[00:00:00] Aaron Goodman: You are listening to the Chemical Sensitivity Podcast. I'm Aaron Goodman.

It can feel like we're alone with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, but the truth is, there are millions of people across the globe living with this illness.

In this episode, I'm speaking with Linus Andersson. In my recent conversation with Linus Andersson, a researcher in Sweden, he said one in ten people experience severe MCS or chemical intolerance in Scandinavia.

A 2019 study by Professor Anne Steinemann showed that in several countries, including the U.S., Australia, the U.K., and Sweden, nearly 20% of people reported having MCS, and over 30% reported reacting negatively to fragrance.

In Canada, a million people have been officially diagnosed with MCS. Just imagine how many more can't get a diagnosis.

In spite of these numbers, MCS is barely recognized in medicine and public health, and very few scholars are actually investigating it. My work as the creator of the Chemical Sensitivity Podcast means most days I'm searching for new research about the illness. When I manage to find it, it's exciting.

Each new study, each new academic publication, has the potential to support us, to give credence to our suffering, to back us up when we speak with doctors who too often dismiss and misdiagnose us, to arm us when we face the daunting prospect of asking for accommodation in workplaces, in schools, and when it comes to housing.

Research—and I'm talking about credible research from scholars in a wide range of fields—makes a difference. Environmental health experts help us understand how toxins affect the body. Anthropologists work closely with impacted and marginalized communities, including folks who are forced to live near major pollution sites and breathe and drink toxins every hour of the day. Linguists examine the conversations we have with doctors and how we are too often pushed aside. Engineers understand the importance of indoor air quality for all of us.

The Chemical Sensitivity Podcast is the number one source of information and analysis about research on MCS. I will continue to stay on the lookout for new and evolving studies. I'll dissect the work and bring you chats with the researchers.

But there's nowhere near enough research about MCS. It's hard to say exactly, but there may be roughly a couple of hundred researchers who are largely, predominantly focused on MCS. More funding and more research are vital and will make the key difference when it comes to folks no longer using the term "contested illness" when talking about MCS.

Whenever I meet researchers who are committed to investigating this illness, I feel a sense of hope. People like Linus Andersson in Sweden, one of the only researchers testing people with MCS in a laboratory he and his colleague built to prove that people with this illness react to small amounts of chemicals. Researchers like Pia Aimee Tordly in Norway, who spoke on the podcast, and who draws on her own experiences with MCS to examine how the medical system could truly support people with chemical intolerance—people like you.

I also come across studies that cause us even more harm—studies that falsely claim MCS is a psychological disorder. When I find work like this, I look to see: did the researchers talk with people with MCS? Did they involve us in their studies? Most of the time, I don't believe they have.

This kind of research is no longer acceptable. It never has been. There's a long history of research that harms and stigmatizes vulnerable people, people with chronic and serious illnesses. In the eighties and nineties, research on HIV/AIDS often claimed the disease was a "gay plague." Can you imagine? This kind of language and framing blamed people with HIV/AIDS. It only further marginalized and discriminated against people who were greatly suffering.

For over a decade as a communication studies researcher, I've worked closely with people impacted by the ongoing opioid overdose crisis in Canada. Thousands have died tragically from toxic drugs. The rate of death from accidental overdose in the States is staggering—hundreds of thousands have died. I've seen firsthand how challenging it is for researchers to build trust with people who use drugs, and with individuals whose loved ones have experienced fatal overdoses. Many researchers have painted people who use drugs as dangerous social outcasts, as people to be feared. This has affected efforts to provide effective and compassionate treatment, helping at-risk people to stay healthy and alive.

You're likely familiar with the phrase "nothing about us without us." It's a mantle taken up by many people who use drugs, and people who work in harm reduction, who insist that research about their communities must involve them. Community-based participatory research treats people with respect and as equals. It informs participants about the goals of research and the methods that will be used. It invites feedback about outcomes and never imposes conclusions on people.

