Photo: AI Generated
What is Gaslighting?
‘Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse whereby a person or group manipulates one or more people into questioning their sanity and perception of reality.’
‘The definition of gaslighting can be extended to include an act or acts perpetuated by any person in a position of power designed to manipulate less powerful others to doubt themselves or question their own sanity or memory (Davis & Ernst, 2019).’
https://www.simplypsychology.org/what-is-gaslighting.html
Understanding Gaslighting in Chemical Exposure Cases:
Toxic gaslighting is when environmental and occupational harm is dismissed, downplayed, denied or psychologised by those in positions of authority to the detriment of those injured. There is a systemic, institutional pattern of providing misinformation, minimising and dismissing toxin exposure-linked harm as well as discrediting those who report it.
While regular gaslighting involves manipulation that makes people doubt their own reality, toxic gaslighting shifts the burden onto victims to “prove” what they experienced.
This means the harm is dismissed rather than investigated—leaving victims’ experiences invalidated while accountability is evaded.
This ensures toxic exposure can continue while keeping it out of the spotlight.
Toxic gaslighting is not only disbelief, it is what happens when exposure-related illness is dismissed and psychologised without proper investigation. In some cases, even when appropriate testing with a specialist has been conducted and an official diagnosis given, findings have been dismissed by government agencies.
Why is this done?
- Psychological explanations are easy to apply.
- Admitting harm can create legal, financial, and reputational consequences.
- Protection of an existing narrative.
Some examples of toxic gaslighting:
This scenario represents a disturbing convergence of environmental science and psychological manipulation—a phenomenon known as 'toxic gaslighting.' While 'gaslighting' traditionally describes psychological manipulation that makes people question their reality, toxic gaslighting occurs when institutions, corporations, or officials dismiss, downplay, or deny people's experiences with environmental pollution and its health effects 7 . This insidious practice keeps dangerous pollution hidden in plain sight while making victims doubt their own symptoms and perceptions.’
https://www.greenchemsci.com/posts/toxic-gaslighting-the-invisible-pollution-thats-making-us-doubt-our-reality
Toxic gaslighting: How 3M executives convinced a scientist the forever chemicals she found in human blood were safe
As the EPA now forces the removal of the chemicals from drinking water, Kris Hansen wrestles with the secrets that 3M kept from her and the world.
Boeing to ill workers
"It's All In Your Head"
An Investigation of the Boeing Company
story by Eric Nelson and Mark Worth
The Free Press - Article last updated in 1994
‘ “The Boeing Company meant everything to me," said Heidi Guevara, a plastic bench mechanic who got sick at Auburn in 1987. "It was a big letdown. I figured they would take care of it."
A Free Press investigation has revealed that the very system designed to help injured workers is being influenced by a closed loop of powerful institutions - most significantly Boeing, the University of Washington's School of Medicine and the Washington State Medical Association. Also in on the act are high-powered law firms, industry-friendly medical researchers, and doctors who straddle the line between physician and corporate apologist.
Working in concert, Boeing and "Big Medicine" are using their economic power and political clout to manage the high-stakes debate over Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), a complicated occupational illness with unpredictable effects. Key to their strategy is framing MCS primarily as a psychological condition, despite a growing body of medical and scientific evidence to the contrary.’
A central problem with exposure to contaminated air in aircraft is that it is often difficult to prove after the event; repeated, low level exposure is even more difficult. It’s not because the health effects are not real and nothing happened -
- It is because no adequate system exists to capture the evidence when it matters. There is no routine toxicology testing for crew and passengers after fume events, no standard medical protocol for aircraft-fume exposure, no consistent biomonitoring, no long-term surveillance and little or no training for healthcare professionals in recognising contaminated cabin-air illness.
- The absence of evidence is then used against the injured person, when in reality the evidence was never properly collected.
This demonstrates a serious failure of the aviation industry, its regulators, our governments and health services to protect and support pilots, cabin crew and passengers.
There is also concern for aircraft engineers as well as ground staff who work in close proximity to aircraft due to repeated aircraft exhaust exposure.
For many crew and passengers exposed during fume events, they suffered a second ordeal: trying to explain what had happened to them in healthcare, workplace, regulatory and government systems that were not equipped — and in many cases not willing — to investigate toxic exposure properly.
Symptoms were separated into different medical boxes. Neurological symptoms treated separately from respiratory symptoms. Cognitive problems, fatigue, throat injury, endocrine symptoms, immune problems and chemical sensitivity all considered in isolation.
