Medical Forum / General / Alternative / March 2008
MCS Patients React To Chemicals Only When They Can Be Smelled
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Mark Thorson - 09 Mar 2008 20:16 GMT J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006 Dec;118(6):1257-64. Multiple chemical sensitivities: A systematic review of provocation studies. Das-Munshi J, Rubin GJ, Wessely S. Section of Epidemiology, Institute of Psychiatry, London.
A systematic review of provocation studies of persons reporting multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) was conducted from databases searched from inception to May 2006. Thirty-seven studies were identified, testing 784 persons reporting MCS, 547 control subjects, and 180 individuals of whom a subset were chemically sensitive. Blinding was inadequate in most studies. In 21 studies odors of chemicals were probably apparent; 19 of these reported positive responses to provocations among chemically sensitive individuals, and 1 study demonstrated that negative expectations were significantly associated with increased symptom reporting after provocations. Seven studies used chemicals at or below odor thresholds, and 6 failed to show consistent responses among sensitive individuals after active provocation. Six studies used forced-choice discrimination and demonstrated that chemically sensitive individuals were not better at detecting odor thresholds than nonsensitive participants. Three studies tested individuals by using nose clips/face masks and confirmed response, possibly mediated through eye exposure. Three studies used olfactory masking agents to conceal stimuli, and none of these found associations between provocations and response. We conclude that persons with MCS do react to chemical challenges; however, these responses occur when they can discern differences between active and sham substances, suggesting that the mechanism of action is not specific to the chemical itself and might be related to expectations and prior beliefs.
Bee - 09 Mar 2008 20:39 GMT > J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006 Dec;118(6):1257-64. > Multiple chemical sensitivities: A systematic review [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > and might be related to expectations and prior > beliefs. Mark, here you go---direct from the Chemical Sensitivity Foundation
Your posts are coming through from Stanford, so it would appear you are the Library!!
http://www.chemicalsensitivityfoundation.org/research_bibliography.htm
Bee - 09 Mar 2008 20:43 GMT Visitors to this Water Park may sue for high levels of chlorine in the water---in fact the park has been shut down. In their heads--burn marks from chlorine--did the skin "smell" the chlorine, and burn in fright?
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080307/NEWS01/992885 266/-1/YOUTH
ironjustice@aol.com - 11 Mar 2008 15:41 GMT On Mar 9, 1:15 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:MCS Patients React To Chemicals Only When They Can Be Smelled suggesting that the mechanism of action is not specific to the chemical itself and might be related to expectations and prior beliefs. <<
Orrr .. it might mean the chemical is not making it into the brain UNLESS the olfactory route / nose .. is OPEN .. ? Since they have shown the **intranasal instillation** of substances is a very EASY route TO .. the brain .. ?
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/100164.php
Brain Stress Caused By Diesel Exhaust Inhalation Main Category: Neurology / Neuroscience Also Included In: Respiratory / Asthma; Public Health; Water - Air Quality / Agriculture Article Date: 11 Mar 2008 - 3:00 PDT
If the smell of diesel exhaust isn't enough to make you avoid getting a lungful, new research now shows that even a short exposure to the fumes can affect your brain. A study published in the open access journal Particle and Fibre Toxicology reveals that an hour of sniffing exhaust induces a stress response in the brain's activity.
Previous studies have already suggested that very small particles, called nanoparticles, breathed in from polluted air can end up in the brain. But this is the first time that scientists have demonstrated that inhalation actually alters brain activity.
Ten volunteers spent one hour in a room filled with either clean air or exhaust from a diesel engine. They were wired up to an electroencephalograph (EEG), a machine that records the electrical signals of the brain, and their brain waves were monitored during the exposure period and for one hour after they left the room.
The researchers found that after about 30 minutes the diesel exhaust began to affect brain activity. The EEG data suggested that the brain displayed a stress response, indicative of changed information processing in the brain cortex, which continued to increase even after the subjects had left the exposure chamber.
The concentration of diesel exhaust that the subjects breathed was set to the highest level that people might encounter in the environment or at work, for example on a busy road or in a garage.
Lead researcher Paul Borm from Zuyd University in The Netherlands said: "We believe our findings are due to an effect nanoparticles or 'soot' particles that are major component of diesel exhaust. These may penetrate to the brain and affect brain function. We can only speculate what these effects may mean for the chronic exposure to air pollution encountered in busy cities where the levels of such soot particles can be very high."
One link to understanding the mechanism of this effect is that oxidative stress is one consequence of particles depositing in tissue and oxidative stress has also been implicated in degenerative brain diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease . "It is conceivable that the long-term effects of exposure to traffic nanoparticles may interfere with normal brain function and information processing," noted Borm. "Further studies are necessary to explore this effect, and to assess the relationship between the amount of exposure to particles and the brain's response and, and investigate the clinical implications of these novel findings."
Studies that expose volunteers to potential toxins or require invasive techniques are limited for ethical reasons. Borm is currently conducting experiments where volunteers inhale artificially generated nanoparticles that are free from the other chemicals that are generated, along with the nanoparticles in diesel exhaust.
---------------------------- Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release. ----------------------------
1. Exposure to diesel exhaust induces changes in EEG in human volunteers Bjoern Cruts, Ludo van Etten, Hakan Tornqvist, Anders Blomberg, Thomas Sandstrom, Nicholas L Mills and Paul JA Borm Particle and Fibre Toxicology (in press)
Article available at the journal website: http://www.particleandfibretoxicology.com/ All articles are available free of charge, according to BioMed Central's open access policy.
2. Particle and Fibre Toxicology is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal for new scientific data, hypotheses and reviews on the toxicological effects of particles and fibres; it also advocates the collaboration between disciplines in this multi-disciplinary field.
Particle and Fibre Toxicology is a multi-disciplinary undertaking because of the need to understand the physico-chemistry of the particles, measure the exposure, determine the biological outcomes in terms of human exposure and regulate exposure in the workplace and general environment. In addition, there are diverse scenarios where particles pose a toxicological threat and new potential threats are continuously being introduced. For these reasons the literature has historically been scattered across numerous journals. Particle and Fibre Toxicology will solve this problem by providing a single, identifiable outlet for all of these disciplines and should receive a large number of submissions.
3. BioMed Central (http://www.biomedcentral.com/) is an independent online publishing house committed to providing immediate access without charge to the peer-reviewed biological and medical research it publishes. This commitment is based on the view that open access to research is essential to the rapid and efficient communication of science.
