|
ME/CFS South Australia Inc supports the needs of sufferers of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and related illnesses. We do this by providing services and information to members.
Disclaimer
ME/CFS South Australia Inc aims to keep members informed of various research projects, diets, medications, therapies, news items, etc. All communication, both verbal and written, is merely to disseminate information and not to make recommendations or directives.
Unless otherwise stated, the views expressed on this Web site are not necessarily the official views of the Society or its Committee and are not simply an endorsement of products or services.
| Become a Member | ||||
|
||||
The objective medical findings of the chemically sensitive
Friday 9 March 2012
From the Chemical Sensitivity in Mainstream Medical Documentation blog:
The Objective Medical Findings of the Chemically Sensitive
This is in response to certain political operatives who claimed that the medically proven malady of Chemical & Irritant Sensitivities is not a proven one:
Mainstream medical science already proved the existence of Chemical allergies. This is important to restate, because a never-board-certified psychiatrist of early retirement wrote in the late 1980's that such allergies were never proven to exist. He then changed the title of the article and made it available online, entirely misrepresenting Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.
His misrepresentation comes from the fact that he never mentioned the 21st Century proposed mechanism of MCS. Of course, it's the far too technical for anyone to explain, if he has no biochemistry background. A person could explain it if he were to spend dedicated hours studying it, though. This rude and disrespectful retired psychiatrist who had a small clientele never explained the proposed mechanism. One can conclude that he never read it ... or at the least ... understood it. However, it's basic bio-chemistry.
Immediate Onset and Delayed Chemical Allergies have long since been proven to exist. Today, testing for IgE-meditated chemical allergies is often done through RAST testing. This tests for reactions that emerge within one hour after exposure. Such testing was reliably done through skin-prick testing in even recent years. It's at the OCCUPATIONAL PANEL where chemical allergy testing is categorized on a RAST TEST ORDER FORM ... at last count.
In addition, mainstream medicine recognizes two forms of delayed allergic reactivity, involving chemicals. One form usually impairs the skin, while the other form usually impairs the respiratory tract. Plus, there are other objective medical findings attached to those suffering from Chemical & Irritant Sensitivities. In fact, Irritant Sensitivities involved sensitivity to those chemicals that don't provoke the classical allergic reaction. Yet, irritants operate according to an inflammatory mediator, none the less. In as much, Chemical Sensitivity is an inflammatory diseases. It triggers physical inflammation.
____________________________________________________
Posted below is a partial list of objective medical findings that have entered into the records of chemically sensitive patients and into research documentation. It appears after an introduction and a narration of a relatively recent case study. The introduction shows how objective medical findings can be entirely missed during a "cursory medical examine. The case study also confirms that, simply because insurance company attorneys allege something in a workman's comp case, it doesn't mean it's true.
Not Detected by the Standard Chest CT Scan.
Yet Detected via the End-expiratory CT Scan.
A January 2002 article that remains posted on the Fox News website declared it "junk science." It was/is the emergent illness which afflicted persons exposed to the debris of the World Trade Center collapse. Unofficially called "World Trade Center Syndrome," its distinctive feature was the "the WTC Cough," and its symptoms included shortness of breath.
The article attributed the ills of the afflicted WTC cleanup crew members to the 2002 "flu season." It furthermore attributed the ills of Manhattan residents to "anxiety salted with hypochondria." Its conclusion was that only "minor and transient health effects from the site" were to be expected. The conclusion was wrong.
A newly emerged illness had just made the scene, and just as quickly on the scene was a political operative ridiculing people's notice of it. Then came November 30, 2004, when it was officially disclosed that some of the afflicted crew members of the ground zero cleanup operation were actually suffering from the trapping of air. These workers were suffering from Small Airways Disease, and it was the end-expiratory CT scan that confirmed it to be true. The standard chest CT scan overlooked it.
The Fiberoptic Rhinolaryngoscopy Detects thatwhich the Garden Variety Cursory Exam Overlooks
The upper airway endoscopy is recognized by mainstream medicine as an effective means by which pathologies of the septum, nasopharynx, turbinates, mucosa, adenoids, eustachian tube orifice, tonsils, posterior tongue, epiglottis, glottis, and vocal cords can be easily seen. It was the fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopic exam which resulted in researchers realizing (in the early 1990s) that the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome which was presumed to involve no objective medical findings showed signs of being a physical pathology. In fact, the golden rule for diagnosing Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction came to be that of a flexible fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopic examination, performed upon a patient only when he/she is symptomatic.