The common exposure that linked them was often ignored.
This is toxic gaslighting - and it is what happens when people report illness after toxic exposure and are then told, directly or indirectly, that the problem is anxiety, stress, nocebo, somatisation, uncertainty, or lack of evidence — while the testing, training, monitoring and medical protocols needed to produce that evidence were never put in place.
The late Captain Tim Lindsay suffered toxic gaslighting.
In a May 2006 letter to BALPA, he stated - ‘Misinformation has been put out for example that Tristan and I have accounted for 99% of all worldwide fume diversions and that we are "terrorists".’
- He raised this point (amongst others), in the context of pilots’ fear of being seen as troublemakers for reporting oil smells.
That is a very clear toxic gaslighting pattern:
The hazard becomes insignificant; those who report it are reframed as the problem.
In addition, Tim reported that British Airways Health Services (BAHS) had repeatedly told him that substances inhaled from oil would disappear within half an hour and could not be detected by blood testing. After he independently arranged blood testing following a fume event, he reported results showing elevated VOCs and said BAHS then sought specialist interpretation.
His letter to BALPA can be read here:
Remembering Captain Tim Lindsay by Captain Tristan Loraine - Global Cabin Air Quality Executive - (2022):
https://www.change.org/p/stop-contaminated-cabin-air-in-aircraft/u/30119791
During that same period, in 2007 a Memorandum by the Aviation Organophosphate Information Site (AOPIS) was written to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee’s ‘Air Travel and Health’ Inquiry which begins on page 106 in the Minutes of evidence section of this document:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldsctech/7/7.pdf
See page 110 in the Minutes of Evidence section:
‘Example—Failure to stop industry misinformation
In 2003 the head doctor at British Airways, Dr Mike Bagshaw, stated in a communication to all its cabin crew members that:
— TCP is a toxic mixture that can cause a wide array of transitory or permanent neurological dysfunctions when swallowed. However, there have been no recorded cases of neurological harm in humans following dermal or inhalation exposure. This means that the substance can be potentially harmful if swallowed in large enough quantity, but is not harmful if absorbed through the skin or breathed in.
A statement no doubt aimed at making crews believe it was safe to breathe contaminated air, yet the main international NTP Chemical Repository Data for TCP clearly shows Dr Bagshaw’s comment to be inaccurate:
— Acute/chronic hazards—This compound is toxic by inhalation, ingestion or by absorption through the skin. It is an irritant of the skin and eyes. It is also an irritant of the mucous membranes and respiratory tract. When heated to decomposition it emits toxic fumes of phosphorus oxides.
— Emergency procedures—Inhalation: Immediately leave the contaminated area; take deep breaths of fresh air. Immediately call a physician and be prepared to transport the victim to a hospital even if no symptoms (such as wheezing, coughing, shortness of breath, or burning in the mouth, throat, or chest) develop etc . . .
The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for the jet engine oil BP 2380 dated 1 January 2001 also states: Combustion Products: Toxic fumes may be evolved on burning or exposure to heat.
Inhalation: At normal ambient temperatures this product will be unlikely to present an inhalation hazard because of its low volatility. May cause irritation to eyes nose and throat due to exposure to vapour mists or fumes. May be harmful by inhalation if exposure to vapour mists or fumes resulting from thermal decomposition products occurs.
How can the CAA allow such misinformation to be allowed, particularly when it and similar information is being disseminated by aviation medical departments and CAA appointed Aviation Medical Examiners?’
Michael Bagshaw was Chief Medical Officer at British Airways during a period in which pilots and cabin crew were increasingly reporting oil-like smells, fume events and subsequent illness. He was therefore in a position where a possible occupational-health signal could have been recognised, recorded and properly investigated.
A professional and responsible response would have included systematic recording of events and symptoms, prompt, event-linked clinical assessment, exposure monitoring, follow-up of affected crew and independent research.
Instead, injured crew were, and continue to be, left without answers, support or proper medical follow-up.
Video Segment from 60 Minutes Australia (2013) challenging Michael Bagshaw:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO7KpNNimt0
The full documentary can be viewed here:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lO7KpNNimt0&ra=m
Toxic gaslighting does not always require an outright lie directed at an affected person. It can also operate systemically, through airlines, regulators, government departments, medical guidance and scientific committees, with the effect of convincing workers and the flying public that aircraft cabin air is safe for everyone to breathe, while those who report illness after exposure are portrayed as troublemakers, mistaken, anxious, exaggerating or unable to understand the evidence.
