Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity/Archive 1

Misc

Thomas here.

WOW -- this is the most biased article I have ever read. It's almost as bad as Wikipedia's "White Nationalism" page, which tries to justify white supremacism as being no different from any other form of national pride. Who writes this stuff? Who allows this stuff? What's happened to Wikipedia? Can it be changed? It's like the deletiion of the Starbucks Workers Union references from the Starbucks article, and the deletion of references to the G8 demonstration from the Genoa article, or the fictional biography attributed to the cartoonist Latuff on Wikipedia. It's become a rool of corporate and right-wing apologists. I started several of the Wikipedia articles, over five years ago. What happened to the project I used to know?

---

Wikipedia bias, bullying

Chris Brown here, from http://ages.ca

Indeed this article is biased, another contributing factor to the ongoing injury and killing of persons with sensitivities in the health care system and in the broader community. Even the paltry and somewhat deceitful efforts of the Canadian Human Rights Commission are not mentioned (see http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/legislation_policies/policy_environ_politique-en.asp )

Note that Wikipedia has been repeatedly approached about the hatefulness of articles on sensitivities. Discussion is dominated by anonymous bullies who do not understand the subject, do not understand that MCS does not describe a single disease, do not know the history of various parties on the concern. Bullies who control this entry choose to misrepresent science by claiming it discredits people with sensitivities that they do not tend towards a mean (as they would if only one disease entity were involved).

The entry, and this is about the entry, not the topic, distorts the discussion by mistakenly assuming MCS is a single disease, and then quoting studies that are based on assessing MCS as if it were one disease entitiy, i.e. patients would tend towards a mean.

Wikipedia is eclipsing the history of sensitivities behind the flaky approaches of one new group of physicians, and criticism of those physicians theories. Whomever they are, based on two years of trying to stop their abusiveness, the anonymous bullies who control this entry are not going to change. The only option is to record this discussion off site, where bigotry can be documented, for some future discussion, in another forum, about how popular misconceptions and bigotry are manifest.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.110.132 (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

hi- Big Canary here,

I agree with the statement below. A website www.exxonsecrets.org connects the co-authors of

---

Chemical Sensitivity: The Truth About Environmental Illness (Ronald E. Gots, MD, PhD & Stephen Barrett MD) exxonsecrets.org that lists Gots and Barrett on the advisory council of American Council on Science and Health. That organization receives $ from Exxon which is virulently against global warming. The company funds ersatz science against the mounting evidence of global warming. Why do I bring this up?

Theron Randolph, MD, board certified allergist and father of environmental medicine, originally called MCS the petrochemical problem. He noticed, beginning in the 1940's, that a patient's health problems were connected to exposure to coal and petrochemicals. The 40's saw a tremendous increase in the development and use of petrochemicals. His painstaking clinical work with over 10,000 people with MCS demonstrated reproducable effects. His work not only forwarded an understanding of MCS, his work also gave greater understanding of food allergies.

The mechanisms of MCS are not fully understood. However, as in most of scientific/medical developments, there is observation, control, reproducibility before there is full understanding of the disease or process. Mark R. Cullen, MD, Professor and Director, Occupational and Environmental Medicine defined MCS in 1987:

Multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) is an acquired disorder characterized by recurrent symptoms, referable to multiple organ systems, occurring in response to demonstrable exposure to many chemically unrelated doses far below those established in the general population at doses far below those established in the general population to cause harmful effects. No single widely accepted test of physiologic function can be shown to correlate with symptoms"Workers with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities" Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews (1987)

Back to biases in material used in listing. MCS potentially exposes the following industries to massive liability: oil and petrochemical, including agricultural; the chemical industry, highlighting pesticides, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics/toiletries, plastics industry, consumer products including foods and preservatives, furniture, clothing, household goods, construction industry, flooring and carpet industry. Did I mention transportation and insurance industry? I wonder how much of the American economy is represented in what I've just listed? Definitely in the trillions.

A film in production called "The Tomato Effect" rightly says that MCS reveals liability far past the magnitiude of the the tobacco industry.