Source: Charlotte Webber BioMed Central
Who loves ya. Tom
Jesus Was A Vegetarian! http://jesuswasavegetarian.7h.com
Man Is A Herbivore! http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3
DEAD PEOPLE WALKING http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk
> J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006 Dec;118(6):1257-64. > Multiple chemical sensitivities: A systematic review [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > and might be related to expectations and prior > beliefs. Mark Probert - 12 Mar 2008 03:35 GMT Patients
> React To Chemicals Only When They Can Be Smelled Does this mean if I sniff a MCS patient they will get an attack of MCS? What happens if a dog sniffs them?
Bee - 12 Mar 2008 06:36 GMT > > React To Chemicals Only When They Can Be Smelled > > Does this mean if I sniff a MCS patient they will get an attack of > MCS? What happens if a dog sniffs them? You don't believe in MCS-Mark-it's not in your insurance "playbook," so therefore according to you, it doesn't exist.
Mark Probert - 12 Mar 2008 12:18 GMT > > > React To Chemicals Only When They Can Be Smelled > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > so therefore > according to you, it doesn't exist. It does exist, as a psychosomatic disorder.
Bee - 12 Mar 2008 16:36 GMT > It does exist, as a psychosomatic disorder. Are you a doctor that specializes in environmental medicine? Please state your personal experience with MCS.
Mark Probert - 13 Mar 2008 04:45 GMT > > It does exist, as a psychosomatic disorder. > > Are you a doctor that specializes in environmental medicine? > Please state your personal experience with MCS. I have no personal experience with MCS, as I do not have a psychosomatic disorder.
I also have no personal experience of jumping our of an airplane without a parachute. However, I can freely suggest that a person not try it.
Of course, since I have no personal experience, please do NOT listen to me.
(Does having a main chute not open and having to use a back-up chute count? Sure did raise my pulse.)
Bee - 13 Mar 2008 06:38 GMT > I have no personal experience with MCS, as I do not have a > psychosomatic disorder. It sounds like your health is 100% in perfect order. Good for you. How about your buddies in Vietnam, though, the ones that were exposed to Agent Orange---do they not count? You know the ones that were spit on, and not welcomed home properly as they should have been. You know the guys/women and even civilians that served in Viet Nam. Do you not care about them, and their families?
> I also have no personal experience of jumping our of an airplane > without a parachute. However, I can freely suggest that a person not > try it. I do not have any personal experience of jumping out of an airplane without a parachute either.
Mark Probert - 13 Mar 2008 11:23 GMT > > I have no personal experience with MCS, as I do not have a > > psychosomatic disorder. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to > Agent Orange---do they not count? They do not have MCS. They have chemical specific problems.
You know the ones that were spit
> on, > and not welcomed home properly as they should have been. You know the > guys/women and even civilians that served in Viet Nam. Do you not > care about > them, and their families? Certainly do. Giving them factual imformation about their real problems is so important. Telling them that they are chemically sensitive when they are not is not helping them in the slightest.
> > I also have no personal experience of jumping our of an airplane > > without a parachute. However, I can freely suggest that a person not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > without > a parachute either. Get some. You probably have no experience jumping. '
Bee - 14 Mar 2008 03:23 GMT > It does exist, as a psychosomatic disorder. Here is a website that doesn't agree with your opinion. Were you at this conference too? Everyone seems to have their own opinion, and apparently this girl/guy doesn't share your opinion.
http://www.kospublishing.com/html/quack_busters.html
Mark Probert - 14 Mar 2008 10:40 GMT > > It does exist, as a psychosomatic disorder. > > Here is a website that doesn't agree with your opinion. Were you at > this conference too? Nope. The writer is a dope.
> Everyone seems to have their own opinion, and apparently this girl/guy > doesn't share your > opinion. They should. Sadly, though, they are in denial of their psychosomatic disorder, which is a severely disabling problem.
Jan Drew - 15 Mar 2008 02:14 GMT On Mar 13, 10:23 pm, Bee <Butterflies2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 4:18 am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It does exist, as a psychosomatic disorder. > > Here is a website that doesn't agree with your opinion. Were you at > this conference too? MP Nope. The writer is a dope.
Nice personal attack from the disbarred attorney, hypocrite, and proven liar.
Helke Ferrie is an anthropologist by training; she runs a publishing company devoted to environmental and nutritional medicine, Kos Publishing Inc. She is a medical science writer whose articles on the politics of health are published in Alive Magazine, Vitality Magazine, Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, the medical journal Medical Veritas, and other venues. She is author of Dispatches from the War Zone of Environmental Health and Hippocrates in the Land of Oz: A Survival Guide to Our Golden Age of Medicine and a Blueprint for Patient Insurrection (2007
> Everyone seems to have their own opinion, and apparently this girl/guy > doesn't share your > opinion. They should. Sadly, though, they are in denial of their psychosomatic disorder, which is a severely disabling problem.
Psycholobabble...
The entity *somatization disorder* is psychobabble and is obtained from the DSM-IV manual and is used by psychologists and psychiatrists.MD's have borrowed the entity for their own uses. It is a spurious diagnosis with no laboratory indicators.
that somatization disorder is a kind of junk category into which physicians dump patients presenting with mind/behaviorialsymptoms and/or a history of such which the physician does not fancy or understand, especially if the patient does not present with symptoms or symptoms which are not separate diagnoses (also anon-scientific way of separating symptoms and causality) . I mentiont his because mercury and lead are both known to cause primarily "psychiatric" symptoms, with a history of emotional instability, etc.in patients.
So a "scientist" is someone who makes "a priori" judgements about what neurological symptoms a heavy metal poisoned patient can and cannot have. A "scientist" demands laboratory indicators whenever his fraternity does so. When the fraternity does not do so, the esteemed scientist Rx's Prozac like *mad*. But if the patient's complaints appear in some kind of package which don't meet the prejudices of the male clinician/voodoo doctor, then it's necessary to pull out theDSM-IV manual and wax on about scientific discipline and create from thin air a "somatization disorder".
It's just another way of saying that one can create a loose definition of a nebulous condition and then stretch it to label anything which appears bizarre, so that rather than actually diagnose and solve problems you can dump the ones you don't like into the recycle bin andlet the DSM-IV manual thumpers profit from the stash. That way everybody is happy. The male voodoo doctor gets to see himself as a scientist and the psych therapist gets another client.
I believe that SD is used by doctors who do not like the idea that conditiions which affect the brain cause certain mental states and behaviors which are not in keeping with their own requirements for how disease is supposed to manifest in the human body. I believe the medical profession has an alliance with the psych profession because they share a common belief system.