Another example can be viewed at the bottom of page 53 of the Minutes of Evidence section in the 2007 House of Lords document -
‘Supplementary memorandum by the Independent Pilots Association’
‘ A suggestion
Whilst not wishing to rake over old ground the Association wishes to reiterate that it concurs with the submission by the GCAQE of the list of inaccuracies, misinformation and at times untrue information given by civil servants from various departments to the members of both Houses of Parliament. It not being helpful or practical to pursue the failures further the Association would ask the Committee to consider recommending that a line be drawn under these past failures and that all those engaged in resolving the problem of cabin air contamination go forward together in a spirit of openness, honesty and co-operation.
From the reaction to the report that the Association is receiving from its members it has done nothing to ally their concerns that the “system” is only there to protect the interests of manufacturers and operators and the fact that crew members and passengers are at times being adversely eVected is of little consequence. This feeling is further compounded by the fact that 8 of the annexes to the COT reports were kept secret—for members only. How can such reports be peer reviewed and commented upon and confidence in the “system” re-established while such secrecy exists?’
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldsctech/7/7.pdf
Systemic toxic gaslighting has been ongoing in the U.K. since the early 1990’s when over 1000 farmers brought claims of injury against the government for injuries caused by exposure to sheep-dip and pesticide formulations containing organophosphates.
Unfortunately, their cases never made it to court.
More information here:
The Gulf War veterans suffered a similar fate. Although some individual conditions were accepted as causally linked to Gulf service, Gulf War Syndrome itself was not recognised as a discrete pathological entity, and veterans’ chronic multi-system illness was repeatedly filtered through uncertainty, stress-related explanations and fragmented diagnoses rather than a coherent toxic-exposure framework.
See ‘UK position on Gulf War Syndrome’ in the link:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/gulf-veterans-illnesses
The official scientific re-framing of chronic organophosphate exposure in the U.K. began in 1998, when attention shifted to uncertainty over whether repeated, low-level exposure could cause chronic harm. This process was initiated by the UK Department of Health, which commissioned a review from the Medical Research Council’s Institute for Environment and Health, later considered by the Committee on Toxicity. It culminated in the COT’s 2014 statement on the long-term neurological, neuropsychological and psychiatric effects of low-level exposure to organophosphates in adults, whose conclusions effectively minimised the significance of chronic low-level exposure:
Statement on long-term neurological, neuropsychological and psychiatric effects of low-level exposure to organophosphates in adults (2014)
See the conclusions on Page 58:
https://zenodo.org/records/571368
Quotes from the COT document above:
“The current balance of evidence suggests that there is no long-term risk of clearly demonstrable peripheral neuropathy from exposure to organophosphates that does not cause overt acute poisoning, a conclusion that has strengthened with the passage of time.”
And…..
“There is uncertainty as to whether long-term low level exposure to organophosphates causes detectable impairment of sensory thresholds, but if there is an effect then it is likely to be small.”
- Words which are in direct conflict with the findings of U.K. Government funded DEFRA Project VM0299, one of several projects commissioned by the U.K. Government in the early 2000’s.
VM0299 was conducted by the London School Of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
Final Report published in 2007.
Conclusions Page 41:
“Overall, the evidence in this study confirms that there is an established and widespread distal symmetrical polyneuropathy in the sample of the study population seen at the WLRNC. It is a unique distal symmetrical polyneuropathy in that the overwhelming clinical presentations are autonomic symptoms, where dysfunctions of cardiovascular and thermal regulations are the predominant complaints. Sexual dysfunctions and gut symptoms are also common. The somatic components of this polyneuropathy are largely sensory, presenting mainly with symptoms of acquired abnormal sensations of which pins and needles are predominant, while aches and pain are rare. The results provide compelling evidence for further research into the autonomic status in people with chronic exposure to sub-clinical doses of OPs or suffering from chronic illnesses associated with exposure to OPs.”
https://www.drmyhill.co.uk/drmyhill/images/d/d5/VM0299_8421_FRP.pdf
More here:
‘A spokesperson for the environment department said it still disputed the suggestion that the use of OPs had been a health hazard to farmers. It said its independent advisors, the Committee on Toxicity, had concluded last year that exposure to organophosphates at a level insufficient to cause acute poisoning did not cause anything more than minor and subtle damage to the nervous system.
