Thanks to Myrl Jeffcoat for her usual confusion ... she attributes
this article to me, but I didn't write it. I will post it here thanks
to Myrl!

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/myrl.html
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm

http://www.stephenbarrettmd.blogspot.com/

The Never-board-certified Stephen Barrett, MD (Part 1)

Never board certified in anything, his experience as a physician ended
with his 1958 internship.  Yet, he proclaimed himself an expert in
medicine, nutrition, & law, as well as having declared himself the
media.  He has belonged to private interest groups whose names
deceptively sound like government agencies, and he has been neither a
medical technologist, nor a cytopathologist, nor a biochemist, nor a
vaccinologist, nor a researcher, nor a forensic scientist, nor a ...

January 16, 2007
The Clone of a Salem Witch Hunter

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

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

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

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

[2]  Nor has he been able to speak from the vantage point
      of  a practitioner in any type of  internal or dermatolog-
      ical medicine.  In fact, Stephen Barrett has not served
      in the capacity of  a physician since the end of  his rotat-
      ing internship days.  Those days ended over 48 years
      ago, in 1958.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stephen Barrett's Allegation of Being a Legal Expert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barrett lost a court case filed in California, under his own
name.  And he also lost cases in Oregon and Illinois, as
well as in Pennsylvania -- also filed under his own name.

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

Barrett's Claim of Being a Nutritional Expert

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

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

A Sample of Stephen Barrett's Mode of Communication

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

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

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

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

For further information on this matter, see:

The Paper Chase: A 15 month NBC Dateline Investigation

The Barrett/Gots Book, itself

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

. . .  and numerous other forms.

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

. . . and a few other forms.

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

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

licensed and certified centers of practice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

... and a few other things, such as visible and measurable
wheals produced during placebo-controlled skin testing,

Barrett's Contradiction

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

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

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

A Duly Noted Hypocrisy

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

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

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

Stephen Barrett's Cookie Cutter Techniques

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

Now, concerning the medical practices and medical doctrines
that Stephen Barrett opposes, he is repeatedly found stating,
"inconclusive and not yet proven."  And if  he cannot discredit
something on technical merits, he cites an isolated case here
and an isolated case there, concerning an unauthorized billing
or a marketing violation committed by a person engaged in
something that Barrett wants deleted from the face of  the
Earth.  Yet, Barrett never mentions the dozens of  frauds
that were committed under the supervision of his co-author,
Dr. Ronald Gots.  And Barrett never mentions the vast num-
ber of  lawsuits filed against pharmaceutical companies.

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

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

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

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

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

posted by Atlantic America | Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Formaldehyde

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

The AMA, the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and
Immunology (the AAAAI), and the American Lung Associ-
ation (the ALA) all acknowledge the following:

They acknowledge the existence of Chemical Sensitivity as
it applies to Asthma.  That is to say, all three associations
acknowledge that chemical-bearing agents can trigger as-
thma attacks in susceptible persons.

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

Examples of recognized asthma triggers in the chemical
category include:

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

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13603.html

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

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

"Strong Odors or sprays such as perfumes,
household cleansers, cooking fumes
(especially from frying), paints or vanishes"

See:

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

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

See: http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=22916

In fact, the above-cited American Lung Association text
furthermore states:

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

The same American Lung Association furthermore states:

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

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

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

Firstly, this assertion contradicts the diagnostic histories of
the Occupational & Environmental Health centers of Johns
Hopkins, Yale, Mt. Sinai, and the Harvard-affiliated hospitals,
as well as certain Ear Nose Throat and Allergy Specialists.
And more importantly, Irritant-induced Asthma is certainly
a disease and not a label; not visa-versa. Irritant Rhinitis
is not a label, either. It is a medically accepted condition
that has been known to co-exist with Irritant-induced
Asthma. In as much, the chemical-bearing agents which
are sought to be avoided by persons diagnosed with Multi-
ple Chemical Sensitivity are the same ones which the AMA,
the AAAAI, and the ALA instruct susceptible asthmatics
to avoid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly, Barrett did not say that the designers intended
to make that house free of naturally occurring chemicals.
After all, chemicals exist in unprocessed nature, too. And
those chemicals can trigger adverse reactions in suceptible
people as much as can synthetic ones. For example, the
most untreated and organically grown pine can trigger
severe respiratory reactions in persons sensitive to pine.

