA-B8 and Dw3; and hereditary hemochromatosis (excess iron stores), associated with HLA-A3, B7, and B14.”

There goes the booby operation I was getting done next week :)

Plus I have nasal swab tests in for MaCRONS, and a sinus cavity test for MaCRONS to perform (myself) on Monday. Hope to film that and share it here, providing all goes well. Doing this test: a swab on a wire is placed into my sinus cavity for more, deeper samples.

Other Testing that’s Now In

  • FBE + CRP

General pathology

  • Lyme serology and Western Blot if positive
  • Babesia on blood film
  • Bartonella serology


  • Erlichia and Rickettsia serology and PCR
  • Anaplasma serology


  • VIP (vasoactive intestinal polypeptide)
  • This may only be available from certain specialist pathologists, such as Nutripath in Melbourne
  • AM Cortisol + ACTH
  • Aldosterone

Waiting excitedly to get these back!

Also doing the prebiotics based of veggies each day.

Plus, still going strong the Micheal Ash protocol, more prebiotics, where green apples are cooked up (I skip the cinnamon) and raisins are supposed to be added; I’ve finally been able to find a brand with no or little yeast on them (either that or I tolerate them now); this makes them non-reactive once cooked. No prickling rashes on my face after eating them. For the second part I have to add in blueberries and almonds.

This will get my gut ready for the onslaught of medicines needed to rid my body of CIRS, pray.

I’m still doing the low-amylose diet, however, until I’m out of a mouldy house, 2, sometimes 3 of the foods on the list are in my diet: I eat a vegan whole foods diet and rice and sweet potato have been sustaining me for a while. It just wasn’t doable hence the binging on chips!

Besides zinc and b12 shots, I take only one supplement from Dr. Donohoe: NAC (This supports the Glutathione Nasal spray I’ve been making myself–at $45 a month, it’s just too much to pay out (it’s just buffered glutathione mixed with saline water in a sterilised Fess bottle).

Although, I’m thinking of doing liposomal vitamin C in high doses once I can get the ingredients together.

DSC04125 copy

My original source came from Custom Medicine at $45 a pop

“Do I have MCS?”

A question I was asking myself a few months back when it was first suggested, then later confirmed via the MRI that I have CIRS. Obviously, in Australia, I don’t have MCS unless I am using DDLS (Disability Discrimination Legal Service), which, at times, seems like a never ending pastime.

I don’t have MCS unless I am reminding people of my right to Access to Goods and Services under the Australian Human Rights act (Often this is to a pathology laboratory, or medical service of some kind: Allopathic and natural.) None of my medical documentation states that I have MCS.

I don’t use the term MCS at Victoria University when accessing Victoria University Disability Services (VUDS); nor does the label appear on my documentation of the awesome ‘Access Plan’ that gets drawn up by VUDS.

I don’t call it that with my General Practitioner; yet, I’ve had one ENT specialist say that people who are sensitive to chemicals and believe they have MCS actually have a Psychogenic Illness—like that myth needs to be perpetuated by the Australian medical community (And, I didn’t even mention MCS because my medical documentation and I don’t say it? Gee, it will be great if I actually do only have CIRS cause I’ll recover and can get on with my life, away from such nonsense in a very small-minded part of mainstream medicine, in Australia (while remaining an MCS advocate, of course).

All, apart from the new documents that say CIRS, most of my medical documentation says I have “Inhalant Allergies to chemicals including mould, fragrance, diesel, car exhaust, hydrocarbons, terpenes and woodsmoke”, at levels not normally associated with illness within the general population. However, recently, I have been living in a water damaged building (WDB) and have suffered headaches, breathing pain and lethargy that have left me bedridden. Because my treating specialist has been away, I went for help the only place I could find it (besides my GP who could only give me pharmaceuticals), Dr. Mark Donohoe, who said my symptoms where indicative of CIRS. I’m so glad he was right.

So, I won’t know if I have MCS, sorry, Inhalant Allergies, until after the treatment, which just happens to be the Shoemaker protocol (links at the end). What I do know, however, and it cannot be disputed within the medical and science community is that solvents cross the blood brain barrier (BBB), making it easier for the mould to impact my brain, hence the swelling areas.

