Stephen Barrett, MD. Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Formaldehyde

Formaldehyde for Everyone!!! Thanks to Stephen Barrett and his Fellow Propagandists

2012-02-22T07:20:00.000-05:00

Being that modern society has finally gotten Stephen Barrett's
number, in having uncovered his lack of credentials and over-
all hollowness, only a remnant of articles will remain at this site,
should they be needed by someone who has yet to learn of the
political operative who temporarily deceived society into assum-
ing that he was a practicing physician.

The thesis statement is that you need not worry about anything
that the never board certified psychiatrist of early retirement has
ever stated, being that he has no specialist's expertise in any of
the many subjects that he addressed. He's very prejudicial in a
kangaroo court fashion, he has repeatedly employed sleight of
hand semantics, and he is no more knowledgeable in his subject
matter than is any layman in society. Stephen Barrett's writings
are neither expert nor scholarly in nature. Nor are they wise or
even kindly in their delivery.
_____________________

Stephen Barrett: Clone of a Salem Witch Hunter

2012-02-20T06:13:00.000-05:00

In the Year 2001, a retired
psychiatrist stated: "Today,
I am the media." He repeat-
edly presented himself as an
expert in medicine, nutrition,
and law, while having zero
experience as a practicing
physician, zero training in
nutrition, and zero bar as-
sociation membership.

At the principle website that he operates, he is described
as a "medical communications expert" of national renown.
He even presented himself as a master in spiritual direction,
in book form. Representations of Stephen Barrett insinuate
that he alone can suffice as the voice of medicine. In fact,
representations of him make it sound as if, during any given
election, he should run for God. However, the factual score-
card on Barrett differs drastically from the representations
made of him.

Stephen Barrett's Extensive Lack of Credentials,
Lack of Experience, and Lack of Board Certification

[1] Stephen Barrett, M.D. was never board-certified in
   anything, at any time in his life. He has never been
   able to speak with the authority of a board-certified
   medical expert.

[2] Nor has he been able to speak from the vantage point
   of a practitioner in any type of internal or dermatolog-
   ical medicine. In fact, Stephen Barrett has not served
   in the capacity of a physician since the end of his rotat-
   ing internship days. Those days ended over 52 years
   ago, in 1958.

The "MD" affixed to his name simply means that he
graduated from a medical school. He did do that.
But, he did it over fifty-two years ago, in 1957.

[3] Moreover, Stephen Barrett has never been a research-
   er in any capacity; neither at the clinical level nor at the
   murine test level. He has been neither a toxicologist,
   nor a vaccinologist, nor a neurologist, nor a biochemist,
   nor an immunologist, nor any type of medical technolo-
   gist, nor a pharmacologist. This means that he has never
   been able to speak from the vantage point of a research
   colleague. That is to say, if Stephen Barrett had been
   seen in a lab coat after 1958, it was during Halloween.

[4] And Stephen Barrett has zero inventions/patents to his
   name. Therefore, he has never been able to speakfrom
   the vantage point of a medical innovator, either.

[5] Furthermore, there is no evidence that Stephen Barrett
   is a firsthand witness to illness on either side of the coin;
   neither as a practicing physician nor as a patient. That is
   to say, he has no known history of severe medical impair-
       ment. By all appearances, he is not able to offer any insight
       on what it is to intimately know intense physical suffering in
       the first person singular. His callousness indicates this.

[6] And as far as concerns Stephen Barrett being advertised as
   a "medical communications expert," his curriculum vitae
   indicates that he:

- never managed disaster relief efforts,
- never developed medical software programs,
- never oversaw ambulance dispatch operations,
- never managed the allocation of medical supplies,
- never networked hospital communication systems,
- never transmitted emergency medical instructions to sea,
- never networked pharmaceutical communication systems,
- never translated medical literature into foreign languages.

So where is the medical communicating that Stephen Barrett
is supposed to do so expertly ?

Stephen Barrett's Allegation of Being a Legal Expert

It was in a 21st Century California court where Barrett pre-
sented himself as an expert in FDA regulatory law. The matter
concerned a case that he himself instigated, under the name of
a 501c non-profit organization of which he was/is a member
and even an officer.

Barrett saw to the filing of the lawsuit (under the corporate
name), and then he hired himself as an expert witness, despite
the blatant conflict of interest. He then expected money to be
transferred from the 501c non-profit group's bank account to
his own personal account, in the form of a fee payment.

Needless to say, Stephen Barrett never worked for, with, over,
under, or besides the FDA. The presiding judge stated:

       "the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient
         qualifications in this area."

       "He has never testified before any governmental
         panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation
         of drugs."

       "Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony
         with respect to any of the issues associated with
         Defendant's products."

Furthermore, the judge stated that Stephen Barrett's
testimony should be "accorded little, if any, credibility."

In the end, the 501c private corporation of which Barrett
is a member lost the case. It was ordered to pay the de-
fendant's attorney fees. And as an added note, he claimed
himself to be a 21st Century legal expert in FDA regula-
tory matters, because he completed one and a half years
of correspondence law school in 1963; and because he
had several conversations with FDA personnel, as well as
some sort of continuing education classes that he had not
attended in eight years prior to the judgment.

Stephen Barrett has filed many lawsuits. Each one is an
article of its own. He usually sues for libel, malice, and/or
conspiracy. One report attached Barrett to a multiplicity
of lawsuits filed against forty defendants. And his most re-
cent courtroom loss is dated October 2005, in the Court
of Common Pleas of Lehigh County for the State of Penn-
sylvania. In that court case, Barrett once again claimed that
he was a legal expert.

Barrett lost a court case filed in California, under his own name.
He also lost cases in Oregon and Illinois, as well as in Pennsyl-
vania -- also filed under his own name.

In summary, Stephen Barrett was never the member of any
bar association. He never represented himself as his own at-
torney in any of his many lawsuits. He was never a district
magistrate, and he was not a clerk of court. Yet, he has re-
peated claimed that he is a legal expert. Barrett did have court
appearances as an expert witness in criminal and parole cases,
but only in the capacity of a psychiatrist who was never board
certified. One such venue was the juvenile court system in San
Francisco during the 1960s.

