Environmental Illness." Of course, the truth is missing from the book.
Needless to say, it was an attempt to convince mankind that Chemical
Sensitivity is merely a matter of mental illness.. This, of course, is in
contradiction to Barrett's own writing, being that he once stated that
there are legitimate cases where either repeated exposure to chemicals
or pronounced exposure all at once harmed people's health.
None the less, the campaign of Barrett and his associates lost its last ves-
tige of credibility with the 911 clean-up crew members who developed
Small Airways Disease and Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome.
Concerning this, the experts at Mt. Sinia in NYC discovered that it was
the pulverized concrete dust, with all its alkalinity caused the respiratory
diseases to develop.
In Barrett's relentless campaign which has shown itself to have been
solely a money making venture, he cited a 1999 position statement
issued by the American Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology.
The position statement is titled Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances,
and the title refers to the claim that Environmental illness has no identi-
fiable cause. This is deceptive, because Occupational Illness has easily
identifiable causes, namely the chemicals, molds, and irritants in one's
place of work. Needless to say, the symptoms of Occupational Illness
are often the same as the ones involves in Environmental Illness. This
is why there is a discipline of medicine known as Occupational & En-
vironmental Medicine.
The odd thing about the AAAAIposition statement is that it admits to the
authentic existence of specific environmental illnessess. Abbreviated IEI,
Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance replaced the name of Multiple Chem-
ical Sensitivity, in rooms where position statements are drafted. However,
IEI did not replace MCS at Johns Hopkins, Mt. Sinai, Central New York
Occupational Clinic, Marshall University, and Cambridge Hospital.
Perhaps Barrett Should Have Read
the Entire Text Before Citing It
As a previously stated, the irony to Barrett's citing of the 1999 text, in
order to strengthen his anti-MCS assertion, consists in the fact that the
1999 position statement expressly recognizes the existence of "true en-
vironmentally caused diseases."
Within that same published text appears examples of such true envi-
ronmental illnesses. The examples in the text include:
1) "hypersensitivity pneumonitis,"
2) "sick building syndome,"
3) "reactive airways dysfunction syndrome."
[The aforementioned diseases appear by name at the section nearest to
the Summary. That section is titled,"Comparison with Other Illnesses."]
In as much:
1) Stephen Barrett called Sick Building Syndrome "a fad diagnosis."
The AAAAI did not do so.
2) Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome (RADS) is regarded by
the AMA as "a subset of Irritant-induced Asthma." It's a chemical
sensitivity disease and a form of environmental illness. Yet, has the
never-board-certified Stephen Barrett and his fellow propagandists
ever acknowledged the existence of this particular form of chemical
and irritant sensitivity disease in their writings?
3) Furthermore, a subset of Hypersenstivitiy Pneumonitis is Chemical
Worker's Lung. Now, the Stephen Barrett who has aero exper-
ience in internal medicine, zero experience in dermatology, zero
experience in cytopathology, zero experience in immunology, and
zero experience in biochemistry has mocked the "Multiple Chemi-
cal Sensitivity" by name. But has he ever acknowledged that there
exists Chemical Worker's Lung?
The Chemical-bearing Agents that MCS patients Avoid Are the
Same Ones which the AMA, AAAAI, and ALA Recognize as the
Triggers of Asthma and Rhinitis
4) The 1999 position statement acknowledged the following:
"Certain environmental irritants, including some of
those mentioned above, are recognized as triggers
for patients with asthma and rhinitis."
[The above-cited quote appears at the section titled, "Clinical
Description of IEI."]
The environmental irritants mentioned in the same section of the
AAAAI's 1999 position statement are:
-"perfumes and scented products, pesticides, domestic and
industrial solvents, new carpets, car exhaust, gasoline,
diesel fumes, urban air pollution, cigarette smoke, plas-
tics, and formaldehyde."
-"certain foods, food additives, and drugs"
- two things not claimed to trigger asthma and/or rhinitis.
In order to confirm that the above-mentioned things are recognized
as asthma triggers by mainstream medical science, see:
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
The above-cited web addresses are those of the American Lung Asso-
ciation, the AMA, and the same AAAAI Barrett elected to use in his
campaign to convince mankind that Chemical Sensitivity is nothing more
than a psychological illness. In as much, count the number of chemical-
bearing agents that the three mainstream associations regard as asthma
triggers.
The AAAAI's public education material
on the subject of Occupational Asthma
Concerning the AAAAI that Barrett cited in his campaign to convince
mankind that Environmental Illness is merely a matter of mental illness,
it published an instructional website about Occupational Asthma. The
AAAAI has already acknowledged that Occupational Asthma can be
caused by a number of chemicals at nontoxic/ambient levels, afflicting a
number of workers employed in a number of industries.
Acrylates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Adhesive handlers
Amines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shellac & lacquar handlers
Anhydrides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Plastic, epoxy resin users
Chloramine-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Janitors, cleaning staff
Dyes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Textile workers
Fluxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronic workers
Formaldehyde/glutaraldehyde . . . Hospital staff
Isocyanates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spray painters, Insulation
installers; plastic, rubber,
foam manufactory workers.
Persulfate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hairdressers
The same public education material of the AAAAI states:
"The cause may be allergic or nonallergic in nature,
and the disease may last for a lengthy period in some
workers, even if they are no longer exposed to the
agents that caused their symptoms."
"Inhalation of some substances in aerosol form can
directly lead to the accumulation of naturally oc-
curring chemicals in the body, such as histamine or
acetylcholine within the lung, which in turn lead to
asthma."
"For example, insecticides, used in agricultural work,
can cause a buildup of acetylcholine, which causes
airway muscles to contract, thereby constricting air-
ways."
"Allergic occupational asthma can occur in workers
in the plastic, rubber or resin industries following
repeated exposure to small chemical molecules in
the air."
"If occupational asthma is not correctly diagnosed
early, and the worker protected or removed from the
exposure, permanent lung changes may occur and
asthma symptoms may persist even without exposure."
"Up to 15% of asthma cases in the United States may
have job-related factors."
"Isocyanates are chemicals that are widely used in many
industries, including spray painting, insulation installa-
tion, and in manufacturing plastics, rubber and foam.
These chemicals can cause asthma in up to 10% of ex-
posed workers."
The aforementioned illustrates that Chemical Sensitivity, as it applies to
asthma and rhinitis, is acknowledged as valid and authentic by the same
AAAAI that Barrett elected to use, in order to support his assertion that
chemical sensitivity is merely a psychological illness.
Conclusion
Stephen Barrett can mock the diagnostic title, Multiple Chemical Sensi-
tivity, all that he wants to. It will not take away the fact is that chemical
sensitivity has already been recognized in case specific form. Nor will
it take away the fact that the sufferers of those case-specific forms of
chemical sensitivity need to avoid the chemicals which exacerbate their
medical conditions.
Avoidance and AMA (CSA) Report 4 (A-98)
Avoidance is not 'detrimental.' Nor is it nonsense. Avoidance is a
medical necessity. And as it applies to asthma, the AMA has stated:
Regardless of the efficiency of clinician assessment and pa-
tient self-monitoring, if the patient's exposure to irritants
or allergens to which he or she is sensitive is not reduced
or eliminated, symptom control and exacerbation rate may
not improve. Formerly titled 'Environmental Control,' the
key points in this area logically include efforts by clinicians
to pinpoint causative agents and to provide specific advice
on how to avoid or reduce exposures to environmental or
dietary triggers and drugs that may provoke or exacerbate
symptoms." AMA Report 4, Council on Scientific Affairs (A-98)
============================================