As this is a condition that will continue to affect more people, myself included (1.8% of workforce leaving a job because of it)it behooves us to have a more accurate listing here. In trying to understand how I have been affected by MCS, it has been a long, difficult process made more difficult by a medical billing system as opposed to a health care system.

I'm new to Wikipedia, but I will try to put together relevant information that gives accurate, more incisive information. I'll fully review protocol before my next, um, chirp. I mean CHIRP!

hi there Anonymous User 80.60.71.117,

I believe your heart's in the right place but you might want to take a look at Wikipedia's Copyright Conditions. You can't just copy someone else's text into Wikipedia that's usually illegal, and even if it wasn't, you should give the reference you got the text from. Since it was such a large chunk of well-formed writing, I had a hunch that it had been pasted in from elsewhere. I found the text at http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mcs.html

The Wikipedia article in general appears to me to be heavily based on the "quackwatch" source. Quackwatch is, to my understanding, neither an accredited research institute, nor an accredited body of health professionals, nor a publisher of peer-reviewed research articles. Its sole function appears to me to be, as the name would suggest, to debunk alternative health practices. Although its authors claim to follow scientific principles in their investigation, I find it impossible to know if that is in fact the case without looking at other sources. A source that aims simply to discover the truth rather than discredit another would, I think, be preferable. I would have thought that an article that looked at both sides of the issue and treated them with equal fairness would be better suited for Wikipedia. I know from first hand experience of them that many MCS sufferers will have a different account of things from what the Quackwatch article claims. In short, that is why I marked the article as having disputed POV. Hippogriff

but you probably found it at the pdf at the same site which you added to the list of links here.

I've posted a short message on your user "talk" page, but seeing you're new here, I'm not sure if you'll read that. You've done this same thing on several other pages as well.

Zuytdorp Survivor 15:31, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit made by 80.60.71.117. As the previous article was not a violation, we can't just delete it, and there is currently no way of deleting individual revisions. Angela. 18:55, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the old article back. It needs work, but it has value. Thanks, Angela! heidimo 15:55, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Angela, I think you misunderstood me. When I said "deletion" I was following the instructions on the copyright pages which instructed me to move the last good copy to Multiple chemical sensitivity/Temp - which I did - and then if no-one protested - to get the original page with the copyvio history deleted and the /Temp page put in its place. I got no comments on this copyvio at all (heidimo ?? ) so I wanted to move the /Temp version across. I know how to revert versions. Zuytdorp Survivor 23:14, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi ZS, I thought you were handling the situation and didn't see a need to comment on it. I think you were right in acting on the copyvio. So, are you going to move the temp version on, then? Maybe it's better than the cur

rent version. heidimo 02:57, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's okay. The /Temp version seems to have been removed so I can't check it but I suspect that Angela's revert would have been to the same revision anyway. I kinda hoped that the anonymous user would come back and rewrite the

copyvio stuff but it didn't happen. Oh well. Zuytdorp Survivor 04:13, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you read that, but the "last good copy" should never be moved to the temp page. This would be violating the GFDL as it removes attribution of the original authors. The temp page is only to be used if you want to completely start a new article, not for moving existing content to. The whole copyvio process described at Wikipedia:copyright problems is only for pages that need to be deleted. This does not apply to pages which have previous non-violating content. Angela. 01:36, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Ahh okay I understand now. I guess this comes back to not being able to delete individual revisions. If we were threatened with suit for copyright material being in our revision history we'd have to do something so major but while we're not, it's a good idea to try to always preserve the authors. I'll reread GFDL now. :) Zuytdorp Survivor 04:29, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If we were threatened, then a developer could delete the revisions concerned. See also Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages. Angela. 06:43, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

---

Grrr Anon User User:80.60.71.117 is back again, making multiple changes - adding an NPOV dispute message when there has been no discussion on this page. Still has apparently not learnt about Talk pages - how to contact?

If there has been no actual dispute then you can just remedy the bias yourself. If you think there would be heated reaction to such changes, come here and discuss it first. That's what you're supposed to do! I suspect I'd agree with this user's views but they're not being very co-operative at this stage. Zuytdorp Survivor 14:05, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

ZS I suggest reverting it. heidimo 17:36, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What of User:62.238.121.175's edits; do you think they're NPOV?

