Environmental Medicine Matters » Therapy

Ministry of Health presents Consensus Document on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

CSN — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 12:07:06 +0000

THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH IN SPAIN PRESENTS THE CONSENSUS DOCUMENT ON MULTIPLE CHEMICAL SENSITIVITY (MCS) – NOVEMBER 30, 2011

On November 30, the Ministry of Health in Spain has finally submitted the consensus document on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (pdf).

Two years ago, José Luís Aparicio, a MCS sufferer, and I were interviewed at the Spanish radio program Carne Cruda. They were so shocked by MCS that decided to contact the Ministry of Health because they wanted to interview them in their show to explain to them the terrible situation of the MCS sufferers.

After a lot of calls to the Ministry of Health without receiving any response, they did a live phone call during the radio show and the Ministry had finally to accept. On January 2010, the Secretary General of the Ministry of Health, was interviewed on “Carne Cruda”, in a special show devoted to Multiple Chemical Sensitivity with Miguel Jara, Dr. Pablo Arnold, José Luís Aparicio and David Palma on behalf of me. He made the public commitment to meet with associations that deal with MCS. On February 2010 was held the meeting with Ministry of Health to state the situation of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity sufferers in Spain and they committed to create a Scientific Committee to elaborate the consensus document on MCS that has now finally been released. The document, that has 128 pages, will be translated into English by Ministry of Health and it will be reviewed within two years to include the new scientific knowledge.

David and I want to thank everyone who has been part of this long process. From the doctors members of the Scientific Committee to the 13 MCS associations that set up the “Comité para el Reconocimiento de la Sensibilidad Química Múltiple” (committee for the recognition of MCS in Spain) to have an unanimous voice for this process, including Jaume Cortés, lawyer of the Colectivo Ronda, because his disinterested participation has been crucial for this achievement. And we want to specially thank to Javier Gallego, the director of Carne Cruda, and all his team because without their courageous attitude this day would have never come.

David has remained as observer during the process and we greatly appreciate it to the Committee, and from now he split with the Committee because we don’t belong to any MCS association and we believe that our work is complete.

Today is a great day for all the MCS sufferers in Spain. The consensus document on MCS, albeit imperfect, lays the foundation for future recognition of this disease and it finally does recognize that the MCS patients exist.

Author: Eva Caballé, No Fun Blog, The Ministry of Health in Spain presents the Consensus Document on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) – November 30, 2011

Related articles:

An icon of environmental medicine visits Germany

Silvia — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:23:54 +0000

Evidence for the causes of environmental diseases have been around for a long time

The doctor and scientist Doris Rapp is one of those who not only practice environmental medicine, but has also made environmental medicine the most important thing in her life. The American spent two weeks in Germany. The reunion with Prof. Rapp was very productive and we were lucky enough to spend a beautiful day on the Moselle. Here is a small summary.

Researcher documented environmental disease

I met Prof. Rapp for the first time at a congress in Bad Emstal about 18 years ago. It was a crucial experience. In her presentation, she showed a video about a teacher who became ill from contaminated carpeting in the school. The teacher was filmed during a reaction to contaminated dust from the carpet. This video vividly conveys to the viewer what MCS is and what a reaction can look like. At that time I was at the very beginning of my own illness and had had similar reactions to certain pesticides. The teacher experienced convulsions and fell unconscious. I thought “my goodness, that’s me, that’s exactly like me, that’s what you have…“ After the lecture I spoke with Prof. Rapp and that was the beginning of an ongoing exchange of information and an interesting friendship. We met again at conferences in Germany, Holland and in the U.S., visited each other in Germany and the United States and exchanged e-mails. When I visited her in Scottsdale, she showed me one of her video archives. She had stored thousands of videos of children whom she had treated. They showed the patients during and after therapy and during testing of foods, mold, pollen, dust mites or chemicals. They displayed impressive evidence that can remove any last doubts as to the existence of environmental illnesses and allergies.

We can no longer ignore environmental illnesses

Dr. Binz and his wife invited the environmental doctor for this most recent visit to Germany. We had actually arranged to meet for a trip along the Moselle, which would start before lunch. We had a warm reunion and before we knew it we had already exchanged information and ideas and were in the midst of planning for future projects.

“I’m over 80 years old now and have no children, I don’t really need to be doing all this and I could be enjoying my peace at this age, but I see what’s going on, and I simply cannot remain silent. We have so many chemicals in our environment, in the food we eat, in the water we drink and the air that we are constantly breathing. They affect each of our body systems and we can no longer ignore this. Almost every second person in my country has cancer and that is just not acceptable”, says Doris Rapp.

“The politicians and the public must realize the impact the flood of chemicals has on us and no one should keep insisting that we do not know where all the increasing diseases that occur are coming from. The evidence is there. We have animal testing to prove it. That’s why, as a doctor, I ask: How much more has to happen before we admit to the real causes? I won’t accept hearing when one says, “Yes, but there’s nothing we can do about it.” Yes, there is, because you can educate yourself and there’s a hell of a lot you can do,” says Prof Rapp, who is enraged about the current situation.

Solutions are often very simple

Prof. Rapp is no one who can be at odds with the world and ignore the solutions. She is in the process of writing another book. “It will be a small book, only 30 pages. Every reader can easily understand how he/she can shape his environment in order to stay healthy. The tips in this book will not cost anyone a fortune, they can easily be implemented without major expense. It will help anyone who wants to change something and wants to improve his health. The doctor cites two examples:

“Many people react to foods, but are not sure towards which foods. Expensive tests are not necessary. I advise people to think about what they eat most, foods that they downright crave. Experience has shown that these are the foods that are eaten every day and most likely those which cause reactions. The solution: omit the suspected food for a week. You can test one food after another. This costs nothing! ”

“Some people live in a house that is contaminated with pollutants or contaminated by mold. My experience is that five out of seven people can improve their health by 70% if they obtain a high quality air cleaner that is capable of filtering hundreds of chemicals from the air in your home. Such a device may cost a bit, but I have often seen patients who got better over night. So it’s worth it if you are unable to directly move out of the apartment or house.”

The new book will be published this year, and Professor Rapp has authorized me to translate it into German. She also gave me permission to translate videos and other books into our language, contributing knowledge to allergy sufferers and chemically sensitive people in the German-speaking countries, helping them to find a way back into life.