Barrett's Claim of Being a Nutritional Expert

As far as concerns his allegations of being a nutritional expert,
it was during the 1990s when he once testified against a nutri-
tionist who carried a number of credentials, including that of
a certification. This was at a hearing of the American Dietetic
Association. Barrett was only a non-trained and honorary
member of that association, yet he was presented as one of
its two expert witnesses. As a result of that hearing, the lady
against whom Barrett testified lost her registered dietician cre-
dentials. Her reputation suffered harm, and her future earnings
potential was compromised.

The woman then sued the association who presented Barrett
as a nutritional expert. And it was during a cross-examination
when Barrett finally conceded that he was not a nutritional
expert, being that had no training in the subject. He said that
he was an expert in "consumer strategy," instead. As a result,
the woman against whom Barrett testified had her credentials
restored in full. Notification of this was published in the cou-
rier & journal of the American Dietetic Association. The woman
also received an undisclosed settlement.

A Sample of Stephen Barrett's Mode of Communication

Stephen Barrett co-authored a book with a publicly known de-
frauder whose now-defunct paper review company, in providing
health reports to State Farm Insurance adjustors, was declared
"a completely bogus operation" by an Oregon judge.

Concerning Barrett's fraudulent co-author, it was the NBC
television network who reported him as the ratifier of fraud-
ulent health reports. He is a Dr. Ronald Gots, founder of a
company named Medical Claims Review Services. That
company went out of business in 1995.

The NBC television network obtained 79 of the reports that
Gots' paper review company provided for State Farm's ad-
justors. And ever-so-coincidentally, 100% of those 79
reports favored State Farm over every auto accident claim-
ant profiled in those reports.

The irony to this is that Stephen Barrett heralds himself as
an exposer of health fraud, as well as a defender of mankind
from persons committing health fraud. Yet, he elected to
have his name placed in print next to a notorious defrauder.

For further information on this matter, see:

The Paper Chase: A 15 month NBC Dateline Investigation

The Barrett/Gots Book, itself

The Barrett/Gots book is titled, "Chemical Sensitivity: The
Truth About Environmental Illness." Needless to say, the
book is a vehement denial of the valid existence of Chem-
ical Sensitivity. However, Chemical Sensitivity comes in
many case-specific and medically acknowledged forms; in
forms such as:

> Red Cedar Asthma (Plicatic Acid Sensitivity),
> IgE-mediated Triethanolamine Sensitivity,
> Pine Allergy (Abietic Acid Sensitivity),
> Formaldehyde-induced Anaphylaxis,
> Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivity,
> Ammonium Persulfate Sensitivity,
> Glutaraldehyde-induced Asthma,
> Phenyl Isocyanate Sensitivity,
> Halothane-induced Hepatitis,
> Sulfite-induced Anaphylaxis,
> Chemical Worker's Lung,
> TDI-induced Asthma,
> NSAID Intolerance,   . . .

. . . and numerous other forms.

Similarly, the Barrett/Gots book is a denial of the existence
of the Environmental Illness which also comes in a number
of medically acknowledged case-specific forms; in forms
such as:

> Vasomotor Rhinitis,
> Occupational Urticaria,
> Irritant-induced Asthma,
> Occupational Rhinosinusitis,
> Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis,
> Photoallergic Contact Dermatitis,
> Airborne-irritant Contact Dermatitis,
> Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome,
> Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction,
> Sick Building Syndrome (Building-related Illness),   . . .

. . . and a few other forms.

In fact, the Barrett/Gots book calls Sick Building Syndrome
"a fad diagnosis." However, Sick Building Syndrome is listed
as one of the "Most Common Diagnoses" at the Occupational
& Environmental Health centers of:

> Iowa University,
> Johns Hopkins University,
> The University of Pittsburgh,
> The University of Stony Brook,
> Detroit's Wayne State University,
> The University of Illinois-Chicago,
> The University of California-Davis,
> Boston Medical Center, as Building-related Illness,
> Washington University's Harborview Medical Center,
> The University of Maryland, as Building Related Disease,
> Nat. Jewish Med. Research Ctr, as Building Related Illness.

Needless to say, the Barrett/Gots book also denies the physi-
ological existence of the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity which
is listed as one of the "Most Common Diagnoses" at the Occu-
pational & Environmental Health centers of:

> the world renowned Yale University,
> the world renowned Mount Sinai Hospital,
> the world renowned Johns Hopkins University,
> a hospital affiliated with Harvard University,
> and a few other American medical institutions
which are licensed and certified centers of practice.

The listing thereof is done by the Association of Occupational
& Environmental Clinics.   For more information, see:

http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_MA.htm

http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_NY.htm

http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_CT.htm

http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_MD.htm

The Objective Medical Findings of Chemically Sensitive Patients which Stephen Barrett Ever-so-coincidentally Neglected to Disclose

For the record, there do exist objective medical findings in
the world of Chemical Sensitivity. The following findings
have been documented in the records of chemically sensitive
patients:

> dermatitis,
> anaphylaxis,
> angioedema,
> turbinate swelling,
> glandular hyperplasia,
> excessive nasal pallor,
> edema of the adenoids,
> edema of the true vocal cords,
> nasal and/or laryngeal erythema,
> protuberant/distended abdomen,
> permeability of epithelial cell junctions,
> hepatotoxicity in the absense of viral hepatitis,
> paradoxical adduction of the true vocal cords,
> marked cobblestoning of the posterior pharynx,
> inflammation of the alveoli (air sacs of the lungs),
> a 20%+ drop in FEV1 during inhalation challenge testing,
... and a few other things, such as visible and measurable
wheals produced during placebo-controlled skin testing,

Barrett's Contradiction

Barrett also wrote a 64 page booklet on Multiple Chemical
Sensitivity. Furthermore, Barrett wrote a text of much short-
er length, titled: "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: A Spurious
Diagnosis." In that article, Barrett states:

      "Legitimate cases exist where exposure to large
       or cumulative amounts of toxic chemicals has
       injured people."

Well, such exposure scenarios are the causes of Chemical
Sensitivity. That is why lay persons regard it as "Chemical
Injury." In as much, Barrett first denies the existence of
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in name. Yet, he describes
Chemical Sensitivity in function. But, he does so in such a
way that he leaves the reader uncertain as to what his state-
ment is intended to mean. After all, a novice might assume
that Barrett is referring to resovable acute toxicity cases,
instead of long-term chemical sensitization illnesses.