I do not think those edits are NPOV. It looks like the same POV that's been hammering many articles on Alternative medicine topics lately. heidimo 20:39, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmm it's tricky. Certainly everyone who knows something about an issue has an opinion. I don't really know much about MCS - followed one of the anon users here - but I'm starting to get a bit of an impression. I don't think 175's edit seems very biased. I'd like him/her to give a reference for the air & water test, and I plan to remove the sympathetic magic reference which is not a correct comparison. Sympathetic Magic is described as "looks like so cures like" - most commonly: phallic-looking vegetables allegedly curing impotence. Zuytdorp Survivor 23:17, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. You may be interested in the new project on Alternative medicine, which is attempting to deal with similar problems. Perhaps this article could be added to the list, when the list is ready for additions. I will probably bring it up, since I'm already signed on to the project, and watching this article. heidimo 15:44, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I changed a paragraph saying that MCS should be taken serously (I think it should, but the article shouldn't think so IMO) and took the initiative of removing the NPOV warning. I hope this is OK. A5 05:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

EPA page

Without reading through all the comments, I offer an alternative source. Answer to a question about MCS on the EPA website supports MCS as a valid (not just in your head) condition, EPA FAQ Scj0x 03:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Your link says:

At this time medical doctors do not consider "multiple chemical sensitivity" (MCS) a recognized disease or condition, because as yet there are no diagnostic criteria for it. This means there is no set of signs and symptoms which are always found in persons who believe they are chemically sensitive, and no objective blood or other laboratory test for MCS. Another reason medical doctors are skeptical is that MCS patients react to extremely tiny amounts of chemicals, and the only mechanism that is now known to cause a reaction to such tiny amounts is antibody formation (i.e., allergy). Yet some MCS patients react to chemicals that do not induce the formation of antibodies.

THF 13:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-standard header

This article has a bunch of stuff preceding the standard start of the article. This is not standard Wikipedia format, and I suggest removing it. Anyone with any experience with the Wiki ought to know that discussion of the article should go on the discussion page. If people violate that policy, we can revert it. Comments? heidimo 17:07, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Agreed.21:58, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi all, new to this editing of Wikipedia stuff.

Being someone who has MCS and understands it well I would suggest maybe having a section at the bottom of the page for support groups links. Someone who would be searching the Wikipedia on MCS probably either has it or knows someone with it. Knowing where to find support would be great.

Question

where is the source of this information? (below) it seems highly subjective & possibly prejudicial

'People can get anxious or depressed because of their illness, or their anxiety or depression can be the underlying cause. The use of anti-depressants [specifically, SSRIs] with a number of patients has shown dramatic improvement, with disappearance of MCS symptoms, though it would be non-sequitur reasoning to conclude that this will work for all patients. This raises interesting questions about the role of neurological chemicals in MCS, specifically serotonin. And yet further interesting questions as to the interplay of neurological and hormonal chemicals.'

The whole concept of MCS is controversial, so the treatment probably is as well. JFW | T@lk 22:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Small Criticism

"The minerals in mineral water for instance will are fatal if about 7200 liters of it are drunk within one hour. This is of course physically impossible..."

Silly. Should be removed. --68.229.247.45 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed paragraph starting "Chemical injuries kill people every day"

Here it is:

"Chemical injuries kill people every day. For those who survive, full recovery is rare. It is unfortunate that large, vested producers of chemical and pharmaceutical products, much like the tobacco industry, invest lobbying and research money to spread their disinformation designed to negate the very real and serious bodily harm done to people the world over by their defective products every day."

I didn't think there was any useful information in it and it's obviously very POV. Cromis 04:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Major proposed insertions to page

Hi. I was going to write somethng under "chemical sensitivity". Note: no cross-reference to this page. Anyways, it's mostly a completely different take.

I don't quite understand "point of view", but if it in fact means that you should never present the evidence on two sides of a scientific controversy, your site has a problem. I want to address the controversy.

My belief that a fledgling civil rights movement exists for canaries and for asthmatics is a true belief, but like saying that the world is almost perfectly round, it's a point of view too.