A trip along the Moselle

During the drive to the historic Moselle wine village, Bernkastel, to Traben-Trabach and the drive back to Trier, Prof. Rapp was bursting with innovative ideas that we will begin to put into action in the next few months and they will benefit the environmentally ill in many ways.

Author: Silvia K. Müller, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, 12 September 2011

Related Articles:

Vitamin C may be beneficial for asthmatic children

CSN — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:51:18 +0000

In younger children with mild asthma symptoms, the benefit of vitamin C was greatest

Depending on the age of asthmatic children, on their exposure to molds or dampness in their bedroom, and on the severity of their asthma, vitamin C has greater or smaller beneficial effect against asthma, according to a study published in the Clinical and Translational Allergy.

Proposals that vitamin C might be beneficial in the treatment of asthma date back to the 1940s, but the findings from controlled trials have been conflicting.

Drs Mohammed Al-Biltagi from the Tanta University in Egypt and Harri Hemila from the University of Helsinki in Finland analyzed the effect of 0.2 grams per day of vitamin C on 60 asthmatic children aged 7 to 10 years. The effect of vitamin C on the forced expiratory volume per one second (FEV1) was modified by age and exposure to molds or dampness. In the younger children aged 7.0 to 8.2 years with no exposure to molds or dampness, vitamin C administration increased the FEV1 level by 37%. In the older children aged 8.3 to 10 years with exposure to molds or dampness in their bedroom more than one year before the study, vitamin C increased the FEV1 level by only 21%.

The effect of vitamin C on the asthma symptoms was modified by age and the severity of asthma symptoms. In the younger children aged 7.0 to 8.2 years with mild asthma symptoms, the benefit of vitamin C was greatest. In the older children aged 8.3 to 10 years who had severe asthma symptoms, the benefit of vitamin C was smallest.

Drs Al-Biltagi and Hemila conclude that there is strong evidence that the effect of vitamin C on asthmatic children is heterogeneous. They consider that it is important to carry out further research to confirm their findings and to more accurately identify the groups of children who would receive the greatest benefit from vitamin C supplementation.

Autor:

University of Helsinki, Vitamin C may be beneficial for asthmatic children, Aug. 30, 2011

Related Articles:

The Impact of Funding on Study Outcomes

CSN — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:11:46 +0000

The Markingson Files: Why health writers should track the money behind medical studies

One of the biggest oversights a health writer can make is to cover a scientific study and not talk about its funders.

Funding with strings attached can affect a study’s outcomes. In 2003, a study in the British Medical Journal found that “Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to have outcomes favouring the sponsor than were studies with other sponsors.”

This can be as a result of researchers working hard to please their funders and keep the money spigot open. It also can be because of pressure from the drug companies – even subtle pressure – to generate positive results.

In October 2009, AstraZeneca agreed to pay $520 million to settle federal investigations and whistle-blower lawsuits over the company’s marketing practices for the antipsychotic drug Seroquel, including allegations that the company had manipulated research data for marketing purposes. As the New York Times wrote at the time, “Seroquel was the top-selling antipsychotic drug in America. It had $17 billion in sales in the United States since 2004, according to IMS Health, a research firm.”

An after-market clinical trial for Seroquel, called the CAFE study, was conducted at the University of Minnesota to prove that Seroquel was better than its competitors, and one of the trial participants, Dan Markingson, killed himself during the trial.

Carl Elliott, a bioethicist at the University of Minnesota, documented some of this alleged manipulation by using records he found in lawsuits against the company.

The pressure to make Seroquel look superior began as early as 20 years ago, when the drug was still in its early stages.

In the late 1990s, a multi-center clinical trial, known as Study 15, failed to show that Seroquel was better than Haldol, or haloperidol, an older antipsychotic that has been on the market since the 1960s. By some measures, Seroquel performed worse than Haldol. Making matters worse, the study showed that Seroquel boosted the risk of weight gain and diabetes. Internal correspondence repeatedly referred to Study 15 as a “failed study,” and company officials discussed ways to spin it or bury it.

In the Seroquel Strategic Plan 1997-2001, the company wrote on Page 17, “With the failure of Study 15, the Strategy Team reevaluated the Phase IIIB program and determined that the level of risk had to be reduced, as failure of another large scale trial, eg treatment resistance, would result in significant damage to the brand’s market perception if there weren’t other trials successfully completed in parallel.”

Referring to Study 15, Richard Lawrence, a senior Astra Zeneca official, wrote in February 1997 memo, “I am not 100% comfortable with this data being made publicly available at this time…however I understand that we have little choice….Lisa has done a great ‘smoke-and-mirrors’ job!”

Lisa Arvanitis, another AstraZeneca official, was CC’d on the memo, as was AstraZeneca’s Don Stribling. Lawrence also wrote, “Adopting the approach Don has outlined should minimize (and dare I venture to suggest) could put a positive spin (in terms of safety) on this cursed study.”

In November 1997, an AstraZeneca physician wrote an email to a researcher explaining why the company could not fund his study. “R and D is no longer responsible for Seroquel research,” he wrote. “That’s the responsibility of sales and marketing.” He also noted that funding would be more likely if the study could show a “competitive advantage for Seroquel.”

In a May 1999 email, John Tumas, an AstraZeneca publications manager, wrote that he was worried that the company was “cherry-picking data.”

“We’ve buried trials 15, 31 and 56, and now we’re considering CoStar,” he wrote. “How are we going to face the outside world when they criticize us for suppressing data?”

Apparently looking for new ways to highlight the benefits of Seroquel, the company’s Commercial Support Team performed a meta-analysis of a number of other studies. This meta-analysis did not raise Seroquel’s status over Haldol. Instead, the team’s technical document from March 2000 concluded, “In terms of generating positive claims for Seroquel these analyses seem to be somewhat disappointing.”

This analysis came at a very bad time for AstraZeneca. Dr. Charles Schulz at the University of Minnesota was working with the company on preparing a presentation on Seroquel data for the American Psychiatric Association (APA) annual conference in Chicago less than two months later.

