An Overview of MCS

[Guest guest]

An Overview of MCS

http://www.ciin.org/pages/03-mcs.html

by Cynthia Wilson

 

Back when doctors believed their patients and before psychosomatic illness

and stress became a catch-all for illnesses doctors couldn't diagnose, there is

evidence to suggest that doctors were diagnosing chemical sensitivities as

vapors. Vapors were described as an exhalation of bodily organs held to affect

the physical and/or mental condition or as a depressed or hysterical nervous

condition. Then in the early 1950's, Theron Randolph, M.D., recognized that

people were getting sick from their environment, hence the original name

Environmental Illness.

 

In the 1960's, it finally became evident to the government that pollution was

causing adverse health affects. Dr. Randolph attended that first conference

on outdoor air quality. He was the only one to question the effects of indoor

air pollution, and his concerns where ignored and/or ridiculed by the medical

profession as well as the government. In 1992, EPA conservatively estimated

that poor indoor air quality costs the U.S. $1 billion annually in lost

productivity. That same year, the National Academy of Sciences estimated indoor

air

pollution contributes $15 to $100 billion annually to health care costs.

 

The energy crisis of the 1970's exacerbated the problem of chemical

sensitivities but did nothing to add to the understanding of the illness itself.

To

conserve energy, the government encouraged weatherization and energy efficient

construction that included reducing the ventilation requirements of bringing

outdoor air into new buildings. It is this air reduction together with the

increases in volatile chemicals in new, synthetic materials and products since

World

War II that is being blamed for the ever increasing number of people who are

being adversely impacted by chemicals.

 

Then in 1981, in response to the poisoning of thousands of people by urea

formaldehyde foam insulation, the National Research Council commissioned a study

called Formaldehyde And Other Aldehydes. The report estimated that 10 to 20%

of the population was at risk from low level exposure to aldehydes. Though the

report's major focus was the cancer risk, it did recommend an extensive study

be done on chemical sensitivities. Nothing was done.

 

Unfortunately, the medical/biologic understanding of chemical injuries breaks

down because of a lack of knowledge created by a lack of basic research. The

lack of research is further hampered by a lack of a case definition for the

illness. There are several theories as to how these low level exposures are

poisoning people, and research into detoxification enzymes found in veterans

suffering from Gulf War Syndrome have provided some clues into how the body's

inability to process toxics may be playing a critical role in the initial

sensitization process as well as other long-term health problems.

 

Chemical sensitivity was once thought to be an immune system dysfunction or

related to allergies. The latest research strongly suggests that chemical

sensitivity is most probably some combination of central nervous system and

blood-brain barrier damage, low-level porphyrin abnormalities, and

detoxification

enzyme deficiencies. Chemical sensitivity is more often than not characterized

by

real, verifiable damage to the body, though the implications of these

anomalies are poorly understood and need research. MCS is also usually

accompanied by

other diagnosable types of chemically-induced injuries.

 

The government has been woefully slow to respond with research money, not

only for chemical sensitivities, but to study many of the adverse, non-cancer

health affects being associated with toxic chemicals in general. The chemical

companies have a vested interest in promoting the belief that chemically induced

health problems are more psychiatric in nature than a physical response to

their products. It is the Chemical Manufacturer's Association that stated in its

1991 briefing paper, " The primary impact on society would be the huge cost

associated with legitimization of environmental illness. " However, with 15% of

the population now suffering from some form of chemical intolerance, we may be

fast approaching the time when the government will not be able to support the

cost of those suffering the health effects caused by poorly regulated consumer

products.

 

Two other factors help complicate the process of unraveling chemical

sensitivity. They are masking (adaptation) and spreading (cross sensitization).

A very

simplistic explanation of the very complicated process of masking is that the

body forms an addiction to a chemical so that if a person doesn't get a

regular dose of the chemical, the body will go into withdrawal much like that

associated with drug or alcohol addiction. While overt symptoms are being

controlled by the masking, internal damage continues unchecked. Spreading can

turn

chemical sensitivity into a progressive condition. Once a person is sensitized

to

one chemical, the sensitivity can spread to include other unrelated compounds.

Once that happens, repeat exposures reduce the body's tolerance level by an

as yet unknown mechanism so the body becomes more easily reactive to more and

more chemicals at lower and lower levels until it finally reaches the point

where the person is sick all the time. If this illness reaches that point, the

person can kiss a life of casual convenience good-bye.

 

While most MCS research has focused on an immune system mechanism, MCS

critics have repeatedly pointed out that much of what MCS sufferers claim simply

cannot be immune system mediated. Especially controversial has been immediate

reactions to chemicals or upon the cessation of an exposure. With the exception

of a histamine response and some IgE-mediated responses such as anaphylactic

shock, the immune system is not generally capable of reacting as fast as the

symptoms appear. This has led some researchers to look at the central nervous

system because it can and does have the capacity to respond within the

time-frame

most patients' experience. The best hypothesis for these fast responses comes

from triggering research into neurogenic inflammation. Reactions such as

nausea or vomiting are being neurologically mediated unless the patients also

have

indigestion.

