Published research shows Multiple Chemical Sensitivity caused by toxic chemical exposure
Posted on Oct 18, 2009 by Susie Collins in Blog, MCS, Research, Susie Collins
Breakthrough study on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity shows MCS is an epidemic caused by toxic chemicals; peer-reviewed paper is published in prestigious toxicology reference work.
A major paper on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity by Professor Martin L. Pall (at left) is to be published Oct. 23 as chapter 92 in a prestigious reference work for professional toxicologists, General and Applied Toxicology, 3rd Edition (2009, John Wiley & Sons). Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) is also known as chemical sensitivity, chemical intolerance, and toxicant-induced loss of tolerance, with this last name emphasizing the role of chemicals in initiating cases of this disease. Pall’s paper, entitled “Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: Toxicological Questions and Mechanisms,” establishes five important facts about MCS:
1. MCS is a stunningly common disease, even more common than diabetes. This has been shown in a series of nine epidemiological studies from the United States and one study each from Canada, Germany, Sweden and Denmark. In the U.S., approximately 3.5% of the population is affected by severe MCS, with much larger numbers, at least 12% of the population, being moderately affected. MCS is, therefore, a very large international disease epidemic with major implications in terms of public health.
2. MCS is caused by toxic chemical exposure. Cases of MCS are initiated by exposure to seven classes of chemicals. These include three classes of pesticides and the very large class of organic solvents and related compounds. In addition, published studies implicate mercury, hydrogen sulfide and carbon monoxide as initiators. All seven of these classes of chemicals have been shown in animal studies to produce a common response in the body, excessive activity of a receptor in the body known as the NMDA receptor. Furthermore animal studies have demonstrated that chemicals belonging to each of these seven classes can have their toxic responses greatly lowered by using drugs that lower this NMDA response. Because excessive NMDA activity is implicated in MCS from other studies, we now have a compelling common response that explains how such diverse chemicals can produce the disease that we call MCS.
3. The role of chemicals acting as toxicants in MCS has been confirmed by genetic studies. Four such studies have shown that genes that determine the rate of metabolism of chemicals otherwise implicated in MCS, influence susceptibility to becoming ill with MCS. These four studies have been published by three research groups in three countries, the U.S., Canada and Germany, have collectively implicated six genes in determining susceptibility to MCS. Each of these six genes has a role in determining the rate of metabolism of MCS-related chemicals. The German studies by Schnakenberg and colleagues are particularly convincing on this because of the extremely high level of statistical significance of their studies implicating four of these six genes. There is only one interpretation for the role of these six genes in determining susceptiblity to MCS. It is that chemicals act as toxicants in initiating cases of MCS and that metabolizing these chemicals into forms that are either less or more active in such initiation, influences therefore, the probability that a person will become ill with MCS. It is clear, therefore, that MCS is a toxicological phenomenon, with cases being caused by the toxic response to chemical exposure.
4. We have, a detailed and generally well supported mechanism for MCS. This mechanism explains both the high level chemical sensitivity that is the most characteristic symptom of MCS, as well as many other symptoms and signs of this disease, can be generated. This mechanism is centered on a biochemical vicious cycle, known as the NO/ONOO- cycle, which interacts with other mechanisms previously implicated in MCS, notably neural sensitization and neurogenic inflammation. These act locally, in various tissues of the body, to generate local sensitivity in regions of the brain and in peripheral tissues including lungs, upper respiratory tract and regions of the skin and the GI tract. Because of this local nature, different MCS patients differ from one another in their sensitivity symptoms, because the tissues impacted differ from one patient to another. In addition to the evidence discussed above, this general mechanism is supported by various physiological changes found in MCS and in related illnesses, by studies of MCS animal models, by objectively measurable responses of MCS patients to low level chemical exposure and by therapeutic responses reported for MCS and related illnesses.
5. For over 20 years, some have falsely argued that MCS is a psychogenic disease, being generated in their view by some ill defined psychological mechanism. However this view is completely incompatible with all of the evidence discussed earlier in this release. While such incompatibility is more than sufficient reason to reject these psychogenic claims, the MCS toxicology paper lists eight additional serious flaws in the psychogenic arguments. There is a long history of false psychogenic claims in medicine, where such diseases as asthma, autism, Parkinson’s disease, ulcers, multiple sclerosis, lupus, interstitial cystitis, migraine and ulcerative colitis have been claimed to be generated by a psychological mechanism. The 2005 Nobel prize in physiology and medicine was give to Drs. Robin Warren and Barry Marshall for showing that ulcers are caused by a bacterial infection, and are not of psychogenic origin. It is clear, now, that MCS is physiological disease initiated by toxic chemical exposure that has been falsely claimed to be psychogenic.
Martin L. Pall is Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Science at Washington State University.
He is located on Pacific time in the U.S. and can be contacted at: 503-232-3883 and at martin_pall@wsu.edu. His web site is: thetenthparadigm.org
###
This post is translated into Spanish at Traducido para Plataforma para la Fibromialgia, Síndrome de Fatiga Crónica y SSQM, Reivindicación de Derechos por Cathy van Riel Octubre 2009.