Sorry if I mistook the "edit" button next to the previous person's discussion comment. I'm new, and I went to put it back the way it was.

So, what do you think?

Here's what I wrote:

Chemical Sensitivity

Chemical sensitivity is a reaction observed in a certain small percentage of the population. It is a component symptom in Gulf War Syndrome, but numbers of civilians also report being chemically sensitive. Chemically sensitive people are sometimes called canaries. This class of people tends to get sick quickly when they breathe air filled with certain quick-evaporating petrochemical solvents or with certain organophosphate pesticides.

Competing physiological theories

At this time, the validity of chemical sensitivity as a physiological reaction is disputable. Symptoms of chemical sensitivity are somewhat similar to somatoform or psychosomatic symptoms. Many sufferers, both Gulf War veterans and civilians, report that their doctors will often prescribe psychiatric medications in response to the presentation of their symptoms.

This group of doctors believes that much or all of chemical sensitivity is related to stress, and in particular the stress of battle fatigue causes these symptoms. This group’s claims are buttressed by a correlation between battle fatigue and chemical sensitivity. Also, the symptoms of chemical sensitivity are vague, symptoms come and go, sufferers are sometimes not rational, and medical treatment of the symptoms is often unsuccessful.

However, numbers of researchers believe that there is a physiological cause for chemical sensitivity. In a good number of anecdotal cases, sufferers point to a specific chemical poisoning incident as the time and date of onset of their chemical sensitivity. Multiple poisonings from the same chemical exposure have often been reported. Moreover, groups of people not predisposed to psychosomatic illness, such as young children and people with dementia, exhibit symptoms of chemical sensitivity. Chemical sensitivity symptoms are not typical somatoform symptoms -- death isn’t a psychosomatic symptom, and as of 2005 10,000 Gulf War veterans have died. Neither is memory loss a classic psychosomatic complaint. Finally, a body of evidence can be shown for a physiological process which can explain many specific symptoms of chemical sensitivity. Because of the weight of this evidence, the rest of this article shall be written under the assumption that chemical sensitivity has a specific physiological cause.

Certain researchers have named chemical sensitivity “Toxicant Induced Lowered Tolerance, or TILT. “Toxicant Induced Lowered Tolerance” describes a biochemical process inside the human body. Many medical researchers prefer this term because they want to know how an illness works inside the body. According to this group of researchers, chemical sensitivity is believed to be a reaction where trace amounts of certain specific chemicals bind with cholinesterase, an enzyme necessary for proper neural function. Without functional cholinesterase to turn off a firing signal, the chemical that starts neurons firing can’t be deactivated, and neurons can’t stop from firing.

Tiny amounts of specific neurotoxic chemicals, including volatile petrochemical solvents and organophosphates (pesticides), are believed to trigger chemical sensitivity in sensitive people. These same levels of chemicals in the air will not trigger a chemical sensitivity attack in normal people, although a much greater dosage of these same chemicals in the air will bring about the same set of symptoms in average people.

These chemicals can enter the human brain through the nose-brain barrier, a part of the body directly behind the human nose which naturally admits human pheremones from the nasal passages into the brain’s mood center. Human pheremones administered through the nose are known to quickly cause a degree of arousal. Cocaine, when snorted, equally travels through this nose-brain barrier to the brain’s mood center. Airplane glue solvents such as toluene equally travel through this nose-brain barrier, creating a remarkably fast and momentary high or drunkenness in average people. Some chemically sensitive people report feeling drunk in the presence of tiny amounts of these fumes.

Certain people may have far less active cholinesterase in their brains than the average person. Relatively miniscule amounts of airborne solvents or organophosphate pesticides, when inhaled in air, can deactivate the remaining cholinesterase in certain areas of the brain. Sufferers report feelings of drunkenness or mood changes within seconds of inhalation. Symptoms of fogginess one minute later are consistent with the traces of cholinesterase inhibitor chemicals diffusing from the brain’s mood center to the frontal lobes of the brain. In times ranging from a few minutes to an hour, the cholinesterase inhibitor chemicals can be diffused throughout the body. Generalized flu-like symptoms can set in, possibly from the cumulative stress on the body from many individual neurons firing and individual muscle cells contracting repeatedly and uncontrollably for hours. Solvent chemicals can be excreted within 18 hours of such an exposure.