"Nothing about us without us" has also been taken up by HIV/AIDS activists, Indigenous rights advocates, and people living with mental health challenges, along with supporters. I think we're all hopeful a new generation of researchers from all kinds of fields will recognize the importance of exploring MCS and collaborating with us, involving us in decisions, asking us about our insights, valuing the knowledge we have.

You know, like I do, that demanding to be included is exhausting. We can't fight this battle all the time. But each time we step up and say, "Hey, wait a second, that's not fair, you're excluding me, you're harming me," we can't underestimate the ripple effects of our words and actions.

If you come across research about MCS that you think is valuable, let me know. I'll definitely take a look. A listener in Australia recently reached out and asked if I'd explore connections between MCS and diabetes. I'm on it. MCS touches all areas of our lives. We understand how serious it is. When researchers validate this, it's supremely important. When they include us, talk with us, and listen, it's even better.

You're listening to the Chemical Sensitivity Podcast. I'm Aaron Goodman. I'm a journalist, documentary maker, and researcher, but I'm also someone who's lived with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, or MCS, for years.

MCS, also called chemical intolerance, Toxicant-Induced Loss of Tolerance or TILT, an idiopathic environmental illness, affects millions around the world. It's a condition that makes everyday life extremely challenging and unpredictable. Fragrance, air fresheners, fresh paint, scented laundry products on someone's clothing, and a lot more can trigger exhaustion, brain fog, muscle pain, rashes, and a wide range of symptoms. And yet, for all its impacts, MCS remains largely invisible. Doctors dismiss it. Employers rarely accommodate it. Even friends and family struggle to understand.

This podcast aims to change that. We dive into the latest research, share real stories, and explore how people navigate life with an illness many refuse to see.

In this episode, I'm speaking with Linus Andersson.

Linus is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at Umeå University in Sweden. He's one of the only researchers in the world who has done tests in his own laboratory, which he built with a colleague, with people with MCS. His tests have proved how people with this illness react to small traces of chemicals that others without the condition are not affected by.

You'll hear Linus explore how he believes one in ten people in Scandinavia have severe MCS, the testing he's done, how chemicals impact different bodily systems, the possibility of developing a test to confirm MCS, and his conviction that MCS is not psychological.

[00:10:30] Aaron Goodman: Professor Andersson, thank you so much for joining me.

[00:10:33] Linus Andersson: Thank you for having me.

[00:10:36] Aaron Goodman: Would you like to share a brief introduction with listeners about your work, yourself, and how you got interested in exploring MCS?

[00:10:43] Linus Andersson: I've been working with this for more than 15 years. I started my PhD thesis in 2006. By that time, I had a master's in cognitive science, which is mainly based in neuroscience and sensory psychology. I had no real notion of sensory intolerances or chemical intolerance or multiple chemical sensitivity at all. But I had a supervisor who really encouraged me to go into that direction because there was so little empirical data on this large public health concern.

A main concern for me and my colleagues has always been to find out what causes the reactions. We have tried to single out the kind of exposure that people with MCS actually react to. We have looked at systemic reactions in the blood, mucosal inflammation, and changes in brain activation patterns. It's a pressing concern. Compared to other large public health issues, the research on MCS is almost non-existent. I still cannot understand why it's disregarded in the medical community.

[00:12:18] Aaron Goodman: All of this is so fascinating, and I'm so pleased to have found your research. Your knowledge is so important. I spend a lot of time looking at research and there's very little of the nature you're doing. Have you had a moment when you thought, why is no one doing this before?

[00:12:47] Linus Andersson: I've had several. My main collaborator is a close colleague named Anna Claeson, who has a background in chemistry. We are a multidisciplinary group, necessary for this kind of research. If it had been easy, we would have already solved the enigma of multiple chemical sensitivity. But we haven't, partly because you need a sophisticated laboratory and diverse research backgrounds to tease out reactions.

Many labs have tried exposure studies but seldom do more than one study. MCS patients have several different reaction forms. When clumped together, effects disperse, giving an incorrect impression that there's no true stimulus-response relationship. It's so complicated that many researchers tend to give up due to insufficient funding and complexity. I’ve had the privilege of repeatedly studying this, and I feel that after several studies, we're finally getting somewhere.