A Duly Noted Hypocrisy

Stephen Barrett markets fear. For example, he has marketed
fear of the formerly overrated echinacea flower which is only
harmful to persons severely allergic to the inulin that it contains;
to the inulin which is also present in Jerusalem artichokes, leeks,
bananas, garlic, and onions. Yet, has Barrett ever warned people
about bananas, onions, and Jerusalem artichokes?   Has he ever
warned people about VIOXX, BEXTRA, ZYPREXA and the
other pharmaceuticals that caused harm to mankind?

All in all, when you attack as many persons and entities as does
Stephen Barrett, the statistical probability is that you are going
to be correct some of the time. However, the same statistical
probability is that you are going to be wrong some of the time,
especially when you are unqualified to comment. Being that
Stephen Barrett neither scored a 100% nor a passing grade
on his board exams, he cannot be reasonably expected to be
100% correct in his volumes of writings.

Moreover, people have brain cells. They can recognize "quack-
ery" by ill effect or lack of effect. They don't have need of a
"Stephen Barrett" to tell them. Not only can reasonable people
detect a "quack" when they see one, they can just as easily de-
tect a disingenuous political operative when they read one.

Stephen Barrett's Cookie Cutter Techniques

It is not an incident of unheard proportions for Barrett to have
cited an obsolete reference, as well as an outdated and isolated
instance, in order to have mankind adhere to an assertion of his.
For example, in order to convince mankind that Chemical Sensi-
tivity is nothing more than a mental illness, Barrett cited an incident
which was put into writing 120 years ago, in 1886, concerning one
woman and one woman only. That incident was not about chem-
icals. It was about roses.

Now, concerning the medical practices and medical doctrines
that Stephen Barrett opposes, he is repeatedly found stating,
"inconclusive and not yet proven." If he cannot discredit some-
thing on technical merits, he cites an isolated case here and an
isolated case there, concerning an unauthorized billing or a mar-
keting violation committed by a person engaged in something
that Barrett wants deleted from the face of the Earth. Yet,
Barrett never mentions the dozens of frauds that were com-
mitted under the supervision of his co-author, Dr. Ronald Gots.

Barrett never mentions the vast number of lawsuits filed against
pharmaceutical companies.

Barrett often mentions what treatments and tests the Aetna
Insurance Company will not cover, as if Aetna is a charity
organization founded by Mother Theresa; as if Aetna is not
a profit minded corporation which benefits from the denial
of claims. In as much, an insurance company will not pay
for redundant treatment or redundant testing, and therefore
a similar test or treatment will not be covered. Furthermore,
an insurance company will not pay for anything that is regard-
ed as being in the experimental & investigational stage. As a
side note, everything in established medicine today was at the
experimental & investigational stage yesterday.

The Ironies about Dr. Stephen Barrett,
in Light of the Fact that He is a Retired Psychiatrist

The great irony about Barrett is that a psychiatrist is expected
to be a master at procuring peace in the minds and hearts of
men. A tree is known by its fruits. Stephen Barrett's fruits
have been made known.

Another great irony is that a psychiatrist is expected by the rea-
sonably minded person to be a master in neurology. Barrett
failed the Neurology section of his board exams.

And yet another irony is that a psychiatrist is expected to have
a reflex action for keeping confidentiality, being that patients
confide intimate details to a psychiatrist. However, Barrett
has placed person after person in an unfavorable spotlight.
He is even known to have revealed the tax problems of one
of his opponents; not to make notice that the man can use
someone's help, but rather, to provoke ill regards for the man.
Yet, when has Stephen Barrett ever placed the spotlight on the
exorbitant price mark-ups of pharmaceuticals in America?
After all, Barrett claims that he is a consumer advocate. So,
where is the consumer advocating in one of the most taxing
impositions on the American economy and consumer?

Stephen Barrett: Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Formaldehyde

2012-02-18T17:19:00.000-05:00

The Most Deadly and Irresponsible Thing that
the Never-board-certified Stephen Barrett
Has Thus Far Asserted

The AMA, the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Im-
munology (the AAAAI), and the American Lung Association
(the ALA) all acknowledge the following:

They acknowledge the existence of Chemical Sensitivity as it
applies to Asthma. All three associations acknowledge that
chemical-bearing agents can trigger asthma attacks in suscep-
tible persons.

Each organization advocates the practice of Avoidance, aka
Environmental Control; of avoiding airborne agents which
trigger one's asthma.   In text, the AMA has formally referred
to Avoidance as "Control of Factors Contributing to Asthma
Severity." In French medical Literature, avoidance is known
as "Strict Eviction."

Examples of recognized asthma triggers in the chemical category
include:

[A] "NO2" from gas stoves and fireplaces, fumes from
        kerosene heaters, and volatile organic compounds
        from carpeting, cabinetry, plywood, particle board,
         and fumes from household cleaning products."

[B] "Air pollutants such as tobacco smoke, wood smoke,
        chemicals in the air and ozone"

      "Occupational exposure to vapors, dusts, gases or fumes"

      "Strong Odors or sprays such as perfumes, household clean-
        sers, cooking fumes (especially from frying), paints, or var-
        nishes"

[C] "Perfume, paint, hair spray, or any strong odors or fumes."

See:

http://www.lungusa.org/lung-disease/asthma/living-with-asthma/take-control-of-your-asthma/asthma-triggers.html

http://www.lungusa.org/lung-disease/asthma/about-asthma/understanding-asthma.html

http://www.lungusa.org/healthy-air/home/resources/cleaning-supplies.html

http://www.aaaai.org/patients/publicedmat/tips/occupationalasthma.stm

http://asthma.about.com/od/asthmatriggers/qt/chemictriggers.htm

http://www.epa.gov/asthma/chemical_irritants.htm

An American Lung Association already stated:

"Perfume, room deodorizers, cleaning chemicals, paints, and
talcum powder are examples of triggers that must be avoided
or kept at very low levels."

The same American Lung Association furthermore states:

"These 'triggers' can set off a reaction in your lungs and other
parts of your body." Now, place an emphasis on "other parts
of your body," and keep in mind that:

Avoidance furthermore applies to Urticaria (rashes), Anaphylaxis,
Chemically-induced Hepatitis, Irritant Rhinitis, Dermatitis, Irritant-
associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction, Reactive Airways Dysfunction
Syndrome, etc.   The remedy for any chemically sensitive person is
Avoidance --- Environmental Control.

