The fight to breathe, the metallic taste in the mouth, and the stinging tongue. Numbness in the upper-respiratory tract, the dry heaving episode, and the headache that leaves cheekbones and temples feeling bruised. It involves a world that has also included hepatic injury, (liver cell death/necrosis), dermatitis, urticaria, hematotoxicity (the killing or damaging or red blood cells), and anaphylaxis. Technically this condition is regarded as Chemical & Irritant Sensitivities.
The Razor Blades of Defamation
Mainstream medical science has already established that chemicals, at nontoxic levels, aren’t universally harmless. Numerous chemicals have been identified as sensitizers, while other ones were already categorized as irritants. Chemical Sensitivity has already been defined in case-specific and body-system-specific form. Irritant-induced Asthma and its subset condition, Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, is one form, while Airborne Irritant Contact Dermatitis is another form. Chemical sensitivity is already a well-established component in main- stream medical science, and so too is the irritant-induced reaction. However …
Throughout the past fifteen years, literature has been posted online that can easily deceive a novice into assuming that no chemical of any kind, whenever encountered at a nontoxic level, could ever trigger an adverse reaction in anyone. The literature accentuated the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity debate, while simultaneously declining to acknowledge the existence of the several case-specific forms of chemical sensitivity, such as Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, Irritant-induced Asthma, and Occupational Asthma due to Low Weight Molecular Agents which had already been identified and defined.
Each piece of propaganda asserted that Multiple Chemical sensitivity is merely a matter of mental illness. As a result, persons not familiarized with Occupational and Environmental Medicine were clueless that sufficient medical findings in a number of chemically sensitive patients were identified, along with the numerous chemicals that triggered the adverse reactions.
The Corporate Claim of Universal Harmlessness Contradicted by the Findings of Medical Science
It had even gotten to the point where insecticide providers boldly pro- claimed that their product lines were entirely harmless, provided that they were used according to regulatory guidelines. This proclamation was accompanied by the claim that all persons suffering from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity were merely mentally ill. However, mainstream medical science had already established that nontoxic exposure to the carbamate/organophosphate class of pesticide can cause a build-up of acetylcholine in one’s lungs and cause asthma to develop.
Perfumes Have Been Identified as Triggers of Asthma
The propaganda against the chemically sensitive was relentless. In fact, the non-chemically sensitive got caught in the crossfire in 1996, when the perfume intolerant were called “fragrance phobic fruitcakes.”
Now, perfumes contain potent non-chemical ingredients as much as they contain sensitizing chemicals. Therefore, Fragrance Intolerance includes hyper-reactivity to non-chemical ingredients as much as it involves hypersensitivity to chemical-bearing agents. This means that, in 1996, even persons who were not chemically sensitive were placed under attack.
Never mentioned in the 1996 character assassination was the 1995 publication detailing a research undertaking which confirmed that perfume strips found in magazines are asthma triggers. [Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol., 1995 Nov;75 (5):429-33 ].
In the years to follow, perfumes would come to be acknowledged as asthma triggers by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology, the American Lung Association, and the National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Then, in 2001, a published medical report placed perfume among the triggers of anaphylaxis. Yet, no apologies were ever made to the perfume intolerant by the propagandist who defamed them.
Cleaning Supplies and Household Chemicals http://www.lungusa.org/healthy-air/home/resources/cleaning-supplies.html
Understanding Asthma – American Lung Association http://www.lungusa.org/lung-disease/asthma/about-asthma/understanding-asthma.html
Chemical Asthma Triggers and Irritants http://asthma.about.com/od/asthmatriggers/qt/chemictriggers.htm
Asthma Triggers: Gain Control (EPA site) http://www.epa.gov/asthma/chemical_irritants.html _________________________________ Sensitization Is Not Limited To Chemical Exposures
The phenomenon of sensitization is not new. Neither is it unproven. Nor is it limited to matters involving Chemical Sensitivity. The recognition of the medical condition known as sensitisation includes:
1] metal dust exposure; Berylliosis (beryllium), etc.
2] mold exposure; Mushroom Worker’s Lung, etc. 3] enzyme exposure; Detergent Worker’s Lung, etc.
4] organic dust exposure; Byssinosis (cotton dust), etc.
5] chemicals & irritant gases; Irritant-induced Asthma, etc.
The Medical Doctrine of Concomitant Sensitivity
Concomitant Sensitivity is also known as Cross-sensitization, and it means that, if you’re hypersensitive to one chemical compound, then you are hypersensitive to all other chemical compounds with similar characteristics. An example of Concomitant Sensitivity exists within the family of the acetylated salicylates. To be adversely reactive to one of them is to be adversely reactive to all of them.
The Undeniable Proof of Mainstream Medicine’s Recognition of Chemical Allergies … The RAST Test Order Form
You can be tested for IgE-mediated chemical allergies via the RAST TEST. The specific chemicals for which a person can be tested are located in the Occupational Panel, when filling out the allergy test order forms. Case closed. Mainstream medicine has recognized chemical allergies for decades. It’s simply that deceptive propaganda, including that of the unconscionable John Stossel, made society unaware of this.