In an email from March 2000, Tumas wrote:

The data don’t look good. I don’t know how we can get a paper out of this. My guess is that we all (including Schulz) saw the good stuff, ie the meta analyses of responder rates that showed we were superior to placebo and haloperidol, and then thought that further analyses would be supportive and a paper was in order. What seems to be the case is that we were highlighting only the good stuff and that our own analysis support the ‘view out there’ that we are less effective than haloperidol and our competitors. Once you get a chance to digest this, let’s get together (or teleconference) and discuss where to go from here. We need to do this quickly, because Schulz needs to get a draft ready for APA and he needs any additional analyses we can give him well before then.

Schulz must have received the data he needed, because he presented a summary of the AstraZeneca data as a poster at the May conference, claiming that Seroquel was “significantly superior” to Haldol.

Documents filed as part of the lawsuits against AstraZeneca suggest that AstraZeneca was hoping to market Seroquel, possibly, off-label, to “first-episode” subjects such as those that the CAFE study enrolled. This group would have included Dan Markingson.

The Seroquel Strategy Summary from 2000 said that the company should establish “Seroquel as atypical of choice in first-episode patients – this has a halo effect as these patients are particularly sensitive to EPS and weight gain.” It also listed as an objective broadening “Seroquel use on and off-label. Utilise whole selling team, educational programs to share off-label data.”

In 2007, the American Journal of Psychiatry published the results of the CAFE study, which were positive for Seroquel.

The authors claimed that the CAFE study showed Seroquel to be of “comparable effectiveness” for first-episode patients in comparison to Zyprexa and Risperdal.

Among the 18 “serious adverse events” recorded for the 400 subjects in the study were five suicide attempts, including two completed suicides, both by patients taking Seroquel. One of them was Markingson, although the paper did not name him.

According to the study authors, the suicides occurred “despite the close attention provided in clinical research aftercare programs.”

Author: William Heisel, May 27, 2011

Original article

Copyright: University of Southern California, Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism

Read more articles from William in his Blog William Heisel’s Antidote: Investigating Untold Health Stories

Related articles:

Hamburg hospital offers rooms for patients with MCS and environmental illness

Silvia — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 12:20:21 +0000

After much effort, the Agaplesion Diakonie Hospital in Hamburg, Germany has designed two rooms for people with MCS and multiple allergies. For many years, local support groups have worked tirelessly to try to integrate environmentally controlled hospital rooms in the hospital. For the first time ever, it is possible for people who suffer from environmental illnesses or severe allergies to be in a hospital for medical treatment which is tailored to their health issues.

Environmental rooms for MCS, the environmentally ill, and multiple allergic patients

Since February 2011, with the move into the newly built Agaplesion DIAKONIE Medical Center in Hamburg (formerly the hospitals, Old Oaks, and Bethany Elim), for the first time, a hospital has two special pollutant free rooms prepared for those with environmental allergies, and MCS patients. The special environmental rooms have been built with much care. They consist of a single and a double room. Both rooms are connected by a vestibule from the other station areas separated so that chemical-sensitive patients do not come in contact with the usual hospital chemicals and fragrances from other patients.

Medical treatment, surgery, obstetrics

The Agaplesion Clinic offers the two environmental rooms which have been specially prepared for the treatment of patients in the medical environment including the following hospital departments in the with an integrated spectrum:

Internal Medicine
Geriatrics (geriatric medicine)
Diabetes
Surgery, Hand Surgery, Plastic Surgery
Gynecology, Obstetrics
Orthopedics
Anasthesia, Intensive Care

Criteria for inclusion in Environmental Room

There is a briefing which takes place through a doctor or the emergency room. During the first contact a message states that the patient wants a shot in the environmental room. The Agaplesion Clinic requires patients have medical evidence showing MCS (multiple chemical sensitivity), environmental allergies / intolerance (allergy multi-) and / or a present a chronic intoxication in the patient. A MCS and / or allergy passport is also useful to explain the need for inclusion in a special room environment.

Core Unit of the Environment Room

Rooms in conventional hospitals are not suitable for chemically sensitive patients. In general, the wards have PVC flooring and particleboard furniture. The environmental rooms in the Agaplesion Clinic have given much effort to create a plan that recognizes the needs of MCS sufferers with good air quality issues. The two environmental rooms were built with the low emission of air pollutants / safe building materials and furnishings, to ensure the safety for hypersensitive patients.

Some examples of the special features of the environmental room:

Walls and ceilings with running Fermacell Green Line plates
Massive exterior walls are lime
Walls and ceilings painted with lime paint
Rooms are equipped with a wall heater
Floor is made of ceramic tiles.
Window and door frames are insulated with hemp
Doors are made of glass
Exposure to electromagnetic fields has been reduced, including through the installation of power circuit breakers
Furniture is made of enamel, metal, or stainless steel

The clinic staff shall ensure low-emission patient care:

Attention is given to see if there are fragrance-containing and damaging products in patient vicinity.
Patients are asked about their possible food intolerances to allergies, to drugs, disinfectants, medicines and anesthetics.
A dietitian takes into account the patients’ food intolerances
At the medical station information is summarized, and this can be viewed at any time by medical staff.
The staff of the station is working together very closely with the support group „environmental illnesses MCS + CFS.”
The room environment is cleaned with fragrance free detergents, but a disinfecting cleaning is essential to neutralize odors, so the patient is offered the use of effective microorganisms (EM 1).
When necessary, patients may bring their own food which is kept in a refrigerator at the door. A kettle is also available there.
The bedding of the entire hospital is fragrance-free but these patients are permitted to bring their own bedding.

Special measures for the benefit of environmental patients

The use of fragrance-free and low-polluting products is offered to patients and their visitors
The use of cell phones and smoking are not permitted in this area
Living together requires all patients in the environmental room practice understanding, respect and helpfulness

Hospital life – side note

Important information for environmental patients and their physicians, that the Agaplesion Clinic is a hospital and not an environmental clinic. In a hospital procedures are regulated and special requests cannot be met. The Agaplesion Clinic breaks new ground by providing the two environmental rooms. The employees are trained on MCS and environmental illness, but they are dependent on cooperation between the patients, so that a smooth clinical work can be guaranteed. Perhaps at first patients won’t have the highest satisfaction, but patients should be understanding and possibly contribute constructive suggestions for improvement since this is the first attempt at providing environmentally safe rooms in a hospital. It is important for patients with chemical sensitivity (MCS) to realize that this is a new development at the clinic. For those with hyper-sensitivities, a stay at the hospital, despite careful selection of materials, initially may be fraught with problems because of outgassing and ecological matters.