Link to an extended excerpt from Pall’s book Explaining “Unexplained Illnesses.”
RELATED POSTS:
Research shows toxic chemicals initiate Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity now recognized as a toxicological phenomenon
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity researcher launches website
If you enjoyed this post, please read these related stories:
- Genetic evidence and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Guest post by Martin L. Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington...
- Study suggests neurogenic origin of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Study shows neurocognitive function in people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity worsens after toxic chemical exposure,...
- Cases of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in the news Denver Post: If formal recognition ever comes for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, the national economic implications...
- Woman exposed to toxic mold develops Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Reporter misses the whole problem of toxic chemicals, calls illness “bizarre.”...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.














Ruth
18. Oct, 2009
I would vote for a Nobel Peace Prize for this great man!!! He has certainly
earned it.
Susie Collins
18. Oct, 2009
Aloha Ruth, Martin Pall’s work truly is worthy of such prestigious acclaim!
Alena
19. Oct, 2009
So exciting:-)))fantastisk.
Thanks Susie
Susie Collins
19. Oct, 2009
Yes Alena, it really is! Very exciting, and an important step toward bringing universal understanding and recognition of MCS as a toxicological illness.
Kate
21. Oct, 2009
This is fantastic info, thank you for posting!!
Amy and Lucy
24. Nov, 2009
I sure hope this is considerd as “mainstream”, or else I won’t get the help and medical care I need. I have been denied treatment for MCS due to it not being mainstream enough for the largest insurer of California.
Thank you Dr. Pall
Thanks for listening and hearing all of us Canaries
Donovan Banerjee
26. Nov, 2009
I am so thrilled to see this research. Thank you Dr. Pall! This is so important to the medical community and MCS sufferers.
Susie Collins
27. Nov, 2009
Aloha Kate, Amy and Donovan, Thanks much for your comments! I think this post is some of the most important information on the whole website.
anne
10. Dec, 2009
I have RADs and this chemical sensitivity.
The asthma, I have treatment for – but it’s hard to get doctors to recognize the high senstivity from this perspective. heck – it’s just plain hard to describe.
I don’t have see what’s going on. I can walk into an empty room and know it.
Anyone else get the trigger in the head thing? You get agitated right away and you get feel what it does. This is a good research. We needed someone to pay attention that didn’t down play what others have tried to do.
Susie Collins
10. Dec, 2009
Aloha Anne, thanks much for your comment, very well said. Yes many of us with MCS get the “trigger in the head thing.” Martin Pall’s work is a major contribution to the body of peer reviewed literature on MCS, but in addition to that, it further validates this illness for those of us who have it.
R.
09. May, 2010
Don’t be so disingenuous.
Pall’s paper is not a ‘study’ in of itself, nor is it any sort of peer-reviewed research.
Susie Collins
10. May, 2010
Pall’s paper is a review of the literature and cites some 400 peer reviewed studies, including animal studies, which show MCS is a physiological disease. Pall’s work has been published as chapter 92 in the international peer-reviewed reference work for professional toxicologists, General and Applied Toxicology, 3rd Edition (2009, John Wiley & Sons).
Thus, Pall’s work is considered a peer-reviewed study, and one with some heft; publication in an international reference manual such as the General and Applied Toxicology, 3rd Edition is far more prestigious and carries more weight than publication in a single journal.
International reference works such as this reflect the current science in any given field and in this case, is what every professional toxicologist uses to learn about the current research on poisons and poisoning.
Harry
11. Jun, 2010
R, I think you will find the Review by Dr Pall is a rigorous academic work of some authority.
This is what General and Applied Toxicology, 6 Volume Set, 3rd Edition says of itself…
” Encompassing 150 articles written by leading scientists in the field, the third edition of General and Applied Toxicology provides a comprehensive and in-depth review of the basic science of toxicology, its specializations, and the application of toxicological knowledge.
This new edition reflects developments within the field that have taken place since the second edition was published in 1999. These include:
* New information developed in the areas of both the fundamental and applied aspects of toxicology
* Considerable increase in the development of fundamental information and its applications, refinement of technical methods, advances in mechanistic toxicology, and greater interest in areas of toxicology previously regarded as of limited scope
* Changing approaches to methodological, interpretative, regulatory, and ethical aspects of basic and applied toxicology
General and Applied Toxicology, 3rd Edition is the first port of call for academic researchers, industrial researchers, regulatory professionals, and advanced students looking for timely and authoritative information in the field. Due to the increase in public and media interest in exposure to toxic substances, this provides an indispensable general reference source for general physicians, lawyers, law enforcement agencies, information resource facilities, and members of the general public.”
Harry
11. Jun, 2010
More specifically, if one looks up the editorial rules and practices for General and Applied Toxicology, then one will read that the articles are indeed peer reviewed.
So, your contention is quite incorrect, the work is indeed peer reviewed.