'Fragrance assaults': students douse teacher with 'fragrance-based products'

"FRAGRANCE ASSAULTS" See below.

First this...

MCS symptoms "have no physical origins"?

Pharmaceutical companies make PESTICIDES - "the chemicals most implicated
in causing [multiple chemical sensitivity/MCS]," says Ann McCampbell, MD...

Dr. McCampbell also writes:

"Novartis (formerly Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz) is a pharmaceutical company that
makes and sells the widely used herbicide atrazine.3 This helps explain why
a Ciba-Geigy lobbyist submitted material to a New Mexico legislative
committee in 1996 opposing all legislation related to MCS and declaring that
the symptoms of people with MCS 'have no physical origins.'"
--Ann McCampbell, MD

WHAT'S THIS?

A pharmaceutical company says people with MCS are "mentally ill"?

Dr. McCampbell writes:

"One example of the pharmaceutical industry's direct attempt to present
anti-MCS information at a medical conference was at the 1990 meeting of the
American College of Allergy and Immunology. Sandoz (now Novartis) was
scheduled to sponsor a one-day workshop that characterized people with MCS
as mentally ill.24 This company was a large manufacturer of pesticides and
pharmaceuticals,25 including anti-psychotic, anti-depressant, and sedative
medications.14 Therefore, Sandoz stood to benefit both from pesticides being
exonerated as the cause of MCS and from people with MCS being treated with
psychiatric drugs. As it turned out, people with MCS - outraged by the
workshop - risked their health to protest the event and were able to shut it
down.26 "
http://www.tldp.com/issue/210/mcsundersi.htm
(via Ilena Rosenthal, apparently via Jan Drew)


In addition to sensitivity to pesticides, MCS sufferers are also reportedly
sensitive to "fragrance-based products...


"FRAGRANCE ASSAULTS": STUDENTS DOUSE TEACHER....

Judy Sanderson, a chemically sensitive biology teacher at Culver High School
(Culver City CA), reported having been the victim of "fragrance assaults" by
some of her students on more than 90 occasions from 1993-1997. In November
1997, she won some precedent-setting accommodations after a collective
bargaining agreement was issued by arbitrator, Ronald Hoh (California State
Mediation and Conciliation Service Case # 96-3-740). In this landmark
decision, student pranksters caught dousing the teacher or her classroom
with fragrance-based products will be punished as they would be for any
other physical assault on an instructor. Further, the school was directed to
install oscillating surveillance cameras both inside and outside of Ms.
Sanderson's classroom to deter students from engaging in further assaults. -
Irene Wilkenfeld, Safe Schools.
http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/index.html


FROM THE SAME WEBSITE...

Wife Arrested in Aroma Assault

Originally posted by CNN News, 05/01/2003

STUART, Florida (AP) -- A woman was arrested for dousing herself with
perfume, spraying the house with bug killer and disinfectant, and burning
scented candles in an attempt to seriously injure her chemically sensitive
husband, prosecutors said.

Police charged Lynda Taylor, 36, with aggravated battery Thursday.

David Taylor, 46, is disabled due to allergies that resulted from exposure
to toxic mold and hazardous chemicals as a construction worker, his doctors
say. That exposure netted him $150,000 in a recent workers compensation
settlement.

The fragrant incident occurred April 4 during a conversation the couple were
having about separating after three years of marriage.

Taylor told investigators that his wife became enraged when he refused to
give her half of his settlement.

"Lynda came in the kitchen wearing perfume and applied some to [her
daughter]. Then [she] went around the house spraying Lysol and even sprayed
some in my face," David Taylor wrote in his complaint.

Taylor's physician provided investigators with a letter confirming he
suffers from extreme chemical sensitivity, "including all fragrances, air
fresheners and other volatile chemicals," and that his wife was aware of it.

Lynda Taylor's attorney, Karen Steger, said the charge was a misuse of the
criminal justice system.

"The guy's a faker," she said. "He just wants to gain an advantage in the
divorce case."

David Taylor's lawyer, Cynthia Grooms Marvin, said she could not talk about
the case.
http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/assault.html


HERE'S AN INTERESTING THOUGHT...