[00:15:22] Aaron Goodman: People react in different ways. MCS affects many bodily systems—respiratory, cognitive, psychological, emotional, neurological, and more. Reactions can also be delayed. Most of my reactions begin three hours after exposure, presenting another problem. Could you talk about the motivation? You mentioned it's a significant public health issue in Sweden and Scandinavia. How significant is the problem of multiple chemical sensitivity?

[00:16:18] Linus Andersson: It's a brilliant question with a relatively simple answer. Prevalence estimates first encounter the problem of standardized criteria for asking about MCS status, making comparisons difficult across countries like the US, Great Britain, Sweden, or Japan. However, prevalence numbers combined show similar patterns. A few percent of the population in the US and Europe have severe MCS or chemical intolerance. Surprisingly, about 10% report reactions severe enough to negatively impact daily lives regularly. It's not just a fringe situation; it’s a global issue.

[00:17:54] Aaron Goodman: Did you say that 10% experience severe debilitating forms of multiple chemical sensitivity?

[00:18:08] Linus Andersson: Not necessarily debilitating, but impactful enough to affect everyday life. Perfumes in downtown areas, movie theaters, buses, gyms—they feel nauseous or get headaches encountering fragrances.

[00:18:35] Aaron Goodman: With the global population at 8.5 billion, do you have a rough estimate of how many people have this illness? Is it a significant, growing public health issue?

[00:18:56] Linus Andersson: One out of ten people is not an exaggeration. When asked directly, many confirm it's a concern in their everyday lives. I've observed this prevalence consistently in discussions over the past 15-20 years. Not everyone has severe symptoms, but it's a prevalent concern.

[00:20:06] Aaron Goodman: There's a range of severity. Studies by Dr. Claudia Miller and colleagues estimate 10-27% prevalence in the US. What about developing countries?

[00:20:48] Linus Andersson: Historically, conditions like asthma and allergies were seen as diseases of modernity. MCS might appear as only prevalent in developed countries, but that might reflect a lack of data rather than reality. Studies from Cambodia on refugees from the Khmer Rouge, for example, indicate severe MCS prevalence. Comparable prevalence numbers globally wouldn’t surprise me.

[00:21:42] Aaron Goodman: You mentioned your research focuses on three things: the relationship between exposure and symptoms, developing a valid test, and treating reactions. Since there isn’t a recognized treatment, how can we treat these reactions?

[00:22:37] Linus Andersson: If I had that answer, I'd give it. First, we must recognize many MCS subcategories exist. Reactions vary; some are delayed, others instantaneous. We need to establish patterns of reactivity, similar to allergy tests. My hope is developing something analogous, identifying chemical triggers specific to individuals. Once patterns are established, we can better understand mechanisms and alleviate symptoms.

[00:25:45] Linus Andersson: Yeah, and it can be quite different depending on, on the pattern of reactivity.

So if you have a severe headache If you trigger the so-called trigeminal system, it's a part of the sensory system within the nose that mediates pungent sensation. So if you sniff a Coca-Cola and you feel the kind of the tingliness, that is actually a trigeminal reaction. If you eat chili peppers and you feel it burning in your mouth, that is also a trigeminal and not taste, and not smell sensation. So on. So I do think that some people actually have these kind of reactions in. exacerbating their system and their symptoms, whereas others react to mainly, olfactory or having to do with the sense of smell reactions.

And some cannot even say what kind of exposures it is that trigger symptoms. So they come into a room, for instance, and they begin to get red in the face and they don't feel anything. So treating these different groups as their own kind of expressions, I think is key to understanding both the mechanisms and to develop treatment.

[00:26:53] Aaron Goodman: So I'd like to just invite you to break these down a little bit. So in your research, you explore the role of—you mentioned the olfactory nerve, right? Which is related to the sense of smell, but it doesn't mean that people with MCS have a more acute sense of smell, correct? Because we know that, but we're often misdiagnosed with something called hyperosmia. Is that correct? But we don't have that. Do you want to talk about that?