Stephen Barrett has called Avoidance "detrimental" in those
writings of his which condemn the Multiple Chemical Sensitiv-
ity diagnosis. He stated that "Multiple Chemical Sensitivityis
a label, and not a disease." He advises all to forbid those who
sufferer from MCS to avoid the chemical-bearing agents that
harm them, because the Stephen Barrett who has zero experi-
ence in every form of internal and dermatological medicine
claims that chemical-bearings agents do not harm them.

Firstly, this assertion contradicts the diagnostic histories of the
Occupational & Environmental Health centers of Johns Hopkins,
Yale, Mt. Sinai, and the Harvard-affiliated hospital, as well as cer-
tain Ear Nose Throat and Allergy Specialists.   More importantly,
Irritant-induced Asthma is certainly a disease and not a label.   It
isn't visa-versa.   Irritant Rhinitis is not a label, either.   It's a med-
ically accepted condition that has been known to co-exist with
Irritant-induced Asthma.   This means that the chemical-bearing
agents which are sought to be avoided by persons diagnosed with
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity are the same ones which the AMA,
the AAAAI, and the ALA instruct susceptible asthmatics to avoid.

The bottom line is this: Stephen Barrett has caused confusion
in having created the illusion that Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
is the only type of chemical sensitivity in existence.

The AMA's Admitting to the Converse Relationship
Between Pollution Levels and Hospital Admissions
Due to Asthma

Five to six thousand people die each year from asthma, in the
United States alone, and one of the highest asthma-related death
rates has been in Harlem, NY.   Ever so coincidentally, the envi-
rons of Harlem are venues for NYC waste sites. Concerning this,
the AMA has expressly stated that:

"fluctuations in the levels of air pollution correlate with asthma
symptoms and hospital admissions."   [Report 4 of the AMA's
Council on Scientific Affairs (A-98)]

Stephen Barrett's Hit & Run Narration of Ecology
House's First Two and Half Years of Operation

In his effort to convince mankind that Avoidance is a "detri-
mental" practice for Chemical Sensitivity sufferers, Barrett
cited the 1989 account of a house constructed in California
for the benefit of chemically sensitive people. It was a newly
built dwelling that could only house eight chemically sensitive
persons at a time.

Barrett gave an exceptionally short narration of the account,
and then he concluded by stating, "Although the building was
intended to be free of synthetic chemicals, most of the initial
tenants said it still made them sick."

A Lesson in Stephen Barrett's
Slight-of-hand Deception Techniques

Firstly, Stephen Barrett stated that, "the building was intended
to be free of synthetic chemicals." He did not say that the design-
ers succeeded in acheiving their intentions. After all, it was the
1980s. How easy was it to locate additive-free building ma-
terials in every phase of the project's construction?   In fact, the
report is that the builders of the safe house used certain building
materials that the environmental experts advised against using.

Secondly, the never board certified psychiatrist of early retire-
ment did not say that the designers intended to make that house
free of naturally occurring chemicals.   After all, chemicals exist
in unprocessed nature, and those chemicals can trigger adverse
reactions in suceptible people as much as can synthetic ones.
For example, the most untreated and organically grown pine
can trigger severe respiratory reactions in persons sensitive to
pine. The plicatic acid in cedar is yet another example.

Thirdly, "most of the initial residents" constituted five to seven
people. That is not large enough a number to justifiably write
off the entire population of chemically sensitive patients.   Most
importantly, Barrett did not say that any subsequent tenant of
Ecology House experienced illness while in that house.   This is
because no subsequent tenant reported illness while in that same
house.

That account ever-so-coincidentally concurs with the present
understanding of chemical sensitivity, as it applies to new build-
ing materials.   A new house must first outgas its volatile organic
compounds for an extended period of time, before it can be in-
habitable for any chemically sensitive person. In light of this, it
was reported that the California safe house became tolerable
two and a half years after its construction.   The event of 1989,
which was resolved by the elapsing of time, is in accordance
with the 21st Century understanding of chemical sensitivity.
That account does not debunk it.

In as much, chemically sensitive persons should not be housed
in newly built structures. They should be housed in older ones;
in ones with well-aged cementitious plaster walls, etc. Further-
more, Barrett did not explain that the drapery, furniture, cooking
odors, plants, shampoos, lotions, spices, laundry detergent, and
the smell of new appliances within any dwelling can cause chem-
ically sensitive persons to get ill whenever in that dwelling. Bar-
rett never admitted that a strong odor of itself, be it chemical or
nonchemical, can trigger an adverse reaction in a sufferer of
Environmental Illness. This can happen no matter how "toxin-
reduced" the dwelling's building material is.

Fair Warning About Stephen Barrett's Assertion

If you elect to fanatically act upon Stephen Barrett's assertion
that the chemically sensitive have no medical need to practice
Avoidance, you might one day find yourself on the defendant's
end of either a Toxic Battery criminal case or a "Deliberate
Intent" civil action. And Stephen Barrett, having never been
the member of any bar assocation, will not be there to defend
you. And Stephen Barrett, possessing zero experience in
every type of physical medicine, as well as zero board certi-
fication even in psychiatry, will not be there to testify for you.
______________________________________________

Chemical Allergies Have Been Proven to Exist

2012-02-16T12:45:00.000-05:00

Dr. Stephen Barrett "M.D." is an outspoken individual who re-
tired from psychiatry in 1993 and then proclaimed himself "the
media" in 2001. He was never board-certified in psychiatry,
and he was never board-certified in anything else.   He has
zero experience as a practitioner in every category of internal,
dermatological, & dental medicine. In addition, he was not a
researcher in any capacity, either. He was neither a biochem-
ist, nor a vaccinologist, nor a medical technologist, nor anything
similar.

An Allegation of Stephen Barrett that Calls for a Response:

Stephen Barrett alleged, throughout his anti-MCS literature,
that a primary test for chemical sensitivities consists in ...

(I) a very subjective and non-quantitative form of testing ...

(II) by which a diluted chemical solution is placed under
   the tongue of a patient (or injected through his skin), ...

(III) followed by nothing more than the patient reporting if
       whether or not he experiences any symptom from the
       administered chemical solution.