The Chemically Sensitive are thankful for their commitment

The MCS support groups in Hamburg, which for years pursued the goal of a “MCS-friendly hospital room in a hospital” give hearty thanks and appreciation to the doctors, hospital planners, architects and government agencies that were involved in this project. All the best and much success for the safe environment in the new rooms at the Agaplesion Clinic!

Author: Silvia K. Müller, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, 1 March 2011

Translation: Christi Howarth

Literature:

Agaplesion Diakonie Hospital Hamburg, newsletter: environmental rooms for MCS patients and the environment / multiple allergies, January 2011

Contact:

Agaplesion DIAKONIE Hospital Hamburg

Hohe Weide 17, 20259 Hamburg, Germany, Tel: (040) 7 90 20 – 0, Fax (040) 7 90 20 – 10 79, E-mail: info@dkh.de, Internet: www.dkh.de

Further CSN articles about MCS:

Milestone Victory: Texas State Medical Board’s Attack on Leading Integrative Doctor Beaten Back

CSN — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:36:17 +0000

As we have reported previously, when integrative practitioners treat the whole patient, their treatments often challenge traditional models of medicine. State medical boards are aligned with the American Medical Associa- tion’s brand of allopathic medicine. Because of this, they have historically been biased against complementary and alternative medicine—to the point that they not infre- quently target practitioners specifically for practicing a higher standard of care.

But the tide is turning, according to attorney Jacques Simon. Simon represented Bill J. Rea, MD, in a stunning legal victory against the Texas Medical Board (TMB). The suit has helped shift bad board practices in Texas.

Jacques Simon has an outstanding success rate defending integrative medical doctors in these types of proceedings. He is one of four attorneys in the US who collaborate and specialize in this area. (The others are Alan Dumoff, Algis Augustine, and Richard Jaffe.)

Dr. Rea is a leading researcher and clinician in the field of environmental medicine and chemical sensitivity. For the past thirty years, he has treated illness caused by food and wide-ranging environmental factors such as air and water pollution. In 2005, the Texas Medical Board filed a number of charges against Dr. Rea, challenging his testing, diagnosis, and treatment — everything he does. They even claimed that Dr. Rea was injecting his patients with diesel fuel and harmful chemicals, a charge that was patently false.

After three long years in court, Simon was able to prove that the Board’s claims were unsubstantiated. Instead of revoking his license, the Board lamely told Dr. Rea to present a revised informed consent form to patients saying that his therapy is not “FDA approved”.

If you are a physician and under investigation, it is important to make no statement whatsoever to investigators or officials without the presence and approval of a lawyer. As Simon told us, “When an investigation starts, it is important for the physician not to make the mistake of thinking they are the authority in the field. Pick up the phone and call an attorney who specializes in these types of proceedings.” (Feel free to contact ANH-USA for a recommendation.)

Simon noted that the TMB has targeted integrative physicians in the past, but this has shifted in the last two or three years, and it appears they now investigate an equal number of traditional MDs. This is due in part to procedural actions taken by Dr. Rea through the course of his ordeal, which including filing charges against the board itself.

Texas has strong due process protections for doctors, but those rules are not always followed. ANH-USA is working to get a bill introduced in the Texas legislature that will provide physicians with redress if the board doesn’t follow its own rules. Jacques Simon notes that the more doctors fight back (and the more the boards are educated), the better the landscape will become in state medical board proceedings. Meanwhile, state laws and regulations are constantly changing, and it is important to remain vigilant.

ANH-USA has just released an 80-page report, “Know Your State’s Medical Board: An Integrative Medical Practitioner’s Guide to Understanding the Legal and Regulatory Environments in the 50 States.” Across the nation, state laws and regulations do not always adequately protect practitioners’ due process rights in medical board disciplinary proceedings, so we have created a guide and checklist to provide a general sense of the legal protections, or lack thereof, available in each state in the country. The report is available as a PDF document, and may be downloaded here (PDF).

Literature: ANH, Milestone Victory: Texas State Medical Board’s Attack on Leading Integrative Doctor Beaten Back, December 21, 2010

Copyright © 2010 Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA). Permission granted to forward, copy, or reprint with date and attribution to ANH-USA. Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Related articles:

Spirulina: Blue-green algae tested for treating ALS

CSN — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:31:55 +0000

Ancient food source may offer neuroprotection

Nutritional supplementation with Spirulina, a nutrient-rich, blue-green algae, appeared to provide neuroprotective support for dying motor neurons in a mouse model of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, University of South Florida neuroscientists have found. Although more research is needed, they suggest that a spirulina-supplemented diet may provide clinical benefits for ALS patients.

A spirulina dietary supplement was shown to delay the onset of motor symptoms and disease progression, reducing inflammatory markers and motor neuron death in a G93A mouse model of ALS. Spirulina, an ancient food source used by the Aztecs, may have a dual antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effect on motor neurons, the researchers said.

Their study is published (pdf) in the current issue of The Open Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine Journal (3:36-41).

“ALS is a degenerative motor neuron disease,” said the study’s lead author, Svitlana Garbuzova-Davis, PhD, DSc, assistant professor in the Department of Neurosurgery and Brain Repair at USF. “Most available treatments relieve symptoms without altering the underlying disease. However, evidence for oxidative stress has been associated with ALS and, in our past studies, we demonstrated potent decreases in markers of oxidative damage and inflammation in aged rats fed diets supplemented with spirulina or spinach. In this initial study, the diet supplement was fed only to pre-symptomatic mice. Further studies showing the diet supplement’s effect on the lifespan of symptomatic ALS mice are needed to prove the treatment’s effectiveness.”

Specifically, when the USF researchers tested compounds found in blueberries and spirulina for effectiveness in animal models of stroke and aging in past experiments, they noted neuroprotective effects of the nutritional supplements.