 

Neurologic testing is finally proving subtle nervous system dysfunction and

damage. While it may be years before the full implications of these tests are

understood, at least they are available to objectively show abnormalities. With

the use of challenge QEEG evoked potentials, SPECT scans, and PET scans,

great strides are being made in documenting the effects of chemicals on the

nervous system. However, the lack of controlled blind studies on the central

nervous

system effects of MCS patients is problematic.

 

The neurological phenomenon known as time-dependent sensitization (TDS),

which has been primarily studied in animals for the last 20 years, has an

amazing

and uncanny similarity to MCS and not only helps to explain how the brain

becomes sensitized to low-level chemical exposures in the first place, but the

role that stress plays in adverse reactions. It also provides a mechanism for

cross sensitization to unrelated chemicals. Until TDS was discovered and applied

to MCS, this cross sensitization phenomenon was thought to be impossible by

MCS adversaries because no immune system mechanism has even been established for

it. Because classical toxicology makes no allowances for cross sensitization

either, the impossibility of cross sensitization became a critical element in

most theories of why MCS had to be a psychological rather than a physiological

disorder.

 

In 1963, research conducted by Eloise Kailin, M.D., strongly suggested that

MCS was a metabolic (enzyme deficiency) disorder. Dr. Kailin's findings were

rejected by both clinical ecologists and MCS adversaries because both sides

maintained that to exist at all, MCS had to be immune system mediated. Follow-up

research on metabolic problems in MCS sufferers was not conducted for 31 years.

 

 

Then in 1994, testing showed that over 90% of MCS sufferers have developed a

condition known as Disorders of Porphyrinopathy (an acquired form of the

porphyrias). The porphyrias are a group of rare metabolic, enzyme deficiency

disorders involving the production of heme (a component of blood) and liver

and/or

bone marrow damage and have many symptoms in common with MCS. The most

significant symptom MCS shares with the porphyrias are chemical

intolerance/sensitivity and any estrogen mimicking chemical or drug can trigger

an attack.

 

Disorders of Porphyrinopathy are also showing up in people with chronic

fatigue, fibromylagia, amalgam problems, and silicone implants.

 

Estrogen load may be one reason females (human and animals) are more

susceptible than males to metabolic disorders, time-dependent sensitization, and

MCS.

In addition, a study on Gulf War veterans discovered the plasma

butyrylcholinesterase deficiencies may play a significant role in how people get

poisoned. A

Danish study found that women in their 30s and 40s are at an all time low for

the production of this scavenger detoxification enzyme that protects the

central nervous system.

 

Autoimmune disorders are also a major problem for the chemically sensitive.

Autoimmunity is not suspected as the triggering mechanism for MCS, but rather

it is a consequence of the body's inability to convert toxins in to harmless

by-products fast enough. Toxic exposures can and do trigger autoimmune responses

which MCS sufferers must deal with on a regular basis. Being chemically

sensitive makes a person more vulnerable to all the possible health consequences

associated with chemical exposures -- only for MCS sufferers these toxic

responses are occurring at extremely low (thought to be safe) levels.

 

In spite of these medical advances, product warning labels that advise of

adverse reactions such as headaches, nausea, blurred vision, etc., mounting

animal research that links specific reactions to specific chemicals, and

numerous

double-blind clinical studies with humans that demonstrate a direct connection

between exposure and symptoms; our subjective symptoms still remain highly

controversial. Double-blind studies are routinely discounted by critics because

there is no way to verify if a patient is nauseous. In science, humans are

still not considered reliable indicators. With TDS and enzyme deficiencies,

animal

models are now available to study MCS, however, lack of funding for basic

research is still a major problem and getting what research is available into an

established medical journal is even more difficult. For example, the Journal

for Occupational Medicine is controlled by doctors employed by Dow Chemical

Company, Eastman-Kodak, General Motors, and ITT Corporation.

 

While things are changing, chemical injuries resulting in chemical

sensitivities are still controversial. So given the controversial nature of this

illness, the best advice I can offer you is the same advice I got from one of my

doctors. He told me I had to become the expert on me. And you need to become the

expert on you.

 

Two books to consider in looking for information on explaining chemical

injuries and protecting yourself:

 

The Human Consequences of the Chemical Problem by Cindy Duehring and Cynthia

Wilson, $7.20, TT Publishing, PO Box T, White Sulphur Springs MT 59645

 

Human Exposure and Human Health by Cynthia Wilson, $55.00 plus shipping,

McFarland & Co., PO Box 611, Jefferson NC 28640; 800-253-2187.