More on this from this group teaching session on CIRS:

“CIRS Diagnosis – Recent Developments : NeuroQuant  Inflammation can affect blood brain barrier  NeuroQuant takes particular images from non- contrast brain MRI and measures volumes of 11 different paired structures in the brain  Effects seen on NeuroQuant can point to mole (aka WDB) and/or Lyme effects on specific brain tissue  Interstitial edema (swelling) in some areas  Atrophy (shrinking) of other areas”

My headaches are called: “brain swelling/ microvascular cerebral edema in CIRS“. They often last for two weeks. It used to be a 3-4 day thing after going to uni or a doctor’s appointment. Always caused by a long car trip and/or busy traffic. Now, I know my car has mould because I rarely go in there, yet when I do, mildew is all I can smell but it’s the petrol that hits me. Never did I think mould could be the precursor to that. This car is also from the last WDB I lived in. Now, a car trip can have me laid up for two weeks. Beyond comprehension when I’m going through that pain.

And the mould highest of the water damaged building (WDB) moulds in my rental right now: Wallemia, which scored a 30. I don’t have permission as yet from Mould Lab to share my report so won’t be including this for now.

After the MRI with a NeuroQuant assessment that had to be sent to the the US at Cortech Labs, which you can see on this page, the numbers had to be punched in to get the diagnostic cause: Mould, Lyme-like Illness (in Australia) and PTSD showed up on my brain via atrophy and edema (shrinkage and swelling).

Dr. Turtle in Mosmon, NSW, was kind enough to do this as I could not access a doctor’s surgery where they did this type of thing at that time due to the nature of my chemical sensitivities. (I’ve since found out where you can go and who you can see to access CIRS trained doctors in Australia. However, I feel blessed with the doctors I have as they are familiar with the Shoemaker Protocol and CIRS testing and the challenges faced by people with MCS or MCS-like symptoms.)

Below is the documentation that proves my diagnosis. As a blogger and writer sharing my story, I feel the need to share as proof and as public education for a few reasons:

The least: In light of the Belle Gibson/Irresponsible-non-fact-checking media scandal, which goes to show that not all health stories shared on the internet are factual, ergo, I can prove mine is. (For those who don’t know, Gibson is/was an Australian App designer, a one-time author (of a cookbook), and someone who faked her brain cancer for reasons unknown; meanwhile, the media ran with the judicious story that eating vegetables cured her of cancer. So simplistic; so stupid. Completely. Lol, not really lol but we all love a good story right? Even at the expense of other cancer patients’ health and lives? Surely not!)

The most: To help others who are struggling with complex symptoms and unable to find help

And to share my own story about my travels out of the Labyrinth of Chemical Sensitivities and now, CIRS as way of giving back to all who help me, even in the smallest way.

And, to prove I have MCS! Just kidding… (Hey, Australian Government: Hurry up with some support from the findings of the 2010 review into MCS, you did, like 7 years ago. People are suffering, like, right now… You can’t just publish a fact sheet stating that Australian people have MCS while those same people who have MCS and other illness related to chemical illness (that have actual disease codes!) are unable to access care due to fragrances and a lack of education among the community and medical community, some of whom even laugh in our faces… Case in point: Look at me; I’ve been suffering with medically-tested for and medically-proven inhalant allergies to chemicals for 14 years. 10 of those years were productive enough to leave the house and go to Uni. The last year or so, I’ve been completely housebound. Luckily, I’ve had great medical care all the way through; and only ever saw 2 doctors who proved to be misguided in their opinions, they bandied ‘Psychogenic, and Depressive theories’  about without even checking their facts or any patient documentation.

While on that topic, another fantastic specialist said to me: “You just can’t make that claim about a collective group of people; it could be made on a case by case basis only. I’m already 12-cat-lady crazy so this claim means nothing to me! It really bothers me that someone suffering could be told this, to their detriment!

This is my latest diagnostic documentation:

GDE Error: Unsupported File Type (jpg)

Whether I have CIRS only, or MCS and CIRS is besides the point: I am sensitive to chemicals. I have a part-time carer. I need access to medical care. I want to go back to school. And there are no commonly known guidelines nor education around this issue when it comes to public education, or medical for that matter, which means we are left like sitting ducks but instead of being shot at we are often excluded from life, safe homes and even Government assistance, in many cases unless we do the educating ourselves. In my case, I’ve been lucky enough to attend school as some of you know. Other elements can be really crappy though:

Family members often think it’s about the ‘smell’ of chemicals, rather than the chemical-irritants proven to be allergenic to some, that is the problem here. I believe in taking showers but using a mass amount of chemicals to ‘smell clean’ baffles me.

