Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Beleaguered, Part 1

[Guest guest]

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Beleaguered, Part 1

_http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/50529_

(http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/50529)

By Lourdes Salvador

 

Several studies published from 1993-2005 suggest that at least 45 million

men, women, and children in the US report various symptoms of multiple chemical

sensitivity (MCS).1-8 Seventy percent of these people have not been

diagnosed properly by a health care provider.1-8 More severe cases often lead

to

permanent and total disability.

 

The recurring question is " Why is MCS not yet acknowledged by many medical

professionals in the community? " It´s not disregarded because it´s not a real

illness, or researchers lack scientific data. It´s not ignored for lack of

the epidemic rate of affliction that currently exceeds the rate of autism. It´s

not misunderstood for lack of treatment modalities. Rather, multiple

chemical sensitivity is intentionally cast aside for industry profits.

 

Largely to protect their own financial interests and liability, a

well-funded pharmaceutical and chemical industry campaign of disinformation was

designed to cast manufactured doubt over the existence of MCS. This campaign is

crucial to the continued sales and use of chemicals and implies that chemicals

are safe and MCS is merely psychological, having nothing to do with chemical

exposure.

 

Select doctors have been paid handsome sums by industry to issue industry

supported statements, conduct studies to industry specifications, and issue

opinions on MCS that lead others, including doctors, lawmakers, and community

members, to believe that the biased findings were truthful. We've seen this

over and over again in studies that claim child abuse, stress, anxiety, or

depression causes MCS. Yet when thinking critically, one can easily see the

intended deception.

 

If confronted with damage their chemicals have caused, industry typically

feels threatened, denies the problem, blames the victim, and accepts no

responsibility. They turn their backs on those they´ve harmed. Unconscionably,

they

continue to allow their products to injure people, resulting in chronic and

often disabling illnesses, including multiple chemical sensitivity. Admitting

MCS is real is damaging to their profits and they want MCS to disappear at

the expense of the individuals and families of those they´ve harmed.

 

This deceptive campaign has convinced many government officials and medical

providers that MCS is not real and has led to statements such as this one

from Tee Guidotti, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.O.E.M., President, American College of

Occupational and Environmental Medicine. " Occupational and Environmental

Medicine does a great, unrecognized service to medicine as a first line of

defense

against questionable practice. Our role is frequently to explain patiently,

to review the evidence, to say no, and sometimes to take abuse. We are a

frequent target of activists who disagree with evidence-based medicine on

issues

such as multiple chemical sensitivity, dental amalgam disease, and toxic

mold. " 10 And while Dr. Guidotti claims that activists disagree with

evidence-based

medicine, he fails to address evidence-based, peer-reviewed studies that

have shown various abnormalities in MCS patients, including cardiac

abnormalities, reactive upper airway disease, vasculitis, thrombophlebitis,

impaired

Phase 1 and Phase II detoxification clearance, glutathione depletion, tinnitus,

thyroid and adrenal abnormalities, gastrointestinal disturbances, T-cell

activation/impaired NK cell function/auto-immune disorders, vitamin and mineral

deficiencies1, nuerocognitive decline, rhinitis, sinusitis, respiratory

inflammation, abnormal methacholine challenge, somatosensory abnormality,

peripheral

neuropathy, sleep disturbance, impaired balance, reduced blood flow to the

brain, and elevated levels of xenobiotics among others.11-40

 

The supposed controversy over MCS is to be solely credited to industry, who

feeds an illegitimate view of MCS. Tactics have been employed to discredit

sufferers, doctors, and scientists who pursue MCS. These tactics include

labeling evidence-based, peer-reviewed science that shows MCS is real as junk

science, labeling doctors who treat MCS as quacks, labeling treatment protocols

as

quackery, and laboratory tests that show abnormalities in MCS patients as

unreliable. Worse, loved ones who try to help sufferers are told they are

enabling the person´s " belief " that they are sick.

 

Industry has also infiltrated MCS support groups, agencies, and

organizations in an attempt to create controversy and disagreement among

sufferers, their

family, and their medical providers. With the MCS community busy fighting

among themselves, industry is safe from efforts to reveal the truth. Despite

the fact that the community is aware of this, the conflict continues because

industry plants assume roles of community members and continue manufacture

perceived controversy and trick the community into taking sides.

 

A recent revelation showed that only studies that supported a dangerous

depression drugs safety and efficacy were published. The studies that showed

the

harmful effects of the drug were not submitted for publication by the

pharmaceutical company. This supports the power industry has in suppressing the

truth. Doctors are misled because they only see the published studies and rely

on

them to make decisions when treating patients. Everyone is then led to

believe that what these doctors know is the honest truth, rather than the

desire

of the chemical industry. As misinformation grows rapidly, patients may be

harmed, and lives may be ruined, all in the name of industry profits. MCS

testimony has even been blocked from admission in lawsuits, likely a result of

industry gifts to judges.

