Our Mission
BioSymphony is rooted in the lived experience and clinical history of a U.S. veteran, educator, and reproductive cancer survivor who endured prolonged exposure to a known neurotoxicant—permethrin, a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide used in military-grade applications.
During a 52-day high-heat field training cycle, this individual was ordered to wear a prototype of the factory-treated Army Combat Uniform (ACU) impregnated with permethrin—without climate control, and without informed consent.
Despite a lack of formal recognition by the U.S. Department of Defense or the VA, BioSymphony’s research—grounded in clinical data, lab testing (CLIA and CAP certified), and comprehensive scientific review—finds strong correlation between this toxic exposure and a cascade of chronic, multi-system disease outcomes. These findings are supported not only by medical records, including genomic testing, but also by peer-reviewed literature that increasingly recognizes permethrin’s biological and epigenetic impacts.
Our work challenges prevailing assumptions and builds an evidence-based framework that affirms the experiences of thousands of deployed veterans, and non-deployed, like our founder. It represents a turning point in the conversation—reframing toxicant-related disease cascades not as a merely plausible consequence of this specific military exposure, but as a condition for which causation is now, based on the weight of clinical evidence, more probable than not, to be the primary catalyst of adverse health outcomes.
This shift moves the narrative beyond speculative inquiry to medical accountability—placing this toxic exposure at the center of the diagnostic conversation around long-term, multi-system illness.
Everything that you will read here is in the public domain—including the phase of research during which our survivor was issued and ordered to wear these ACUs. There is no portion of the record, presented here, which is not public domain. None of it is classified.
We were soldiers, and our country was at war.
The decisions made by a few—those who believed such measures were necessary to win—do not deserve condemnation. They acted under the immense pressures of duty, strategy, and survival.
Yet with that duty comes an enduring responsibility. Those same leaders—and the institutions they represent—carry an obligation to improve these weapons systems, to mitigate toxicity, and to reduce collateral harm for future generations.
Our goal is not to lay blame on any institution, individual or the United States. Quite the opposite.
Our mission is to aid, honor and defend the United States through advancing cutting edge science and technological knowledge.
We seek only to reconcile, to overcome, and to heal the past and present harm these toxins have caused.
That is why we founded BioSymphony Research & Advocacy Group.
BioSymphony is a systems biology initiative—an integrated, cross-disciplinary approach to understanding how complex biological systems across organs, cells, genes, and molecules interact dynamically in the context of toxicological impact on human health and resulting pathologies.
BioSymphony was created to flip the narrative inflicted on us, turning the damning truth that these exposures are measurable, heritable, and preventable on its head—by anticipating, innovating, and curing. BioSymphony uses precision diagnostics and science-driven storytelling to document toxicant-linked illness, promote early detection, and fight for the rights and recovery of those harmed by military and environmental exposures.
About this content
This record documents the multi-system health outcomes after prolonged, repeated wear of an experimental–treated Army Combat Uniform (ACU) during training operations, replicating expeditionary settings in high-heat, high-stress conditions over the course of 52 consecutive days.
It is a comprehensive, evidence-based medical and scientific analysis of our survivor's clinical journey before, during, and after this exposure to permethrin and polymer-treated uniforms, including concurrent DEET exposure on skin. It integrates:
-
Contemporaneous notes from the point of reaction to the present
-
Clinical documentation from birth to present
-
Multi-omic data (genomics, transcriptomics, epigenomics, metabolomics)
-
Imaging and histopathology
-
Peer-reviewed toxicological literature
-
Mechanistic systems biology frameworks
It is also intended to serve as model testimony for other veterans and civilians suffering from similarly underdiagnosed exposure-related conditions.
What’s at Stake?
Despite decades of evidence, many U.S. military and civilian institutions have failed to:
-
Acknowledge the risks of low-dose, chronic exposure, especially when the symptoms presented and conditions diagnosed are not idiopathic nor isolated, but in fact the result of toxin-specific, climate-reactive stressors stored within lipophilic tissue reservoirs beneath the skin
-
Incorporate environmental exposure histories into early diagnosis and intervention
-
Offer precision diagnostics and exposure-informed care
The consequence of issuing factory-treated permethrin uniforms has been amplified by regulatory and medical dismissal, delayed treatment, and intergenerational harm.