No, the starting point is to go back to college and unlearn the psychobabble taught to physicians in med school. But that cannot be done--with all the psychological investments involved in the career and selfhood and one's supremecy of being--so instead one wages war on the Chronic Fatigue, Fibromyalgia, and Multiple Chemical Sensitivitysyndromes, since these syndromes are diseases of both body and brain,in which affective disorders are documented in all three. But since the Freudian-psychobabble-educated physician suffers cognitivedissonance when presented with these, the syndromes must be attacked. Continuing education is not an option. Instead, reality must be shaped to fit the psychological needs of the profession, and the patients need to be hazed.
So rather than counsel with a psychotherapist over issues of selfhood and megalomania and deep insecurity which interfere with the process of continuing education--which is also the scientific process itself--it is necessary to reformulate these disease syndromes so that they fit into the 20th-century mind-body conceptual dualism taught to physicians, in which brain diseases are separate from diseases of thebody and mind states are separate from both. This needs to be done despite the fact that poisons such as lead and mercury have been known for 100 years to poison the brain, body, and mind all at the same time. So Science needs to be bent and manipulated to serve a profession which maintains a conceputal framework which is not rooted in Science, and those teachings must be maintained for those sychologically inclined to conservatism and intellectual dominance,all properly wrapped in the impressive rhetoric of scientific and clinical objectivity.
A lot of your responses are flak garbage which you use to exhaust pariticpants. I made my position perfectly clear. Decades of psychobiological research, including century-long scientfically acquired knowledge on the effect of poisons such as heavy metals on the brain, show that mood and mental states can and do derive fromorganic origins. Meanwhile state-credentialed MD's are writing books and articles about how biological psychiatry is "pseudoscience", a"myth", and a "fraud". On *this* subject the present generation is corrupt, and is not going to give up its intellectual commitment to the psychobabble it received in med school.
On the issue of MCS, ascribing "affective disorders" to "psychologicalf actors" is an opinion which is rammed through as Science. It is accompanied by dismissive descriptions of mind states and behavior of the patients, with all kinds of unscientific judgements andassumptions as to 1) whether those mind states and behavior arelegitimate (e.g. fear of chemicals, stress of chronic illness), and 2)whether the mind states and behavior have an organic or non-organic origin.
MCS *will* receive a fair hearing only when the medical profession gives up its intellecutal commitment to the teachings of psychology as the only explanation for how mind states and behavior alter with disease.
You asked me for evidence of "mind-body conceptual dualism" and I just gave an example from a psychobabbling physician in this thread. Your technique is to bait and throw out idiotic flak, so that now we can have a separate existential debate as to whether there really is adualistic mind-body conception in modern medicine.
Yes, physicians do recognize a connection between the two--they call it somatization disorder. That is, your boyfriend broke up with you and you are self-pitiful due to your past child raising and have along history of maladaptive behaviors and you have sunken into depression and can't concentrate and now your immunity has sunk and now you have an infection etc etc. They may *also* talk about a"psychological component" as being the result of chronic stress from the illness.
But the medical profession is selective about when the connection operates in one direction vs. the other.
The fact is, there isn't an economy for the problem of chronic mercury and lead exposure causing maladaptive dysfunctional unhealthy minds and behaviors. Not because the science doesn't exist to support it. But because the economy doesn't exist to produce the professional intellect to study, talk about, and treat it. The psychotherapists and psychologists would be in less demand. There would be no drugs to patent. Hence the facts are dropped from consciousness. That mercury and lead f**k up people's emotions and minds (in addition to a hundred other symptoms) is so dropped out of consciousness that MD's can write books that argue that Biological Psychiatry is a fraud.
As a result, one must conclude that MCS is not caused by poisons--which just about everyone who has the illness and has clinical experience treating it argues--but rather is a somatization disorder.
This is how economy and professional cultures distort reality and allow ingrained assumptions and bias to manipulate and distort the process of scientific inquiry.
No, many physicians recognize that they are often dealing with illnesses that involve both the mind & the body. It would seem as if you are attributing their admission of this fact to some sort of denial instead. Incorrect. But commonly the same conclusion that some patients erroneously arrive at if the doc declines to attribute the illness to physical factors alone.
This thread is in the context of MCS. Within the context of this subject physicians *do not* generally conceive or discuss depression*or* anxiety in any terms other than the psychologist's, regardless *how* the psychologist constructs the relationship, it is the*psychologist's* constructiona and the psychologist's ideology. The very own terminology employed by the author of the medical textbook cited, who is at the pro-MCS end of the debate *within* the mainstream, is that it is an illness with "psychological factors".
Since you mention arthritis in the context of this thread on MCS (which is a disease its propopents argue is the result of*poisoning*), I will say that poisons such as lead and mercury commonly causes brain symptoms *first*, because these poisons are emically attracted to brain tissue. The first stage of these poisonings is commonly brain symptoms only. Patients may suffer depression or anxiety for *years* before the symptoms originating in organs *below neck* emerge in sufficient degree to cause the patient to seek care. So the depression in these cases does *not* follow arthritis and the depression is not something "psychological" *asdistinct* from the physical. The depression is not of the"psychological" domain. It is a physical symptom no less than arthritis. It is not a "component" and it is not a "factor". It is a*symptom*.
The problem is conceptualizing depression and anxiety as being in adifferent category than "physical" symptoms. This division in thought is reflected by your own use of language and the very manner in which you discuss depression in relation to other symptoms. Depression commonly bears no relation to the other symptoms except they both share a similar cause in some *poison* which has attacked the brain together with other organs in the body.This conceptualizing is largely responsible for the opposition to these diseases by the medical profession.>
Depression is not a *component* by "a priori" assumption. If doctors want to assume the nature of the pathology in a conceptual framework and language *originated by psychologists*, then they should seek psychology as a career and *not* human physiology. If doctors want to educate us about how depression affects human health--but *not* how mercury and lead affect affect brain and emotional and mental health--then they should be psychologists and lecture on Ophrah Winfrey, but *not* manipulate the research and interpretation of MCS research by projecting their own indoctrination onto reality.>
Depression needn't be a *component* and it needn't be a *factor *simply because psychologists (and physicians loyal to their ideology) insist that it be so.
