Letters

From the October 1997 issue

Sensitivity Training

I am writing to correct misstatements and misimpressions presented by your interview with John Stossel ("Risky Journalism," April). The individuals sent to me by ABC, Julie and Deborah Stone, were described as having received a brief exam when in fact they received a head-to-toe physical exam, which included a complete neurologic exam and a mental status exam. This is far more comprehensive than would be done for an individual on an annual physical. The interview neglects to mention that Julie first raised the question with me of whether she could get pregnant. Because serious endocrine disruption occurs in the majority of persons with chronic illness following chemical exposure according to test results on my patients, I recommended that she undergo further testing. I also told her that the only pregnancy that had occurred in my hundreds of patients with chemical sensitivity and chronic illness was in a very mildly ill high school student who became so seriously ill by the 10th week of pregnancy that the pregnancy was terminated by her Catholic obstetrician to save her life. The article mentions the charge for the service, but neglects to say that we spent four hours with each of these individuals.

The article states that Julie and Debbie answered the questions honestly. They have represented themselves to the public as being reasonably healthy. However, one of these supposedly healthy individuals, on her questionnaire, described constant mild to moderate pain in the neck, shoulders, back, arms, and stomach, saying that fumes made her nauseated and that perfumes gave her headaches and that she had "a lot" of problems driving a car in heavy traffic. She also said that several times a month she experienced weakness, headaches, muscle twitching, memory problems, dizziness, nasal, throat, and chest discomfort, hoarseness, and reduced bladder control. She states that she frequently had fatigue, that she often forgets what happens after a few minutes, and she often has fatigue so severe that she goes "into a coma on the weekends." She states she last felt well in the mid-1980s. She also states that she felt mildly to moderately sick when exposed to passive smoke, vehicle exhaust, pesticides, fresh paint, perfume, and natural gas. She described mild sickness with exposure to air fresheners, using self-serve at the gas pump, and reading a fresh newspaper. Is this the description of a healthy person?

The other supposedly healthy individual stated that she had daily headaches and pain for three months or longer in the knees, back, and neck. She also described chronic fatigue and said that several times a month or more she experienced dizziness, muscle twitching, visual changes, ringing in the ears, nasal congestion, hoarseness, chest discomfort, chest tightness, and abdominal discomfort. She said she often had sleep problems and was often easily tired. She described moderate sickness symptoms when exposed to passive smoke, vehicle exhaust, road tar, fresh paint, and perfume. She described mild sickness with exposure to air fresheners, self-serve gasoline, and fresh newsprint. She also describes having headache and/or nausea when exposed to car exhaust, drying paint, and perfumes, saying that she was much more sensitive to smells than she had been before. Is this a true statement of a healthy person?

Your article also does not address ABC's own conflicts of interest with regard to chemical sensitivity and chemically related illness. You neglect to mention that 20/20's executive producer, Victor Neufeld, is married to a P.R. person for the chemical and nuclear industries.

You minimize the importance of reducing exposures for individuals who are affected with chemical sensitivities, even though two surveys have now documented that reducing exposure is extremely important in reducing chronic illness in individuals with chemical sensitivity. You also do not mention that six other random surveys of U.S. adults, including urban and rural, young and elderly individuals, indicate that the prevalence of chemical sensitivity in the U.S. population appears to be about 15 percent, and the California survey indicates that 7 percent have been diagnosed as having MCS by a physician. I enclose a copy of my résumé listing many of my publications in peer-reviewed medical journals and my consulting for numerous governmental agencies, none of which was even mentioned by Mr. Stossel. Indeed, his MCS "expert," Dr. Gots, has never treated a chemically sensitive patient in his life and has not been a treating physician for any patient for the past 20 years, making him poorly qualified to comment upon any issues regarding the clinical management of chemically sensitive or other patients.

Grace Ziem, M.D.
Baltimore, MD

Airbags Aweigh Again

From reading John Merline's and Sam Kazman's letters criticizing my writing on airbags (June), you'd have not the slightest idea what I wrote, nor that I am by no means an airbag defender per se. What I have tried to do is bring a little sanity to the issue -- with limited success. Merline writes that, "Under current government rules, many car owners are forced to pay extra for no benefit whatever. That's a point almost everyone, including [REASON Assistant Editor] Brian Doherty and Michael Fumento has missed."

I didn't miss it; I just didn't address it. I have written all of two columns on the subject, both concentrating on the hysteria that the popular media have stirred up. But were I to address it, I would point out that we constantly pay for regulations that don't benefit us individually but that (according to the regulators, at least) benefit some portion of the population. For example, any regulation I pay for that benefits only children doesn't apply to me since I am not one and do not have any.

Kazman writes, "Airbags are designed to satisfy not consumer demand but an across-the-board federal rule." Again, what's new? How often do we explicitly demand regulations? Instead, we usually speak in more general terms such as, "Make driving safer."

But pointing out silly arguments doesn't make me an airbag supporter. I have written that I was never in favor of making airbags mandatory, and that indeed I was in an accident in which my life was saved not by my airbag--which deployed after the vehicle stopped--but by my seat belt. What I deplored in my columns was the media hysteria that both Merline and Kazman celebrate. "Kudos to the reporters who explained [sic] these risks," wrote Merline, while Kazman went even further to say that "media hype...over airbags [is] to be applauded, not derided."

Really? Do we benefit from columnists who claim that a deploying airbag is the equivalent of slamming into a brick wall at 200 mph? Do we benefit from incessant USA Today coverage that leaves parents thinking that children are more likely to be crushed or decapitated by airbags than to contract chicken pox, with inch-high headlines like "Deadly Air Bags" and "Deadly Force: Air Bags are Claiming the Lives of Children"? Does that really contribute to intelligent public debate, or does it simply sell newspapers and incidentally aid knee-jerk anti-regulationists? Sorry, but media hype is never to be applauded. Never. And the only time one's knee should jerk is when it's hit below the patella with a rubber mallet.

Michael Fumento
Resident Fellow
American Enterprise Institute
Washington, DC

Brian Doherty replies: Michael Fumento's defense of his position on airbags allows me to correct and clarify a figure, given me by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration spokesman Timothy Hurd, that I cited in my response to Merline's and Kazman's letters (June). In his letter, Kazman had written that "for front-seat occupants aged 10 and under, the airbag raises the risk of death by up to 120 percent." I checked this with Hurd, who told me--mistakenly--that the increased risk was 22 percent, which I expressed as "around 20 percent."