From Pubmed:
Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder.
Abstract From PubMed
Much of the controversy over the causes of electro-hypersensitivity (EHS) and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) lies in the absence of both recognized clinical criteria and objective biomarkers for widely accepted diagnosis. Since 2009, we have prospectively investigated, clinically and biologically, 1216 consecutive EHS and/or MCS-self reporting cases, in an attempt to answer both questions. We report here our preliminary data, based on 727 evaluable of 839 enrolled cases: 521 (71.6%) were diagnosed with EHS, 52 (7.2%) with MCS, and 154 (21.2%) with both EHS and MCS. Two out of three patients with EHS and/or MCS were female; mean age (years) was 47. As inflammation appears to be a key process resulting from electromagnetic field (EMF) and/or chemical effects on tissues, and histamine release is potentially a major mediator of inflammation, we systematically measured histamine in the blood of patients. Near 40% had a increase in histaminemia (especially when both conditions were present), indicating a chronic inflammatory response can be detected in these patients. Oxidative stress is part of inflammation and is a key contributor to damage and response. Nitrotyrosin, a marker of both peroxynitrite (ONOO°-) production and opening of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), was increased in 28% the cases. Protein S100B, another marker of BBB opening was increased in 15%. Circulating autoantibodies against O-myelin were detected in 23%, indicating EHS and MCS may be associated with autoimmune response. Confirming animal experiments showing the increase of Hsp27 and/or Hsp70 chaperone proteins under the influence of EMF, we found increased Hsp27 and/or Hsp70 in 33% of the patients. As most patients reported chronic insomnia and fatigue, we determined the 24 h urine 6-hydroxymelatonin sulfate (6-OHMS)/creatinin ratio and found it was decreased (<0.8) in all investigated cases. Finally, considering the self-reported symptoms of EHS and MCS, we serially measured the brain blood flow (BBF) in the temporal lobes of each case with pulsed cerebral ultrasound computed tomosphygmography. Both disorders were associated with hypoperfusion in the capsulothalamic area, suggesting that the inflammatory process involve the limbic system and the thalamus. Our data strongly suggest that EHS and MCS can be objectively characterized and routinely diagnosed by commercially available simple tests. Both disorders appear to involve inflammation-related hyper-histaminemia, oxidative stress, autoimmune response, capsulothalamic hypoperfusion and BBB opening, and a deficit in melatonin metabolic availability; suggesting a risk of chronic neurodegenerative disease. Finally the common co-occurrence of EHS and MCS strongly suggests a common pathological mechanism.
You can access the full text on Pubmed here
Or at Reviews on Environmental Health over here
Stay tuned for a blood test you can ask a doctor for near you, hopefully.
(Eat that MCS Deniers!)
Isn’t this just lovely news to end the year on, hey?
Hey there Michelin’s
Can you shed more light on this? This article was posted some time ago, but no further info. Do you know why not?
Thanks for sharing positive research and information. It is heartbreaking when you are ill and people actively hurt you with fragrance and don’t believe you.
It’s difficult for people trying to push through and keep going to even do their own stuff let alone take the time to help others by spreading the word.
Hey there, yes I can. I have a guest post I need to type up that gives a better explanation and review of the article. I am two years behind on that, please bare with me. For now, Professor Anne Steinemann’s research is of the highest standard and is held in high esteem among the medical and MCS community. Thanks for reading.
Hi Peachier, yes, I can and will shed more light. I have a guest writer and researcher who has kindly fleshed out the contents of the study; however, it’s a handwritten article so I must type it up.
Thanks for your kind words. It helps me to help others. And, I am just paying it forward. People can be good and kind to others. It’s just taking time to gain understanding from the masses. However, I am sure we WILL get there! xo
I’ve seen this article posted in a number of places, but no one has explained why this research is in any way valuable.
How useful are these markers? Since they didn’t seem to develop a set of markers that were particular to all patients (at least based on the abstract, which is all that is publicly available), can they actually be used, or will there be a lot of overlap with other conditions?
Have you actually looked at the article, or even the abstract, or is it just being posted on the basis of a catchy headline?