PubTransformer

A site to transform Pubmed publications into these bibliographic reference formats: ADS, BibTeX, EndNote, ISI used by the Web of Knowledge, RIS, MEDLINE, Microsoft's Word 2007 XML.

History of chemical sensitivity and diagnosis.

Abstract Histories of mold, pollen, dust, food, chemicals, and electromagnetic field (EMF) sensitivities are the major categories of triggers for chemical sensitivity. They are tied together by the coherence phenomenon, where each has its own frequencies and identifiable EMF; therefore, they can be correlated. The diagnosis of chemical sensitivity can be done accurately in a less-polluted, controlled environment, as was done in these studies. The principles of diagnosis and treatment depend on total environmental and total body pollutant loads, masking or adaptation, bipolarity of response, and biochemical individuality, among others. These principles make less-polluted, controlled conditions necessary. The clinician has to use less-polluted water and organic food with individual challenges for testing, including dust, mold, pesticide, natural gas, formaldehyde, particulates, and EMF testing, which needs to be performed in less-polluted copper-screened rooms. The challenge tests for proof of chemical sensitivity include inhaled toxics within a clean booth that is chemical- and particulate-free at ambient doses in parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb). Individual foods, both organic and commercial (that are contaminated with herbicides and pesticides), are used orally. Water testing and intradermal testing are performed in a less-polluted, controlled environment. These include specific dose injections of molds, dust, and pollen that are preservative-free, individual organic foods, and individual chemicals, i.e. methane, ethane, propane, butane, hexane, formaldehyde, ethanol, car exhaust, jet fuel exhaust, and prosthetic implants (metal plates, pacemakers, mesh, etc.). Normal saline is used as a placebo. EMF testing is performed in a copper-screened room using a frequency generator. In our experience, 80% of the EMF-sensitive patients had chemical sensitivity when studied under less-polluted conditions for particulates, controlled natural gas, pesticides, and chemicals like formaldehyde.
PMID
Related Publications

Guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases: S2k Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Society for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the Austrian Society for Allergy and Immunology (?GAI), the Swiss Society for Allergy and Immunology (SGAI), the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German Society of Oto- Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC), the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), the Society for Pediatric Pneumology (GPP), the German Respiratory Society (DGP), the German Association of ENT Surgeons (BV-HNO), the Professional Federation of Paediatricians and Youth Doctors (BVKJ), the Federal Association of Pulmonologists (BDP) and the German Dermatologists Association (BVDD).

Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials.

Intradermal testing for food and chemical sensitivities: a double-blind controlled study.

Confirmation of chemical sensitivity by means of double-blind inhalant challenge of toxic volatile chemicals.

Terpenes and terpenoids in chemical sensitivity.

Authors

Mayor MeshTerms
Keywords
Journal Title reviews on environmental health
Publication Year Start
%A Rea, William J.
%T History of chemical sensitivity and diagnosis.
%J Reviews on environmental health
%D 07/2016
%M ENG
%B Histories of mold, pollen, dust, food, chemicals, and electromagnetic field (EMF) sensitivities are the major categories of triggers for chemical sensitivity. They are tied together by the coherence phenomenon, where each has its own frequencies and identifiable EMF; therefore, they can be correlated. The diagnosis of chemical sensitivity can be done accurately in a less-polluted, controlled environment, as was done in these studies. The principles of diagnosis and treatment depend on total environmental and total body pollutant loads, masking or adaptation, bipolarity of response, and biochemical individuality, among others. These principles make less-polluted, controlled conditions necessary. The clinician has to use less-polluted water and organic food with individual challenges for testing, including dust, mold, pesticide, natural gas, formaldehyde, particulates, and EMF testing, which needs to be performed in less-polluted copper-screened rooms. The challenge tests for proof of chemical sensitivity include inhaled toxics within a clean booth that is chemical- and particulate-free at ambient doses in parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb). Individual foods, both organic and commercial (that are contaminated with herbicides and pesticides), are used orally. Water testing and intradermal testing are performed in a less-polluted, controlled environment. These include specific dose injections of molds, dust, and pollen that are preservative-free, individual organic foods, and individual chemicals, i.e. methane, ethane, propane, butane, hexane, formaldehyde, ethanol, car exhaust, jet fuel exhaust, and prosthetic implants (metal plates, pacemakers, mesh, etc.). Normal saline is used as a placebo. EMF testing is performed in a copper-screened room using a frequency generator. In our experience, 80% of the EMF-sensitive patients had chemical sensitivity when studied under less-polluted conditions for particulates, controlled natural gas, pesticides, and chemicals like formaldehyde.
%Y 10.1515/reveh-2015-0021
%W PHY
%G AUTHOR
%R 2016..............R