Solvent chemicals can also penetrate human skin, just as the nicotine in a nicotine patch can penetrate human skin. Some people report sensitivity to certain types of manmade fabrics on their skin, or to traces of laundry chemicals on their clothing.

Long-lived neurotoxic chemicals such as heavy metals and certain pesticides are known to accumulate in body fat over a lifetime. These chemicals can inhibit cholinesterase, and they may be one contributing factor to this syndrome in a number of cases.

However, people infected with Lyme Disease have a higher than normal chance of becoming chemically sensitive. People who have undergone chemotherapy also have a higher than normal chance of becoming chemically sensitive

A cholinesterase inhibitor reaction is fundamentally different from the histamine reaction which plagues asthma sufferers. Asthma sufferers tend to suffer from constricted airways. However, both classes of people might equally react to any particular airborne chemical, and people can have both chemical sensitivity and asthma.

First aid for sufferers

Chemically sensitive people get attacks that seem to come from out of nowhere, often in a public place

Chemically sensitive people become sensitized, after dozens or hundreds of life experiences of chemical exposures, to symptoms that their brains are malfunctioning or that something hazardous is in the air. They may announce early on that something is wrong. If a chemically sensitive person is noticing the onset of such symptoms, they probably need to get to fresh air. Alternatively, in many cases they can breathe through a carbon filter mask. Removal of the sufferer from the dangerous air is important to the sufferer’s health. In situations were fresh air is unavailable, oxygen or a carbon filter fume mask should help. However, numbers of chemically sensitive people report that they react to fume masks touching their skin.

In young children or in people with dementia, mood disorders from chemical exposure may cause hysteria or violence. These classes of people don’t control or mask their symptoms to fit into society. The most aware sufferers often try to mask their mood changes. Spontaneous crying while still staying rational is possible. Unexpected hysteria or anger is also possible.

If a sufferer has become foggy, or if the sufferer blanks out when trying to come up with certain words in normal conversation, she/he can no longer think clearly for his/her self. You must take control of the situation and get the sufferer away from the medically dangerous solvent-filled air.

In rare cases, cholinesterase inhibitor chemicals may stop the functioning of the human heart. Nerve gases, potent forms of organophosphate pesticides, can easily end human lives by stopping heart and lung functions. This reaction is more pronounced in chemically sensitive people. Rescuers should both get the victim away from the chemical-laced air and perform CPR.

Both chemically sensitive people and average people can learn to smell certain chemicals which are hazardous to the chemically sensitive. They can also smell certain chemicals which are often linked to odorless yet dangerous chemicals. This is similar to how people can smell the by-products of heating fuel combustion and thus realize that their air might possibly contain odorless carbon monoxide.

Cures and Preventions

No complete cure for every chemically sensitive person is known. Some people report minor improvements from a number of techniques, including:

Chelation of toxic metals from the body

Acupuncture and other forms of energy work

Meditation

Vitamin therapy

The greatest immediate improvements for sufferers are often achieved by avoiding contact with the chemicals that trigger chemical sensitivity attacks. Carbon filter air cleaners and other Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) air cleaners will remove polluting chemicals from indoor air. Certain house plants, particularly from the palm family, can also have a beneficial effect in removing pollutants from air, although their effects can be overwhelmed by releases of toxic chemicals.

An important part of avoiding toxic chemicals is not buying them and bringing them home. Hazardous, quickly evaporating petrochemical solvents are found in felt tip marker pens that don’t carry any safety certification. Evaporating solvents are added to almost all perfumes and body scents, in order to push the fragrance molecules into the air. Most fragrance dispensers, including scented candles and plug-in fragrance devices, emit such solvents. Detergents and other products with the word “fragrance” in their ingredient lists tend to cause reactions. Fragrance-free products are preferred.