The human body is regarded as exceptionally complex. Therefore, the reasonably minded person should understand that the cursory physical exam and garden variety testing do not detect everything. This understanding, in addition to the preceding paragraphs, offers insight as to why a number of chemically sensitive persons have been declared to have no objective medical findings.
The narration posted directly below should offer more detailed insight to this. It involves a case study which teaches us that, simply because corporate defense attorneys assert something in a workman's comp case, it doesn't automatically mean that it's true.
She Was Claimed to Have No Objective Medical Findings to Verfiy Her Symptoms. Multiple Medical Findings Were Documented in One Day.
A woman whose workplace was a former coal tar research building became ill six months after having worked there. A laboratory confirmed that her workplace was laden with very fine monofilament fibers. The smaller the molecular agent, the greater is its potential to infiltrate and afflict the inner recesses of the complex human anatomy. Furthermore, there was also the matter of pesticide exposure, ambient solvent exposure, and mold exposure to take into account, concerning her workplace environment.
After the woman had initially become ill, she kept going to work, making her condition worsen and making her have to quit work entirely. In fact, a fellow employee of quit working and then moved to Arizona. Other fellow employees mentioned that they were being sickened, too.
The business no longer operates in the former coal tar research center. Moreover, a large corporation was involved in this matter, despite the fact that the antics of a small fly-by-night business are described. In fact, the corporation's total stockholder equity was marked as being over eleven billion dollars in 2005.
Her Symptoms
The woman's symptoms included:
[1] a stinging tongue.
[2] shortness of breath.
[3] burning nasal passages.
[4] a metallic taste in the mouth.
[5] an adrenal-like stream throughout her solar plexus.
[6] headaches accompanied by the bruised feeling at the cheekbones and temples.
[7] ice-like numbness pervading her upper-respiratory tract (on specific occasion.)
She detected the presence of particular airborne substances, simply because she unavoidably tasted them on her tongue. In fact, one of her symptoms was the metallic taste in her mouth. She could no longer go to the places she used to frequent without becoming symptomatic, being that a number of airborne agents would now trigger her ills. This included fragrances, engine exhausts, and musty cardboard boxes.
She lived in the American state which presently has the fourth worse air quality in the entire United States. In addition, she had no prior history of asthma, no history of chronic upper-respiratory ills, and no history of allergies.
She received the diagnosis of agoraphobia & panic attacks, by a "mental health person." The corporate attorneys involved in her workman's comp case asserted that she had no objective medical findings to support her claims. However, an allergist and immunologist gave her the diagnoses of Asthma, Rhinitis, and Chemical Sensitivities. Meanwhile a cytopathologist gave her the additional diagnosis of Reactive Hyperplasia. In fact, in emergency room settings, she received the Asthma and Rhinitis diagnosis. Yet, assertions of mental illness had been set forth on record and asserted in court depositions as the cause of her ills. The assertions were significantly weakened in less than an hour.
Grossly Enlarged Turbinates, for Starters
On October 13, 2005, a fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopic exam was performed on her. The exam was conducted by an ear nose throat and allergy specialist who also happened to be a fellow of the American College of Surgeons. The woman who was said to have no objective medical findings to support her symptoms was found to have:
[1] postauricular adenopathy.
[2] grossly enlarged turbinates.
[3] shoddy posterior cervical adenopathy.
[4] some erythematous changes of the uvula.
[5] some mild edema of the true vocal cords.
[6] thickened coating over the dorsum of the tongue.
The physician's impressions, as are stated on record, were:
[1] multiple chemical and irritant sensitivities.
[2] rhinitis and turbinate hypertrophy.
[3] glossitis (tongue inflammation).
The conclusion is that, whatever be the medical condition this lady has, it is one of a physical origin and mechanism. If she were not made ill from workplace exposure, then she was made ill by some other physical cause.
