Studies show chemicals act as toxicants in causing cases of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity; genes that metabolize these chemicals into other forms influence, therefore, susceptibility to getting MCS.

Guest post at Canary Report by Martin L. Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University and Research Director, the Tenth Paradigm Research Group.

Martin Pall: I have emailed the following as an open letter to the Denver Post in response to the article on multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) that was published this weekend. I think the published article was generally a step forward in terms of public understanding of MCS. But the article left out a number of important things and this letter is an attempt to deal with some of those. I have asked them to consider publishing this as an Op-Ed piece, but wanted to make it available regardless of whether or not they opt to do so.

Thank you for writing this article on multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), the term that is used in most of the scientific literature on this disease. There are vast numbers of people who have been afflicted in this epidemic of chemical sensitivity and I am sure that they are all thanking you. I also thank you for mentioning a bit of my work on this disease.

Some of your readers have already made quite a number of important points about MCS so I can focus here on just a few remaining issues. How do chemicals act in MCS? We know now that the seven classes of chemicals implicated in MCS all produce a common toxic response in the body, excessive activity of a receptor in the body called the NMDA receptor. So even though we have a vast array of such chemicals, we know how they can produce similar responses in people.

There is compelling genetic evidence that these chemicals act as toxic agents (toxicants) in the body. Four such studies have been published by three research groups in three countries. Collectively they implicate six genes as influencing susceptibility to MCS, such that people carrying some forms of each of these genes are more susceptible to becoming chemically sensitive than are people carrying other forms of the same genes. All of these genes control the activity of enzymes that metabolize these chemicals into other forms. Most of these studies show a high level of what is called statistical significance. In the Schnakenberg and colleagues studies, the chances of getting their results by chance are less than one in a million billion. So obviously, these are not chance results. What these studies show is that chemicals are acting as toxicants in causing cases of MCS and that genes that metabolize these chemicals into other forms influence, therefore, susceptibility to getting MCS. These studies, then, provide compelling evidence that cases of MCS are caused by toxic chemical exposure. Clearly they also show that MCS is a real disease, otherwise one would not be able to do such studies clearly linking the chance of becoming ill with MCS to the action of chemicals acting as toxicants.

Dr. Herman Staudenmayer has, for some 20 years claimed just the opposite. He claims that MCS is psychogenic, caused by psychological responses and according to him, is not a toxicological phenomenon. He has maintained this claim by ignoring contrary data wherever it occurs. He has ignored all of the evidence that chemicals implicated in MCS produce a common response in the body; he has ignored the roughly two dozen studies showing that MCS patients show objectively measurable responses to low level chemical exposures, responses that differ from those of normals. He has ignored all of the evidence implicating excessive NMDA activity in MCS; he has ignored the dozens of animal model studies on MCS; he has ignored over 50 studies that show that cases of MCS typically occur following chemical exposures; he has ignored the various other measurable physiological changes reported to occur in MCS. This has all been documented in my book “Explaining – Unexplained Illnesses” and in my article on the toxicology of MCS that is coming out next month in a prestigious reference work for professional toxicologists “General and Applied Toxicology, 3rd Edition”. It is also documented on the MCS web page of my web site: The Tenth Paradigm

Clearly you cannot do science by simply ignoring the existence of vast arrays of contrary data. However, Staudenmayer provides us with a couple of other tests of his views in his book, predictions that allow us to test his theory. He predicts that psychological factors are necessary and sufficient to account for the properties of MCS. This, of course, is contradicted by all of the evidence I referred to earlier. Therefore we should reject his hypothesis based on his own prediction. He provides a second prediction as well (the exact quotes from his book on these predictions are provided on my MCS web page). He predicts that the variation of susceptibility to MCS is not caused by variable responses to toxic chemicals. Clearly the genetic studies discussed above have shown that this is false and therefore, his hypothesis should be rejected for that reason, as well.

It is clear, from the above, that Staudenmayer’s construct was basically a house of cards. Now that it has collapsed, where does that leave us?

Firstly it leaves us with reversing the errors of the past. We need to start treating MCS sufferers as victims of unsafe chemical exposure. Many of them have previously been used, abused and discarded. If we live in a society where people are not disposable items we need to “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”

We obviously need to start regulating chemical usage much more carefully, to avoid initiating new cases of MCS. It is imperative to develop tests for chemical activity in MCS, just as we have developed tests for chemical activity as carcinogens. Then we need to use these tests to effectively regulate the use of toxic chemicals.