However, a leading toxicologist said the committee’s review of the evidence on OPs was flawed.
Dr Sarah MacKenzie Ross, from University College London’s review of existing scientific evidence, published in 2013, found 13 out of 16 studies showed evidence of neurological problems following long-term, low-level exposure to OPs.’
Sufficient warning was provided to the U.K. Government of chronic injury from repeated (long-term) low-level exposure to OP’s being the main problem in the 1950’s -
See VI (19)
http://www.oprus2001.co.uk/zuck1951.htm
See number 12 in the HSE MS17 document of 1987 below:
http://www.oprus2001.co.uk/ms171987.pdf
Committee on Toxicity on Aircraft Cabin Air Quality (2024):
“The COT concluded that the reported levels of the chemical contaminants reviewed (OPs, VOCs including as mixtures, CO and CO2) in aircraft cabin air are unlikely to cause adverse health effects in aircrew following acute or long-term exposures.”
COT April 2024
Statement 2024/04
The use of ‘unlikely’ implies that the Committee on Toxicity are uncertain in their conclusion and have made an assumption.
There is no mention of endocrine disruption or mitochondrial dysfunction in the documents that led to the COT conclusion. The assessment continues to operate within a narrow official framework focused on AChE and NTE inhibition and the belief that only acute exposure is likely to cause chronic injury, while giving insufficient attention to more plausible mechanisms of repeated, low-level and mixed chemical exposure.
- Exposure to fumes containing endocrine disrupting chemicals can have various impacts on endocrine function, which can potentially lead to disruptions in hormone synthesis and regulation. This includes triaryl phosphates, which - as well as being endocrine disruptors also have the capability to diminish mitochondrial membrane potential (decrease in the electrical charge difference across the inner mitochondrial membrane, which is crucial for ATP production and overall cellular energy).
- Cells may experience energy deficits, leading to impaired metabolism and increased susceptibility to apoptosis (programmed cell death).
- Reduced mitochondrial function can lead to oxidative stress due to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). This oxidative stress may further exacerbate cellular damage and is linked to various pathological conditions, including neurodegenerative diseases.
- Endocrine disruption can worsen mitochondrial dysfunction - mitochondrial dysfunction can increase oxidative stress - oxidative stress can worsen inflammation - inflammation can disrupt endocrine signalling - and all of these can affect nerves.
- That is why chronic multi-system illness can emerge without a textbook model of acute OP poisoning. In addition, there are many other chemicals in aircraft oil and hydraulic fluid which also have endocrine disrupting properties. And this is why toxic gaslighting is so damaging: affected people have been told for decades that harm is ‘unlikely’, while science has continued to evolve beyond the narrow official framework and is now providing much-needed evidence of other mechanisms of injury. Yet the early warnings about repeated low-level organophosphate exposure and cumulative cholinesterase inhibition were already present in the 1950s, and were not acted upon by successive UK government departments and expert committees.
Meanwhile, Tristan Loraine, spokesman for the GCAQE, has reported that a new scientific study has just been published confirming that the anti-wear additives used in all current jet engine oils are endocrine disruptors. Further details from Tristan are below.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004226017384
‘Summary for Unions and Policymakers:
Current jet engine oils contain triaryl phosphate additives because they are effective anti-wear chemicals. However, these same chemicals have long been associated with concerns about neurological, endocrine and reproductive health effects.
This new peer-reviewed study is significant because it shows that not all organophosphate additives are equally hazardous. The researchers examined 42 organophosphate compounds and commercial mixtures and found that the group containing aryl and triaryl phosphates - the same family used in current aviation lubricants - was consistently the most biologically active and potentially hazardous.
In contrast, they identified a different group of organophosphates that showed little or no activity in tests linked to hormone disruption and reproductive toxicity. The authors describe this group as the most favourable cluster and specifically highlight it as a promising source of safer replacement candidates. These are the ones being used in the new NYCO 940 oil.
Why this Matters for Aviation:
- For many years, the aviation industry has argued that there are no practical alternatives to the organophosphate additives used in jet engine oils.
- This study directly challenges that assumption.
The researchers demonstrate that:
- The most commonly used triaryl phosphate additives belong to the group showing the strongest endocrine-disrupting activity.
- Commercial lubricant additives and TCP-containing mixtures also showed significant biological activity.