This record aims to bridge that gap by:
-
Connecting individual symptoms to established biological mechanisms and emerging toxicological research
-
Validating the role of toxicant-induced mitochondrial failure, immune collapse, and epigenetic injury
-
Providing policymakers, providers, and legal advocates with reproducible, actionable science
Critical Toxicological Findings
Mapping the EPA RED (2006) Permethrin Cancer Findings to Exposure Models
Overview
The EPA’s 2006 Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for permethrin offers toxicological endpoints and cancer classifications that directly challenge the assumptions used by Proctor et. al., and the AFPMB (TG 36). The findings dispute the claim that these ACUs are safe for human use.
Below is a walkthrough comparing each model against EPA standards and the evidence provided in Table 3 (p. 11) of the RED document.
Key Observations
1. The EPA Invalidated the Proctor et. al, and the AFPMB Model’s Foundation
EPA rejected dermal absorption estimates (2–5%) submitted by FMC Corporation and ICI Americas, calling them scientifically unacceptable:
“The dermal penetration study… does not satisfy the basic criteria for an in vivo survival primate study, and therefore, was determined to be scientifically unacceptable.”
- EPA RED (2006), p. 67
These same 2.29% estimates were reused in the Proctor et. al/AFPMB model and TG 36, leading to dramatically low risk evaluations at the AFPMB.
2. EPA Chose 15% Dermal Absorption as Scientifically Defensible
“The Agency calculated the dermal absorption factor from an oral to dermal toxicity ratio… and concluded 15% is appropriate.”
- EPA RED (2006), p. 67
This supports EPA Models 1 and 2, not Proctor or DoD assumptions.
3. BioSymphony Surpasses EPA in Realism
BioSymphony’s models include field-relevant variables the EPA and DoD have long overlooked until recent years:
BioSymphony’s dose projections reflect 52 days of continuous exposure documented by the survivor - including contemporaneous journals, imaging, biopsy results, clinical markers, and omics-confirmed molecular injury caused by Permethrin, DEET, and likely PFAS used in polymer binding agents.
Final Comparative Dose Summary
Assumptions for All Models
-
Permethrin Application Rate: 0.125 mg/cm²
-
Total Treated Surface Area: 15,600 cm²
-
Total Fabric-Bound Dose: 1,950 mg
-
Skin Contact Area: 13,500 cm²
-
Daily Transfer Rate: 5% → 84.375 mg/day
-
AFPMB model max daily dose 1.93 mg
-
BioSymphony with real world data and setting first day = 25.31 mg
Cancer Risk Relevance
“The EPA Cancer Assessment Review Committee concluded that these results support classifying permethrin as ‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans.’”
— EPA RED (2006), p. 11
The Proctor/AFPMB model fails to incorporate this designation and does not apply cancer Q1 values in risk estimates. The DoD has not revised exposure assumptions in light of this classification or EPA’s updated 15% absorption standard (2009 onward).
BioSymphony Corrects the Record
Unlike Proctor and AFPMB frameworks—which rely on outdated and rejected absorption data—the BioSymphony model integrates synergistic exposures, biological complexity, and real-world conditions. It honors the data the DoD chose to ignore and uses the EPA’s own criteria to arrive at a more accurate and actionable risk profile for veterans and civilians alike.
🧬 20 Interconnected Systems
Affected by Toxicant Exposure
Core Human Systems
-
Nervous
-
Endocrine
-
Cardiovascular
-
Respiratory
-
Gastrointestinal
-
Renal
-
Musculoskeletal
-
Integumentary
-
Immune / Lymphatic
-
Reproductive
-
Sensory (vision, hearing, vestibular)
Systems of Special Toxicological Concern
12. Hepatic (Liver)
13. Hematologic (Blood)
14. Microbiome
15. Connective Tissue Matrix
16. Metabolic Axis
17. Adipose System
18. Pulmonary Vasculature
19. Neuroimmune Axis
20. Glymphatic System (Brain Waste Clearance)
BioSymphony’s Active Research and Target Library
BioSymphony is building an AI-driven, continuous-learning system designed to serve as a Class II medical decision support tool.
We use systems biology to identify and track multisystem damage with precision.