[00:27:24] Linus Andersson: So, taking a step back, I think that we need to consider what it is that patients with MCS actually react to. And the answer to that is chemical compounds and most often airborne chemical compounds. So it's not if you eat something that is made out of salt—it's not the salt or the heavy compounds that aren't airborne that we react to. So the compounds need to be in the air.

And another thing we need to consider is that it is not the case that the same chemicals trigger the same reactions in everyone. So if you are in a conference room and some people have perfume, it is only the people with MCS who will get symptom reactions. So that means that it could be that if we increase the dose of the exposure, everyone actually gets reactions because it may trigger some kind of reaction at high levels. But the key to MCS symptomology is people react to levels that are below what is regularly considered to be a problem. It is obviously a problem for people with MCS, but not for the majority of people.

So that kind of paints a conundrum, and a follow-up question is then: what is it that they react to? What are the necessary conditions to mediate these airborne volatile organic compounds or molecules that are in the air in a way that triggers reactions? One way could be that it is not necessarily having to do with our chemical senses, which is part of our mouth and our nose and so on. It could be that it has to do with mucosal membranes, for instance, or the skin and so on. We don't really know because we haven't really tested it. I have a colleague in the hospital here actually trying to dip small paint brushes and kind of paint chemicals on the face and see the reactions in a way that you often do in contact allergy and so on. And I think that is a feasible way of going about this kind of research as well.

What I have been focusing on is the sensory systems within the nose and also the mucosal membranes and the receptor systems in the eye and so on, because a lot of people also get problems in their eyes when you go into the nose. You have not only one sensory system—we often consider olfaction, the sense of smell, to be the system of the nose. But we have at least one other sensory system, which is called the trigeminal nerve. So the trigeminal nerve, or the chemesthesis nerve, goes from the brainstem out into the face, into the mouth area, and also in the nose.

So like I said, when we consider the reactions to pungent sensations, that is the trigeminal nerve. And the olfactory nerve actually does not go to the brainstem. It goes up from the nasal mucosa up to the olfactory bulb and back into the brain. So a lot of people don't know the difference between those two systems because they are felt in the same way. But it could be that for some, the reactions are mediated by trigeminal reactions, and for some it could be that it is mediated by the olfactory system.

A follow-up and an important question that I don't really have the answer to is: is it necessary to have a sensory system that is triggered by the chemical exposure? Or can you have a reaction even though you actually don't smell anything or sense anything? And I don't really know, but I would say—and it's not that I haven't tried it, it's just that it's a really tricky thing to study. So my field of research has mainly had to do with exposures that people can actually perceive. So perfume and detergents and trigeminal-active compounds.

And those, I would say, are also by the sufferers themselves the kind of exposure that they regularly react to. Some patients can come into a room, they don't feel anything, but they just get a rash. So it could be something like that. And then the question is, what is it that triggers that reaction? Is it still the sensory systems' receptor systems? I don't really know.

[00:32:16] Aaron Goodman: It's a very interesting question and it makes me think of when I first developed severe MCS. I was living in Bangkok, Thailand, and the condominium building where I was living was regularly—I think on a weekly basis—someone came in and sprayed the hallways and even in my apartment that I didn't know at the time was accessing my suite when I wasn't home. And I would come home and have very serious reactions, but of course I couldn't smell it. So it's not an olfactory issue, but you talk about the olfactory trigeminal nerve and you also write about neurogenic inflammation. Do you think that's what was going on with me? Was I having neurogenic inflammation? I know you can't say definitively, but what do you think?

[00:33:06] Linus Andersson: Yeah. So if we wrap up the story about the sensory systems, you need to consider that we often speak about peripheral systems—what happens in the mucosal membranes and what happens in the skin and so on—and we separate that from what happens in the brain. But from a biological perspective, this is an integrated system. So the nerves going from your facial area and so on—it's not a different kind of nerve than the one that is active in the brain. And that is one reason why we look at what happens when the signal reaches—what happens at the peripheral level? What happens when the signal reaches the branching connections into the brain? We believe that there may be something along all these pathways that is a problem.