Gruntled Breathing and Rales Were Already Observed
The story isn't over, of course. Objective medical findings had been entered into her records even before the October exam. She was documented as having "gruntled breathing" during an ER visit. She was also recorded as having wheezed and crackled during other ones. In fact, she already was found to have adenopathy. Plus, tachycardia, erythema of the oropharynx, and hypopotassemia had also been entered into her medical records before the October 13th rhinolaryngoscopy. Yet, she was branded with the "mental illness stigma," by the corporate defense attorneys and one independent medical examiner hired by the antagonistic corporation.
Furthermore, after she had become ill, she tested severely positive for dust mites and no other high weight molecular agent (such as ragweed, tree pollen, etc.) Yet, she has no prior history of allergies. Now, she was exposed to inordinate amounts of dust at her former place of work, and a person can become sensitized to dust mites. After all, there exist cases where barn workers became sensitized to storage mites.
The account of the chemically sensitive woman who has over a dozen objective medical findings attached to her medical records can be accessed by clicking on the web link provided directly below.
Narrative of the chemically sensitive woman with over a dozen objective medical findings, Part 1
Narrative of the chemically sensitive woman with over a dozen objective medical findings, Part 2
Chemical Exposure During Testing is Often a Necessity
There is one thing to note about a plurality of chemical sensitivity conditions. In order to acquire objective medical findings, you have to be examined while exposed to a chemical agent that assails you. In fact, you have to be tested /examined while symptomatic. You will not acquire objective medical findings in a vaccuum, in most testing.
In light of this, it was not an unheard event for a chemically sensitive patient to be found hunched over a waste basket after having been administered a skin prick test. Furthermore, patch testing has resulted in a few occasions of anaphylaxis, and being made symptomatic before a rhinolaryngoscopic exam is not a painless event. Moreover, the inhalation challenge test that measures FEV1 and the such is not recommended for those who are extremely hyperresponsive.
If the Detractors of MCS Admit to Even One Objective Medical Finding in any Type of Chemically Sensitive Patient, the Effect of their Propaganda Will Be Diluted
If the detractors of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity disclose even one objective medical finding in chemically sensitive patients, they will risk extinguishing the disrespect and indifference that their literature serves to incite.This will incline people to take a very respectful view of environmental illness. In learning that there exists a spectrum of chemical specific, case-specific, single systemic, and systemic forms of chemical sensitivity have already been found to exist, the public will surmise that it will only a matter of time before the controversy involving Multiple Chemical Sensitivity will be resolved. In light of this, a list of objective medical findings in chemically sensitive patients is posted below:
Objective Medical Findings in the Chemically Sensitive
Bronchial hyperresponsiveness in inhalation challenge testing. This includes things such as the drop in FEV1: Forced Expiratory Volume after 1 second of time.
Objective skin whealing resulting from skin testing;
See the article in Part 1, titled, Visible & Measurable Wheals Have Been Repeatedly Documented.
Simultaneous release of Leukotriene B4 and Interleukin-8;
(LTB4 is a chemokine. IL-8 is a toxin to neutrophils.)
Permeability of upper-respiratory epithelial cell junctions;
found in biopsy studies, via the electron micrograph
Abnormal liver function in the absense of viral infection.
Exorbitant presence of n-acetyl-benzoquinoniemine;
a toxic liver metabolite associated with P450 cytochrome inducers such as acetaminophen.
Paradoxical adduction of the true vocal cords.
Testing positive in traditional patch testing.
Peripheral nerve fiber proliferation.
Nasal and/or laryngeal erythema.
Turbinate swelling/hypertrophy.
Edema of the true vocal cords.
Lymphocytic infiltrates.
Glandular hyperplasia.
Angioedema.
Anaphylaxis.
Dermatitis.
Note 1: There are fiber optic rhinolaryngoscopic exam findings that were not posted above. In order to read of the additional findings, see: Rhinolaryngoscopic Examination of Patients with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome, found at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8452394
Note 2: There are also instances of hematotoxicity triggered by nontoxic benzene exposure. See: Hematotoxcity in workers exposed to low levels of benzene, found at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15576619
Note 3: There is more that can be included, but the aforementioned things should suffice in proving a point.
_____________________________________
The above originally appeared here.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Previous Page |
Registered Charity 3104
Email:
sacfs@sacfs.asn.au
Mailing address:
PO Box 322,
Modbury North,
South Australia 5092
Phone:
1300 128 339
Office Hours:
Monday - Friday,
10am - 4pm
(phone)