Pharmaceutical companies make obstetric drugs - general and epidural
anesthetics - and oxytocin and Cytotec...

Pharmaceutical companies are making lots of extra money because OBs are
routinely closing birth canals up to 30%.

Pharmaceutical companies would work to KEEP OBs routinely closing birth
canals up to 30% - if profit were the only motive.

I hope pharmaceutical companies aren't working to keep OBs routinely closing
birth canals up to 30%...

I hope pharmaceutical companies help STOP OBs from closing birth canals.

See the postscript.

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


PS PREGNANT WOMEN: OBs are knowingly closing birth canals up to 30%.

It is easy to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up
to 30% - just roll onto your side as you push your baby out.

BUT BEWA Some OBs and CNMwives will let you "try" alternative delivery
positions but they will move you back to semisitting or dorsal (close your
birth canal) for the actual delivery.

Why roll onto your side as you push your baby out? Why allow your birth
canal to open the "extra" up to 30%?

With birth canals senselessly closed up to 30% (see ACOG birth crime video,
below), MD-obstetricians
are violently pushing (with oxytocin and Cytotec) and gruesomely pulling
(with hand, forceps, vacuums).

Sometimes MD-obstetricians pull so hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny
spinal cords.

Some babies die, some get paralyzed, most "only" have their spines
gruesomely wrenched.

ALL spinal manipulation is gruesome with the birth canal closed up to 30%.

SOME INTERESTING HISTORY...

In 1911, the original author of Williams Obstetrics published a clinical
demonstration that OBs are denying babies massive amounts of pelvic outlet
area.

In 1915, Thoms repeated the clinical demonstration.

In 1957, Borell and Fernstrom verified radiographically that OBs are denying
babies massive amounts of pelvic outlet area.

In 1969, Russell used Borell and Fernstrom's figures when he wrote:

"[T]he outlet increases with moulding by approximately 20-30 per cent."
[Russell JGB. Moulding of the pelvic outlet. J Obstet Gynaec Brit Cwlth
1969;76:817-20.]

In 1973, Ohlsén called attention to the fact that the authors of Williams
Obstetrics were saying that the pelvic diameters don't change at delivery.
(This is particularly astonishing since, as noted above, the original author
of Williams Obstetrics had published clinical evidence of massive change in
pelvic diameters.)

Like Russell, Ohlsén used information from Borell and Fernstrom's 1957
intrapartum x-rays to demonstrate that the pelvic diameters do change.

In 1992, I myself published a simple fact-based paper regarding medicine's
current favorite way of closing the birth canal: Semisitting delivery.
http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html

Before that, I persuaded the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists (ACOG) to look into the matter of OBs knowingly closing birth
canals.

ACOG responded by citing the fact that ACOG fellows use McRoberts maneuver
to allow birth canals to open maximally when shoulders get stuck - an
obvious admission that OBs are routinely closing birth canals.

ACOG actually said (in writing) - in effect - that it is "common knowledge"
that ACOG fellows close birth canals.

In 1995, ACOG offered VIDEO evidence that OBs are closing birth canals:
ACOG's shoulder dystocia video purports to show OBs how to allow birth
canals to open maximally when shoulders get stuck (again - this is an
obvious admission that OBs are routinely closing birth canals).

Anyone who takes the time to learn the simple sacroiliac biomechanics
(published in the medical literature since early last century; see above)
can authenticate the fact that the ACOG shoulder dystocia video shows OBs
how to KEEP birth canals closed when babies' shoulders get stuck.

See ACOG birth crime video evidence
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2300


MORE INTERESTING OB HISTORY...

(Keep in mind: When women are lying on their backs or semisitting they are
lying/sitting on their sacral tips - not allowing backward movement of the
sacral tip...)

In 1913, Harvard obstetrician/anthropologist Emmons noted:

"[M]oving backward of the tip of the sacrum...enlarges the available space
not merely directly in proportion to the distance backward, but more nearly
by the square of that distance." [Emmons, AB. A study of the variations in
the female pelvis, based on observations made on 217 specimens of the
American Indian squaw. Biometrika 1913; 9:34-47.]