       This allegation, in combination with numerous omissions of
        fact, can easily deceive a beginner into assuming that there
        has never been a test to prove the existence of chemical
        sensitivities. This allegation, therefore, calls for a response.

The Response:

       * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
      To start, the testing for IgE-mediated chemical allergies
       has been conducted via mainstream medical RAST test-
       ing.   The chemicals tested are in the OCCUPATIONAL
       PANEL of a RAST TEST order form.    This means that
       mainstream medical science recognizes the existence of
       chemical allergies.   Case closed.   Stephen Barrett loses
       again.   This intrusive slanderer should stay out of things
       that don't concern him.
       * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

       In addition:

(1) The testing for chemical sensitivities has included, but
        has not been limited to, ...

(I) ... the traditional skin prick test, otherwise known as the
         SPT.

(II) In skin prick testing, a test-subject is regarded as having
tested positive when a visible and measurable wheal,
        equal to or larger than a designated size, appears as a
        result of the skin test.

(III) The size of the wheal is then recorded in numerical form,
        and numerical measurement constitutes objectivity.

IgE-mediated Chemicals, via the Process of Haptenation

(2) The purpose for the SPT is to test for immediate onset
       Type I hyperreactivity. Such a reaction occurs within
       one hour of exposure.

(I) IgE stands for Immunoglobulin E, and an immunoglobu-
       lin is a protein produced by plasma cells & lymphocytes,
       serving the function of an antibody.

(II) A number of chemicals have been found to trigger im-
       mediate onset reactions, and a subset of those have
       been discovered to be IgE-mediated, via a process
       known as "haptenation."

(III) Haptein is a greek word which means "to fasten," and
        a hapten is a low weighted molecular agent that reacts
        with an antibody, but cannot induce the formation of
        an antibody until it is fastened to either a carrier protein
        or to a large antigenic molecule. Chemicals happen to
        be agents of low molecular weight.

Type IV Hypersensitivity Reactions

(3) In addition, there are a significant number of chemicals
      which have been found to induce Type IV, cell-mediated
       hyperreactivity. This is known as "delayed allergic reac-
       tivity," and this type hypersensitivity results in dermatitis.

(I) Concerning Type I and Type IV hyperreactivity, the
       Practice Parameter for Allergy Diagnostic Testing, as
       is issued by the Joint Council of Allergy Asthma and
       Immunology, states:

"Many chemicals (e.g., sulfonechloramides,
              azo dyes, parabens, fragrances) used as
              additives in foods, drugs, and cosmetics
              may induce either IgE-mediated reactions
              or contact dermatitis, or both." [Ann Al-
              lergy 1995; 75:543-625]

Non-immunological Chemical Sensitivity Reactions,
Including Anaphylaxis

(4) In addition, a number of chemicals have been identified
       as irritants, being that they trigger very real "nonimmuno-
       logical" responses. There is even a nonimmunolgical form
       of anaphylaxis, known as the "anaphylactoid reaction."
       Such a reaction produces the same final result as does
       an immunologic anaphylactic reaction, and the only dif-
       ference between the two types of reactions is in each
       one's triggering mechanism of them. That is to say:

"An anaphylactoid reaction is another type of
  immediate reaction that mimics anaphylaxis.
              While symptoms and treatments are the same
               the reason for the reaction is not. An ana-
               phylactoid reaction does not involve the IgE
               antibodies' immune system and is not consid-
               ered a true allergic reaction. Even so, the
               reaction can be just as serious." [American
               College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology]

         See: http://www.acaai.org/public/advice/anaph.htm

(I)    Thus, there is Allergic Asthma, and then there is Irritant-
        induced Asthma. One type of asthma is immunologic,
        while the other type is not. You are not inclined to run
        a 26 mile marathon in either case, whenever you are
        exposed to your asthma triggers.

Allergic Sensitization, Direct Irritation,
and Pharmacological Reactions

(5) Hypersensitivity reactions can be triggered via:

(a) Allergic Sensitization. This is induced by repeated
       exposure to a sensitizing agent such as formaldehyde,
       glutaraldehyde, or phenyl isocyanate. And then, upon
       becoming sensitized, further exposure to the agent re-
       sults in an antibody release and/or an inflammatory
       chemical release.

(b) Direct Irritation. This is induced in those who are
       "atopic;" (in those who possess chronic vulnerabilites
        or pre-existent conditions). Such persons develop
        "symptoms immediately after exposure to substances
        such as chlorine, ammonia, sulfur dioxide, and envi-
        ronmental smoke."

(c) Pharmacological Reaction. This comes as a result
      of the fact that some chemicals and nonchemical agents
      elevate the production of chemicals that naturally exist in
      the body. An example of a naturally existent chemical
      in the body, able to have its level elevated by nontoxic
      chemical exposure, is acetylcholine. A case in point is
      the organophosphate/carbamate class of pesticide. Even
      at nontoxic levels, it can elevate the level of acetylcholine
      in the lungs, because that class of pesticide inhibits the
      enzyme acetylcholinesterase.

      For further understanding on this, see the Mayo Clinic's
    teaching on Occupational Asthma. It is found at:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/occupational-asthma /DS00591/DSECTION=3&

A Sample of IgE-mediated Chemicals

(6) For confirmation purposes, examples of IgE-mediated
        chemicals which can be involved in skin testing, include
        the following:

(a)   The disinfectant Ortho-phthalaldehyde.

        It has even resulted in anaphylaxis, concerning the
        product "Cidex OPA." See:

<> Nine episodes of anaphylaxis following cystoscopy
       caused by Cidex OPA (ortho-phthalaldehyde) high-
       level disinfectant in 4 patients after cystoscopy.
       {J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004 Aug;114(2):392-7}

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15316522&dopt=Citation

(b) Formaldehyde.

