Rea and Moss
Who Should Help the Chemically Ill?



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

William J. Rea, environmental physician par excellence, says if you
are environmentally ill or have the Gulf War syndrome, see a
physician who knows about chemical illness. When I asked about
toxicologists, Rea says the equivalent of "not a good idea."

And on the other side, is James I. Moss, a research toxicologist and
a man of principles who has devoted himself to learning how chemical
interactions facilitate harm in animals. Moss says: "It will be
toxicologists who nail down the `cause and effect' mechanisms of
environmental illness that will give credibility that seems necessary
to move governments to clean up the messes."

Well, folks, science is not all cut and dried. The "scientific
method" is more "mythic" than "real" in the sense that it is
idealized in textbooks and journals. Albert Einstein recognized this
when he said to ask physicists what they do. They hardly do what they
are painted to do in the lore and literature. And those who study
scientific literature know that the linear way in which research is
written up is not the way it is actually conducted. So much for that.

It helps me to think of a differentiation between "mainstream
science" and "knowledge based on scientific principles." I am going
to take a detour to make a point. Earlier this year, Blazing Tattles
published a three part series on aspartame, written by Mark Gold.
There was so much literature on aspartame's harmful effects, that I
ran the article over three issues. Yet, when I posted a remark in
passing about aspartame's harmful effects to a scientific newsgroup
on Internet (Usenet), a fellow replied he did a "Medline" search and
came up with nothing to support my contention. People who seek
references to scientific articles in the field of medicine use
Medline as a computer database which they can search. So why is there
this big discrepancy between the Medline "science" of aspartame (or
environmental illness) versus the reality of existing knowledge based
on scientific principles?

That is because a peer review board of editors decides what is
publication-worthy for scholarly journals. Articles which they deem
to be "crackpotism" are of course rejected out of hand. But what
about brilliant articles which do not fit the dominant scientific
model or exemplar of that particular journal or discipline? Well,
they may be perceived as crackpotism or simply unworthy of that
publication. So innovative work is rejected along with value-less
work. Sometimes the reviewers don't know the difference. And in some
cases, the reviewers have their research contracts with
pharmaceutical, food, chemical, tobacco, or packaging companies to
consider, sorry to say.

In the field of medicine, the situation becomes more complex, as
today it often costs astronomical amounts of money to sponsor
research and who has this money to pay? -- Often it is the same
people who advertiser their products in the medical journals. Alan S.
Levin, M.D., went on record in Blazing Tattles to say the medical
journals are no more than trade publications (as opposed to scholarly
publications). I am beginning to wonder, when special interest
medical groups, such as the Arthritis Foundation, now sell
pharmaceutical products to raise money for itself!

In the case of aspartame, the people who write about its negative
effect find their work more readily published by private presses,
often as books. These are not "peer reviewed" in the academic sense,
but they are reviewed by peers in alternative practice who can judge
the scientific validity, reliability, and trustworthiness of the
material. You won't find these references popping up on Medline.

In the case of environmental medicine versus toxicology, I think you
have a distinction between practice and research, but not between
science and non-science. Physicians have traditionally been healers,
tenders of the sick. Physicians used to learn their practice by
apprenticing to a practicing physician. The student- physician would
travel around with the Master physician on house calls and hospital
visits. They learned to recognize illness and they learned to
prescribe for it. However, the science of environmental medicine, of
those who treat the chemically ill, uses the same methods of science
as do other scientists.

Without becoming overly technical, let me say that the environmental
doctor or researcher sees cause and effect as do toxicologists. But
their techniques differ.

The toxicologist introduces chemicals into tissue or animals and
studies the effects in a laboratory. Their units of analysis may be
tissues, cells, or they may be creatures used in the laboratory. The
work may or may not be based on rigorous theory which predicts ahead
of time the results.

The environmental physician can do the same thing, but normally is
dealing with patients or other humans, and does not wish to harm them
by knowingly introducing toxic elements into their lives. However, in
certain kinds of allergy testing, this very thing happens. A chemical
is introduced into the subject, through inhalation, sublingual drops,
or intradermal testing. Any reactions of the patient are observed
which may consist of verbal reports of the patient of internal
changes perceived (e.g., lungs burning), swelling at the site of
injection (wheals), or observations the laboratory people make either
in terms of modification of behavior (such as agitation or weeping)
or physical stigmata such as edema or pallor, or in terms of changes
of body temperature, pulse, and the like.

Environmental physicians also observe what happens when chemicals are
taken out of the patients' lives. This is done either in special
units over which there is almost total control, or the patients
modify their own lifestyles to get toxic products, materials, foods,
and so forth out of their lives. Improvements can be observed in the
health of the patients.

One does not need to have a knowledge of the mechanisms in order to
help heal the sick. One needs to know what works. Aspirin has been
used for a very long time in modern society without knowing the
mechanism(s) by which it works. It was known to reduce pain and
fevers. (It was also known to do other things as well, such as effect
clotting time and swellings.)

So who should the chemically ill consult if they want to get healthy?
I would see anyone who can help me achieve my goals. My greatest
chance of hitting on target has come from seeing health workers who
are oriented to environmental medicine, although it is no guarantee.
It just increased the probability of getting help. My advice: Keep
trying.

http://www.sumeria.net/health/reamoss.html