And one of the theories that you mention now is neurogenic inflammation. And I have devoted a lot of time to tease out what people actually mean when they express theories like neurogenic inflammation and so on. And I would say it's not that easy to actually tease out what neurogenic inflammation would actually be. So neurogenic inflammation and many other theories of multiple chemical sensitivity are in themselves a bit circular. So you say, okay, the symptoms in this patient or in this group of patients have to do with neurogenic inflammation, and that is what exacerbates and triggers a symptom reaction that is growing worse as time progresses. And then you ask: what is neurogenic inflammation? And when you scratch the surface, it is a circular argument that it is a time-dependent increase in the firing rate of certain neurons like the trigeminal neurons. But I mean, that was the definition. You cannot have the definition and the explanation at the same time.

But it could be nevertheless something there. So neurogenic inflammation—it is difficult to pin down because it is difficult to measure neurogenic inflammation. First of all, if you don't really know what to look for. And second of all, how do you actually measure it in a living organism, like a person? How do you go about to tease out the neurogenic inflammation? Is it impossible? No, I actually don't think so, but me and my colleagues are not really—we begin with the basics, the empirical data. Then we consider how these are related to the explanatory theories like neurogenic inflammation or neurosensitization and a host of different explanatory theories.

What we almost always find is that the theories are so broad that everything that we find can be seen as evidence for a particular theory. So if we would find a heightened reaction in some kind of nervous system, it could be seen as evidence for the neurosensitization theory. It could be seen as evidence for the neurogenic inflammation theory. It could be seen as evidence for—it's not really new but—predictive model theory. It could be seen as Martin Pall's idea of the oxidative processes going on in the brain. And the reason for that is, in my opinion, the theories are so broad that they are almost impossible to falsify.

What we try to do is to pin down what could be a reasonable marker that nevertheless says something about what has happened—for you, for instance—in terms that still capture what is meant by neurogenic inflammation. I mentioned one of the receptor systems that I think you actually asked me about also, and that has to do with the transient receptor potential vanilloid receptor systems, the TRPV1 receptors. So on these trigeminal nerves that mediate pungency and reactions to chili peppers and so on, there's a lot of different receptors. And when a molecule like capsaicin, which is the hot substance in chili pepper, attaches itself to this receptor, it impacts the trigeminal nerve. And the question then is: can TRP receptor expression be a reason why some people actually get these reactions?

We actually—it's expensive and difficult to do studies like that. But we have tried and we do think that this is a feasible way and a very interesting way in the future because that receptor system may very well be a pathway to understand at least some reactions in MCS patients. So that is something that me and Anna, my great colleague and friend, are trying to actively see if we can do a study about.

[00:38:24] Aaron Goodman: It's very complicated. So I'm very grateful to you for the research you're doing and for sharing it with us in a way that's comprehensible. You mentioned the biomarker tests, biological tests to show that people have MCS. This is really fascinating and I think a lot of people with MCS long for such a test to be available to the public because what would that do? It would help to validate our experiences. It would really show that no, this illness is not in our heads. We don't have psychological disorders. This is a physiological illness. Could there be a biological test for MCS?

[00:39:07] Linus Andersson: There's a very simple answer and a complex answer. The very simple answer, which is nevertheless true: absolutely. The more complex question is that I think we need to consider that the distinction between biological and psychological explanations or problems are made up in a way. So if we scratch the surface, we know that any kind of symptom reaction by definition must have a physiological counterpart. If we don't acknowledge that, we are basically dualists—we're saying that there are two kinds of suffering. One that has nothing to do with the body and one that has something to do with the body. But I don't adhere to that kind of distinction because for almost all diseases, you have one physiological part, one bodily part, and one psychological part. And that is true for almost all symptoms.