The current study compared ALS mice receiving a spirulina-supplemented diet over a 10-week period with mice that did not receive the diet supplementation. The spirulina-fed ALS mice showed reduced inflammatory markers and motor neuron degeneration over that period.

“The focus of our future ALS experiments will include motor neuron counts and an examination of lifespan following dietary spirulina supplementation in symptomatic ALS mice,” said study co-author Paula C. Bickford, PhD, a professor in the USF Department of Neurosurgery and Brain Repair and a senior research biologist at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital in Tampa.

Reference:

University of South Florida (USF Health), Blue-green algae tested for treating ALS, 21-Dec-2010

Related articles:

Growth-factor gel shows promise as hearing-loss treatment

CSN — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 12:26:03 +0000

A new treatment has been developed for sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSHL), a condition that causes deafness in 40,000 Americans each year, usually in early middle-age. Researchers writing in the open access journal BMC Medicine describe the positive results of a preliminary trial of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1), applied as a topical gel.

Takayuki Nakagawa, from Kyoto University, Japan, worked with a team of researchers to test the gel in 25 patients whose SSHL had not responded to the normal treatment of systemic gluticosteroids. He said, “The results indicated that the topical IGF1 application using gelatin hydrogels was safe, and had equivalent or superior efficiency to the hyperbaric oxygen therapy that was used as a historical control; this suggests that the efficacy of topical IGF1 application should be further evaluated using randomized clinical trials”.

At 12 weeks after the test treatment, 48% of patients showed hearing improvement, and the proportion increased to 56% at 24 weeks. No serious adverse events were observed. This is the first time that growth factors have been tested as a hearing remedy. According to Nakagawa, “Although systemic glucocorticoid application results in hearing recovery in some patients with SSHL, approximately 20% show no recovery. Topical IGF1 application using gelatin hydrogels is well tolerated and may be efficacious for these patients”.

Reference:

Takayuki Nakagawa, Tatsunori Sakamoto, Harukazu Hiraumi, Yayoi S Kikkawa, Norio Yamamoto, Kiyomi Hamaguchi, Kazuya Ono, Masaya Yamamoto, Yasuhiko Tabata, Satoshi Teramukai, Shiro Tanaka, Harue Tada, Rie Onodera, Atsushi Yonezawa, Ken-ichi Inui and Juichi Ito, A Topical insulin-like growth factor 1 treatment using gelatin hydrogels for glucocorticoid-resistant sudden sensorineural hearing loss: a prospective clinical trial, BMC Medicine (in press)

During embargo, article available here
After the embargo, article available at the journal website Biomed Central

Dr. William Rea recognized as expert for BP Oil Spill victims

CSN — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:19:26 +0000

Dr. William J. Rea, founder and director of the Environmental Health Center-Dallas (EHC-D) and world renowned specialist in treating chemical injury, has been featured in several articles of late about the health effects of the BP Oil Spill on cleanup crews and local residents.

The latest, “BP blamed for toxification” by Dahr Jamail of Al Jazeera, details how the 1.9 million gallons of toxic chemical dispersants used to break up the oil released by the explosion at one of BP’s deepwater oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico last summer has caused a wide array of disturbing symptoms in people exposed to the chemicals. The article states “Pathways of exposure to the dispersants are inhalation, ingestion, skin and eye contact. Health impacts include headaches, vomiting, diarrhea, abdom- inal pains, chest pains, respiratory system damage, skin sensitisation, hyperten- sion, central nervous system (CNS) depression, neurotoxic effects, cardiac arrhythmia and cardiovas- cular damage.

The chemicals are also teratogenic, mutagenic and carcinogenic.”

Also being reported in other articles* is the onset of Toxicant-Induced Loss of Tolerance (TILT) – another name for Chemical Sensitivity, a disabling condition that makes life very difficult for sufferers who react to very low levels of chemicals, mold, and other substances. As chemical use in our culture is so ubiquitous and deeply woven into the fabric of daily life, managing the illness can be a life-long struggle.

BP Oil Spill Protest Banners © Infrogmation

Dr. Rea is an expert on Chemical Sensitivity, having treated many thousands of patients with the condition (including those exposed to toxic chemicals in crude oil and dispersants) since his treatment center opened in 1974. Regarding the BP Oil Spill victims, Dr. Rea explains his treatment approach:

‘We first try to eliminate people’s symptoms, and that is organ specific,’ Rea explained at his clinic, which is one of the oldest and most advanced centres in the world for addressing health as it relates to the environment. ‘We try to lower their toxic load by giving them intravenous nutrients, oral nutrients, sauna, and have them live in quarters that are less polluted, eat organic food and have them get safe drinking water.’

Rea has treated many people from the Gulf that have been made sick by BP’s toxic chemicals.

“I have multiple concerns now about people in the Gulf being affected by these chemicals,’ he said. ‘First, they are all fatigued and not able to work. When your muscles are all fatigued and tired, it’s hard to function. People are getting cloudy brains, others are having heart problems because of the chemicals. Others have broncho-spasm and asthma from this. Others bloat and get sleepy after eating, diarrhea, constipation, irritable bowel syndrome and other gastrointestinal problems.”

Dr. Rea stresses that it is critical to remove patients from the area of contamination in order for treatment to be effective.

In Ricki Ott’s article “BP, Governments Downplay Public Health Risk From Oil and Dispersants” published by Huffington Post last July, she reminds us that Dr. Rea treated some of the sick Exxon Valdez cleanup workers as well.

Planet Thrive is proud to host Dr. Rea’s free question and answer column and welcomes questions from those affected by the BP Oil Explosion tragedy, as well as those suffering from other forms of chemical exposure.

Source:

Planet Thrive, Dr. William Rea recognized as expert for BP Oil Spill victims, November 10, 2010

Related articles:

The Research Center for Fragrance and Chemical Sensitivity in Denmark – a Hoax

CSN — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 17:46:38 +0000

In Denmark, as well as internationally, MCS sufferers are angry and indignant with the Research Center for Fragrance and Chemical Sensitivity, which was established in 2006 by the Danish Ministry of Environment. Its main aim was to conduct research into the connection between MCS and chemicals. There is a good reason for this indignation since it is evident that the Research Center’s aim is not to find any real knowledge about MCS, least of all a connection between exposures to chemical substances and MCS.

