In the December 1998 issue of Pesticides News (No.42) there was an article about the long-awaited report from the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Psychiatrists on long-term, low-dose exposure to OP sheep-dip(1).
Some members report a marked change in their GP's attitude when it is brought to their attention. Margaret Anderson, PEGS member in Ludlow, Shropshire, reviews it below:
The acknowledgement that OP sheep-dip chemicals can cause injury and illness, which should be taken seriously, is, of course, very welcome, as is the recommendation of a more holistic approach to the problems and treatment, and the desirability of forming a therapeutic alliance with the patient.
The repeated advice to avoid the temptation of over-investigation is presumably because the technology to prove (or cure) chemical injury has not caught up with the technology creating it? There are no conclusive tests, so absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and this should obviously be explained to patients.
There seems to be some strange omissions in the report. For example, one of the few certainties is that every individual, without exception, has a finite capacity for tolerating and dealing with these synthetic compounds now all around us, and we have no means of identifying the vulnerable before they exceed their limits, and their long-term and synergistic effects are not known. It is also surprising to find no mention of nutrition as an essential element in boosting the body's strengths and repair mechanisms and immune system following chemical insult.
The casual dismissal of multiple chemical sensitivity as a serious and significant consequence of exposure is also regrettable, since lack of official recognition of this condition prevents an affected litigant from presenting a complete case to the courts. Why, after so long, is there still no objective evidence of MCS, and why is the research to find it not being done?
It means that compensation awards do not have to meet medical and other care costs, as the Institute of Actuaries recommends they should, and as the patient needs.
Litigation certainly does, as the report observes, 'add to the burden of the disabled patient.' It involves long-drawn out legal proceedings, character
assassination attempts in order to portray the plaintiff as an unreliable witness (a common practice, particularly where women are concerned, my solicitors informed me), and other stresses. But this is inevitable where the onus of proof is placed on the injured party. It should also be remembered that if patients do not do all in their power to aid recovery, they can be accuse of causing or contributing to their own misfortunes. No wonder that many people cannot cope and give up, according to the lawyers.
The report describes how, according to evidence the working party received, some patients are advised that they are 'sensitive' to a wide range of chemicals and are then told that receiving conventional medical therapy will aggravate their symptoms. But this is the reverse of what I came across. I took the National Poisons Unit injunction to avoid any further exposure to refer to the pesticides which had poisoned me. 'Spread' was not mentioned, and I have never heard of it, so I was completely at a loss when I began to react badly to various chemicals in the environment which had never previously been any problem. It was several years before a particularly bad reaction brought matters to a head, and we then discovered medication could pose difficulties too. This was an unexpected and unwelcome outcome: it was hard to accept, and definitely did not the fulfil anybody's expectations. Other people have had much the same experience - the sensitisation preceded the understanding.
The report is also critical of alternative therapeutic approaches, on the basis that they have not been subjected to any form of clinical trial. But much iatrogenic illness is caused by products which have undergone 'rigorous scientific testing'. Many people have doubts about the efficacy of clinical trials and the relevance of animal testing to humans. The elegant solution arrived at in the laboratory which fails to address the problems in the real world carries little weight and does not convince. Also, as objective evidence is in short supply, factual observation should not be dismissed as 'anecdotal' and worthless, especially if offered by professionals in other fields trained to collect and analyse data.
I hope the Royal Colleges' report will help both GPs and patients, but have reservations and misgivings. There seems to be a great deal of dependence on antidepressants and cognitive behaviour therapy, and it is clear that patients are not the only ones likely to have 'fixed beliefs'!
Dear Professor Newsom-Davis
Multiple chemical poisoning, including OPs
Despite your hope that your report on the effects of OPs will prove helpful to victims like me I fear that nothing has changed. I keep finding out about many other sufferers of chemical poisoning who are being ignored by their doctors and left with trying to cope with horrific symptoms which render their lives a constant nightmare. There is nowhere safe to live once one is suffering from multiple chemical poisoning, and there is no dedicated clinic in the UK which specialises in this condition (unlike the USA, Canada and Germany). Despite the rising number of people (and children) suffering from the collection of symptoms which renders their lives a misery and quite often destroys relationships and the ability to earn a living, there appears to be a complete denial by the medical profession and government that these people are ill, and suffering from body burdens of chemicals, solvents, (and radioactive substances such as plutonium), and no attempt has been made to take into account the synergistic effects of these body burdens.
As long as the medical profession deny the fact that people are suffering from chemical poisoning the number of cases will not be known or recorded. The numbers of sick people will rise, because nothing is being done to stop the production and use of these toxic chemicals.
I would remind you that my National Health Service doctors refused to carry out blood tests which would have shown the amount of chemicals in my blood and did not carry out detailed liver function tests. When I wrote to my consultant physician, Dr R T Mayon-White, he stated that 'I know little about the effects of chemicals on the liver.' Dr Tim Peto, the consultant who saw me at an ME clinic, also made no attempt to carry out detailed blood tests for the presence of chemicals as he claimed that 'We would probably not find anything.' The complete chain of the medical profession has offered me no help or support, only antagonism, and I am not alone. Patients fare no better when attending Guy's Hospital Poison Unit, as Dr Volan regularly refers patients to a psychiatrist when unable to resolve their physiological symptoms!
I am luckier than most sufferers as at least I do have a certain amount of money which has enabled me to, at least, get the right blood tests carried out and receive some private treatment.
Wendy MacLeod-Gilford, Blewbury Environmental Research Group, Lesmarie, Bessels Way, Blewbury, Oxon OX11 9NN; email: berg@gn.apc.org
1. Organophosphate sheep dip-clinical aspects of long-term, low-dose exposure, report of a joint working party of the Royal College of Physicians and Royal College of Psychiatrists, November 1998, available from the Publications Department, Royal College of Physicians, 11 St Andrews Place, London NW1 4LE tel 0171 935 1174, price £12.50 including postage and packing.
[As published in PEX Newsletter No.2, March 1999]