So if you break your leg, for instance, the obvious physiological problem is you have a broken leg. And the psychological aspect of that would be the pain and the problems walking that have to do with the broken leg. Is it something different with MCS? No. So the psychological aspect is the symptoms and the problems and the headaches and everything about that. And the physiological counterpart is also there, and that is what actually triggers the redness of the skin and so on. So I have never adhered to the idea that MCS is a purely psychological condition because there are no purely psychological conditions.

Even though we cannot today observe the underlying things that go on inside the body of a person experiencing MCS symptoms, we know that they are there. And I know it, even though I haven't done any studies on it, because it would be very odd if that would not be the case. With that out of the question, so I do think that there are obvious physiological changes in the body. And if there are, I'm certain that if we study people long enough and with good enough methods, we can actually understand what it is that presents symptoms. And we have actually tried that.

Let me just briefly change the scenery because I'm actually sitting in my lab now. So if I tilt my screen here is the chemical-generating aspect of our lab. So here we have a syringe pump that triggers chemicals into a stream of air and it goes into one of our exposure chambers here. So we have actually built it and you can see that it's quite spacious. It looks a bit like an old phone booth, but there's a lot of windows so that people feel comfortable sitting in there. In there we can make very well-controlled exposures.

And one of the things that we have found, which is one of the papers that I sent you, is that whereas many think that people with MCS are just reacting to anything, that is not actually the case. So in one of our studies we selected a compound, a trigeminal compound that we know a lot of people with MCS actually react to. It's a compound called acrolein, which is present in combustion products. So if you light a match and you can feel the burning sensation, that is at least in part having to do with acrolein. Acrolein is detected by humans at very low levels. And for many individuals that is not a concern because they don't really feel anything. But when we increase the dose, we get runny eyes and it stings us a bit.

So what we did was that we made a study where we asked ourselves: is it actually the case that people with MCS or chemical intolerance react differently to masked exposures of acrolein? So then we had two conditions in this exposure booth that you can see. In one of the conditions, we exposed people only to an odorant that actually is quite mild and that doesn't trigger reactions in MCS patients. And the other contained a mixture of the mild odorant and acrolein. And then we tested two different groups, one with MCS and one without MCS.

The group without MCS could not discern any difference between the two exposure conditions. So it is not detectable in general by the general public that doesn't have any problems. But the MCS group actually could, so they could—but they could do so only after extended exposure. So we had to expose people for 45 minutes or something like that to actually get a symptom reaction. But when they did, they sat inside that booth and they had red skin and so on.

This proves to us that it is not only—if it would have been an expectancy effect, if we would have taken in the MCS patient—it's a common trope that MCS persons react to anything, but then they would have reacted to the mild odorant, but they didn't. They only reacted to the masked compound. So that says to us that based on these exposures, we could potentially be able to find a test to be able to tease out people who actually react to this and those who don't. That could be step one into attaching an exposure test to MCS in the same way that we do, for instance, in allergies. If you think that you have an allergy, you come to the hospital and they do a skin prick test and you say, "Okay, I have a reaction to pollen, birch pollen and I have a reaction to cat dander, but I don't have a reaction to hazelnuts." And then you can get that kind of palette of exposure that I spoke about previously.

[00:45:32] Aaron Goodman: What disturbs me, and I think many people with MCS, is when research is published that presents what I think is a false argument that multiple chemical sensitivity, chemical intolerance is a psychological condition or disorder solely, right? It does feel that researchers have an agenda, those researchers, and it's informed by their training, right? And those researchers draw on papers in psychology and panic disorder. So it feels like they begin with an outcome in mind. And do they actually talk to people with MCS? Unlike you—you work very closely with people that have MCS. I think often they don't, and that's troubling. So it brings to mind the saying "nothing about us without us." Do you have any thoughts on that?

[00:46:26] Linus Andersson: Yeah, I think at least your final statement I think is very important. I think it's key to actually involve the patients in the research, but I would also say that it's not necessarily true that they haven't met MCS patients. I think that they have, however, met them in situations where they haven't been able to observe the exposure-reaction relationship. The patient has trickled down in the health system and they end up at a psychologist because everyone who has a reaction that cannot be explained along the way ends up at psychologists. And the psychologists see that this person is not feeling so well, and that may be obvious because they have traveled this path and haven't gotten any help. And when they speak to that person, they are using their framework based on their training to do what they can do for them. And it could be that they end up in a narrow frame of explaining MCS symptoms.