And, as far as MCS goes, myths are perpetuated, which leads to assisting anti-vaxers and purveyors of snake-oil like ‘cures’ to use us as examples; while some of us cannot even get vaccinated and cannot afford the snake oil.

You, Australian Government, leave us vulnerable at every turn, while the unscrupulous try to sell us this cure and that cure.

People in the science community argue about us like we don’t exist.

You also leave us vulnerable to certain behaviours of ‘doctors’ and bloggers to make fun of us and our doctors; yet, you have the MCS fact sheet for us. For what? So members of my community can suffer, sometimes even reaching the point of suicide? No safe housing options. People living in their cars, on balconies and in their bathrooms. Vulnerable. Disabled. No policies in place to protect us.

While the same myths are regurgitated and vomited into the blogosphere and the collective minds of family, friends and people who have the power to help us. Myths that cause genuine harm:

The Australian Government leave patients sensitive to chemicals open to ridicule on the internet and in real life

By not recognising MCS, the Australian Government leave patients sensitive to chemicals open to ridicule on the internet and in real life

Kozlovich then goes on to list the same set of links used since 1980 to debunk an illness many people experience:

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: A Spurious Diagnosis
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome, American Family Physician, September 1, 1998
Smearing Cosmetics
Senseless Scent Patrol
Scents and Senselessness 
Sick of It All 
Nocebo Effect: Think Sick and You’ll Be Sick


But the people who are sick from MCS, they don’t matter do they? Do they NICNAS? Dear, Australian Government? Well, we do have Tammy Franks from The Greens on our side. She has our back!

'Science Based Medicine' blog: People who make fun of us

The above is from “‘Science” Based Medicine‘ blog: More people who make fun of us

Maybe I don’t have MCS or maybe I do; but however this turns out for me I will always be an MCS (and related conditions) advocate and news service, here at The Labyrinth and finding our way out! How about you? Do you advocate for people with MCS, CIRS or other illness related to chemical sensitivity as a symptom?

More on Getting Help for CIRS

NeuroQuant Cortech Labs

Toxic Mould Support Australia

Surviving Mould Down Under

Surviving Mould Website

Access CIRS trained doctors in Australia

Getting Help for MCS

Human Rights: Access to Goods and Services



Amelia Hill EI/MCS Resources and Support Page

Australian Doctor’s List

Interviews, and MaCRONS Testing

Self Hacked: CIRS

Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker: Pioneer in CIRS, Mold & Biotoxins; with Guest Host Dana Howell

Test for MaCRONS (Biotoxins living in Sinus and Nasal Cavity)

Media! and Blogger Scandal in Australia

One side: Mad as Belle: the media’s lost accountability

Other side: Belle Gibson, Amanda Rootsey, Jess Ainscough and others fight cancer with ‘wellness’

Michellina Van Loder is a Professional Writer, Journalist and Blogger. This is where she shares her tales about trail blazing her way out of the Labyrinth of Chemical Sensitivities and Mould. This is also where you will find the latest Research on related topics.

MCS Denier, EPIC Takedown #2: Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Formaldehyde

In the Year 2001, a retired psychiatrist who was never board certified in anything stated: “Today, I am the media.” He repeatedly presented himself  as an expert in medicine, nutrition, and law, while having zero experience as a practicing physician, no training in nutrition, and zero bar association membership.

He is a naysayer of everything which competes for big pharma dollars.  He is too obvious. At the principle website that he operates, he is described as a medical communications expert of national renown. He even presented himself as a master in spiritual direction, in book form. Representations of Stephen Barrett insinuate that he alone can suffice as the voice of medicine.  In fact, representations of  him make it sound as if, during any given election, he should run for God. However, the scorecard on Barrett differs drastically from the representations made of  him.

Stephen Barrett’s Extensive Lack of  Credentials, Lack of Experience, and Lack of Board Certification

[1]  Stephen Barrett, M.D. was never board-certified in anything, at any time in his life.  He has never been able to speak with the authority of a board-certified medical expert.

[2]  Nor has he been able to speak from the vantage point of  a practitioner in any type of  internal or dermatological medicine.  In fact, Stephen Barrett has not served in the capacity of  a physician since the end of  his rotating internship days.  Those days ended over 55 years ago, in 1958.  Thus, we have a 55 year time lapse involved.