Chlorine is a reactive gas. In large concentrations it has been used as a poisonous gas on battlefields. The scent of chlorine sets off reactions in chemically sensitive people. Chemically sensitive people sometimes have chlorine filters on their shower heads because water, when heated, releases some of its chlorine gas, which in certain enclosed shower stalls becomes somewhat concentrated. Chemically sensitive people react less to burn unit sheets in hospitals, which aren’t washed in chlorine.

Cleaning products with tea tree oil or vinegar as active ingredients tend to not cause chemical sensitivity reactions. Chlorine and ammonia do cause reactions.

Perchlorates from dry cleaners are hazardous to chemically sensitive people. Alternative dry cleaning methods are gaining public acceptance.

Chemically sensitive people often react to pesticide and herbicide spraying. A policy of 72 hours of advance notice before a pesticide application can allow chemically sensitive people to move out before an application, although where these sufferers will live during the pesticide application is often an open question.

Noxious chemicals are often found in paints, in varnishes and in glues such as are used in plywood. Less toxic paints are available. Some carpet manufacturers, but not all, use formaldehyde in their carpets.

Civil Rights of Canaries and Asthmatics

Using any poison to medically damage a human being is assault, a prosecutable felony, and may also be grounds for a civil suit. People contemplating such a poisoning should realize that amateur criminals too often leave incriminating evidence of their crimes. Potential victims should realize that at this time, many police and judges are quite insensitive to the plight of chemically sensitive people, just as the police and judges were quite insensitive to rape victims 30 years ago.

Two forms of medical poisoning are commonly reported. First, perpetrators often wear perfume around chemically sensitive people, or dab perfume around where chemically sensitive people must sit. This method of attack can sometimes be used to drive a chemically sensitive or asthmatic person out of a job, sometimes in situations where there isn’t enough funding for everyone to keep their job. Second, sometimes children attack chemically sensitive or asthmatic children with spray cans in the face.

Chemically sensitive and asthmatic people are covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. They have a civil right to use bathrooms in public buildings without medical injury. Devices which add fragrances to bathroom air, and which thus keep chemically sensitive and asthmatic people from using such bathrooms, can probably be found to be illegal by a judge. Architectural standards have been written for the design of chemically safer buildings.

Chemically sensitive and asthmatic people have the right to “reasonable accommodation” on airplanes under FAA regulations. Flight crews should be trained in protocols to deal with chemically sensitive passengers, although most flight crews are currently ignorant of the problem.

Chemically sensitive and asthmatic people have a civil right to medically safe hospital care. A few hospitals have protocols for handling chemically sensitive and asthmatic people. Most hospitals don’t have such protocols. Hospital air can be loaded with chlorine, with other cleaning chemicals and with perfume solvents on the skin of the medical staff. Occasionally canaries prefer to take their chances at home, rather than risk dying in a hospital.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, chemically sensitive and asthmatic people have a civil right to a medically safe polling place. They have a civil right to attend public governmental meetings. They have a civil right to access to medically safe courtrooms. These rights are sometimes not being enforced.

Chemically sensitive and asthmatic people have no civil right to attend a worship service in a private church, mosque, synagogue or temple. In practice, the perfumes of other worshippers often drive sufferers away. However, religious congregations should consider the importance of the solidarity of their congregations. Is it right for a faith community to wantonly poison one or several of its members, then discard them, in the sight of God?

Chemically sensitive people are often quite sick and sometimes quite foggy. They often aren’t good at advocating for themselves. If other people don’t advocate for them, in practice these people can’t have the civil rights that have been legislated for them.

Social activists working with the chemically sensitive and asthmatic communities should consider nonviolent strategies. When dealing with an opponent, first talk to them in good faith. Only if this fails, mobilize public opinion in a civil manner, then go back and talk to the opponent. Only when this also fails to move the opponent should activists escalate their tactics.

--30--

June 10, Paul K.

NPoV

I added the NPoV tag particularly regarding this paragraph. I don't know the details enough to clean it up, but the voice is not nutral as is.