I do not agree that I am arguing with myself and I do not agree we are simply talking about terminology. I have a good first-hand understanding of the disease, I have a good understanding of non-mainstream discussions of the disease, and I have good understanding of mainstream discussions of the disease. Within the mainstream the depression/anxiety is presently discussed as being a"factor" or "component"--*not* a symptom. Ten years ago the depression/anxiety was discussed as being *causative*. There has beena gradual shift in language as the disorder has been *grudgingly*accepted as being somatic, but the acceptance has been gradual, in which the depression/anxiety has altered from being "primary" to being a "factor" or a "component". No this is not simply terminology but reflects changing conceptions of the disease as the medical society isslowly accepting that chemical intolerance exists, but cannot shake lose its belief system for how depression and anxiety play a role in these diseases.
You say that much is not understood about the disease. Then I expect that the medical society which you defend *suspend* its assumptiosn about depression/anxeity being primary *or* a "component" or "factor"in any causative way regarding chemical intolerance, and to cease using language which communicates that very conception.
A neurologist who has decribed what actually happens in MCS is that the brain is abnormally stimulated by the chemical and an electrochemical reaction occurs in the brain in which the neurotoxicant glutamate is released and brain cells swell and the patients suffers debiliitating symptoms. He further states that this process is a process of ongoing injury to brain cells, a disease of pre-existing brain cell injury with continuing brain cell injury uponchemical exposures. He reached these conclusions after studying changes in EEG measurements in which patients were exposed tochemicals such as paint, gasoline, perfume, lacquer, etc. He found wildly altering EEG measurements upon chemical exposure and found evidence of dementia in the patient in various areas of the brain, with brain function deteriorating upon exposure. This neurologist'sattempt 10 years ago to gather a scientific audience for his findingsresearch was frustrated and obstructed while at the same time descriptions by mainstream medical scientists and professionals of "affective disorders" being primary or a causitive "factor" or"component" are accepted without question. I think that if one examines the *neurological* observations made and explanations advanced for what is happening in the brain upon chemical exposures, one would find the descriptions of "affective disorders" and "somatization disorders" as being causitive "components"/"factors" to be asinine in their utter vacuity with regard to the subject.
So I do not even agree with the primacy which is given to anxiety/depression in these diseases because examinations of the disease which actually have some neurobiological depth find that anxeity/depression have little to do with the disease process. It is a sideshow produced by persons who know nothing of the disease and are prefectly content to send both the patients and neurological investigations into their disease into the garbage chute. What has been occuring has been a type of medical and sociological final solution to a disease and its sufferers which appear to be bizarre to many uninformed.
But because the numbers of affected is so high, the culture and the society is forced to make some kind of adjustments in its willingness to admit the reality of the disease, but because it resists explanations outside of the intellectual box it has been taught, it still cannot accept chemical intolerance because it cannot fit the emical intolerance together with the affective disorders, because it is not willing to alter its dogma regarding how affective disorders present themselves with other brain symptoms in body-brain diseases.
No I'm sorry but this is not simply about terminology.
Don't kid yourselves. If you think the debate is resolved by physicians who like to throw around big terms like "somatization" as if they are experts on the topic, don't kid yourselves. Go get your Shrink's license and do the kind psycho babbling and psycho labelling instead of passing yourselves off as honest scientists. In that role, rather than as the frustrated shrinks you presently are, you can get all the hard-ons you want writing profiles for Abnormal Psychology journals.
By the way, I just recently spoke to a mother of an autistic child who said her child has "raging" chemical sensitivities. This I think will demand some more inventive, delusional, and self-elevating psychobabble from frustrated psychologists in the physicians lounge. Autistic children make good meat for physicians contemptuous of new diseases which stretch their education.
Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndromes are beyond the medical education and intellect of the present generation. The medical textbooks which properly deal with these diseases medically and scientifically will be written by the next generation. The present generation of sci/med professionals generally will protect its intellectual turf until it retires, and hese patients will be scoffed at, ridiculed, marginalized etc. until fresh yound minds, which will not find these diseases to be strange, will give these diseases the study and respect they deserve
Bee - 15 Mar 2008 03:19 GMT > It does exist, as a psychosomatic disorder. Why would I believe you over known experts in the field of environmental health? According to a letter I just read about you on the internet, that was posted, allegedly written by your wife, that "after college he worked for one of the U.S. Government's agencies where he spent long periods overseas."
And after retiring apparently from that government agency......"Mark then met an old college friend and they formed a company which provides security and investigation services."
And then, "They have been at it since then. Mark, with this training and experience, is an incredibly effective investigator and security consultant."
So, how do you explain suddenly that you are into the insurance world of worker's compensation claims?
No where at all does your wife even mention insurance, worker's compensation or the medical field. Now, the credibility of your claims about MCS just went into the trash in my humble opinion.
Mark Probert - 15 Mar 2008 04:58 GMT > > It does exist, as a psychosomatic disorder. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "after college he worked for one of the U.S. Government's agencies > where he spent long periods overseas." Hmmm...did you bother to comment about the inappropriateness of posting private email? I see you have never done it, so, I assume that this is your standard?
BTW, did you notice that Ilenanever explained her motives why she wrote to my wife in the first place? I have always said that her purpose was to attempt tostifle my free speech. Since you are so sensitive on this subject, perhaps you can come up with a reason other than that?
As for your comment, it is a non sequitur.
> And after retiring apparently from that government agency......"Mark > then met an old college friend and they formed a company which [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So, how do you explain suddenly that you are into the insurance world > of worker's compensation claims? To answer that, I would have to discuss what I did for Uncle Sam, and you, and Ilena, and everyone else.
> No where at all does your wife even mention insurance, worker's > compensation or the medical field. Now, the credibility of your > claims about MCS just went into the trash in my humble opinion. So? You never believed me before. I really do not give a rats a.s. The fact is, I support my comments with facts. You support your comments with touchy-feely.
Bee - 15 Mar 2008 16:11 GMT > >Bee: Why would I believe you over known experts in the field of > > environmental health? According to a letter I just read about you on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > posting private email? I see you have never done it, so, I assume that > this is your standard? That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my questions, or comments. It does not the content of the letters any less either. Ofcourse I do not post email letters to a newsgroup.
> BTW, did you notice that Ilenanever explained her motives why she > wrote to my wife in the first place? I have always said that her > purpose was to attempt tostifle my free speech. Since you are so > sensitive on this subject, perhaps you can come up with a reason other > than that? Interesting diversion. My comments have nothing to do with Ilena, or Jan, but the content of the emails. They were posted to the newsgroups. And I will not comment about your comments. I didn't really read the emails to tell you the truth until yesterday.
> As for your comment, it is a non sequitur. That's also an interesting comment.