Our active research includes:
-
Permethrin & DEET
-
700+ associated diseases and comorbid conditions
-
148 human metabolites
-
13 proteins of interest
-
33 ligands
-
59 genes
-
4 StAR (Steroidogenic Acute Regulatory) proteins
-
12 miRNAs (microRNAs)
-
34 disrupted signaling pathways
-
7 serum biomarkers
-
9 fecal biomarkers
-
140 urinary biomarkers
A National Imperative
This work doesn’t just aim to improve outcomes for those already affected—it carries the potential to dramatically enhance the future readiness of the United States Armed Services.
By recognizing and addressing the biological toll of toxicant exposure, we can improve force health, mission performance, and long-term veteran care.
But the impact reaches further.
This is a public health opportunity—one that could reduce the burden of chronic illness across civilian populations, lower healthcare costs, and accelerate innovation in diagnostics, therapeutic development, and environmental health science.
By confronting what these exposures have done, we discover how to stop them—and how to heal what’s been harmed.
In doing so, we protect future generations, advance American science and medicine, and reaffirm the values we claim to serve.
Legal Readiness and Disclaimer Statement
This record is prepared for use in medical consultation with licensed providers, scientific, legal, and public advocacy use. It is based on:
-
The survivor’s contemporaneous notes from the moment of first dermal reaction to present
-
Clinical documentation spanning from birth to the present
-
Population-level statistical and historical datasets
-
Peer-reviewed literature
-
Imaging, biopsy, and diagnostic findings
-
Multi-omic and functional data across blood, urine, fecal, and tissue samples
We are a group of citizen scientists, nerds, and avid readers. We are not presently certified genetic councilors nor physicians. Some of us are working toward those goals in grad courses. - This work is yet to be peer reviewed and as such makes no accusation against DoD nor their vendors. We encourage debate and scientific exploration of the profound, lived experience of our survivor, his clinical data, and our findings of tragic miscalculation of risk to human health, intentional, or in error. Hoping to improve our common defense and public health.
While this document does not constitute formal medical advice for other individuals, it is presented in good faith to establish the evidentiary basis for toxicant-induced disease, advocacy, and to guide future efforts in early diagnosis, intervention, policy, and compensation.
This work represents the current pinnacle of a survivor's life-long work.
May it save yours—and those to come.
ut alii possunt vivere
Regulatory Document Comparison & Summaries
1. EPA 2020 CARC Fourth Evaluation (62 pages)
Reaffirms permethrin as having “Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential” based on the observation of lung adenomas in female mice. Quantitative cancer risk modeling was de-emphasized in favor of a non-linear approach (RfD). Reassesses Mode of Action (MOA) data for liver and lung tumors, but finds them inconclusive and inadequate, particularly at doses relevant to tumor formation.
2. EPA 2023 Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic Potential
Permethrin is listed with a classification of “Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential.” Cancer Q1* values are not included; evaluation focuses on non-linear risk methods unless new data arises.
3. 2002 CARC Report (Third Evaluation)
Key decision document: classified permethrin as “Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” via oral route, based on benign lung tumors in female mice and liver tumors in both sexes. Cancer Q1* value derived from female mouse lung tumors: 9.6×10⁻³ mg/kg/day.
4. Elements to Increase Translation in Pyrethroid Epidemiology (2022)
Meta-review of 74 studies on pyrethroids (including permethrin). Concludes that only 24% of studies are “Relevant” for risk assessment due to weak exposure validation and outcome ascertainment. Suggests that more robust design is needed for policy translation.
5. Evaluation of Human Relevance of Female Mouse Lung Tumors
Submitted by industry (Sumitomo), attempts to discredit female lung tumor findings as not relevant to humans. EPA ultimately rejected the submitted MOA studies as insufficient, particularly regarding their relevance at low doses.
6. Rotterdam Convention (2004)
Permethrin meets criteria for persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity. Though not formally listed in Annex III, it meets multiple hazard thresholds (e.g., >6-month half-life in soil/sediment).
7. California CIC Permethrin Consultation (2009)
Documents genotoxic and mutagenic activity in vitro (Ames test, micronucleus test). Cites DNA damage and oxidative stress in human lymphocytes and rodent cells.