@Article{Rea2016,
author="Rea, William J.",
title="History of chemical sensitivity and diagnosis.",
journal="Reviews on environmental health",
year="2016",
month="Jul",
day="06",
abstract="Histories of mold, pollen, dust, food, chemicals, and electromagnetic field (EMF) sensitivities are the major categories of triggers for chemical sensitivity. They are tied together by the coherence phenomenon, where each has its own frequencies and identifiable EMF; therefore, they can be correlated. The diagnosis of chemical sensitivity can be done accurately in a less-polluted, controlled environment, as was done in these studies. The principles of diagnosis and treatment depend on total environmental and total body pollutant loads, masking or adaptation, bipolarity of response, and biochemical individuality, among others. These principles make less-polluted, controlled conditions necessary. The clinician has to use less-polluted water and organic food with individual challenges for testing, including dust, mold, pesticide, natural gas, formaldehyde, particulates, and EMF testing, which needs to be performed in less-polluted copper-screened rooms. The challenge tests for proof of chemical sensitivity include inhaled toxics within a clean booth that is chemical- and particulate-free at ambient doses in parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb). Individual foods, both organic and commercial (that are contaminated with herbicides and pesticides), are used orally. Water testing and intradermal testing are performed in a less-polluted, controlled environment. These include specific dose injections of molds, dust, and pollen that are preservative-free, individual organic foods, and individual chemicals, i.e. methane, ethane, propane, butane, hexane, formaldehyde, ethanol, car exhaust, jet fuel exhaust, and prosthetic implants (metal plates, pacemakers, mesh, etc.). Normal saline is used as a placebo. EMF testing is performed in a copper-screened room using a frequency generator. In our experience, 80\% of the EMF-sensitive patients had chemical sensitivity when studied under less-polluted conditions for particulates, controlled natural gas, pesticides, and chemicals like formaldehyde.",
issn="2191-0308",
doi="10.1515/reveh-2015-0021",
url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27383867",
language="ENG"
}

%0 Journal Article
%T History of chemical sensitivity and diagnosis.
%A Rea, William J.
%J Reviews on environmental health
%D 2016
%8 Jul 06
%@ 2191-0308
%G ENG
%F Rea2016
%X Histories of mold, pollen, dust, food, chemicals, and electromagnetic field (EMF) sensitivities are the major categories of triggers for chemical sensitivity. They are tied together by the coherence phenomenon, where each has its own frequencies and identifiable EMF; therefore, they can be correlated. The diagnosis of chemical sensitivity can be done accurately in a less-polluted, controlled environment, as was done in these studies. The principles of diagnosis and treatment depend on total environmental and total body pollutant loads, masking or adaptation, bipolarity of response, and biochemical individuality, among others. These principles make less-polluted, controlled conditions necessary. The clinician has to use less-polluted water and organic food with individual challenges for testing, including dust, mold, pesticide, natural gas, formaldehyde, particulates, and EMF testing, which needs to be performed in less-polluted copper-screened rooms. The challenge tests for proof of chemical sensitivity include inhaled toxics within a clean booth that is chemical- and particulate-free at ambient doses in parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb). Individual foods, both organic and commercial (that are contaminated with herbicides and pesticides), are used orally. Water testing and intradermal testing are performed in a less-polluted, controlled environment. These include specific dose injections of molds, dust, and pollen that are preservative-free, individual organic foods, and individual chemicals, i.e. methane, ethane, propane, butane, hexane, formaldehyde, ethanol, car exhaust, jet fuel exhaust, and prosthetic implants (metal plates, pacemakers, mesh, etc.). Normal saline is used as a placebo. EMF testing is performed in a copper-screened room using a frequency generator. In our experience, 80% of the EMF-sensitive patients had chemical sensitivity when studied under less-polluted conditions for particulates, controlled natural gas, pesticides, and chemicals like formaldehyde.
%U http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2015-0021
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27383867