        It is masked behind a number of aliases, and it outgases
        from the shampoo and liquid soap ingredients, DMDM
        hydantoin, imidazolidinyl urea, diazolidinyl urea, and
        quaternium-15. See:

<> IgE-mediated urticaria from formaldehyde in a
        dental root canal compound. (The full text describes
        28 cases of Formaldehyde Sensitivity. {J Investig
        Allergol Clin Immunol., 2002;12(2):130-3}

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=12371530&dopt=Abstract

<> Exposure to gaseous formaldehyde induces IgE-
        mediated sensitization to formaldehyde in school
        children. {Clin Exp Allergy, 1996 Mar;26(3): 276-80}

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=8729664&dopt=Abstract

<> IgE allergy due to formaldehyde paste during
        endodontic treatment. Apropos of 4 cases:
        2 with anaphylactic shock & 2 with generalized
        urticaria. {Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 2000
         Oct;101(4):169-74}

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=11103423&dopt=Abstract

(c) Vinyl Sulphone Reactive Dyes.

       They are also known as fiber-reactive dyes, as well as
       azo dyes. They include Remazol Black B. See:

<> Roll of skin prick test and serological measure-
        ment of specific IgE diagnosis of occupational
        asthma resulting from exposure to vinyl sulphone
        reactive dyes.    {Occup Environ Med. 2001 Jun;58
        (6):411-6}

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=11351058&dopt=Citation

<> Asthma, rhinitis, and dermatitis in workers exposed
        to reactive dyes. {Br J Ind Med. 1993 Jan;50(1):65-
        70}

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=8431393&dopt=Abstract

(d) Cyanuric Chloride.

It is used in the production of plastics, herbicides, pharma-
ceuticals, and fiber-reactive dyes. It is also a structural
component of monochlorotriazine and dichlorotriazine dyes.
See:

<> Immunologic cross-reactivity between respiratory
       chemical sensitizers: reactive dyes and cyanuric
       chloride.    {J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998 Nov;102(5):
       835-40}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9819302&query_hl=9

(e) The disinfectant Chlorhexidine.

It has even triggered anaphylaxis. See:

<> FDA Public Health Notice:
       Potential Hypersensitivity Reactions to
       Chlorhexidine-Impregnated Medical Devices

http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/chlorhex.html

<> Immediate hypersensitivity to chlorhexidine:
        literaure review. {Allerg Immunol (Paris) 2004.
        Apr;36(4):123-6}

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15180352&query_hl=16

(f) Phthalic Anhydride.

Nail polish ingredient, ingredient in specific spray paints, and
an agent used in the making of unsaturated polyester resins,
alkyd resins, polyester polyols, and insect repellents.

<> Detection of specific IgE in isocyanate and phthalic
anhydride exposed workers: comparison of RAST
       RIA, Immuno CAP System FEIA, Magic Lite SQ.
      {Allergy. 1993 Nov;48(8);627-30}

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=8116862&dopt=Abstract

<> In vitro demonstration of specific IgE in phthalic
anhydride hypersensitivity. {Am Rev Respir Dis.,
1976 May;113(5):701-4}

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve &db=PubMed&list_uids=1267268&dopt=Abstract

(7) The test that Barrett condemns in his anti-MCS literature
   is the provocation-neutralization test. And the only type
       of practitioner that he mentions in the same literature is
       so-called clinical ecologist. Barrett inaccurately explain-
       ed the provocation-neutralization test, in his omitting of
       pivotal fact, and he additionally gave the illusion that the
       only person on earth who tests for chemical sensitivity is
       the so-called clinical ecologist.

(I) Firstly, the diagnosing of the various forms of chemical
       sensitivity has been occurring in the worlds of the Occu-
       pational and Environmental Health Specialist, the Ear
       Nose Throat & Allergy Specialist, the Dermatologist,
       and even the Chest Physician. In fact, from the world
       of the chest physician came the golden rule for diagnos-
       ing Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction. And,
   two pivotal papers on chemical sensitivity were pro-
       duced by the head of the department of emergency
       medicine of an american university. Yes, emergency
       medicine.

(II) And secondly, Barrett failed to mention that the provo-
       cation-neutralization test has included the measuring of
       objective skin wheals.

Barrett Failed to Mention that it is an Offshoot
of the Serial Endpoint Titration Skin Testing
Procedure, Covered by Aetna Insurance

(8)   The provocation-neutralization test is actually an offshoot
        of the serial endpoint titration skin testing procedure, cov-
        ered by Aetna Insurance, at least at one time.    This is
        pertinent to note in light of the observation that Stephen
        Barrett has repeatedly stated what Aetna covers, as if
        Aetna, alone, is the ultimate benchmark in diagnostic
        testing and as if Aetna is a non-profit charity that has
        no motive in denying medical procedures.

(I) Now, the Skin Endpoint Titration seeks to first identify a
        patient's allergens or hymenoptera venom hypersensitiv-
        ities (such as to that of hornets, bees, wasps, fire ants,
        and yellow jackets.) That is to say, the SkinEndpoint
        Titration first seeks to find the triggering dose of a hyp-
         ersensitivity reaction.

(II)   The same testing then seeks to find the neutralizing dose
        of the same allergen or venom. Now, this is done for
        immunotherapy purposes, and the neutralizing dose is
        found in a series of skin tests.   The dose at which the
        patient no longer experiences a hypersensitivity reaction
        is the "endpoint." It constitutes the neutralizing dose. It
        then becomes the "safe starting dose" for immunotherapy.
        Thus originates the name "neutralization" in provocation-
         neutralization testing.   The goal of such testing was to
         identify the "neutral dose."

(III) In summary, the provocation-neutralization test looks
         for objective skin wheals, while simultaneously ask-
         ing the patient how he/she feels when, of course, such
         testing involves skin testing.   The appearance of wheals
         have been documented in such testing.

(IV) The diagnostic parameters become exceeded when the
         testing is considered positive on an either/or basis; on the
         basis of either the appearance of an objective skin wheal
         or the subjective reporting of a symptom.   However, this
         is a test that concerns itself with prognostic parameters.

(V)   Nonetheless, to consider a test positive exclusively on the
       merits of an objective skin wheal is to keep the diagnostic
         part of any type of skin test within acceptable parameters.
         It's the sublingual drops version of such testing which raises
         eyebrows.

Wheal Reactions Showed a Distinct Pattern

(9)   Objective skin whealing was consistently documented dur-
        ing a research undertaking that tested the reliability of the
        provocation-neutralization test. The result of the research
        goes as follows:

"Reaction by symptoms to foods, chemicals,
             and normal saline solution showed a random
             pattern, although wheal reactions showed a
             distinct pattern."

(I)    Let it be repeated. In the skin testing version of the
        provocation-neutralization test:

"wheal reactions showed a distinct pattern."