On the contrary, the Research Center’s aim is to produce counterfeit/fraudulent research on MCS.

The center is a political instrument designed by a three—stage rocket:

A. Acquit the environment, i.e. “prove” that MCS is not caused by exposures to chemical substances from the environment.

B. ’Prove’ that MCS is associated with psychological factors in order to obtain psychiatrisation of MCS.

C. Get MCS sufferers to fall within psychiatry (liaison psychiatry) so that psychiatry can develop treatments for MCS sufferers: “Mindfulness” i.e. cognitive psychotherapy, perhaps electroshock (ECT) in severe cases, and soon the pharmaceutical industry, which probably is sitting poised, to develop psychoactive drugs for MCS sufferers.

And how has the Research Center for Fragrance and Chemical Sensitivity done this?

Well, here we must understand that their study and publication: “Attention to Bodily Sensations and Symptom Perception in Individuals with Environmental Intolerance” by Sine Skovbjerg, Robert Zachariae, Alice Rasmussen, Jeanne Duus Johansen, and Jesper Elberling in Environ Health Prev Med, DOI 10.1007/s12199•009•0120-y, is the key to the fraud.

1. GETTING RID OF THE CHEMICALS

Part 1: “Let’s change the name”

To begin with, the Research Center agreed on using the label “IEI” instead of “MCS”. This was smart thinking. At the meeting with the board of MCS-Denmark on May 18th, 2010, the Research Center argued that they used this label because IEI is a broader term than MCS and that they would not have been able otherwise to get the article published in an international journal. This is bullshit of course. The real reason is to be found on page 2 of Sine Skovbjerg’s PhD Thesis: “Multiple Chemical Sensitivity – psychological factors, patient strategies and healthcare practices”: “The label ‘MCS’ has been criticized for implying unproven assumptions about causation, and instead the label ‘Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance’ IEI has been recommended to replace it.”

The Research Center obviously wanted to exclude the idea of a causal connection between MCS and exposures to chemical substances. To complete this intention, in the same article the researchers went so far as to yield the misinformation that their MCS subjects were diagnosed with IEI by a physician. That, of course, is a lie – all subjects had been diagnosed with MCS by a physician.

When the board of MCS-Denmark confronted them with questions about why they had written that the patients were physician diagnosed with IEI, when they all were diagnosed with MCS already, they replied by handing over an article: ”International Programme on Chemical Safety / World Health Organization (IPCS/WHO), Conclusions and Recommendations of a Workshop on Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)”, Geneva, Switzerland. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 1996; 188-189. According to the Research Center, this article describes the reasons for using label ‘IEI’. Now, the Research Center also refers to the article on their website.

However, there was a snag in the article that the Research Center “forgot” to discuss on their website. MCS-Denmark discovered this article is not a WHO article at all, as it might seem at first glance. It is also not disclosed who criticized the MCS label and instead recommended IEI either. However, it all falls into place if one scrutinizes the IPCS/WHO article, as Ann McCambell has done. The truth behind this article is that “WHO” was one of the sponsors of the workshop: “lnternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS)” on MCS held in Germany in February 1996. This workshop was dominated by participants associated with the industry and had no representatives from environmental, labor, or consumer groups. Instead the non-governmental participants were individuals employed with BASF, Bayer, Monsanto, and Coca Cola.”Representation came from individuals from the chemical industry and the pharmaceutical industry which often is the same thing. For example: “Monsanto, known for making Roundup and other herbicides, is a wholly owned subsidiary of a pharmaceutical company called Pharmacia. BASF makes pharmaceutical products and pesticides and Bayer, famous for making aspirin, manufactures the popular neurotoxic pyrethroid insecticide Tempo (active ingredient cyfluthrin).”

At this meeting the decision was made to try to change MCS into IEI.

”Besides getting the word ‘chemical’ out of the name, the workshop participants chose to add the term ‘idiopathic’, apparently because they thought it meant the illness was “all in people’s head” rather than of unknown etiology (cause). But lots of ‘real’ diseases are also considered ‘idiopathic’, such as idiopathic epilepsy (epilepsy not resulting from trauma, surgery, infection, or other obvious causes). Still, implying that MCS has no known cause helps the industry. They do not want to be held responsible for their products causing MCS, or for that matter triggering symptoms in people sensitized to them.”

However, what the Research Center for Fragrance and Chemical Sensitivity ‘just happened to forget’ to inform on their website and which MCS-Denmark discovered from the May 18th, 2010 meeting regarding the article not originating from WHO is quite the opposite. “The WHO issued a statement to the workshop participants after the meeting to try to put a stop to claims that WHO supported the name change from MCS to IEI. It stated, “A workshop report to WHO, with conclusions and recommendations, presents the opinions of the invited experts and does not necessarily represent the decision or the stated policy of WHO.” It goes on to say that: “With respect to ‘MCS,’ WHO has neither adopted nor endorsed a policy or a scientific opinion.” (World Health Organization. Note to invited participants in the MCS Workshop, February 21-23, 1996, Berlin, Germany 6/7/96.) ” “(1) (2) As Ann McCambell states: “Despite this explicit disclaimer, claims that the World Health Organization supports IEI continue to be made by MCS opponents”. (1)

It is thus evident that the Research Center’s justification for using the label ‘IEI’ for MCS does not stem from the WHO, but instead from the chemical industry. However, the Research Center ‘forgot’ to inform the public of WHO’s disclaimer both on their website and to MCS-Denmark. Consequently, the IEI label is the chemical industry’s manipulation trick — a lie label to hide the fact that MCS is induced by chemical substances. No serious MCS scientists use this fraudulent MCS label. The term ‘IEI’ is only used by scientists under the influence of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, some parts of psychiatry and the Research Center for Fragrance and Chemical Sensitivity because they want to “demonstrate” that MCS has nothing to do with chemicals and that psychological factors and individual brain malfunctioning are involved in MCS etiology.

2. GETTING RID OF THE CHEMICALS

Part 2: “We do not know what is poisoning”

Simultaneously with these hoaxes, the Research Center inserted onto their website their scientific preconceptions and epistemological grounds for their research on MCS. Here they describe that MCS cannot be a poisoning condition. This is the second track of the lie that MCS has nothing to do with chemicals.