> >Bee: (referencing Mrs. Probert's alleged comments) And after retiring apparently from that government agency......"Mark > > then met an old college friend and they formed a company which [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Probert: To answer that, I would have to discuss what I did for Uncle Sam, and > you, and Ilena, and everyone else. Go for it, I'd like to see the answer. If you were working for Uncle Sam, then the taxpayers in this country have the right to know how our taxpayer dollars were being spent.
> > Bee: No where at all does your wife even mention insurance, worker's > > compensation or the medical field. Now, the credibility of your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fact is, I support my comments with facts. You support your comments > with touchy-feely. Again, being an effective investigator, and security consultant how do you get by without having to have a private investigator's license in the State of New York or Florida if you have your own business and do not work for an insurance company?
All of this is very interesting to me. Everyone I know that dared to file a claim either in a worker's compensation system or a tort claim either had their telephone lines tapped, or computer hacked into, I always thought it was pretty amazing, that every time I attempted to get to a doctor someone had already gotten to that doctor and talked about what I did in the work place environment, and made a "big deal" how I worked in the office, and since when do chemicals know how to stop at the office door? Interestingly, there was always the same big deal about the ventiliation that I, and the former partner did not know existed when I worked there, and regular visitors to the work place. The lies that are spread against people with chemical injuries are amazing, anything to pass the buck and make it look like it is "all in their head," when in fact other parts of the body are effected as well. Each one of the people that I have known that have dared file a claim, have very similar horror stories to tell that their lives have been turned upside down and when I spoke with the Dow Chemical company's doctor, I was told if the chemicals had been used improperly, it would cause an array of physical problems, and they had nothing to do with being "in one's head." It would appear it is the insurance companies not wanting to pay for damages based on the neglience of their insurers.
Even with the discussion of vaccines, whether there is mercury that has caused autism or not, or if it was the aluminum that causes it as well, it would appear that if this is the case, it would boil down to insurance companies having to pay out some pretty hefty insurance claims, whether from the manufacturers or medical insurance, and it would appear that this is something the insurance companies are not interested in doing.
It always boils down to the insurance claims...if the word gets out...the payouts are going to be too big to handle. Just like with the mortgage industry, the word got out, and what a mess that has turned out to be. Ameriquest Mortgage got their butts wiped, and had to pay out some big bucks....and it appears that Countrywide is in trouble too. With the AG's office in NY going after the insurance companies---you can only imagine that other States are going to follow suit. We, the people can only hope.....as they said with the Govenor of NY, "follow the money."
Richard Schultz - 17 Mar 2008 08:52 GMT In misc.health.alternative Bee <Butterflies2222@gmail.com> wrote:
: That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my questions, or comments. : It does not the content of the letters any less either. Ofcourse I do : not post email letters to a newsgroup. But you just did.
:> BTW, did you notice that Ilenanever explained her motives why she :> wrote to my wife in the first place? I have always said that her :> purpose was to attempt tostifle my free speech. Since you are so :> sensitive on this subject, perhaps you can come up with a reason other :> than that?
: Interesting diversion. My comments have nothing to do with Ilena, or : Jan, but the content of the emails. They were posted to the newsgroups. Doesn't it bother you that someone might have been trying to stifle his free speech? Of course it doesn't.
: Go for it, I'd like to see the answer. If you were working for Uncle : Sam, then the taxpayers in this country have the right to know how our : taxpayer dollars were being spent. Then file an FOIA request with the appropriate agency.
----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Mark Probert - 17 Mar 2008 12:03 GMT > In misc.health.alternative Bee <Butterflies2...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Then file an FOIA request with the appropriate agency. Totally santized response.
Jan Drew - 17 Mar 2008 07:13 GMT On Mar 14, 10:19 pm, Bee <Butterflies2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 4:18 am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "after college he worked for one of the U.S. Government's agencies > where he spent long periods overseas." <Hmmm...did you bother to comment about the inappropriateness of posting private email? I see you have never done it, so, I assume that this is your standard?>
Simply unbelievable.
Like this private email, that YOU make up!
Mark Probert" <markprob...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> news:vfZah.18334$mM1.5367@trndny08... >> I received this email this morning. Since the sender used anonymous [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] >> Yes, you can post this to Usenet, or send it to her ISP, or whatever else >> you want to do with it. Hushmail will protect my identity. Mark, don't you get tired of making a complete fool of yourself repeatedly??
<BTW, did you notice that Ilenanever [sic] explained her motives why she wrote to my wife in the first place? I have always said that her purpose was to attempt tostifle my free speech. Since you are so sensitive on this subject, perhaps you can come up with a reason other than that?>
Another BLATANT LIE!!!!!!
November 2, 2004 Dearest Mrs. Probert, I am writing to you because I believe you are the wife of Mark S. Probert of Merrick, NY, and active Publicist of the Quackwatch.com "Ragtag Posse" and the Healthfraud group on the internet. Mark has denied this ...and if in fact this is true, would you please accept my apology. You can just drop me a quick note to let me know that you are not his wife nor the Mother of Noah and Josh that he has spoken about on Usenet for years. If you are she ... then Mark has probably let you know that I have warned him several times over the last few years to leave me alone and that I would contact you should his harassment continue. Recently, I have told him multiple times that if he continued lying about me and the Humantics Foundation, I would ask your assistance to get him to stop libeling me. His refuses. In fact, last nite he sent me several personal email messages in direct disregard of my telling him to never email me. The best way to introduce myself to you is through our Foundation ebpage -- www.BreastImplantAwareness.org. The lies and fantasies that Mark is currently spreading about me ... I no longer have any patience for. Since Mark is such an active and aggressive participant in the Posse mentioned above, I am certain you have heard of the lawsuit against Dr. Hulda Clark and several other defendants. I am one of the defendants ... the reason I fully and firmly believe your husband has made me one of his Usenet targets for over three years. Details on the losses of two of the three Plaintiffs against me are here. The third Plaintiff, Terry A. Polevoy, also from Mark's group, and I are currently in battle in the Supreme Court of California. Their Posse has waged a disgusting Smear Campaign against all of the Defendants ... your husband being one of the most constant and brutal. If you read this page I created in response to his attacks, you will see that he attempted to infiltrate my email support group for women sick from their breast implants, and when caught, made up a tale that was totally fictitious, and very revealing about himself. NO ONE from my group knew anything about him ... the story he made up about "27 emails" was entirely from his brain. Barrett & Polevoy's "Ragtag Posse" expanded after their initial loss to me in Superior Court in 2001 and their attacks against me became more vicious. The head of "Quackwatch" Dr. Stephen Barrett, hides behind scenes and uses people like your husband and "Willa "Nana Weedkiller" Nidiffer" and others to relentlessly attack publicly his critics and those he is suing. Terry Polevoy ... the third plaintiff, was recently unveiled on Usenet posing as a woman to attack me and the other defendants and advertise his own Hate Website, healthwatcher.net. Here are 50 posts of his "in drag" ... a common Smear Campaign technique. He attacked me and others he is suing, and advertised for himself. Just this week, Mark was doing PR for him. Mark's Posse (Barrett called them "guerrillas" in the past) has rules for everyone but themselves. Your husband has called me at my home office and threatened me ... he has attempted to infiltrate my support group for women harmed by breast implants and when caught, made up a whopper as his "reason." After this happened, I made a webpage in response to his continal harassment ... under his own and various aliases he has taken. It is called: www.humanticsfoundation.com/PropagandistProbert.html There is nothing either too personal or too untrue that Mark publishes about me. Recently he has been calling me a "dominatrix" and lied that our Humantics Foundation is "defunct" and "bankrupt." This is a fond desire and goal of the Ragtag Posse ... as I have already beaten two of the three plaintiffs both at the Superior Court and the Appeals Court levels. However, despite years of their barrages, infiltrations, and attacks, we are NOT defunct, as Mark continues to repeat to this day.
