MCS Patients React To Chemicals Only When They Can Be Smelled

On Mar 9, 1:15*pm, Mark Thorson wrote:
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.

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.chemicalsensitivityfounda...bliography.htm

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/...85266/-1/YOUTH

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.

On Mar 9, 1:15*pm, Mark Thorson 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
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.

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?

On Mar 11, 10:41*am, "
wrote:
On Mar 9, 1:15*pm, Mark Thorson 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 WALKINGhttp://tinyurl.com/zk9fk



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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 11, 7:35*pm, Mark Probert wrote:

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.

Institute of Psychiatry

Does that mean that is where Mark S Probert belongs?

On Mar 11, 11:18*pm, "Jan Drew" wrote:
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...

On Mar 12, 1:36*am, Bee wrote:
On Mar 11, 7:35*pm, Mark Probert wrote:

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.

It does exist, as a psychosomatic disorder.