Thirdly, "most of the initial residents" constituted five to
seven people. That is not large enough a number to justifiably write
off the entire population of chemically sensitive patients.

And most importantly, Barrett did not say that any subsequent
tenant of Ecology House experienced illness while in that house.
This is because no subsequent tenant reported illness while in that
same
house.

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

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

Fair Warning About Stephen Barrett's Assertion

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

posted by Atlantic America | Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Visible & Measurable Wheals Have Been Repeatedly Documented

Dr. Stephen Barrett "M.D." is an outspoken individual who
retired from psychiatry in 1993 and then proclaimed himself
"the media" in 2001.  He was never board-certified in psy-
chiatry, and he was never board-certified in anything else.
He has zero experience as a practitioner in every form of
internal, dermatological, & dental medicine.  And he was
not a researcher in any capacity, either.  That is to say, he
was neither a biochemist, nor a vaccinologist, nor a med-
ical technologist, nor anything similar.

An Allegation of  Stephen Barrett that Calls for a Response:

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

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

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

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

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

The Response:

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

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

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

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

IgE-mediated Chemicals, via the Process of Haptenation

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

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

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

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

Type IV Hypersensitivity Reactions

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

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

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

Non-immunological Chemical Sensitivity Reactions,      
Including Anaphylaxis

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

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

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

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

Allergic Sensitization, Direct Irritation,
and Pharmacological Reactions

(5)  Hypersensitivity reactions can be triggered via:

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

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

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

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

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

A Sample of IgE-mediated Chemicals

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

(a)   The disinfectant Ortho-phthalaldehyde.        

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

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

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

(b)  Formaldehyde.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(c) Vinyl Sulphone Reactive Dyes.

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

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

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

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

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

(d)  Cyanuric Chloride.

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

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

(e)  The disinfectant Chlorhexidine.

It has even triggered anaphylaxis.  See:

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

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

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

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

(f)   Phthalic Anhydride.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(8)   The provocation-neutralization test is actually an
       offshoot of the serial endpoint titration skin testing
       procedure, covered by Aetna Insurance.  And this
       is pertinent to note in light of  the observation that
       Stephen Barrett has repeatedly stated what Aetna
       covers, as if  Aetna alone is the ultimate benchmark
       in diagnostic testing.

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

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

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

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

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

Wheal Reactions Showed a Distinct Pattern

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

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

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

       "wheal reactions showed a distinct pattern."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(V)   Chemically sensitive patients have tested positive in
        inhalation challenge testing, as well as in patch testing
       (the testing that seeks to detect delayed hypersensitivity
        reponses.)  And chemically sensitive patients were also
        documented as having objective medical findings via
        the fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopy and even the biopsy.
        Some patients were found to have inflamed air sacs of
        the lungs, while other ones were found to have hepatic
        injury in the absence of viral infection.  And yet other
        ones were found to have upper-respiratory erythema
        & swelling.  Chemical Sensitivity exists in a number of
         forms.  It is very real, and it can be quite brutal.  In as
         much, it has been repeatedly documented that chemicals,
         at ambient (nontoxic) levels, are not universally harmless.

posted by Atlantic America | Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Johns Hopkins, Mt. Sinai, Harvard, Yale & the MCS Diagnosis

Keep in mind that Dr. Stephen Barrett "MD" has zero exper-
ience in every field of  internal and dermatological medicine,
(outside of  the internship that he completed in 1958.)  Also
keep in mind that there are a number of  forms of  chemical
sensitivity which have already been identified and defined by
mainstream medical science.  This means that entire popula-
tions of  the chemically sensitive are not dependent upon the
universal recognition of  MCS, in order to have their medical
conditions validated.

Brief Outline

Stephen Barrett has repeatedly asserted that the Multiple Chem-
ical Sensitivity diagnosis is an act of malpractice, given to those
who are merely mentally ill.  He furthermore called Sick Building
Syndrome (SBS) a "fad diagnosis," stating that it is intertwined
with MCS.  He additionally stated that Multiple Chemical Sensi-
tivity is supported by "a small cadre of physicians" who identify
themselves as "clinical ecologists."

The Induced Deceptions

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

The Response

The Association of  Occupational & Environmental Clinics
has posted profiles of  its members, in State-by-State direc-
tory form.  In each AOEC profile, mention is made of  the
profiled member's Most Common Occupational Diagnoses
and Most Common Environmental Diagnoses.  Placed into
focus at this point are the AOEC members listed directly be-
low.  The profile of each one is dated 03/05.