8. EPA Chemical Carcinogenicity Summary (Older Edition)
Serves as background confirming the tiered assessment approach used by EPA and CARC. Reinforces that permethrin evaluations used weight-of-evidence including epidemiology, animal, and structure-activity data.
9. DoD Risk Assessment for Insecticides (2003)
Largely references Proctor Model (2.29% dermal absorption). Outdated and scientifically rejected by EPA in RED 2006. Fails to acknowledge 15% dermal absorption or cumulative dose models.
Final Comparative Statement
The EPA 2002 CARC Report stands as the most critical foundational document, classifying permethrin as “Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” via oral exposure, based primarily on robust animal studies demonstrating lung tumors in female mice (from which the Q1* was derived) and liver tumors in both sexes. The Q1* value (9.6×10⁻³ mg/kg/day) derives from these tumors.
By contrast, the EPA 2020 re-evaluation downgraded the classification to “Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential,” based on a review of industry-submitted Mode of Action (MOA) studies which the Agency ultimately found inadequate. However, the Agency did not invalidate the original tumor findings but instead chose non-linear risk modeling as a regulatory approach.
Industry-sponsored reports failed to sufficiently explain or rule out the tumorigenic mechanisms observed in female mice. Moreover, epidemiologic literature and international documents (Rotterdam Convention, CIC) demonstrate further genotoxic, oxidative, and bioaccumulative concerns associated with permethrin, many of which align with BioSymphony’s data on cumulative exposure and systemic toxicity.
Conclusion
There is consistent evidence across regulatory and academic literature that permethrin induces systemic toxicity and carcinogenic outcomes in female mice, with female lung tumors forming the basis for the EPA’s “Likely Carcinogen” classification in 2002.
Despite reclassification in 2020 as “Suggestive Evidence,” the mechanistic basis of injury and EPA’s rejection of new MOA defenses reinforce the validity of the original classification. Coupled with weak epidemiologic tools and flawed DoD risk models, the weight of evidence supports BioSymphony’s assertion that exposure scenarios like those endured during 52-day ACU prototype wear represent substantial and bioaccumulative toxicant burden, especially in high-risk populations and sensitive subgroups (e.g., females, children, reproductive-age individuals).
The 2002 CARC, Rotterdam Convention, CIC Review, and pyrethroid literature reviews converge on a need for updated regulatory thresholds, translational human data, and adaptive risk frameworks—which BioSymphony is poised to deliver.
Works Cited (Regulatory Documents)
California Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Permethrin CIC Consultation: Genotoxicity and Mutagenicity Review. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. https://oehha.ca.gov/sites/default/files/media/downloads/crnr/permethrin.pdf
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Permethrin: Report of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee (Third Evaluation). Office of Pesticide Programs, Health Effects Division, CARC. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC-109701_23-Oct-02_a.pdf
2006. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Permethrin. Office of Pesticide Programs. https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/pdf/permethrin_red.pdf
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2020. Permethrin: Interim Registration Review Decision. Office of Pesticide Programs. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-10/documents/permethrin-reg-review-id.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
2023. Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic Potential. Office of Pesticide Programs. Accessed April 15, 2025. https://npic.orst.edu/chemicals_evaluated.pdf
Ishmael, J., and M. H. Litchfield. 1988. “Chronic Toxicity and Carcinogenic Evaluation of Permethrin in Rats and Mice.” Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 11 (2): 308–322. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027205908890156X
National Research Council. 2004. Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade. United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.pic.int/TheConvention/Overview/TextoftheConvention/tabid/1048/language/en-US/Default.aspx
Yamamoto, Sugio, et al. 2017. “Evaluation of the Human Relevance of the Lung Tumors Observed in Female Mice Treated With Permethrin Based on Mode of Action.” Toxicological Sciences 157 (2): 465–476. https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/157/2/465/3738763
Rayner, Julia, et al. 2022. “Elements to Increase Translation in Pyrethroid Epidemiology Research: A Review.” Science of the Total Environment 835: 155419. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969721076464
U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine. 2003. Risk Assessments for Exposure of Deployed Military Personnel to Insecticides and Personal Protective Measures Used for Disease-Vector Management. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Entomological Sciences Program.