High Production Volume Chemicals and their Ubiquitous Presence in Modern Life
There have been medical professionals who declined to support the re- cognition of MCS, but who simultaneously acknowledged that a person can be severely hypersensitive to “one or a few” chemicals. Such an acknowledgment needs to be accompanied by a qualifying statement. That qualifying statement goes as follows:
Persons who are hypersensitive to a few High Production Volume Chemicals are actually hypersensitive to the dozens of commonly encountered products that contain those HPV chemicals. Concomitant Sensitivity, combined with hypersensitivity to merely a few HPV chemicals, easily explains how a person can seem to be hypersensitive to almost everything.
The Demarcating Factor in MCS
If you’re adversely reactive to dozens of chemical-bearing agents, but have symptoms that affect only one reoccurring symptom, then you are outside of the MCS controversy. This is because the demarcation factor in MCS is not hypersensitivity to multiple chemicals. Rather, the demarcating factor is reactivity that adversely affects multiple body systems.
As an example, if bronchial hyper-responsiveness is your only chemical sensitivity reaction, then only one body system is involved, meaning that there is no presence of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity to assess in you. The anti-MCS propagandists will have to find another way in which to call you mentally ill. That is to say, your case involves local- ized chemical sensitivity. It involves either Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome or Irritant-induced Asthma; two similar conditions not in controversy.
Nor does MCS have anything to do with multiple symptoms, per se. You can have a repertoire of reoccurring symptoms and be outside of the MCS controversy, if those multiple symptoms are limited to the reactions of only one body system. In such a case, the anti-MCS people will have to find another way by which call you mentally ill, while simultaneously claiming chemicals to be virtuous and blame- less at nontoxic levels.
The respiratory system is a body system that can host multiple symptoms. Firstly, asthma can coexist with upper-respiratory ills, and the upper-respiratory tract can be the host of a number of symptoms. In fact, within the world of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, it’s a regular phenomenon to find asthma coexisting with Rhintis or Rhino-sinusitis in the same one worker (or subset of workers.)
In summary, it’s neither the number of symptoms nor the number of chemicals that define Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. It is the number of body systems that engage in the hypersensitivity reactions that defines it. In the world of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, chemical sensitivity reactions have been documented as having had adversely affected two body systems in the same one worker or subset of workers. Such coexistence hints of the authentic existence of MCS.
Formaldehyde: A Specific Example
Formaldehyde is a suitable example to employ, in showing that hyper- sensitivity to merely one HPV chemical constitutes hypersensitivity to dozens of chemical-bearing agents. Formaldehyde is a known trigger of asthma, rhinitis, dermatitis, and anaphylaxis. It is released from a number common products. This includes those liquid soap and sham- poo products that contain quarternium-15, diazolidinyl urea, DMDM hydantoin, and imidazolidinyl urea. In fact, go through the shampoo and liquid soap section of any store and see if you can find one pro- duct free of the ingredients listed above.
A detailed list of formaldehyde-releasing agents includes: urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, oriented strand board, medium density fiber-board, melamine resin, plywood, surface coatings, joint cement, paints, wall coverings, durable press drapery, permanent press clothing, floor wax, kerosene heater emissions, burning wood, cosmetics, nail hardeners, sun screen lotion, tanning lotions, liquid soaps, moisturising lotions, carpet cleansers, liquid scouring cleansers, shampoos, medical venues, etc.
Formaldehyde shares common characteristics with benzaldehyde and the sterilization agent, glutaraldehyde. Therefore, the products which bear glutaraldehyde and benzaldehyde are to be included in the list of formaldehyde-releasing agents. This includes cinnamon oil, and this means that the phenomenon of Concomitant Sensitivity, in combination with hypersensitivity to a few High Production Volume Chemicals, can account for the reason why some individuals seem to be hypersensitive to almost everything.
Persistent Vulnerabilities, aka Pre-existing Conditions
Then there is the matter of chronically existent vulnerabilities, also known as atopy. One example is the upper-respiratory inflammation known as boney turbinate hypertrophy. It is a condition not known to be able to resolve itself,as surgery has been the only treatment offered for it, by mainstream medicine.
Cases of chronically existent vulnerabilities can make a person hyper- sensitive to both chemical and non-chemical odors. Therefore, such a person can be adversely reactive to the smell of cleaning agents and new vinyl products, as well as cooking odors, and musty cardboard. Such a person might appear to be allergic to almost everything.
Immunological in Some Cases. Nonimmunological in Other ones.
An individual can have either an immunological allergic reaction or a non-immunological irritant reaction to chemical-bearing agents. It depends on the person, the person’s exposure history, the person’s pre-existing vulnerabilities, the chemicals themselves, and the way in which the chemicals are encountered (by inhaling, ingestion, touch, or ocular absorption.)
The bottom line is that chemical sensitivity has been proven to exist, and to state otherwise is to defame the Occupational & Environmental Health programs who diagnose such conditions. To do so is to defame the private practitioners who treat chemical sensitivity, as well as the patients who develop this type of condition. Be it Reactive Air- ways Dysfunction Syndrome, Airborne Irritant Contact Dermatitis, Limonene Sensitivity, Aspirin Sensitivity, Methyltetrahydrophthalic Anhydride Allergy, or Oil of Turpentine Allergy, it is all a matter of chemical sensitivity.
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is not the only type of chemical sensitivity proposed to exist. It was simply one of the two forms used in a prolonged and unconscionable diversionary tactic. Other variations of the disease have already been validated. Therefore, any discussion about MCS that doesn’t admit to the existence of chemical sensitivity (in its case-specific and body-system-specific forms) invalidates itself.
Your thoughts?