The “MD” affixed to his name simply means that he graduated from a medical school.  He did do that.  But, he did it over a half century ago, in 1957 … 56 years ago.

[3]  Barrett has never been a researcher in any capacity; neither at the clinical level nor at the murine test level.  He has been neither a toxicologist, nor a vaccinologist, nor a neurologist, nor a biochemist, nor an immunologist, nor any type of  medical technologist, nor a pharmacologist.  This means that he has never been able to speak from the vantage point of  a research colleague.

That is to say, if  Stephen Barrett had been seen in a lab coat after 1958, it was during Halloween.

[4]  And Stephen Barrett has zero inventions/patents to his name. Therefore, he has never been able to speak from the vantage point of a medical innovator, either.

[5]  Furthermore, there is no evidence that Stephen Barrett is a firsthand witness to illness on either side of the coin; neither as a practicing physician nor as a patient.  That is to say, he has no known history of severe medical impairment.  By all appearances, he is not able to offer any insight on what it is to know intense physical suffering in the first person singular.  His ruthlessness and callousness indicates this.

[6]  And as far as concerns Stephen Barrett being advertised as a medical communications expert, his curriculum vitae indicates

that he:

– never managed disaster relief efforts,

– never developed medical software programs,

– never oversaw ambulance dispatch operations,

– never managed the allocation of medical supplies,

– never networked hospital communication systems,

– never transmitted emergency medical instructions to sea,

– never networked pharmaceutical communication systems,

– never translated medical literature into foreign languages.

So where is the medical communicating that Stephen Barrett is supposed to do so expertly?

Stephen Barrett’s Allegation of Being a Legal Expert

It was in a 21st Century California court where Barrett presented himself as an expert in FDA regulatory law.  The matter concerned a case that he himself  instigated, under the name of a 501c non-profit organization of  which he was/is a member and even an officer. Barrett saw to the filing of the lawsuit (under the corporate name), and then he hired himself as an expert witness, despite the blatant conflict of interest.  He then expected money to be transferred from the 501c non-profit group’s bank account to his own personal account, in the form of a fee payment.

Needless to say, Stephen Barrett never worked for, with, over, under, or besides the FDA.

The presiding judge stated:

the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area.

He has never testified before any governmental panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation of drugs.

“Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony with respect to any of the issues associated with Defendant’s products.”

Furthermore, the judge stated that Stephen Barrett’s testimony should be “accorded little, if any, credibility.

In the end, the 501c private corporation of which Barrett is a member lost the case.  It was ordered to pay the defendant’s attorney fees.  As an added note, he claimed himself to be a 21st Century legal expert in FDA regulatory matters, because he completed one and a half years of correspondence law school in 1963;  and because he had several conversations with FDA personnel, as well as some sort of  continuing education classes that he had not attended in eight years prior to the judgment.

Stephen Barrett has filed many lawsuits.  Each one is an article of its own.  He usually sues for libel, malice, and/or conspiracy.  One report attached Barrett to a multiplicity of  lawsuits filed against forty defendants.  This is reminiscient of a con artist who pretends getting hit by autos … repeatedly.  This is ridiculous.

Barret had acourtroom loss is dated October 2005, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County for the State of  Pennsylvania.  In that court case, Barrett once again claimed that he was a legal expert. Barrett lost a court case filed in California, under his own name.  He also lost cases in Oregon and Illinois, as well as in Pennsylvania, also filed under his own name.

In summary, Stephen Barrett was never the member of  any bar association.  He never represented himself as his own attorney in any of  his many lawsuits.  He was never a district magistrate, and he was not a clerk of  court.  Yet, he has repeated claimed that he is a legal expert.  Barrett did have court appearances as an expert witness in criminal and parole cases, but only in the capacity of a psychiatrist who was never board certified.  One such venue was the juvenile court system in San Francisco during the 1960s.

Barrett’s Claim of Being a Nutritional Expert

As far as concerns his allegations of being a nutritional expert, it was during the 1990s when he once testified against a credentialed and certified nutritionist.  This was at a hearing of the American Dietetic Association.  Barrett was only a non-trained and honorary member of  that association, yet he was presented as one of its two expert witnesses.  As a result of  that hearing, the lady against whom Barrett testified lost her registered dietician credentials.  Her reputation suffered harm, and her future earnings potential was compromised.