(II) The conclusion of that research undertaking goes as
         follows:

"Skin response alone may be a more
               reliable indicator and require cross-
               validation with other tests, such as
               oral and inhalation challenges and
               comparison with a control popula-
               tion." See:

<> Intradermal skin testing for food and chemical
         sensitivities: a double-blind controlled study.
         {J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999 May;103(5 Pt 1):
          907-11}

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10329827&dopt=Abstract

(III) Concerning the prognostic aspect of the provocation-
         neutralization test, Aetna states:

   "Since provocation-neutralization requires
              the provoking and neutralizing of symptoms
              to a single item at a time, the patient could
              be required to undergo hundreds of indi-
              vidual tests requiring weeks or months of
              full-day testing." (Well, this is what Aetna
              states.)

(IV) The bottomline is that skin testing has been used to iden-
tify individual chemical sensitivities to chemicals such as
          formaldehyde, phenyl isocyanate, azo dyes, and phthalic
          anhydride.   Tested patients produced the objective med-
          ical finding of visible and measurable wheals. This has
          included forms of testing other than the neutralization-
          provocation test.

(V)   Chemically sensitive patients have tested positive in in-
         halation challenge testing, as well as in patch testing (the
         testing that seeks to detect delayed hypersensitivity re-
         sponses.)   Chemically sensitive patients were also doc-
         umented as having objective medical findings via the fib-
         eroptic rhinolaryngoscopy, RAST testing, and via biopsy.

         Some patients were found to have inflamed air sacs of the
         lungs, while other ones were found to have hepatic injury
         in the absence of viral infection.   Other ones were found
         to have upper-respiratory erythema and swelling. Chemi-
         cal Sensitivity exists in multiple systemic and single-system
         form.   It is very real, and it can be quite brutal. In as much,
         it has been repeatedly documented that chemicals, at ambient
         (nontoxic) levels, are not universally harmless.
   __________________________________

Johns Hopkins, Mount Sinai, Harvard, and the MCS Diagnosis

2012-02-12T16:09:00.000-05:00

Brief Outline

The never-board-certified & never-practicing physician, Stephen
Barrett, has repeatedly asserted that the Multiple Chemical Sensi-
tivity diagnosis is an act of malpractice, given to those who are
merely mentally ill. He furthermore called Sick Building Syndrome
(SBS) a "fad diagnosis," stating that it is intertwined with MCS.
He additionally stated that Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is sup-
ported by "a small cadre of physicians" who identify themselves
as "clinical ecologists."

The Induced Deceptions

Barrett's literature can easily deceive a novice into assuming
that the MCS diagnosis has never been given at any occupa-
tional & environmental health clinic, as well as at any world
renown medical institution. Being that Barrett associated SBS
with MCS, it leaves a novice to assume the same things about
Sick Building Syndrome. Barrett's assertions call for responses.

The Responses

To start, Barrett once wrote that there exist legitimate cases
where repeated exposure to chemicals (or pronounced short
time exposures thereof) resulted in physical illness.   Yet, he
applied lax due diligence in getting that medical fact conveyed.

The Association of Occupational & Environmental Clinics has
posted profiles of its members, in State-by-State directory
form.   In each AOEC profile, mention is made of the profiled
member's Most Common Occupational Diagnoses and Most
Common Environmental Diagnoses. Placed into focus at this
point are the AOEC members listed directly below.   The profile
of each one dates from May 2008 to October 2010.

{1} the world renowned Yale University,
{2} the world renowned Mount Sinai,
{3} Harvard affiliated Cambridge Hospital,
{4} The world renowned Johns Hopkins University.

{1} In the AOEC directory for the State of Connecticut, the se-
       cond member profiled is the Yale University Occupational
       and Environmental Health Clinic. For years, it marked as
       one of its Most Common Environmental Diagnoses, Multi-
       ple Chemical Sensitivity. At present, it simply states it to
       be Chemical Sensitivity, without the word, "multiple."

See: http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_CT.htm

This can be additionally confirmed at the following Yale Uni-
      versity web address, under Chemical Exposures/Disease:

See:   http://medicine.yale.edu/intmed/occmed/clinical/index.aspx

{2} We next go to the State of New York. The fourth clinic pro-
        filed in the New York State directory is the Mount Sinai
      Irving J. Selikoff Center. Among its three Most Common
        Environmental Diagnoses is Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

        In fact, the Occupational Health Clinical Centers, located in
        Syracuse, New York, also has Multiple hemical Sensitivity
        marked as one of its most common environmental diag-
        nosis.

        In addition, the Long Island Occupational and Environment-
        al Health Center, in Medford NY, has MCS marked as one
        of its two most common environmental diagnoses.

See: http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_NY.htm

{3} We now come to the AOEC directory for Massachusetts.
       The third listed clinic is Harvard affiliate, Cambridge Hospital.
       Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is listed as one of Cambridge
       Hospital's most common environmental diagnoses.

See: http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_MA.htm

{4} Next comes Johns Hopkins Division of Occupational and
      Environmental Medicine. According to the AOEC directory
      for the State of Maryland, one of Johns Hopkins' most com-
      mon environmental diagnosis is Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

See: http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_MD.htm

Furthermore, a notable number of AOEC members have Sick
Building Syndrome listed among their most common diagno-
ses. This includes:

[] Presbyterian Occupational Medicine Clinic (Albuquerque),
[] The University of Washington Harborview Medical Ctr,
[] The University of Iowa Department of Internal Medicine,
[] Georgia Occup. & Environ. Toxicology Clinic (Atlanta),
[] The University of Stony Brook School of Medicine,
[] The University of Illinois - Chicago,
[] Wayne State University (Detroit),
[] The University of Pittsburgh,
[] Johns Hopkins, as was previously mentioned.

A number of AOEC members have Indoor Air Quality listed
among their most common diagnoses. For example, the world
renown Duke Medical Center has Indoor Air Quality Assess-
ment listed among its most common diagnoses. Meanwhile,
Yale University has Indoor Air Quality Problems listed.