They state: “Some fragrant and chemical sensitivity sufferers experience their condition as a form of poisoning. Fragrance and chemical sensitivity cannot be explained by a toxicological mechanism. A toxicological mechanism requires a so-called exposure response (i.e. increasing effect and risk with increasing exposure) but there is no evidence that fragrance and chemical sensitivity appears more frequent among persons subjected to high chemical exposure levels, e.g. in their jobs.” (mcsvidencenter.dk)

This fundamental scientific preconception and epistemological paragraph in the Research Center’s approach to MCS regarding their understanding of poisoning is wrong because it does not take into account that this definition of poisoning is only about acute poisoning.

As a result, the Research Center completely ignores the fact that in much new research – especially in terms of environmental diseases, i.e. medical conditions triggered by environmental factors – this definition of poisoning has been abandoned in favor of a new paradigm. In this new paradigm, poisoning is not necessarily dose respondent with increasing effect and risk with increasing exposure, but low doses at repeated exposures are equally toxic.

The latter approach is represented by the French recognized cancer scientist, Professor Belpomme, President of the renowned French cancer research institute ARTAC (Association pour la Recherche Thérapeutique Anti-Cancéreuse) in Paris, France. Besides researching into cancer, ARTAC now also research into Electro Hyper Sensitivity (EHS) from which many MCS patients also suffer and have in 2009 by means of brain scans documented that EHS sufferers have hypo perfusion (low blood flow) in the brain by exposures to electromagnetic fields / radiation (EMF/EMR).

In his book “Avant qu’il ne soit trop tard” (“Before it’s too late”) Belpomme explains that it has now been clearly demonstrated that small doses of toxic substances can induce chronic diseases. Therefore, he says, those physicians and scientists – for example those at the Research Center who assert that MCS sufferers get sick of small doses of chemical substances that are completely non-toxic – not only are wrong but make double faults. First, in making a scientific mistake, because today we know that small doses of physical / chemical (radiation / chemical ) pollution may induce chronic diseases (e.g. cancer) and secondly in making an epidemiological mistake with fatal consequences for public health. Because waiting for the evidence of a poison mechanism (e.g. concerning MCS and EHS) is the same as to prepare for something much worse than today, both in terms of human and economic consequences.

In this light the Research Center’s fumblings are no less than a scandal. On completely unqualified grounds, they believe they know that MCS is not related to poisoning. For instance, Jesper Elberling said to an MCS patient that her symptoms are due to the circumstance that “her brain sensor is broken so that she overreacts and believes the smells are toxic although they are not.”

But Elberling and Skovbjerg make fatal errors, as well as scientific errors, since the rule of dose-dependent exposures response only regards acute exposures but not chronic poisoning. Likewise, they neither query the nature of the chemical substances in question nor the repetition of exposures which according to MCS sufferers are so very characteristic of their illness (due to the small doses).

As is seen, Elberling and Skovbjerg are neither interested in the duration of exposures to chemical substances (the time factor) nor in the organism’s state (the chronicity).

Belpomme writes: “It is evident in terms of environmental pollution with chemical substances that the majority of diseases they induce are not caused by acute toxicity. In these cases it is not the dose that makes the poison but the repetition. This concept is relatively new and it is not only a matter of chemical substances but also of radiation. Our prescribed regulations (the dose-respondent rule) do indeed protect us from acute poisoning, but do not protect us against chronic diseases caused by prolonged exposures to low doses. In case of chronic exposures, one must therefore consider the factor: time much more than the actual dose. The longer the exposures last, the higher the probability of developing a chronic disease, especially cancer.” (p.73) (3)

Virtually all MCS sufferers clearly declare that their MCS is being exacerbated over time by repeated small exposures to a variety of chemical substances. Many researchers (e.g. Martin Pall) point out the fact that a range of these chemical substances are extremely neurotoxic (toxic to the nervous system) and a host of other chemical substances are known to cause other toxic effects in the organism. On these grounds it is incredibly unqualified and amateurish for the Research Center to assert as a starting point that MCS cannot be caused by a toxicological mechanism.

In these two ’wily’ ways, the Research Center, a priori, excluded the environmental factor – the chemical trail. But that obviously did not suffice. Now it had to be proved that there are psychological factors involved in MCS.

And how was that done?

3. GETTING RID OF THE CHEMICALS

Part 3:”Let’s falsely translate”

Well, as a starting point they manipulated the research and the questionnaire test of Eva Millqvist: “A Short Chemical Sensitivity Scale for Assessment of Airway Sensory Hyper Reactivity,” by Steven Nordin, Eva Millqvist, Olle Löwhagen, and Mats Bende in Int Arch Occup Environ Health (2004) 77: 249-254, DOI 10.1007/s00420-004-0504-7. This research contains a validated test to quantify SHR (Sensory Hyperreactivity, a subcondition of MCS). The SHR sufferers have symptoms primarily from the airways when exposed to chemical substances.

The Research Center chose this questionnaire, and sent it out to many MCS sufferers and non-MCS subjects. However, there was a snag in it because they deliberately translated seven out of eleven questions falsely into Danish. While the original questions of the validated CSS-SHR test, which together with the capsaicin test can diagnose SHR, ask about people’s behavioural and emotional reactions to exposures to chemical substances (”odeous / pungent substances”), the Research Center changed them in the Danish translation into questions on people’s behavioural and emotional responses to odors (“scents and chemical odors”). Clever.

Quite imperceptibly, the questions have been changed into people’s reactions to smells, but smells and chemicals are not synonymous concepts. And when people can only respond to the questions, the answers will of course respond to people’s responses to odors.

4. NEARLY IN THE BAG

MCS individualized and psychiatrized

Finally the way was paved to correlate these responses with a series of psychiatric tests and for a finding that MCS sufferers have idiosyncratic perceptions of smells and thus an increased unhealthy amount of attention to bodily symptoms, and they are also often sad. Hocus pocus, MCS has become individualized. It is the individual MCS sufferers that are said to have an increased unhealthy amount of attention (’enhanced internal information’) to non-toxic fragrances and with the correlation with psychiatric tests, the conclusion suggested that MCS sufferers’ symptomatology is psycho-pathological but that it is not known whether psychopathology and individual susceptibility to hypersensitivity reactions are part of the MCS etiology or merely amplifying factors. “It is likely that the etiology of IEI is multi- factorial, and as for somatoform disorders, it can be argued that the complexity of IEI is best studied from a bio-psycho-social perspective” (s.38).