{1}  the world renowned John Hopkins,
{2}  the world renowned Yale University,
{3}  the world renowned Mount Sinai,
{4}  Harvard affiliated Cambridge Hospital,
{5}  Harvard affiliated Northeast Specialty Hospital.

{1}  We begin with the directory for the State of Maryland.
       The first member profiled in the Maryland directory is
       the Johns Hopkins University Center for Occupational
       and Environmental Health. At the section of the Johns
       Hopkins profile titled, "Most Common Environmental
       Diagnoses," Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and Sick
       Building Syndrome are both listed.

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

       This can be additionally confirmed at the Johns Hop-
       kins web address posted below.  Toward the bottom
       of  that web page, under the subheading Specialty
       Programs, one can see that Johns Hopkins provides:

              "Clinical evaluation of occupational
                and environmentally related condi-
                tions/disease (i.e. multiple chemical
                sensitivities, chemical exposures,
                 indoor air quality)"

See: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hse/coeh/services.htm

{2}  In the AOEC directory for the State of Connecticut, the
      second member profiled is the Yale University Occupa-
      tional and Environmental Health Clinic. Among its Most
      Common Environmental Diagnoses is Multiple Chemi-
      cal Sensitivity.

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

     This can be additionally confirmed at the following Yale
     University web address, under the heading, Chemical
     Exposures/Disease:

See:http://info.med.yale.edu/intmed/occmed/clinical_services.html

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

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

{4}  We now come to the AOEC directory for the State of
{5}  Massachusetts. The third and fourth listed clinics are
      the Harvard affiliates, Cambridge Hospital and North-
      east Specialty Hospital.  Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
      is listed as one of Cambridge Hospital's Most Common
      Environmental Diagnoses, while the exact same Mul-
      tiple Chemical Sensitivity is listed as one of Northeast
      Specialty's Most Common Occupational Diagnoses.

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

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

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

In addition, a number of AOEC members have Indoor Air
Quality listed among their most common diagnoses. For
example, the world renown Duke Medical Center has
Indoor Air Quality Assessment listed among its most com-
mon diagnoses, while Yale University has Indoor Air
Quality Problems listed.

The 21st Century proposed mechanism for MCS does not
come from the world of the "clinical ecologist."  It comes
from the school of molecular biosciences of  an american
university.  The expanded diagram of  that proposed mech-
anism mentions, in a favorable light, the conclusions about
chemical sensitivity which come from the school of  emer-
gency medicine of  yet another american university.  In fact,
findings in chemical sensitivity also come from the techno-
logically advanced nations of  Germany, Sweden, Austria,
France, Spain, Italy, South Korea, the Netherlands, and
Japan.

An outline of the 2002/2004 proposed mechanism for
MCS can be accessed by clicking on the link provided
directly below.

The 2002/2004 Proposed Mechanism for MCS.
(Clicking here will take you there.)

posted by Atlantic America | Tuesday, January 16, 2007
The Invalidating Feature of the Staudenmayer Test

The Research Undertaking that Barrett waved
Like a National Flag

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

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

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

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

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

Background in Brevity

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

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

2) The challenges were divided into two types:

a) active challenges,
b) sham challenges.

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

3) The sham challenges came in two forms:

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

4) The active challenges also came in two forms:

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

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

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

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

The Invalidating Feature of that Test

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

Now, concerning anything aromatic, keep in mind that the
AMA, the world-renown Mayo Clinic, the American Lung
Association, and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma,
& Immunology each recognize, in publicly accessible print,
that "strong odors" can be triggers of adverse upper and/or
lower respiratory reactions in susceptible people, simply be-
cause they are strong odors.  And this includes anise oil,
cinnamon oil, lemon oil, and peppermint spirit.

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

Concerning the sample list of maskers used in the "Stauden-
mayer Test," observe the following:

Anise Oil:

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

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

Cinnamon Oil:

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

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

Lemon Oil:

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

Peppermint:

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

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

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

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

Dephosphorylation

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

Barrett's Predictable Response to the Test

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

You should be able to conjecture why he recommended this.

posted by Atlantic America | Tuesday, January 16, 2007
The Bridge to Part 2

Part 2 can be accessed by clicking on the web address
posted directly below.

http://www.stephenbarrettmd2.blogspot.com

posted by Atlantic America | Tuesday, January 16, 2007