The woman then sued the association who presented Barrett as a nutritional expert.  And it was during a cross-examination when Barrett finally conceded that he was not a nutritional expert, being that had no training in the subject.  He said that he was an expert in consumer strategy, instead.  As a result, the woman against whom Barrett testified had her credentials restored in full.  Notification of  this was published in the courier & journal of  the American Dietetic Association.

The woman also received an undisclosed settlement.

A Sample of Stephen Barrett’s Mode of Communication

Stephen Barrett co-authored a book with a publicly known defrauder whose now-defunct paper review company, in providing health reports to State Farm Insurance adjustors, was declared “a completely bogus operation” by an Oregon judge.

Concerning Barrett’s fraudulent co-author, it was the NBC television network who reported him as the ratifier of fraudulent health reports. He is a Dr. Ronald Gots, founder of Medical Claims Review Services.

The company went out of business in 1995.

The NBC television network obtained 79 of the reports that Gots’ paper review company provided for State Farm’s adjustors.  Ever-so-coincidentally, 100% of those 79 reports favored State Farm over every auto accident claimant profiled in those reports. The irony to this is that Stephen Barrett heralds himself as an exposer of health fraud, as well as a defender of mankind from persons committing health fraud.  Yet, he elected to have his name placed in print next to a notorious defrauder.

For further information on this matter, see:

The Paper Chase: A 15 month NBC Dateline Investigation

The Barrett/Gots Book, itself

The Barrett/Gots book is titled, “Chemical Sensitivity:  The Truth About Environmental Illness.”  Needless to say, the book is a vehement denial of the valid existence of  Chemical Sensitivity.  However, Chemical Sensitivity comes in many case-specific and medically acknowledged forms; in forms such as:

> Red Cedar Asthma (Plicatic Acid Sensitivity),

> IgE-mediated Triethanolamine Sensitivity,

> Pine Allergy (Abietic Acid Sensitivity),

> Formaldehyde-induced Anaphylaxis,

> Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivity,

> Ammonium Persulfate Sensitivity,

> Glutaraldehyde-induced Asthma,

> Phenyl Isocyanate Sensitivity,

> Halothane-induced Hepatitis,

> Sulfite-induced Anaphylaxis,

> Chemical Worker’s Lung,

> TDI-induced Asthma,

> NSAID Intolerance,   . . .

. . .  and numerous other forms, such as

Similarly, the Barrett/Gots book is a denial of the existence of the Environmental Illness which comes in of medically acknowledged case-specific forms; in forms such as:

> Vasomotor Rhinitis,

> Occupational Urticaria,

> Irritant-induced Asthma,

> Occupational Rhinosinusitis,

> Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis,

> Photoallergic Contact Dermatitis,

> Airborne-irritant Contact Dermatitis,

> Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome,

> Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction,

> Sick Building Syndrome (Building-related Illness),   . . .

. . . and a few other forms.

In fact, the Barrett/Gots book calls Sick Building Syndrome “a fad diagnosis.”  However, Sick Building Syndrome is listed as one of the “Most Common Diagnoses” at the Occupational & Environmental Health centres of:

> Iowa University,

> Johns Hopkins University,

> The University of Pittsburgh,

> The University of Stony Brook,

> Detroit’s Wayne State University,

> The University of Illinois-Chicago,

> The University of California-Davis,

> Boston Medical Center, as Building-related Illness,

> Washington University’s Harborview Medical Center,

> The University of Maryland, as Building Related Disease,

> Nat. Jewish Med. Research Ctr, as Building Related Illness.

Needless to say, the Barrett/Gots book also denies the physiological existence of  the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity which is listed as one of the “Most Common Diagnoses” at the O&E Health centres of:

> the world renowned Yale University,

> the world renowned Mount Sinai Hospital,

> the world renowned Johns Hopkins University,

> a hospital affiliated with Harvard University,

> and a few other American medical institutions

which are licensed and certified centres of practice.