- Other organophosphate structures showed little or no activity in the same tests and may represent substantially safer alternatives.
- Modern screening tools can now identify lower-risk additives before they are commercialised, making "safer-by-design" aviation lubricants a realistic objective rather than a theoretical possibility.
Relevance to Aircraft Cabin Air Exposure:
- The paper specifically acknowledges that aviation lubricants are a source of human exposure to organophosphates. It notes that TCP, TPP and other triaryl phosphates have been detected in aircraft cabin air following contamination of the aircraft ventilation system by engine oils and hydraulic fluids, exposing pilots, cabin crew and passengers.
- This is important because the study links many triaryl phosphates to biological effects involving hormone systems associated with reproductive and developmental health. The authors found that 87–88% of the organophosphates studied showed endocrine activity, with triaryl phosphates emerging as the most hazardous subgroup.
Policy Significance:
- The debate is no longer whether safer anti-wear additives can be identified. This study demonstrates that safer candidates already exist and that scientific tools are now available to distinguish lower-risk additives from the triaryl phosphate chemicals currently used in aviation lubricants.
- For regulators, airlines and aircraft manufacturers, this means the continued reliance on triaryl phosphate-based additives should no longer be viewed as unavoidable. The science now supports a transition toward lower-hazard alternatives and provides a practical framework for identifying and validating those alternatives.
- This study provides strong scientific evidence that the triaryl phosphate additives currently used in jet engine oils are among the most biologically hazardous organophosphates tested, while also demonstrating that less hazardous alternative additives can now be identified and developed, removing a major barrier to the production of safer aviation lubricants.’
This strengthens several key biological arguments:
- It supports endocrine disruption as a credible mechanism of harm from organophosphates relevant to aircraft.
- It reinforces that OP toxicity is not limited to acetylcholinesterase or NTE inhibition.
It supports concerns about reproductive, thyroid, developmental, neurodevelopmental and hormone-receptor effects. - It provides evidence that aviation-relevant OPs can be active in receptor systems at concentrations below those causing overt cell toxicity.
- It supports the argument that risk assessment based only on acute neurotoxicity, cholinesterase and NTE inhibition is too narrow.
From an occupational and public-health perspective, this means an immediate overhaul of risk assessment for airline pilots, cabin crew and passengers is required.
The precautionary principle should now be invoked. UK guidance makes it clear that the precautionary principle is intended for situations where there is good reason to believe harmful effects may occur, but where scientific uncertainty prevents the risk from being assessed with sufficient confidence. That is precisely the situation with contaminated aircraft cabin air: known hazardous substances are present, exposure is repeated, health reports are longstanding, and the necessary monitoring, testing and long-term surveillance have not been put in place.
In those circumstances, continued unnecessary exposure cannot be justified while waiting for absolute proof of harm.
For further information on Contaminated Air in Aircraft and Aerotoxic Syndrome, please visit -
France -
https://www.syndrome-aerotoxique.com/
Netherlands -
‘✈️ 𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗹𝘆 𝗔𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗙𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻'𝘀 𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝗖𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝗶𝗿 𝗤𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗲𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗼𝘅𝗶𝗰 𝗦𝘆𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗲, 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝟳 𝗠𝗮𝘆 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀.
The evening brought together crew members, maintenance engineers, physicians, researchers and affected individuals to discuss cabin air contamination, health effects, reporting, research and future actions.
With a nearly full venue and a highly engaged audience, the event highlighted the growing awareness of cabin air quality issues within the Dutch aviation community.
We are also pleased that the event was recently featured in KIT, the magazine of the Dutch Association of Retired Pilots.
You can read the English summary here:
https://flyaware.nl/en/information-evening/
We hope the information and experiences shared during the evening may be of interest to colleagues and organisations working on cabin air quality issues around the world.’
https://flyaware.nl/en/stichting-fly-aware-2/
United Kingdom/Worldwide -
Finally, for anyone affected by exposure to aircraft oil or hydraulic fumes, the following article may be useful. Although written for people affected by sheep-dip poisoning, some of the support strategies discussed may also be relevant to those affected by Aerotoxic Syndrome. This is not medical advice, and anyone considering supplements should seek appropriate clinical guidance, especially where they have existing medical conditions or take medication.
http://www.sheepdipsufferers.uk/archives/CoQ10%20OP%20posoning%20review.pdf
Thank you for your continued support and for signing and sharing this petition with family, friends and associates.
It’s very much appreciated.