PT Journal
AU Rea, WJ
TI History of chemical sensitivity and diagnosis.
SO Reviews on environmental health
JI Rev Environ Health
PD Jul
PY 2016
DI 10.1515/reveh-2015-0021
LA ENG
AB Histories of mold, pollen, dust, food, chemicals, and electromagnetic field (EMF) sensitivities are the major categories of triggers for chemical sensitivity. They are tied together by the coherence phenomenon, where each has its own frequencies and identifiable EMF; therefore, they can be correlated. The diagnosis of chemical sensitivity can be done accurately in a less-polluted, controlled environment, as was done in these studies. The principles of diagnosis and treatment depend on total environmental and total body pollutant loads, masking or adaptation, bipolarity of response, and biochemical individuality, among others. These principles make less-polluted, controlled conditions necessary. The clinician has to use less-polluted water and organic food with individual challenges for testing, including dust, mold, pesticide, natural gas, formaldehyde, particulates, and EMF testing, which needs to be performed in less-polluted copper-screened rooms. The challenge tests for proof of chemical sensitivity include inhaled toxics within a clean booth that is chemical- and particulate-free at ambient doses in parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb). Individual foods, both organic and commercial (that are contaminated with herbicides and pesticides), are used orally. Water testing and intradermal testing are performed in a less-polluted, controlled environment. These include specific dose injections of molds, dust, and pollen that are preservative-free, individual organic foods, and individual chemicals, i.e. methane, ethane, propane, butane, hexane, formaldehyde, ethanol, car exhaust, jet fuel exhaust, and prosthetic implants (metal plates, pacemakers, mesh, etc.). Normal saline is used as a placebo. EMF testing is performed in a copper-screened room using a frequency generator. In our experience, 80% of the EMF-sensitive patients had chemical sensitivity when studied under less-polluted conditions for particulates, controlled natural gas, pesticides, and chemicals like formaldehyde.
ER