It is hence concluded that MCS is a somatoform disorder and – hocus pocus – MCS is now psychiatrized.

Thus was the recipe for this indigestible dish in the cookbook:

“Lies and manipulation in preparation for dishonest and fake research”

The ingredients are:

Faulty and outdated definition of poisoning
New (old) chemical industry invented name (IEI)
Forged medical diagnoses (IEI) (and toxicology and environmental medicine out of the picture)

To this must be added:

Counterfeit questionnaires via mistranslation, thus turning chemical substances into scents and ’somatisation’, no, no: ’Bodily Distress Syndrome’ diagnosis.

Finally the dish is served: On the table is now a psychiatric disorder, i.e. a mixture of physical disorder (brain-related error: ’the brain sensor is broken’) and possibly genetics (individual susceptibility) and psychiatric illness (depression, anxiety).

And where does this big magic trick lead?

5. THE MAGIC COMPLETED

MCS falls within psychiatry and patients must be psychiatrically treated

Well, it leads to the powerful psychiatry movement which stands ready to receive patients – and especially money. MCS is now ’meaningfully’ called scent sensitivity in the special issue of the Danish Weekly Journal of Physicians (Ugeskrift for Læger no. 24, 14 June 2010) on functional disorders. Don’t miss that, and is now labeled as a functional disorder. The falsehood is complete, because that was what it was all about, wasn’t it?

Now, MCS patients do no longer pose a danger to society, the chemical industry and the insurance companies. But of course they need treatment that is self-evident, because we feel so sorry for them that some people think they malinger. So they obviously must have psychiatric treatment: cognitive psychotherapy and perhaps in severe cases electroshock. And just you wait, the next thing is of course, that the nice pharmaceutical industry is ready with some psychoactive drugs so that the poor MCS sufferers can have their “broken brain sensor” repaired and in addition their depression and anxiety.

The conclusion is therefore that the Research Center for Fragrance and Chemical Sensitivity is part of the powerful psychiatrisation campaign taking place worldwide at the moment.

In USA, a revision of the DSM diagnostic system has now for a long time been on its way. DSM is the counterpart to the international ICD-10. Here it has been understood that the patients who are ill from the ‘new’ conditions – Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), Fibromyalgia (FMS) and now MCS (and soon EHS – they have just not discovered it yet) – do not accept that their diseases are classified as “somatoform disorders”, i.e. mental disorders. So what to do instead? Well naturally they invented new ‘dignified’ names such as “Bodily Distress Syndrome,” for psychiatrists love fancy names for which they don’t have a shred of evidence. It is pure magic of words. (4) How stupid do they think we are, because the essence is of course identical.

As Evelyn Pringle writes, it’s the same old story of psychiatry trying to extend its diagnostic labels and drug treatment to new target groups and she quotes Toxicology Expert Dr. Lawrence Plumlee, President of the Chemical Sensitivities Disorders Association and Editor of “The Environmental Physician of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine”:

“This is an effort by psychiatry to psychiatrize physical illnesses and to try to suppress the complaints of these patients by prescribing psychiatric drugs. But experience is showing that psychiatric procedures and drugs are making patients worse. Using psychiatric diagnoses and drugs on diseases of neurotoxicity helps the chemical companies in two ways. It fools some people into thinking that poisoned people are crazy, thus getting the poisoners (chemical companies) off the hook, and two, it sells more chemicals (psychiatric drugs) to treat those who really need detoxification, not more chemicals in their bodies.”(5)

Do bear in mind: This is what we are up against.

Author:

Eva Theilgaard Jacobsen, MSc in Psychology, Specialist in Psychotherapy, October 2010

References:

Ann McCambell: “Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Under Siege” Chair Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Task Force of New Mexico
World Health Organization: “Note to invited participants in the MCS workshop “21-23 February 1996, Berlin, Germany 6/7/96.
Dominique Belpomme: “Avant qu’il ne soit trop tard”. Fayard 2007.
Kroenke, Sharpe, Sykes: “Revising the Classification of Somatoform Disorders: Key Questions and Preliminary Recommendations”, Psychosomatics 48:4, July-August 2007.
Evelyn Pringle: “Tracking the American Epidemic of Mental Illness“, June, 22, 2010

- -

* It is part of the Research Center’s policy and methods that their communications and information are ambiguous. After all, one of their most important staff members is a journalist. Internationally, the Research Center’s name is: “The Danish Research Center for Chemical Sensitivities,” but for the home audience the Center’s name is “The Research Center for Fragrance and Chemical Sensitivity.” There is a purpose for this. The key to the fraudulent article, “Attention to bodily sensations and symptom perception in individuals with IEI” has now been reported to the Danish Ministry of Research for fraudulent research by MCS sufferers, primarily because of their forging Eva Millqvist’s research, by deliberately wrongly translating “Odeous/pungent substances”, i.e. chemical substances, into Danish “fragrances and chemical odors” in their translation of her validated CSS-SHR test in a questionnaire forwarded to many people, including MCS sufferers. In doing so, they have fabricated fraudulent data so that people’s reactions to chemical substances have been turned into reactions to fragrances/scents. In this way, they tried to remove the causal connection between chemical substances from the environment and MCS. This paved the way to individualization and psychiatrisation of MCS so that Danish psychiatrists now can diagnose MCS as a “functional disease” (cause unknown), doctors can refer MCS-sufferers for psychiatric treatment and diagnosis, and MCS-sufferers will be denied public disability pension and compensation from insurance companies. However, internationally the Research Center tries to appear as serious MCS researchers. But just ask them about Martin Pall’s article in Ballantyne, Maars & Syvertsen’s “General and Applied Toxicology”, and you will get the answer that they think it is too difficult to understand. If it was not so tragic, it is quite amusing. They are a bunch of amateurs with a nurse as leader. This is what Denmark has become after 10 years with a right-wing government, (the Research Center was founded and is paid for by the government).

Series: “The Danish MCS Research Centre in the International Field of Vision”