The listing thereof is done by the Association of Occupational & Environmental Clinics.   For more information, see:

The Objective Medical Findings of Chemically Sensitive Patients that Barrett Conveniently Neglected to Disclose

For the record, there do exist objective medical findings in the world of Chemical Sensitivity.  The following findings have been documented in the records of chemically sensitive patients:

> dermatitis,

> anaphylaxis,

> angioedema,

> turbinate swelling,

> glandular hyperplasia,

> excessive nasal pallor,

> edema of the adenoids,

> edema of the true vocal cords,

> nasal and/or laryngeal erythema,

> protuberant/distended abdomen,

> permeability of epithelial cell junctions,

> hepatotoxicity in the absense of viral hepatitis,

> paradoxical adduction of the true vocal cords,

> marked cobblestoning of the posterior pharynx,

> inflammation of  the alveoli (air sacs of the lungs),

> a 20%+ drop in FEV1 during inhalation challenge testing,

… and a few other things, such as visible and measurable wheals produced during placebo-controlled skin testing,

Barrett’s Contradiction

Barrett also wrote a 64 page booklet on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Furthermore, he wrote a text of much shorter length, titled: “Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: A Spurious Diagnosis.

In that article, Barrett states:

“Legitimate cases exist where exposure to large or cumulative amounts of toxic chemicals has injured people.”

Well, such exposure scenarios are the causes of Chemical Sensitivity. That is why lay persons regard it as “Chemical Injury.”  In as much, Barrett first denies the existence of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in name.  Yet, he describes Chemical Sensitivity in function.  But, he does so in such a way that he leaves the reader uncertain as to what his statement is intended to mean.  After all, a novice might assume that Barrett is referring to resolvable acute toxicity cases, instead of long-term chemical sensitisation illnesses.

A Duly Noted Hypocrisy

Stephen Barrett markets fear.  For example, he has marketed fear of the formerly overrated echinacea flower which is only harmful to persons severely allergic to the inulin that it contains; to the inulin which is also present in Jerusalem artichokes, leeks, bananas, garlic, and onions.  Yet, has Barrett ever warned people about bananas, onions, and Jerusalem artichokes?  Has he ever warned people about things as tragic as VIOXX, BEXTRA, ZYPREXA and the other pharmaceuticals that caused harm to mankind?

All in all, when you attack as many persons as does Stephen Barrett, the statistical probability is that you are going to be correct some of the time.  However, the same statistical probability is that you’re going to be wrong some of the time, especially when you’re unqualified to comment.  Being that Stephen Barrett neither scored a 100% nor a passing grade on his board exams, he cannot be reasonably expected to be 100% correct in his volumes of writings.

People have brain cells.  They can recognise “quackery” by ill effect or lack of effect.  They don’t have need of a “Stephen Barrett” to tell them.  Not only can reasonable people detect a “quack” when they see one, they can just as easily detect a disingenuous political operative when they read one.

Stephen Barrett’s Cookie Cutter Techniques

It is not an incident of unheard proportions for Barrett to have cited an obsolete reference, as well as an outdated and isolated instance, in order to have mankind adhere to an assertion of  his.  For example, in order to convince mankind that Chemical Sensitivity is nothing more than a mental illness, Barrett cited an incident which was put into writing 120 years ago, in 1886, concerning one woman and one woman only.

That incident was not about chemicals.  It was about roses.

Now, concerning the medical practices and medical doctrines that Barrett opposes, he is repeatedly found stating, “inconclusive and not yet proven.”  If  he cannot discredit something on technical merits, he cites an isolated case here and an isolated case there, concerning an unauthorized billing or a marketing violation committed by a person engaged in something that Barrett wants deleted from the face of the Earth.  Yet, Barrett never mentions the dozens of  frauds that were committed under the supervision of his co-author, Dr. Ronald Gots. Barrett never mentions the vast number of  lawsuits filed against pharmaceutical companies.

Barrett often mentions what treatments and tests the Aetna Insurance Company will not cover, as if Aetna is a charity organisation founded by Mother Theresa; as if it’s not a profit minded corporation that benefits from the denial of claims.  In as much, there is no insurance company which will pay for redundant treatment or redundant testing.

Therefore a similar test or treatment will not be covered.  Furthermore, insurance companies will not pay for anything that is regarded as being in the experimental & investigational stage.  As a side note, everything in established medicine today was at the experimental & investigational stage yesterday.

The Ironies about Dr. Stephen Barrett, in Light of the Fact that He is a Retired Psychiatrist

The great irony about Barrett is that a psychiatrist is expected to be a master at procuring peace in the minds and hearts of men.  A tree is known by its fruits.  Barrett’s fruits have been made known. Another great irony is that a psychiatrist is expected by the reasonably minded person to be a master in neurology. 