If you are interested in seeing these comments your husband has written very recently about us, here are just 24 ... out of hundreds if not thousands by now.
Results 1 - 24 of 24 for group:misc.health.alternative dominatrix author:mark Sample: One example from above: Probert@lumbercartel.com wrote: "Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> in her official capacity as the Dominatrix of the Humantics Foundation, which is delicensed and currently defunct ..."
Here is the defintion (though I doubt I need to let an English Teacher know this) of dominatrix: a dominating woman, especially one who takes the sadistic role in sadomasochistic sexual activities. As far as "defunct" ... we are not ... although I believe that my losing Plaintiffs and their Ragtag Posse Team would stop at nothing to make it so ... here is the State of California Data on us. We maintain an active online support group and were recently quoted in the LA Times. Although this SLAPP suit has been devastating to us financially, we continue to provide support and information via our email group, website and newsgroup. Mark has some very strange beliefs. He seems to have some twisted "truth" that this newsgroup is some island with no worldly connection. He appears to believe that he can post anything he chooses that defames me ... attempt to infiltrate my support group, call my home/office with threats, but that my right to contact you is no longer "free speech." Yesterday he opined: "Ilena is not stupid, though. She knows that I consider contacting anyone outside of the newsgroup not to be free speech." I disagree. My family has been horrifically affected by this SLAPP suit against me ... in more ways than you could imagine. Barrett very humbly calls himself "The Media" and indeed, uses every Propagandist trick in the book to advertise for himself and attempt to destroy his targets. Just last evening, one of Mark's fellow Ragtag Posse Members who calls himself or "Cathy Credulous" or "Nana Weedkiller" and claims to be a nearly 80 year old woman named "Willa Nidiffer" ... again posted ugly sexual references to who he believes is my husband. After announcing the Appeals Court decision one year ago, this same Publicist for Barrett & Polevoy published a web claiming I was "arrested for crack cocaine." Mark works closely with this Publicist, often teaming up with him (his real name is Ted Nidiffer) to bash and insult and lie about me. I will tell you ... especially last nite and the several emails he sent me personally ... that I believe your husband is terrified of you finding out how he spends hours every day bashing me and other targets of the "Ragtag Posse." While he applauds his teammates posting filthy, libelous messages about me and others close to me ... he considers a contact with you, other than "free speech" and has posted many weakly veiled threats should I contact you. I no longer will be intimidated by him. Were he my husband and so obsessed with another woman, I would want to know. If you wish any additional information from me ... please let me know. Mark will undoubtedly claim he is my victim, I am a stalker, and that I am a very ill woman. He has made these claims about me MANY times. I assure you, I am none of the above. I am a 56 year old woman who is a dedicated activist and advocate for women harmed by breast implants ... and those who believe in Medical Freedom. We have a young son named Noah ... and no more than Mark wants you to read what I am sending you ... do I want my son or anyone else to read the continual stream of lies he publicly posts about me. I have no doubt that you are a wonderful loving woman ... and I wish you no harm whatsoever. My very best regards to you. Ilena Rosenthal Director, Humantics Foundation ilena2000@hotmail.com
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org
Who he represents: http://www.ratbags.com/posse/index.html See Mark Probert Their web sites: www.quackwatch.com www.healthwatcher.net A very small example of Mark's recent "work" on Usenet, click here. He uses so many various aliases, it is difficult to track his thousands and thousands of posts. P.S. Since I had to make a webpage to get this to you, if you would like me to remove it from the World Wide Web, just drop me a note from your school address. It seems Mark has control of your Hotmail account. ==
From: ilena rose [mailto:ilena2000@hotmail.com] Sent: Wed 11/17/2004 5:38 PM To: Probert Sandra (26Q495) Subject: RE: Mark S. Probert
From: "Probert Sandra (26Q495)" <SProber@nycboe.net> To: "ilena rose" <ilena2000@hotmail.com> CC: <sandraprobert@HOTMAIL.COM> Subject: RE: Mark S. Probert Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:32:27 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 I expect nothing at all from you ...
I merely wanted to communicate my experiences with him and how it has negatively intruded into my life and my familie's life ...
I will take the page down now as I told you I would ...
I did laugh at your Costa Rica comment ... I head a support group with thousands of ill women... as well as defending myself in this libel suit ... while being libeled continuallly ...
It is far from your description of my life ...
Shalom.
What is your purpose in writing to me and what do you expect me to do?
________________________________
From: ilena rose [mailto:ilena2000@hotmail.com] Sent: Tue 11/16/2004 5:19 PM To: Probert Sandra (26Q495) Subject: Mark S. Probert
Sent to: SProber@nycboe.net
11.15.04
Dearest Mrs. Probert,
This is my third attempt to communicate directly with you.
The first mail I sent to this address, was returned to me unsent. This was a few weeks ago. There was a note about too many links and to please send to sandraprobert@hotmail.com.
So I did, and yesterday received a message , which it appears, was from your husband coming from your hotmail account. I wonder if you are aware of this.
My only solution is to make a webpage and send you this link with my original letter (from several weeks ago now). Nothing has improved in his behavior towards me in the interim. After receiving the message from him from your Hotmail account, there seems to be no doubt anymore than I have located the correct Mrs. Mark S. Probert.
