Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
23 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Chemical Sensitivity Has Already Been Objectively Identified by Medical Science , April 13, 2006
Mainstream medical science has already identified numerous chemicals as Sensitizers, while ones it has identified as Irritants. Case-specific & medically accepted forms of Chemical Sensitivity include Chemical Worker's Lung (a subset of Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis), Irritant-induced Asthma, Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, Irritant Rhinitis, Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction, and Airborne Irritant Contact Dermatitis.
Chemical-specific forms include Formaldehyde Sensitivity, Glutaraldehyde Sensitivity, Cinnamic Aldehyde Sensitivity, Oil of Turpentine Allergy, Methyltetrahydrophthalic Anhydride Allergy, IgE-mediated Triethanolamine Sensitivity, Ammonium Persulfate Sensitivity, Methacrylate Sensitivity, Plicatic Acid (Red Cedar) Sensitivity, Sulfite Hypersensitivity, and numerous other ones.
Nontoxic/ambient benzene exposure has resulted in cases of hematotoxicity, while a number of chemicals, at nontoxic levels, have triggered anaphylaxis.
Objective medical findings in the chemically sensitive have included turbinate hypertrophy, nasal & laryngeal erythema, objective skin whealing resulting from skin testing, glandular hyperplasia, paradoxical adduction of the true vocal cords, urticaria, bronchial hyperresponsiveness in inhalation challenge testing, and other ones.
The AMA, in Report 4 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (A-98), has acknowledged as asthma triggers, "volatile organic compounds from carpeting, cabinetry, plywood, particle board, and fumes from household cleaning products", among other ones. The AAAAI has acknowledged "chemicals in the air", "household cleansers", and "paints or varnishes" as asthma triggers, among other ones. And the American Lung Association included in its list of asthma triggers "room deodorizers, cleaning chemicals, paints," and "hair spray".
Any literature on chemical sensitivity that does not include mention of these facts is, at the very least, an irresponsibly produced piece of literature. Such literautre can have an extremely deceptive effect.
Furthermore, the reading public has the right to know that Stephen Barrett, M.D. was never board certified at anything at any time in his life, being that he failed his board exams. He has no experience as a biochemist, no experience as a medical technologist, and no experience as a practitioner in any form of internal, dental, or dermatological medicine. In addition, Ronald Gots' association with the terms "insurance," "misrepresentation," and even "completely bogus operation" resulted from a now-defunct paper review company that he founded, in its services for the State Farm Insurance Company, along with an Oregon court case. The NBC television network was the entity which placed that matter in the public forum. And it did so years ago.
|
|
|
33 of 39 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Just the facts, please!, November 5, 2003
I find it very interesting that those who read the book and gave it a positive review could ignore the outright arrogance of the authors given that Gots isn't even in the field (see the reviews below). It reads like a child having a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. Speaking from a scientific background, I feel that it is necessary to look at both sides of the argument provided they are presented in a factual manner. The emotions conveyed in this book have without a doubt elicited the emotional responses from the readers.
I find it very disturbing that nowhere in this book does it mention that people are not designed to withstand chemical exposure. Chemicals are not a part of the natural environment! When unnatural elements are introduced into our environment, they cause problems. We've all seen it before. Remember when DDT was supposed to be "good for us"?
In short, I'll just say that if you are looking for a book to present information on MCS to you in a direct, un-tampered way, this book is not for you.
|
|
|
42 of 53 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Chemical industries attempt to silence chemically injured, March 14, 2003
By A Customer
Many large chemical companies such as DowElanco, Monsanto, Procter and Gamble, the Cosmetic Toiletries and Fragrances Association, and other companies and trade associations involved in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and other chemicals, each pay $10,000 per year to keep the Environmental Sensitivities Research Institute(ESRI) going. The head of ESRI is Dr. Ronald Gots, who also runs something called the National Medical Advisory Group, which provides expert witnesses to defend the chemical corporations in tort lawsuits. Dr. Gots is a pharmacologist, not a toxicologist, with no formal training or certification in toxicology. Dr. Gots has not treated or seen patients of his own for 20 years and has never been the physician for a chemically sensitive person. He practiced medicine for only a few years before becoming a full time expert witness and consultant for the chemical industry and other corporations, and many times has testified against MCS patients. It is my understanding that Ronald Gots has also been charged with insurance fraud. I wouldn't be surprised if these large giant chemical companies are paying Dr. Gots for writing this book so they can keep on polluting the planet and causing diseases. More than 2 billion people have cancer alone not to mention the 50 plus autoimmune diseases such as diabetes, MS, Lupus etc. that are being linked to chemicals in the environment. What does that tell us about what the chemical industry is doing??
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