Barrett failed the Neurology section of his board exams.

Yet another irony is that a psychiatrist is expected to have a reflex action for keeping confidentiality, being that patients confide intimate details to a psychiatrist.  However, Barrett has placed person after person in an unfavourable spotlight.  He’s even known to have revealed the tax problems of one of  his opponents; not so that the man can use someone’s help, but rather, to provoke ill regards for the man.  Yet, when has Stephen Barrett ever placed the spotlight on the exorbitant price mark-ups of pharmaceuticals in America?

After all, Barrett claims that he’s a consumer advocate.  So, where is the consumer advocating in one of  the most taxing impositions on the American economy and consumer?


Written by Patrick Pontillo at the blog Blue Marble Album. Gratefully reprinted at The Labyrinth with full copyright permission 2015 (You can follow Patrick on Google Plus, here)


By Patrick Pontillo from Blue Marble Album published here at The Labyrinth: Herman Staudenmayer: The erroneous presumptions in his research undertaking that anti-MCS propagandists waved like a national flag




MCS Denier: EPIC Take-down #1

Herman Staudenmayer: The erroneous presumptions in his research undertaking that anti-MCS propagandists waved like a national flag.

Whenever you scald your tongue on hot tea, your tongue will still feel the scalding sensation, if you drink cool water shortly after having been scalded.  There’s a similar phenomenon in the lives of the chemically sensitive. It’s called masking.

The failure to consider this phenomenon was the fatal error in a 1980s test that ended up being obsessively used in the anti-MCS propaganda of a retired psychiatrist who once said that he was the media,  even though he was never a household name. In his attempt to convince mankind that Chemical Sensitivity is merely a mental illness, the Stephen Barrett who never examined any chemical sensitivity patient repeatedly cited a “research undertaking” which was conducted in Denver during the 1980s.  The test is formally titledDouble-blind provocation chamber challenges in 20 patients presenting with “multiple chemical sensitivity.”

The article which detailed the research undertaking was published on August 18, 1993. The research team who conducted that test consisted in psychologist Herman Staudenmayer (Ph.d),  allergist John Selner (MD), and chemist Martin P. Buhr (Ph.d).  I was told by someone very well known in the Chemical Sensitivity world that Herman Staudenmayer appeared as a brooder, to state it politely.

The title of the test is misleading, in that it was not based on standard challenge testing, such as the methacholine challenge test which measures changes in  FEV1.   Rather, the Staudenmayer test was subjective testing;  the type of testing that Barrett condemned as invalid.   So, we see another instance of hypocrisy in the psychiatrist of early retirement.

Incidentally, FEV1 is the measurement of Forced Expiratory Volume after one second of exhaling.  In addition, pulmonary experts, from my experience, will not allow severely sensitive people to take the methacholine challenge test, in fear that they “might not recover” the ability to breath.  For example, an Ivy League trained pulmonary expert forbid me to take the test.  In the State where I was at the time, the law only permitted pulmonary specialists to order methacholine testing.    

Background in Brevity

1) The test consisted in 145 occasions where a test subject had sent into his/her chamber an injection of air.  The test subject was then instructed to discern if whether or not the injected air was accompanied by a chemical agent.  Each of the twenty test subjects participate in at least one “provocation challenge.”

2) The challenges were divided into two types:

a) active challenges, 

b) sham challenges. 

Eighty-eight of the provocation challenges were categorized as “sham” challenges, and they were recorded as injections of chemical-free air. The other fifty-seven challenges were defined as “active” challenges, each of which was recorded as the injection of chemical-bearing air.

3) The sham challenges came in two forms:

a) clean air injected alone,

b) clean air accompanied by an aromatic agent.

4) The active challenges also came in two forms:

a) the injection of an airborne chemical alone,

b) an airborne chemical accompanied by an aromatic agent.

5) The aromatic agents were called “maskers.”

Maskers used in the “Staudenmayer Test” included:

a) anise oil,

b) cinnamon oil,

c) lemon oil,

d) peppermint spirit (10% oil and 1% leaves.)

6) The overall result of the test, as recorded by the research team, goes as follows:  “Individually, none of these patients demonstrated a reliable response pattern across a series of challenges.”  The conclusion was that persons diagnosed with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity are merely psychologically ill.