Also noteworthy...

In 1957, when Eastman, Jones and Jones reviewed Borell and Fernström (1957),
they repeated Borell and Fernström's fiction that Thoms (Am J Obstet 1915)
"measured the sagittal outlet diameter on 500 pregnant women...and found
that in 80 per cent it increased by 1.0 cm or more with change from the
dorsal recumbent to the lithotomy position."

In fact, Thoms (1915) first measured women "in the ordinary obstetric
posture and immediately afterward in the modified Sims' position."

Of this "modified Sims' position," Thoms (1915) wrote, "It may also be
referred to as the lateral posture."

Borell and Fernström (1957) had conveniently attributed to the "lithotomy"
position increases in pelvic outlet diameter that should have been
attributed to the the lateral "modified Sims'" position.

In his series of 500 outlet measurements, Thoms (1915) found one woman in
whom the sagittal outlet diameter increased 3.5 cm; 10 women in whom the
diameter increased 3.0 cm; 29 in whom the diameter increased 2.5 cm, 89 in
whom the diameter increased 2.0 cm, and 121 in whom the sagittal diameter
increased 1.5 cm, etc.

Eastman, Jones and Jones (1957) bizarrely concluded their review of Borell
and Fernstrom [1957] with the erroneous claim that lithotomy gives women
"most of the advantage in outlet diameter":

"From a practical viewpoint, since most women in the United States are
delivered in the lithotomy position, we are routinely giving our patients
most of the advantage in outlet diameter provided by this position; but in
cases of outlet and midpelvic contraction it may occasionally be helpful to
know - for forceps, let us say - that the extreme lithotomy position gives
the maximum anteroposterior diameter to the outlet."

Lithotomy DENIES outlet diameter...

So does American medicine's current favorite way to close the birth canal -
semisitting.

PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES...

It makes NO sense for OBs to close birth canals - and even less sense for
them to chemically whip the uterus with oxytocin and Cytotec with the birth
canal closed.

Please inform women that OBs are knowingly closing birth canals and that it
is easy for them to allow their birth canals to open the "extra" up to 30%.

Please also help people with multiple chemical sensitivity/MCS.

Thanks,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


Copied to:

Ann McCampbell, MD
Chair, MCS Task Force of NM
13 Herrada Rd
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 USA
505-466-3622


This post will be archived for global access within 24 hours in the Google
usenet archive. Search http://groups.google.com for "'Fragrance assaults':
students douse teacher with 'fragrance-based products'"

COULD OBSTETRICS CAUSE MCS?

MCS = Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (see recent PubMed abstracts below)

Ann McCampbell, MD reported that pharmaceutical companies say that MCS
symptoms "have no physical origins" and that MCS patients are "mentally ill"
(see quote below)...

I quoted Dr. McCampbell...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2828

ercury (Andrew J. Kingoff?) replied:

"Actually, physical and sexual abuse seem to be highly correlated with
MCS....Thus, the rest of your post is duly snipped."

I remark...

Speaking of things highly correlated with physical and sexual abuse...

Perhaps physical and sexual abuse by modern "scientific" obstetricians is
causing some cases of MCS?

After all, OBs are knowingly closing vaginas/birth canals up to 30% then
SLICING
VAGINAS ("episiotomy") - surgically fraudulently inferring they are doing
everything to open birth canals.

OBs are also slicing ABDOMENS ("c-section") surgically fraudulently
inferring they have DONE everything to open birth canals...

Most surgical behaviors in modern "scientific" obstetrics ARE physical and
sexual abuse. (In Calif. unnecessary
"penetration of a genital orifice" is sexual assault - so unnecessary
SLICING of a genital
orifice is perhaps "aggravated" sexual assault.)

If "scientific" OBSTETRIC physical and sexual abuse are ever found to be
highly correlated with MCS, it may be because some women (and their babies)
don't tolerate
obstetric CHEMICALS...

Interestingly, there is a psychiatrist who offers data suggesting an
association between drugs used in obstetrics and later drug abuse...