Biological and chemical toxic injuries cause many systemic disturbances, especially within the functioning of the immune and central nervous systems. Although depression can occur as a consequence of a toxic injury, depression and other psychological illnesses do not cause toxic injuries. The preponderance of physicians are not trained to properly diagnose or treat the chronic effects of toxic injuries and, in their ignorance, are quick to blame the patient, often misdiagnosed MCS patients as suffering from depression, anxiety and other psychological problems. This has mislead some pro-chemical and pro-pharmaceutical experts to erroneously posit that MCS is a physical manifestation of psychological disturbance (a psychosomatic illness) which should be treated with psychotherapy and anti-depressants, where, in fact, most chemically-injured people suffer no depression whatsoever.

If left as is it needs serious citation. Still, it sounds like the scientists are still out on this condition as a whole, so I don't see how we can claim misdiagnosis when diagnosis itself isn't clear. —Ben FrantzDale 15:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

editing of MCS page

Hello

I'm not posting because I know anything about the condition, but I do know a bit about how English should flow and am familiar with scientific writing, and the MCS page needs some serious editing.

I'm clearly a n00b when it comes to Wiki, but it seems from this discussion section that any changes must be passed through a sort of democratic discussion session before being accepted.

So to avoid unintentionally stepping on any toes, I'm posting here to say that I'd love to tighten it up, and I would of course defer to group discussion in any place where I get stuck because the meaning is unclear.

If this is somehow inappropriate then please ignore/delete this comment.

124.168.143.12 11:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC) ace

Welcome to Wikipedia. Regarding process, Be Bold. Changes can always be rolled back. Go ahead and clean things up. —Ben FrantzDale 23:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

editing of MCS page

I have briefly edited the 'Common symptoms of MCS', and I have two big questions:

1) How do I edit the first section if I CAN'T SEE an 'edit' button?

2) I think that the symptoms should stay in this section but everything below that should perhaps go into a new section called (suggestion) 'Diagnosis of MCS' - how would I do that?

)

203.214.23.58 13:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC) ace

As for how to edit the first section, you click the edit tab at the top of the page, just like you did to edit the talk page. (Or do I not understand your question?) —Ben FrantzDale 13:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Article seems no NPOV to me, and has inaccuracies

I have a problem with much of this article. It is almost entirely "pro-MCS" and practically dismisses the opposition to MCS as a valid diagnosis, which seems very strange given that, as nearly as I can determine, the vast majority of the medical community (like the AMA and the American College of Allergists and Immunologists) does not accept MCS as a diagnosis. Reading the article would lead an uniformed reader to believe that the acceptance of MCS is nearly universal except for a few, lone dissenters. This is simply not the case.

More significantly, there is one portion of the article that appears to be simply incorrect. The article says that MCS is recognized by the Social Security Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. There is no citation to back up this claim, and I know that at least one claim is demonstrably false--the Americans with Disabilities Act does not "recognize MCS," or any other disease or diagnosis. The ADA mandates accomodations of disabilities and prohibits discrimination against disabilities. The Act does not enumerate any disease or diagnosis as a "disability," it merely sets the criteria for determining is a condition qualifies as a disability.

Similarly, I am very skeptical that the SSA or EPA "recognize MCS." Those entities do not recognize diagnoses or disorders. The SSA determines whether a person is disabled based on symptoms and physical limitations, not a diagnosis. And the EPA regulates enviromental quality and protects (or is supposed to protect)against pollution. It does not, to my knowledge, validate or invalidate medical conditions.

Justbrent 03:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is garbage. Any help you could give it would be appreciated—even if it's just deleting the nonsense. I've been meaning to work on it, but it's an intimidatingly large project. Cool Hand Luke 06:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I should quickly add that I wasn't aware of the sweeping changes done to this article. It appears to still have severe problems though, but is not even more verbose. Cool Hand Luke 06:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Not Garbage, etc.

--Regarding the statement (above) that "Reading the article would lead an uninformed reader to believe that the acceptance of MCS is nearly universal", actually, (as also stated above) the article is repetitive and one of the things it repeats is that the AMA _et al_ don't recognize MCS.

--Diseases don't pop into existence the day the AMA figures out they exist any more than acupuncture became effective when the AMA recognized it (centuries after it was invented). The point is, a lot of us are suffering from toxins in food, buildings, perfumes and etc. etc. more or less severely whether or not the AMA, with its highly materialistic model of disease, presently understands this. So a sensitive article such as this one is highly appropriate.