May God bless you.
The website is:
www.humanticsfoundation.com/SandraProbert.htm
In a message dated 3/12/2005 3:48:07 PM US Eastern Standard Time, ilena2000@hotmail.com writes:
Someone is running scared, it's Mark, have you posted it, the very idea in saying, you were warned not to e-mail her, but you did it anyway, what a hoot, that's exacrly he did to me, he is a mess..
Barf.
Jan If I read correctly, you are claiming here, in writing, that your husband, Mark S. Probert, was never a lawyer and was never disbarred?
Is that accurate?
Ilena
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/SandraProbert.htm
From: "Sandra Probert" <sandraprobert@hotmail.com> To: ilena2000@hotmail.com CC: ilena@san.rr.com Subject: RE: Was surprised that you are posting about me on Usenet ... Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:29:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [68.194.64.219] X-Originating-Email: [sandraprobert@hotmail.com] X-Sender: sandraprobert@hotmail.com Received: from 68.194.64.219 by by14fd.bay14.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;Sat, 12 Mar 2005 20:29:51 GMT
>From: "ilena rose" <ilena2000@hotmail.com> >To: sandraprobert@hotmail.com [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >www.humanticsfoundation.com/sandraprobert.htm Dear Rosenthal:
Let us take a moment to review the history of this matter.
YOU initiated this situation when you invaded my privacy by emailing me after my husband warned you not to do so. Your attitude was that you can do whatever you want, and you went ahead and emailed me.
When I did not respond as quickly as you liked, you posted the email to a website which you wisely removed. That is extremely childish and controlling behavior, and I would not tolerate it in my presence, or from anyone who I had to deal with. From some of the posts you have made, specifically those where you complain when someone insists on a direct answer, it is clear that you would not tolerate it either.
Thus, it is obvious that YOU, and not me, initiated this situation.
Since those emails, you have continued to accuse my husband of all sorts of horrible things without the slightest proof on your part. For your information, you are absolutely incorrect about his career. We met in college, after he left military service, and I have known him since then.
After college he worked for one of the US Government's agencies where he spent long periods overseas. During many of these periods, he was not able to contact me, nor I him. Our marriage, which has lasted just over 31 years as of this month, is strong, and testifies to the devotion we have toward each other.
In the mid-late 1980's we came to realize that there had to be two full time parents for our two special needs children. Accordingly, Mark left field work, something that he loved, and settled into an office type position with that agency. When an early retirement package was offered, with enhancements for those who had line of duty injuries, like Mark, he took the package and retired.
Fortuitously, Mark then met an old college friend and they formed a company which provides security and investigation services. They have been at it since then. Mark, with his training and experience, is an incredibly effective investigator and security consultant.
Mark's devotion to our family is equaled only by his strong beliefs in protecting our country and individual rights. I have asked him numerous times to complain to GoDaddy, the company that hosts your website, RoadRunner and Hotmail. He refuses to do so, since he is not a hypocrite.
Because of the nature of Mark's former employment, we are circumspect in divulging any personal information that can put our family at risk. For us, the risk is real, as in Mark's work for the US Government, there were "bad people" who use violence to settle matters. Mark made some enemies while working for the government, in countries where they seek revenge for life.
Since you had posted my place of employment, I have been followed from school. Fortunately, Mark trained me on how to shake a tail, amongst other protective measures he has taken.
Additionally, there have been calls to my school from people who refuse to give their names. This has never had this happen before, and YOU have put my family at risk.
If you are the kind compassionate person that you claim to be, you will immediately remove that webpage, and any webpage referring my husband, to prevent further damage. You have stated that the purpose of the webpages is to have a conveniently means of replying to your critics.
If you remove these webpages, I assure you the following will immediately happen:
1. The "Fan Club" will disappear, and never return.
2. Mark will respond to your posts on usenet only in a substantive manner, and will no longer address your actions, words and deeds.
You will no longer have a need to have a convenient way of replying to him.
By your action, the war will be over. The future is yours to choose.
Sandra Probert
As for your comment, it is a non sequitur.
Groups View all web results » Results 1 - 10 of 231 for Mark Probert non sequitur
Read all about it.
> And after retiring apparently from that government agency......"Mark > then met an old college friend and they formed a company which [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So, how do you explain suddenly that you are into the insurance world > of worker's compensation claims? <To answer that, I would have to discuss what I did for Uncle Sam, and you, and Ilena, and everyone else.>
Translation: Mark refuses to answer. Furthermore, he seems to think HE was the only one who severed this country. Others do NOT constantly brag about it. It is a sign of insecurity
> No where at all does your wife even mention insurance, worker's > compensation or the medical field. Now, the credibility of your > claims about MCS just went into the trash in my humble opinion. <So? You never believed me before. I really do not give a rats a.s. The fact is, I support my comments with facts. You support your comments with touchy-feely.>
Poor pathetic Mark S Probert. He does NOT back up his claims. He even wrote to google to take his FAKE Jack Reid LIE off.
Get help, Mark, you have lost it!
Mark Probert - 12 Mar 2008 03:35 GMT On Mar 11, 10:41 am, "ironjust...@aol.com" <ironjust...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 1:15 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:MCS Patients > React To Chemicals Only When They Can Be Smelled suggesting that the [quoted text clipped - 160 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Jan Drew - 12 Mar 2008 07:18 GMT > Institute of Psychiatry Does that mean that is where Mark S Probert belongs?
Bee - 12 Mar 2008 09:16 GMT > > Institute of Psychiatry > > Does that mean that is where Mark S Probert belongs? Well, that would be a long way up for him if that were the case...
Mark Probert - 12 Mar 2008 12:20 GMT > > > Institute of Psychiatry > > > Does that mean that is where Mark S Probert belongs? > > Well, that would be a long way up for him if that were the case... That would be a long way up for those poor people who still think that MCS is a phyical disorder. Understanding that it is in their head is the first step to recovery.
In your case, though, looking in your head is looking in the wrong end.
ironjustice - 12 Mar 2008 16:12 GMT On Mar 12, 4:20 am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:Understanding that it is in their head is the first step to recovery. <<
"this may explain the elevated levels of ALS seen in Gulf War veterans"
I would say the studies show a .. **difference** . One Gulf War guy manifests ALS the other guy doesn't .. showing a propensity TO developement .. ?