Also interestingly, Suzuki et al.[2004] report:

"...about 60% of MCS patients have difficulty in using medicinal drugs and
that the difficulties are more likely to occur in women...The results
indicated that lidocaine is likely to be unusable by MCS patients...Many
patients...had a past history of allergy."

What if obstetric chemicals cross the placenta and create allergies?

Regardless whether any theories pan out...

Until we KNOW...

I don't think pharmaceutical companies should be suggesting (as reported by
Ann McCampbell, MD) that MCS patients are "mentally ill," as in,

"One example of the pharmaceutical industry's direct attempt to present
anti-MCS information at a medical conference was at the 1990 meeting of the
American College of Allergy and Immunology. Sandoz (now Novartis) was
scheduled to sponsor a one-day workshop that characterized people with MCS
as mentally ill.24 This company was a large manufacturer of pesticides and
pharmaceuticals,25 including anti-psychotic, anti-depressant, and sedative
medications.14 Therefore, Sandoz stood to benefit both from pesticides being
exonerated as the cause of MCS and from people with MCS being treated with
psychiatric drugs. As it turned out, people with MCS - outraged by the
workshop - risked their health to protest the event and were able to shut it
down.26 "
http://www.tldp.com/issue/210/mcsundersi.htm
(via Ilena Rosenthal, apparently via Jan Drew)

See 'Fragrance assaults': students douse teacher with
'fragrance-based products'
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2828

Thanks for reading,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


PS Some recent MCS abstracts...

Occup Med (Lond). 2004 Sep;54(6):408-18. Epub 2004 Sep 03.

Case-control study of multiple chemical sensitivity, comparing haematology,
biochemistry, vitamins and serum volatile organic compound measures.

Baines CJ, McKeown-Eyssen GE, Riley N, Cole DE, Marshall L, Loescher B,
Jazmaji V.

University of Toronto, 12 Queen's Park Crescent W, Room 401C, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada M5S 1A8.

BACKGROUND: Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), although poorly understood,
is associated with considerable morbidity. AIM: To investigate potential
biological mechanisms underlying MCS in a case-control study. METHODS: Two
hundred and twenty-three MCS cases and 194 controls (urban females, aged
30-64 years) fulfilled reproducible eligibility criteria with discriminant
validity. Routine laboratory results and serum levels of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) were compared. Dose-response relationships, a criterion for
causality, were examined linking exposures to likelihood of case status.
RESULTS: Routine laboratory investigations revealed clinically unimportant
case-control differences in means. Confounder-adjusted odds ratios (OR)
showed MCS was negatively associated with lymphocyte count and total plasma
homocysteine, positively associated with mean cell haemoglobin
concentration, alanine aminotransferase and serum vitamin B6, and not
associated with thyroid stimulating hormone, folate or serum vitamin B12.
More cases than controls had detectable serum chloroform (P = 0.001) with
the OR for detectability 2.78 (95% confidence interval = 1.73-4.48, P
0.001). Chloroform levels were higher in cases. However, cases had
significantly lower means of detectable serum levels of ethylbenzene,
m&p-xylene, 3-methylpentane and hexane, and means of all serum levels of
1,3,5- and 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene, 2- and 3-methylpentane, and m&p-xylene.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are inconsistent with proposals that MCS is
associated with vitamin deficiency or thyroid dysfunction, but the
association of lower lymphocyte counts with an increased likelihood of MCS
is consistent with theories of immune dysfunction in MCS. Whether avoidance
of exposures or different metabolic pathways in cases explain the observed
lower VOC levels or the higher chloroform levels should be investigated.

I'll copy Baines et al. via



Yakugaku Zasshi. 2004 Aug;124(8):561-70. PubMed abstract


[The problems of multiple-chemical sensitivity patients in using medicinal
drugs]

[Article in Japanese]

Suzuki J, Nikko H, Kaiho F, Yamaguchi K, Wada H, Suzuki M.

Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tokyo University of Science, Yamazaki,
Noda, Japan.