The 21st Century proposed mechanism for MCS doesn't come
from the world of the "clinical ecologist."   It comes from the
school of molecular bio-sciences of an American university.
The expanded diagram of the proposed mechanism mentions,
in a favorable light, the conclusions about chemical sensitivity
which come from the school of emergency medicine of yet
another American university. Findings in chemical sensitivity
also come from the technologically advanced nations of Italy,
Germany, Sweden, Austria, France, South Korea, Spain,
the Netherlands, and Japan.
_____________________________________________

The Invalidating Feature of the Staudenmayer Test

2012-02-10T11:30:00.000-05:00

The Research Undertaking that Barrett waved
Like a National Flag

In his attempt to convince mankind that Chemical Sensitivity
is merely a mental illness, the never-board-certified Stephen
Barrett repeatedly cited a "research undertaking" conducted
in Denver during the 1980s. That test is formally titled:

"Double-blind provocation chamber challenges in 20 patients
presenting with "multiple chemical sensitivity."

The article detailing that research undertaking was published
on August 18, 1993.

   The research team who conducted that test consisted
   of psychologist Herman Staudenmayer (Ph.d), allergist
   John Selner (MD), and chemist Martin P. Buhr (Ph.d).

The title of that test is misleading, being that it was not based
on standard challenge testing, such as the methacholine chal-
lenge test which measures FEV1 and the such. In fact, it was
subjective testing; the type of testing that Barrett condemns as
invalid.   Thus, we see another instance of contradiction, and
even hypocrisy in Stephen Barrett's anti-MCS literature.

Background in Brevity

1) The test consisted in 145 occasions where a test subject
     received into his/her chamber an injection of air. The test
     subject was then instructed to discern if whether or not
     the injected air was accompanied by a chemical agent.

Each of the twenty test subjects participated in at least one
"provocation challenge."

2) The challenges were divided into two types:

a) active challenges,
b) sham challenges.

Eighty-eight of the provocation challenges were defined
as "sham" challenges, and they were recorded as injections
of chemical-free air. The other fifty-seven were defined as
"active" challenges, and they were recorded as injections of
chemical-bearing air.

3) The sham challenges came in two forms:

a) clean air injected alone,
b) clean air accompanied by an aromatic agent.

4) The active challenges also came in two forms:

a) the injection of an airborne chemical alone,
b) an airborne chemical accompanied by an aromatic agent.

5) The aromatic agents were called "maskers."
Maskers used in the "Staudenmayer Test" included:

a) anise oil,
b) cinnamon oil,
c) lemon oil,
d) peppermint spirit (10% oil and 1% leaves.)

4) The overall result of the test, as recorded by the research
     team, goes as follows: "Individually, none of these patients
    demonstrated a reliable response pattern across a series of
    challenges." The conclusion was that persons diagnosed with
    Multiple Chemical Sensitivity are merely psychologically ill.

The Invalidating Feature of that Test

The maskers that Stephen Barrett cited as having been used
in the "Herman Staudenmayer Test" are known triggers of
adverse reactions in susceptible persons. They are chemical-
bearing agents.

Concerning anything aromatic, keep in mind that the AMA, the
world-renown Mayo Clinic, the American Lung Association, and
the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology each
recognize, in publicly accessible print, that "strong odors" can be
triggers of adverse upper and/or lower respiratory reactions in sus-
ceptible people, simply because they are strong odors. This has
included anise oil, cinnamon oil, lemon oil, and peppermint spirit.

The Chemical Ingredients in the Sample List of Maskers
Used in 'the Staudenmayer Test' that were Alleged to be
Chemical-free

Concerning the sample list of maskers used in the "Staudenmayer
Test," observe the following:

Anise Oil:

- An active ingredient in it is anethole.
- Anethole's chemical composition is C10H12O.
- Its CAS No. is 104-46-1.
- It is a known trigger to those adversely reactive to it.
- In fact, Anethole is known as p-1-propenylanisode.
- It is also known as 1-methoxy-4-(1-propenyl)benzene.
- Thus, anise oil is a chemical-bearing agent.

In all occasions where anise was used as a masker in a clean
air injection, a chemical-bearing agent was being injected into
the test subject's chamber. Therefore, to have recorded such
a n injection as one of chemical-free air was to have recorded
a falsehood.

Cinnamon Oil:

Along with being a "strong odor," cinnamon oil is an aldehyde
bearer. In fact, the naturally occurring trans-cinnamaldehyde
unassistedly becomes benzaldehyde in the presence of heat.

In as much, to have recorded a cinnamon oil air injection as a
chemical-free one was to have recorded yet another falsehood.
Cinnamon oil is a chemical-bearing agent.

Lemon Oil:

The most prevalent constituent in lemon oil is the monoterpene,
limonene, aka 4-isopropenyl-1-methyl-cyclohexene. Limo-
nene develops a potent sensitizing capacity when oxidized, and
it's a reputed skin sensitizer.   In addition, a Swedish research un-
dertaking recorded the following about limonene:   "Bronchial
hyperresponsiveness was related to indoor concentrations of
limonene, the most prevalent terpene." Lemon oil also includes
the same alpha-pinene that was implicated in oil of turpentine
allergy.

Peppermint:

This aromatic agent is the bearer of Methyl Salicylate, and as
is shown below, it is among the salicylate allergy triggers.   It's
also the bearer of the following sensitizing agents: (a) alpha-
pinene, (b) phellandrene, and (c) limonene. It's also the
bearer of (d) methone, (e) menthofurane, and (d) methyl
acetate.

Now, as far as concerns methyl salicylate, Supplement 5 of
the Journal of the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists,
1999 / Vol. 14, states:

"Of note, methyl salicylate carries the same warnings as oral
salicylates and has the potential to cause Reye's Syndrome in
children with flu-like symptoms, as well as adverse reactions
in those with aspirin allergy, asthma, or nasal polyps."

In as much, to record an airborne injection of peppermint spirit
as a chemical-free one, is to record yet another falsehood.

Dephosphorylation

The research team gave no consideration to the the masking of
sensitivity responses; a phenomenon attributed to the involvement
of Ca2+ calmodulin phosphatase calcineurin and the ensuing de-
phosphorylation that it induces.

Barrett's Predictable Response to the Test

As is to be expected, in an article written by him, Stephen Barrett
recommended that clinical researchers conduct more tests likened
to the one conducted by Staudenmayer and his colleagues; anise oil,
cinnamon oil, and all.

You should be able to conjecture why he advocated this Kangaroo
Court type of research project.
_______________________