Source: University of California, San Diego Health Sciences Released: Fri 07-Mar-2008, 08:00 ET Embargo expired: Mon 10-Mar-2008, 17:00 ET Printer-friendly Version
Health Problems in Persian Gulf War Veterans Higher Due to Chemical Exposure Libraries Medical News Keywords PESTICIDES, NERVE GAS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS Contact Information
Available for logged-in reporters only Description
A study by researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine shows there is increasing evidence that high rates of illness in Persian Gulf War Veterans can be explained, in part, by exposure to certain chemicals, including pesticides and nerve agents.
Newswise -- A study by researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine shows there is increasing evidence that high rates of illness in Persian Gulf War Veterans can be explained, in part, by exposure to certain chemicals, including pesticides and nerve agents. Veterans from the 1990-91 conflict have a higher rate of chronic, multi-symptom health problems than either non-deployed personnel or those deployed elsewhere. Symptoms routinely reported by these veterans include fatigue, muscle or joint pain, memory problems, trouble sleeping, rash and breathing problems.
"This evidence suggests that exposure to this certain class of chemical may be linked to elevated risk of health problems," said Beatrice Golomb, M.D., Ph.D., associate professor of medicine at the UC San Diego School of Medicine, whose study will be published in the early online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) the week of March 10.
"Health issues among Gulf War veterans have been a concern for nearly two decades. Now, enough studies have been conducted, and results shared, to be able to say with considerable confidence that there is a link between chemical exposure and chronic, multi-symptom health problems," said Golomb. "Furthermore, the same chemicals affecting Gulf War veterans may be involved in similar cases of unexplained, multi-symptom health problems in the general population."
The study synthesized evidence regarding a class of chemicals known as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEis) and organophosphates (OP), which includes nerve gas chemicals. Some military personnel were exposed to nerve gas (sarin) when demolishing Iraqi munitions. Also, the pesticides used aggressively in Gulf regions to control sand flies and other insects fall in the same category of chemicals. This includes the carbamate pyridostigmine bromide (PB) pills originally given to service members to protect against potential nerve-agent exposure. (Note: As a result of an earlier RAND corporation report by Golomb outlining the risks of using such pills, military policy has been changed.)
The study linked exposure to each of these chemicals with the chronic, multi-symptom health problems in 25 to 33 percent of returning Gulf War veterans.
"There is evidence that genetics have something to do with how a body handles exposure to these chemicals," said Golomb. "Some people are genetically less able to withstand these toxins and evidence shows that these individuals have higher chance of suffering the effects of exposure." Specifically, illness is linked to lower activity of enzymes that detoxify AChEis, due to genetic variants The enzymes known to be involved are paraoxonase (PON) for OPs, including sarin, and butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) for PB.
Among those service members given PB pills as a preventive measure, those with the mutations that reduced their ability to detoxify the pills were at significantly higher risk of illness, according to Golomb.
Previous studies have shown genetic variants of these enzymes are also associated with increased rates of some neurological diseases, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or Lou Gehrig's disease. Golomb says this may explain the elevated levels of ALS seen in Gulf War veterans.
Some of the chemicals linked to these multi-symptom illnesses continue to be used in agriculture, and at homes and offices for pest control in the United States and around the globe. Studies not related to the Gulf War showed that agricultural workers exposed to organophosphate pesticides had 10 times the number of health symptoms as those not exposed.
"Again, genetic variants that hamper defense against these chemicals were linked to higher risk of health problems. These findings carry important implications for current members of the armed forces as well as the general public, suggesting that exposure to these pesticides in any setting may increase risk for impaired neuropsychological function and poor health" said Golomb. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 2008 Newswise. All Rights Reserved.
Who loves ya. Tom
Jesus Was A Vegetarian! http://jesuswasavegetarian.7h.com
Man Is A Herbivore! http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3
DEAD PEOPLE WALKING http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk
> > > > Institute of Psychiatry > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > In your case, though, looking in your head is looking in the wrong > end. Bee - 12 Mar 2008 16:38 GMT > That would be a long way up for those poor people who still think that > MCS is a phyical disorder. Understanding that it is in their head is > the first step to recovery. > > In your case, though, looking in your head is looking in the wrong > end. The day you tell me that you are a medical doctor specializing in Environmental Medicine, and have years of personal experience in diagnosing this syndrome then I might consider believing you. Until then, it is my ever so humble opinion, that your knowledge on this subject matter is zero.
Just because you read books or studies on something, does not make you an authority.
Mark Probert - 13 Mar 2008 04:47 GMT > > That would be a long way up for those poor people who still think that > > MCS is a phyical disorder. Understanding that it is in their head is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Just because you read books or studies on something, does not make > you an authority. Incorrect. I would claim to be an expert in MCS if I were a certified psychiatrist with years of experience in treating psychosomatic disorders.
BTW, as I have said before, a psychosomatic disorder is often more disabling than a physical one, an can be a hell of a lot harder to treat.
Bee - 13 Mar 2008 06:43 GMT > > Bee: Just because you read books or studies on something, does not make > > you an authority. > > Incorrect. I would claim to be an expert in MCS if I were a certified > psychiatrist with years of experience in treating psychosomatic > disorders. And you would be an expert witness if you had years of experience, including personal experience as well, as an environmental doctor, or Toxicologist, with years of clinical setting experience. And no conflicts of interest, ofcourse as well, correct; not in bed with insurance companies, attorneys that defend insurance companies, chemical companies, big business. If, one is truly to be an expert witness on any given subject, it is my opinion, that they need to fully disclose what organizations that they are involved in, and just friendly they are with those corporations.
> BTW, as I have said before, a psychosomatic disorder is often more > disabling than a physical one, an can be a hell of a lot harder to > treat. By the way, I see the governor is "retiring." Tonight's news said the investigators, simply "followed the money." Was the money being laundered in your state being laundered with Tide, Cheer, or a Non Toxic Laundry soap?
Mark Probert - 13 Mar 2008 11:25 GMT > > > Bee: Just because you read books or studies on something, does not make > > > you an authority. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Toxicologist, with > years of clinical setting experience. Not to discuss a psychosomatic disorder. They would be ruled inadmissible under Daubert or Frye,.
And no conflicts of interest,
> ofcourse as well, > correct; not in bed with insurance companies, attorneys that defend [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > organizations that they are > involved in, and just friendly they are with those corporations. That is part of the voir dire and cross examination.
> > BTW, as I have said before, a psychosomatic disorder is often more > > disabling than a physical one, an can be a hell of a lot harder to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > being laundered with > Tide, Cheer, or a Non Toxic Laundry soap?
|
|
|