We need to develop specific biomarker tests for MCS, tests that can be used to objectively confirm diagnoses initially based on subjective symptoms. I think we already have several very promising approaches to doing this in the scientific literature and a minimal amount of further study may be all that is needed to develop such tests.

We need to confirm that chemical avoidance is key to therapy and to develop other therapeutic approaches to work along with avoidance. The environmental medicine physicians and others have already made very important progress in this direction and I am optimistic that further progress can be made quickly. Such progress is relevant not only to the treatment of MCS patients but also to the treatment of clearly related diseases including chronic fatigue syndrome/mylagic encephalomyelitis and fibromyalgia. All of these diseases are caused by what I have called the NO/ONOO- cycle and the way to treat them, in my judgment, is to lower the activity of that vicious cycle mechanism.

Martin L. Pall

Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University and Research Director, the Tenth Paradigm Research Group

Reprinted with permission from the author. Dr. Pall cautions the reader that he is a PhD, not an MD, and none of this should be viewed as medical advice.

• Original Article posted by Canary Report Thank you for the permission to reprint Susie!
• Link to Martin Pall’s website: The Tenth Paradigm
• Link to an extended excerpt from Palls book Explaining “Unexplained Illnesses.”

Letter from Martin L. Pall, Saturday 6th June 2009:

I was delighted when I was asked by the three editors of the future publication, “General and Applied Toxicology, 3rd Edition” (John Wiley and Sons) to write a review on multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) for this prestigious multivolume set. MCS, as I am sure you know, has been largely ignored by toxicologists in general and I was delighted that these three prominent scientists, all of whom had extensive published research on the actions of chemicals implicated in MCS, asked me to write such an article. This was important recognition not only for my own work on MCS but also that MCS is now recognized as a toxicological phenomenon.

The paper, entitled Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: Toxicological Questions and Mechanisms is the most extensively documented publication on MCS, and will be a 54 page chapter in this multivolume set. While the majority of this paper comes from my earlier publications on MCS, it also contains several very important sections that are largely novel.

1. There are seven classes of chemicals implicated in MCS and all seven of these can indirectly produce a common response in the body, increased NMDA activity. Furthermore, animal studies have shown that members of all seven of these classes of chemicals can have their toxic responses lowered by using an NMDA antagonist. This clearly demonstrates not only that they produce such increased NMDA activity but those increases play an important role in producing the toxic responses to these chemicals. Given that we previously had six types of evidence implicating excessive NMDA activity in MCS, we now have compelling evidence that this common response plays a key role in MCS.

2. The role of these chemicals acting as toxicants in MCS has been confirmed by four genetic studies, showing that genes that determine the rate of metabolism of these chemicals, influence susceptibility to MCS (only three were available when the review was written). These studies implicate six genes as determining such susceptibility, all of which have roles in the metabolism of chemicals otherwise implicated in initiating cases of MCS. It follows that the roles of chemicals in initiating cases of MCS is undeniable.

3. There have been a series of published studies reporting objectively measurable responses to low level chemical exposure among MCS cases that are distinct from any responses in normals. At least three of these should be practical specific biomarker tests that can be applied in clinical settings. All of these studies are consistent with the NO/ONOO- cycle mechanism as it is thought to play out in MCS and all provide, therefore, evidence supporting this mechanism. We have been in great need for such specific biomarker tests for MCS and these and other approaches to developing such tests must be further studied and may provide recognized specific biomarker tests in the near future, in my judgment.

4. All except one of the elements of the NO/ONOO- cycle as it is thought to play out in MCS have been studied in animal models and all elements studied are implicated in these animal models. It follows that one can make a strong case for a NO/ONOO- cycle mechanism based on animal model studies alone.

5. The paper finishes with a list of five areas of future research which are in most need of further study, in my judgment.

We do have observational evidence that a protocol based on down-regulating the NO/ONOO- cycle mechanism is helpful in the treatment of most cases of MCS as well as most cases of ME/CFS and most cases of fibromyalgia. However, at this point this treatment fails to produce any substantial number of cures and seems to be quite variable in the extent of improvements apparently produced by it. Nevertheless, this approach does produce substantial apparent improvements in many people who have been ill for one, two or more decades. It is my hope that we will be able to add a second phase to such treatment that may start to produce at least some such cures, but that is a hope at this point.

Autor: Martin L. Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and  Basic Medical Sciences, Saturday 6th June 2009

(Letter reprinted by CSN with personal permission)