Multiple-chemical sensitivity (MCS) patients are presumed to be compelled to
lead inconvenient and difficult lives, because unpleasant and multiorgan
symptoms are caused by very small amounts of various chemicals in the living
environment. Therefore we conducted a questionnaire survey of MCS patients
who are members of support groups to elucidate the problems of MCS patients
in using medicinal drugs. In this report, we selected 205 persons who stated
that they had been "diagnosed with MCS by a physician" or "a physician
suspected a diagnosis of MCS" on the questionnaire as the reason they judged
themselves to have MCS. The questionnaire results showed that about 60% of
MCS patients have difficulty in using medicinal drugs and that the
difficulties are more likely to occur in women, in people 40-59 years old,
and in patients who developed MCS in reaction to pesticides or medicinal
drugs. The prescribed drugs and OTC drugs noted as usable or unusable by
patients in the questionnaire were analyzed from the viewpoint of their
medicinal constituents. The results indicated that lidocaine is likely to be
unusable by MCS patients. In addition, caffeine, aspirin, chlorphenylamine
maleate, minocycline hydrochloride, levofloxacin, etc. were also likely to
be unusable by MCS patients. Many patients who recorded drugs containing the
above-mentioned remedies as unusable had a past history of allergy,
suggesting that allergy is involved in the difficulties of MCS patients in
using medicinal drugs.


I'll copy Suzuki et al. via


Am J Public Health. 2004 May;94(5):746-7. PubMed abstract


Prevalence of multiple chemical sensitivities: a population-based study in
the southeastern United States.

Caress SM, Steinemann AC.

State University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA 30118, USA.


We examined the prevalence of multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS), a
hypersensitivity to common chemical substances. We used a randomly selected
sample of 1582 respondents from the Atlanta, Ga, standard metropolitan
statistical area. We found that 12.6% of our sample reported the
hypersensitivity and that, while the hypersensitivity is more common in
women, it is experienced by both men and women of a variety of ages and
educational levels. Our prevalence for MCS is similar to that (15.9%) found
by the California Department of Health Services in California and suggests
that the national prevalence may be similar.

I'll copy Caress and Steinemann via


Environ Health Perspect. 2004 Apr;112(5):A266-7. PubMed abstract


Corresondence: The Simple Truth about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

Pall ML.

Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.

Renee Twombly's news article "The Simple Truth about MCS" (Twombly 2003)
ignores the plausible physiologic mechanism (described in the same issue of
EHP) that answers each of the major questions about multiple chemical
sensitivity (MCS) (Pall 2003). Given the many puzzling features of MCS and
the previous claims that there cannot be a plausible physiologic mechanism
to explain it, the finding of a physiologic mechanism (Pall 2002, 2003; Pall
and Satterlee 2001) is a landmark in our understanding of this illness.



Environ Health Perspect. 2004 Apr;112(5):A267. PubMed abstract


Correspondence: multiple chemical sensitivity: response to pall.

Tart KT.

News Editor, EHP, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Renee Twombly's news article (Twombly 2003) was not intended to be a
comprehensive discussion of multiple chemical sensitivity. Rather, as per
the standing format of the Science Selections portion of EHP, Twombly was
assigned to summarize the findings of a particular research article in the
same issue (Gibson 2003). It is beyond the scope of Science Selections
articles to "connect the most important dots" of whatever research topic
they summarize, and Twombly's failure to do so in her article in no way
reflects upon her.

END PubMed abstracts

As I said in "Fragrance assaults" (URL above):

PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES...

It makes NO sense for OBs to close birth canals - and even less sense for
them to chemically whip the uterus with oxytocin and Cytotec with the birth
canal closed.

Please inform women that OBs are knowingly closing birth canals and that it
is easy for them to allow their birth canals to open the "extra" up to 30%.

Please also help people with multiple chemical sensitivity/MCS.

Thanks,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


Copied to:

Ann McCampbell, MD
Chair, MCS Task Force of NM
13 Herrada Rd
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 USA
505-466-3622


This post will be archived for global access within 24 hours in the Google
usenet archive. Search http://groups.google.com for "Could obstetrics cause
MCS?"