PMID- 27383867
OWN - NLM
STAT- Publisher
DA  - 20160715
LR  - 20160715
IS  - 2191-0308 (Electronic)
IS  - 0048-7554 (Linking)
DP  - 2016 Jul 6
TI  - History of chemical sensitivity and diagnosis.
LID - 10.1515/reveh-2015-0021 [doi]
LID - /j/reveh.ahead-of-print/reveh-2015-0021/reveh-2015-0021.xml [pii]
AB  - Histories of mold, pollen, dust, food, chemicals, and electromagnetic field (EMF)
      sensitivities are the major categories of triggers for chemical sensitivity. They
      are tied together by the coherence phenomenon, where each has its own frequencies
      and identifiable EMF; therefore, they can be correlated. The diagnosis of
      chemical sensitivity can be done accurately in a less-polluted, controlled
      environment, as was done in these studies. The principles of diagnosis and
      treatment depend on total environmental and total body pollutant loads, masking
      or adaptation, bipolarity of response, and biochemical individuality, among
      others. These principles make less-polluted, controlled conditions necessary. The
      clinician has to use less-polluted water and organic food with individual
      challenges for testing, including dust, mold, pesticide, natural gas,
      formaldehyde, particulates, and EMF testing, which needs to be performed in
      less-polluted copper-screened rooms. The challenge tests for proof of chemical
      sensitivity include inhaled toxics within a clean booth that is chemical- and
      particulate-free at ambient doses in parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion
      (ppb). Individual foods, both organic and commercial (that are contaminated with 
      herbicides and pesticides), are used orally. Water testing and intradermal
      testing are performed in a less-polluted, controlled environment. These include
      specific dose injections of molds, dust, and pollen that are preservative-free,
      individual organic foods, and individual chemicals, i.e. methane, ethane,
      propane, butane, hexane, formaldehyde, ethanol, car exhaust, jet fuel exhaust,
      and prosthetic implants (metal plates, pacemakers, mesh, etc.). Normal saline is 
      used as a placebo. EMF testing is performed in a copper-screened room using a
      frequency generator. In our experience, 80% of the EMF-sensitive patients had
      chemical sensitivity when studied under less-polluted conditions for
      particulates, controlled natural gas, pesticides, and chemicals like
      formaldehyde.
FAU - Rea, William J
AU  - Rea WJ
LA  - ENG
PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
DEP - 20160706
TA  - Rev Environ Health
JT  - Reviews on environmental health
JID - 0425754
EDAT- 2016/07/08 06:00
MHDA- 2016/07/08 06:00
CRDT- 2016/07/08 06:00
PHST- 2015/07/28 [received]
PHST- 2016/04/16 [accepted]
AID - 10.1515/reveh-2015-0021 [doi]
AID - /j/reveh.ahead-of-print/reveh-2015-0021/reveh-2015-0021.xml [pii]
PST - aheadofprint
SO  - Rev Environ Health. 2016 Jul 6. pii:
      /j/reveh.ahead-of-print/reveh-2015-0021/reveh-2015-0021.xml. doi:
      10.1515/reveh-2015-0021.
TY  - JOUR
AU  - Rea, William J.
PY  - 2016/Jul/06
TI  - History of chemical sensitivity and diagnosis.
T2  - Rev Environ Health
JO  - Reviews on environmental health
N2  - Histories of mold, pollen, dust, food, chemicals, and electromagnetic field (EMF) sensitivities are the major categories of triggers for chemical sensitivity. They are tied together by the coherence phenomenon, where each has its own frequencies and identifiable EMF; therefore, they can be correlated. The diagnosis of chemical sensitivity can be done accurately in a less-polluted, controlled environment, as was done in these studies. The principles of diagnosis and treatment depend on total environmental and total body pollutant loads, masking or adaptation, bipolarity of response, and biochemical individuality, among others. These principles make less-polluted, controlled conditions necessary. The clinician has to use less-polluted water and organic food with individual challenges for testing, including dust, mold, pesticide, natural gas, formaldehyde, particulates, and EMF testing, which needs to be performed in less-polluted copper-screened rooms. The challenge tests for proof of chemical sensitivity include inhaled toxics within a clean booth that is chemical- and particulate-free at ambient doses in parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb). Individual foods, both organic and commercial (that are contaminated with herbicides and pesticides), are used orally. Water testing and intradermal testing are performed in a less-polluted, controlled environment. These include specific dose injections of molds, dust, and pollen that are preservative-free, individual organic foods, and individual chemicals, i.e. methane, ethane, propane, butane, hexane, formaldehyde, ethanol, car exhaust, jet fuel exhaust, and prosthetic implants (metal plates, pacemakers, mesh, etc.). Normal saline is used as a placebo. EMF testing is performed in a copper-screened room using a frequency generator. In our experience, 80% of the EMF-sensitive patients had chemical sensitivity when studied under less-polluted conditions for particulates, controlled natural gas, pesticides, and chemicals like formaldehyde.
SN  - 2191-0308
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2015-0021
UR  - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27383867
ID  - Rea2016
ER  - 
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<b:Sources SelectedStyle="" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"  xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" >
<b:Source>
<b:Tag>Rea2016</b:Tag>
<b:SourceType>ArticleInAPeriodical</b:SourceType>
<b:Year>2016</b:Year>
<b:Month>Jul</b:Month>
<b:Day>6</b:Day>
<b:PeriodicalName>Reviews on environmental health</b:PeriodicalName>
<b:Author>
<b:Author><b:NameList>
<b:Person><b:Last>Rea</b:Last><b:First>William</b:First><b:Middle>J</b:Middle></b:Person>
</b:NameList></b:Author>
</b:Author>
<b:Title>History of chemical sensitivity and diagnosis.</b:Title>
 <b:ShortTitle>Rev Environ Health</b:ShortTitle>
<b:Comments>Histories of mold, pollen, dust, food, chemicals, and electromagnetic field (EMF) sensitivities are the major categories of triggers for chemical sensitivity. They are tied together by the coherence phenomenon, where each has its own frequencies and identifiable EMF; therefore, they can be correlated. The diagnosis of chemical sensitivity can be done accurately in a less-polluted, controlled environment, as was done in these studies. The principles of diagnosis and treatment depend on total environmental and total body pollutant loads, masking or adaptation, bipolarity of response, and biochemical individuality, among others. These principles make less-polluted, controlled conditions necessary. The clinician has to use less-polluted water and organic food with individual challenges for testing, including dust, mold, pesticide, natural gas, formaldehyde, particulates, and EMF testing, which needs to be performed in less-polluted copper-screened rooms. The challenge tests for proof of chemical sensitivity include inhaled toxics within a clean booth that is chemical- and particulate-free at ambient doses in parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb). Individual foods, both organic and commercial (that are contaminated with herbicides and pesticides), are used orally. Water testing and intradermal testing are performed in a less-polluted, controlled environment. These include specific dose injections of molds, dust, and pollen that are preservative-free, individual organic foods, and individual chemicals, i.e. methane, ethane, propane, butane, hexane, formaldehyde, ethanol, car exhaust, jet fuel exhaust, and prosthetic implants (metal plates, pacemakers, mesh, etc.). Normal saline is used as a placebo. EMF testing is performed in a copper-screened room using a frequency generator. In our experience, 80% of the EMF-sensitive patients had chemical sensitivity when studied under less-polluted conditions for particulates, controlled natural gas, pesticides, and chemicals like formaldehyde.</b:Comments>
</b:Source>
</b:Sources>