 

Financial ties to industry lead to industry support. This is not limited to

the chemical industry. The pharmaceutical industry and chemical industry are

hopelessly intertwined, many companies producing both chemicals and drugs.

Because the pharmaceutical companies largely control all the peer-reviewed

journals that publish evidence-based scientific data, legitimate studies

supporting the existence of MCS are denied publication. Many researchers cannot

get

their legitimate studies published and the information never reaches doctors

and medical providers. Studies that can´t be published cannot gain funding. If

there is no funding, few independent studies are possible. Medical

conferences are often funded by pharmaceutical companies as well, leading to

more

tight industry control over conference content.

 

In the interim, people with MCS suffer greatly. They are denied work

accommodations, school accommodations, appropriate health care, proper housing,

and

disability benefits. The doubt that industry casts on MCS carries through to

friends, family, and social support services, forcing sufferers to endure

hurtful comments, denial of accommodations, disrespect, and in some cases

harassment.

 

Without care and understanding, sufferers who could otherwise go to school,

work, and lead normal lives are denied their livelihood, friends, family, and

hobbies. Instead they become an unwilling social burden on society.

 

References

 

1. Bell, IR, Schwartz, GE, Peterson, JM and Amend, D. Self-reported illness

from chemical odors in young adults without clinical syndromes or

occupational exposures. Arch Environ Health. 1993 48:6-13.

 

 

 

 

2. Bell, IR, Schwartz, GE, Peterson, JM, Amend, D and Stini, WA. Possible

time-dependent sensitization to xenobiotics: self-reported illness from

chemical odors, foods, and opiate drugs in an older adult population. Arch

Environ

Health. 1993 48: 315-27.

 

3. Meggs WJ, Dunn KA, Bloch RM, Goodman PE, & Davidoff AL. Prevalence and

nature of allergy and chemical sensitivity in a general population. Arch

Environ Health. 1996 Jul-Aug;51(4):275-82.

 

4. Voorhees, RE. Memo from Deputy State Epidemiologist Voorhees to Joe

Thompson, Special Counsel, Office of the Governor. New Mexico Department of

Health. 1998.

 

5. Bell, IR, Warg-Damiani, L, Baldwin, CM, Walsh, ME and Schwartz, GE.

Self-reported chemical sensitivity and wartime chemical exposures in Gulf War

veterans with and without decreased global health ratings. Mil Med. 1998

163:725.

 

6. Kreutzer R, Neutra RR, & Lashuay N. Prevalence of people reporting

sensitivities to chemicals in a population-based survey. Am J Epidemiol. 1999

Jul

1;150(1):1-12.

 

7. Caress SM, & Steinemann AC. A national population study of the prevalence

of multiple chemical sensitivity. Arch Environ Health. 2004 Jun;59(6):300-5.

 

8. Caress SM, & Steinemann AC. National prevalence of asthma and chemical

hypersensitivity: an examination of potential overlap. J Occup Environ Med.

2005 May;47(5):518-22

 

9. Multiple chemical sensitivity: a 1999 consensus. Arch Environ Health.

1999 May-Jun;54(3):147-9.

 

10. Tee L. Guidotti, TL. Viewpoint: The Invisible Specialty: Occupational

and Environmental Medicine. AAMC Reporter: April 2007.

 

11. Elofsson, S, et. a. Exposure to organic solvents. Scandinavian Journal

of Work & Environmental Health. 1980;6:239-273.

 

12. Seppalainen, AM, et al. Neurophysiological effects of long-term exposure

to a mixture of organic solvents. Scandinavian Journal of Work &

Environmental Health. 1978;4:304-314.

 

13. Jonkman, EJ, et al. Electroencephalographic studies in workers exposed

to solvents or pesticides. Electro Clinical Neurophysiology. 1992;82:439-444.

 

14. Bokina, AI, et al. Investigation of the mechanism of action of

atmospheric pollutants on the central nervous system and comparative evaluation

of

methods of study. Environmental Health Perspectives. 1976;13:37-42.

 

15. Ziem, G. and McTamney, J. Profile of patients with chemical injury and

sensitivity. Environ Health Perspect 1997;105:417-436.

 

16. Bell I.R. Baldwin, C.M. and Schwartz, G.E. Illness from low levels of

environmental chemicals: relevance to chronic fatigue syndrome and

fibromyalgia. Am J Med. 1998;105:74S-82S.

 

17. Baldwin, CM and Bell, IR. Increased cardiopulmonary disease risk in a

community-based sample with chemical odor intolerance: implications for women's

health and health- care utilization. Arch Environ Health 1998;53:347-353.