And I do understand the frustration of MCS patients because they aren't particularly stressed. They aren't, you know, depressed. They could be—if they have had this problem for a while. But that is not the main concern. And I would say that you should go back and actually address the main concern, which is, in my opinion, the relationship between exposure and the symptom. That is where research should be. I do understand the outrage of the current state of business.

[00:48:00] Aaron Goodman: We need folks who take us at our word, right? We need researchers to collaborate with us and believe us. And we need doctors and human resource people to take us at our word and not misdiagnose and dismiss us. And we need family and loved ones to be supportive. And we need more researchers like you who collaborate and study the science. I'd like to ask you what motivates you to keep going?

[00:48:26] Linus Andersson: I work at the psychology department, so I understand the initial concern that I will dismiss their reactions as psychological. I'm not doing that. I really have devoted a lot of my life towards helping patients with MCS. And I do it because first of all, someone has to do it and it doesn't seem like anyone else is doing it. So I'm soldiering on and it's a lot of problems. I regularly get mails and calls from both people who are really bad off and just want my help. And I feel horrible for not being able to help them yet because I'm just one person in a very large world. I get a lot of anger—people calling me and saying that I'm a horrible person for doing my research—and I hope they have misinterpreted me. I also get a lot of love. So people say that what you're doing is—I feel hope for the future. I think it's my duty to do this. I just happen to find it also very thrilling and very interesting. I don't suffer from MCS myself, so I have the privilege of actually not getting these symptoms, but I do see the suffering and I want to help.

[00:49:47] Aaron Goodman: Yeah. And lastly, you mentioned you're a professor in a department of psychology. Even by reaching out to you and inviting you on the podcast, I looked closely at your research to ensure that you are not dismissing people with MCS and negating our lived experiences. And I was delighted to see and to hear that you're not, but that is, quite in my experience, quite rare among psychologists.

[00:50:13] Linus Andersson: Among non-informed psychologists, I would say that there are actually psychologists who do not endorse an explanation that this is just a sub-symptom of anxiety and so on. I would even go as far as to say that in some cases it's the toxicologists who are trying to push the MCS patients away from their field because they haven't found a dose-response relationship. And therefore it should be psychological in nature.

But you asked me about my background. So I'm not a clinical psychologist. I have a background in cognitive neuroscience focusing on the sensory system. So I do a lot of studies on the nervous system from the periphery, inflammation in the mucosal membranes, and systemic reactions like taking blood samples to look for signs of inflammation and gene expression alterations. I follow the activation patterns in the brain when people are exposed to chemical compounds. I look at potential effects of oxidative stress, symptoms like some of these I have mentioned before. So I have a quite broad neurobiological background, and with my colleagues at the hospital and my close colleague Anna Löfsson, with the background in chemistry, I think we cover a large and important field of expertise.

[00:51:32] Aaron Goodman: You've been listening to The Chemical Sensitivity Podcast. I'm the host and podcast creator Aaron Goodman. The Chemical Sensitivity Podcast is by and for the MCS community. The podcast is generously supported by the Marilyn Brickman Hoffman Foundation and listeners like you. If you wish to support the podcast, please visit chemicalsensitivitypodcast.org. Your support will help us continue making the podcast available and creating greater awareness about MCS. To learn more about The Chemical Sensitivity Podcast, follow the podcast on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Blue Sky and TikTok. As always, you can reach me at aaron@chemicalsensitivitypodcast.org. Thanks for listening.

The Chemical Sensitivity Podcast and its associated website are the work of Aaron Goodman and made possible with funds from the Marilyn Brickman Hoffman Foundation, supporting efforts to educate and inform physicians, scientists, and the public about multiple chemical sensitivity. The content, opinions, findings, statements, and recommendations expressed in this Chemical Sensitivity Podcast and associated website do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of its sponsors.