The Invalidating Feature of that Test

The maskers that Barrett cited in his anti-MCS propaganda as having been used in the “Herman Staudenmayer Test” are known triggers of adverse reactions in susceptible persons. That is to say, the maskers were chemical-bearing agents.

Concerning anything aromatic, keep in mind that the AMA, the world renown Mayo Clinic, the American Lung Association, and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology each recognize, in publicly accessible print, that “strong odors” can be triggers of adverse upper and/or lower respiratory reactions in susceptible people, simply because they are strong odors.   This has included anise oil, cinnamon oil, lemon oil, and peppermint spirit.

The Chemical Ingredients in the Sample List of Maskers used in ‘the Staudenmayer Test’ that were Alleged to be Chemical free

Concerning the sample list of maskers used in the “Staudenmayer Test,” observe the following:

Anise Oil:

– An active ingredient in it is anethole.

– Anethole’s chemical composition is C10H12O.

– Its CAS No. is 104-46-1.

– It is a known trigger to those adversely reactive to it.

– In fact, Anethole is known as p-1-propenylanisode.

– It is also known as 1-methoxy-4-(1-propenyl)benzene.

– Thus, anise oil is a chemical-bearing agent.

In all occasions where anise was used as a masker in a clean air injection, a chemical-bearing agent was being injected into the test subject’s chamber. Therefore, to have recorded such an injection as one of chemical-free air was to have recorded a falsehood.

Cinnamon Oil:

Along with being a “strong odor,” cinnamon oil is a bearer of aldehyde. In fact, the naturally occurring trans-cinnamaldehyde unassistedly becomes benzaldehyde in the presence of heat. In as much, to have recorded a cinnamon oil air injection as a chemical-free one was to have recorded yet another falsehood.  Cinnamon oil is a chemical-bearing agent.

Lemon Oil:

The most prevalent constituent in lemon oil is the monoterpene, limonene, aka 4-isopropenyl-1-methyl-cyclohexene.   Limonene develops a potent sensitizing capacity when oxidized, and it’s a reputed skin sensitizer.   In addition, a Swedish research undertaking recorded the following:   “Bronchial hyperresponsiveness was related to indoor concentrations of limonene, the most prevalent terpene.”  Lemon oil also includes the same alpha-pinene that was implicated in oil of turpentine allergy.


This aromatic agent is the bearer of Methyl Salicylate, and as is shown below, it is among the salicylate allergy triggers.   It’s also the bearer of the following sensitizing agents:   (a) alpha-pinene, (b) phellandrene, and (c) limonene.   It’s also the bearer of (d) methone, (e)  menthofurane, (f) and methyl acetate.

Now, as far as concerns methyl salicylate, Supplement 5 of the Journal of the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists, 1999 / Vol. 14, states:

Of note, methyl salicylate carries the same warnings as oral salicylates and has the potential to cause Reye’s Syndrome in children with flu-like symptoms, as well as adverse reactions in those with aspirin allergy, asthma, or nasal polyps.”

In as much, to record an airborne injection of peppermint spirit as a chemical-free one, is to record yet another falsehood.


The research team gave no consideration to the the masking of sensitivity responses; a phenomenon attributed to the involvement of Ca2+ calmodulin phosphatase calcineurin and the ensuing dephosphorylation that it induces.  Phosphorylation is explained in the following text:

Barrett’s Predictable Response to the Test

As is to be expected, in an article written by him, Barrett recommended that clinical researchers conduct more tests likened to the one conducted by Staudenmayer and his colleagues; anise oil, cinnamon oil, and all.

You should be able to conjecture why he advocated Kangaroo Court research.

Written by Patrick Pontillo at the blog Blue Marble Album. Gratefully reprinted at The Labyrinth with full copyright permission 2015

Michellina Van Loder is a Professional Writer, Journalist and Blogger. This is where she shares her tales about trail blazing her way out of the Labyrinth of Chemical Sensitivities and Mould. This is also where you will find the latest Research on related topics.

Information, products and views presented by guest bloggers @The Labyrinth are not necessarily the same as those held by this blog's author, Michellina van Loder. Reviews are my own personal opinions (unless stated otherwise); and satire is used throughout personal posts. Any health topics discussed are not to be taken as medical advice. Seek out medical attention if needed and do your own research; however, you're welcome to use mine as a start.
Translate »