 

18. Rea, W.J. Environmentally triggered small vessel vasculitis. Ann.Allergy

1977;38:245-251.

 

19. Rea, W.J. Environmentally triggered thrombophlebitis. Ann.Allergy

1976;37:101-109.

 

20. McFadden, S.A. Phenotypic variation in xenobiotic metabolism and adverse

environmental response: focus on sulfur-dependent detoxification pathways.

Toxicology 1996;111:43-65.

 

21. Cary, R., Clarke, S. and Delic, J. Effects of combined exposure to noise

and toxic substances--critical review of the literature. Ann Occup Hyg

1997;41:455-465.

 

22. Levin, A.S. and Byers, V.S. Environmental illness: a disorder of immune

regulation. Occup.Med. 1987;2:669-681.

 

23. Jaakkola MS, Yang L, Ieromnimon A, Jaakkola JJ. Office work exposures

[corrected] and respiratory and sick building syndrome symptoms. Occup Environ

Med. 2007 Mar;64(3):178-84.

 

24. Heuser G., Wodjani A. and Heuser S. Diagnostic markers in chemical

sensitivity. In Multiple Chemical Sensitivities: Addendum to Biologic Markers

in

Immunotoxicology, 1992l;117-138. Washington DC: National Academy Press

 

25. McGovern, J.J., Jr., Lazaroni, J.A., Hicks, M.F., Adler, J.C. and

Cleary, P. Food and chemical sensitivity. Clinical and immunologic correlates.

Arch

Otolaryngol. 1983;109:292-297.

 

26. Galland, L. 1987. Biochemical abnormalities in patients with multiple

chemical sensitivities. Occup.Med. 1987;2:713-720.

 

27. Gibson, PR, Cheavens, J, & Warren, ML Chemical injury chemical

sensitivity and life disruption. James Madison University.

 

28. Bell, I.R., Wyatt, J.K., Bootzin, R.R. and Schwartz, G.E. Slowed

reaction time performance on a divided attention task in elderly with

environmental

chemical odor intolerance. Int.J Neurosci. 1995;84:127-134.

 

29. Meggs W.J., Cleveland C.H., Jr. Rhinolaryngoscopic examination of

patients with the multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome. Arch.Environ.Health

1993;48:14-18.

 

30. Hummel, T., Roscher, S., Jaumann, M.P. and Kobal, G. Intranasal

chemoreception in patients with multiple chemical sensitivities: a double-blind

investigation. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 1996;24:Pt2:S79-86

 

31. Bell, I.R., Bootzin, R.R., Ritenbaugh, C., Wyatt, J.K., DeGiovanni, G.,

Kulinovich, T., Anthony, J.L., Kuo, T.F., Rider, S.P., Peterson, J.M.,

Schwartz, G.E. and Johnson, K.A. A polysomnographic study of sleep disturbance

in

community elderly with self-reported environmental chemical odor intolerance.

Biol Psychiatry 1996;40:123-133.

 

32. Lieberman, A. D. and M. R. Craven. Reactive Intestinal Dysfunction

Syndrome (RIDS) caused by chemical exposures. Arch Environ Health 1998;53(5):

354-8.

 

33. Spinasanta, S. Nuclear Imaging: SPECT Scans and PET Scans. Spine

Universe; 2005

 

34. Matthews, B.L. Defining Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Jefferson, NC:

Mcfarland & Co Inc Pub; 1998.

 

35. Heuser G, Mena I. Neurospect in neurotoxic chemical exposure

demonstration of long-term functional abnormalities. Toxicol Ind Health.

1998;Nov-Dec;14(6):813-27.

 

36. Callender, TJ, et al. Three-dimensional brain and metabolic imaging in

patients with toxic encephalopathy. Environmental Res. 1993;60: 295-319.

 

37. Callender, TJ, et al. Evaluation of chronic neurological sequelae after

acute pesticide exposure using SPECT brain scans. Journal Toxicology &

Environmental Health. 1995;41:275-284.

 

38. Heuser, G, et al. Neurospect findings in patients exposed to neurotoxic

chemicals. Toxicology & Industrial Health. 1994;10:561-571.

 

39. Ross GH, Rea WJ, Johnson AR, Hickey DC, and Simon TR: Neurotoxicity in

single photon emission computed tomography brain scans of patients reporting

chemical sensitivities. Toxicol Ind Health 1999;15(3-4):415-420.

 

40. Simon TR, Hickey DC, Fincher CE, Johnson AR, Ross GH and Rea WJ: Single

Photon Emission Computed Tomography of the brain in patients with chemical

sensitivities. Toxicol Ind Health 1994;10:573-577.

 

Copyrighted © 2008 MCS America