--Thank goodness you folks with healthly immune systems can't comprehend what it's like to have a defective one. Please try to understand that there are some things it's difficult to understand if you simply have no experience of them.

--BTW I know someone with MCS who eventually won their case with SSA although to work around the AMA's incomprehension, had to call their disease "organic brain syndrome" (the point being that the white blood cells weren't eliminating some of the breathed-in [and otherwise acquired] chemicals, which were affecting the person's brain). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.171.21.156 (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Request for Mediation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation

Issues to be mediated

• Misuse of administrator position (threatening editors, purposefully making the article sloppy).
  • I've not used any admin authority. I'm acting solely as an editor and had no intent to unduly threaten. Informing users of Wikipedia policy is a burden shared by all editors. Cool Hand Luke 06:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I have evidence that states otherwise from my partner who helped make some edits. Using the administrator to control an articles contents - poorly at that - and delete valid content is abusive. Telling another person they will be banned from editing for providing contents clearly within Wikipedia standards is in poor taste. salvadorlourdes
• Lack of interest in correcting the article with intent to discredit the topic by keeping it labeled for "Clean Up" or "Disputed" with no clear reason why. It appears that the "dispute" is the fact that the article exists to begin with. Personally I'd rather see it removed entirely than misrepresented.
• Subjectivity of article (biased on opinion rather than science)
• Removal of prevalence statistics cited with references from peer-reviewed scientific studies with the claim that the studies were "bogus". No statistics have been replaced.
• Repeated subjective labeling of medical doctors who specialize in toxicology and environmental medicine as "clinical ecologists" who are "in minority" when they are actually MD's who belong to the AMA and are real doctors.
• Subjective wording in the definition section that segregates doctors and downplays environmental specialists as noted above. Doctors are doctors and are all licensed as such.
• Labeling of the Case Criteria for MCS as "Environmental Medicine Definition of MCS" when a cohort of nearly 100 scientists, MD's, PhD's, and researchers developed the Case Criteria.
• Derogatory tone towards environmental medicine rather than factual statements. "Clinical Ecology is not recognized by the American Medical Association or any other mainstream medical body, although several have commented on the paucity of evidence for the disease and its mechanism." This statement is untrue and requires revision and citations. There have been hundreds of studies on MCS. A simple PubMed search will show that.
• Removal of a proper addressing of the recognition of the condition with cited references to the many organizations that do and don't recognize the condition. The statement in the bullet above is not true as the Centers for Disease Control has recognized and issued statements on MCS, Social Security grants disability on the basis of disabling symptoms based on the diagnosis of MCS, Housing and Urban Development supplies housing accommodations for MCS patients, and the Americans with Disabilities Act recognizes the limitations MCS imposes on patients who need accommodations to access public facilities. These were all cited with reference and deleted.
• Numerous incorrect citing of references past and present(opposite of true findings).
• Numerous incomplete citing of references past and present(citing flawed findings without noting the flaws for objectivity).
• Partial sentences and sloppy editing that appears intentional to discredit the topic.
• First sentence in Etiology "MCS may be a physical or psychological disease, and there is no clear consensus about what causes the symptoms". Indeed, there may be several causes." is untrue. This statement is not factual and designed to create controversy and should be deleted in favor of findings of valid, scientific studies.
• Under Psychological Disorders "Conventional medicine does not..." is not factual. Many doctors who diagnosed MCS are just that... doctor's, MD's, members of the AMA, allergists... very "conventional" doctors. This statement needs revision to be made objective and not subjective based on the authors personal opinion.
• Miscellaneous Theories needs to be removed. It has no scientific basis connecting it to MCS. Review of the studies in PubMed shows no relation or studies that connect coagulation and MCS. This is subjective opinion and not scientific fact.
• This statement is untrue, subjective, and emotional. Words like "blamed" need to be removed. A citation is also needed, if one can be found. There are many studies that show pesticides cause endocrine disruption, air fresheners cause asthma, etc. These symptoms are not "lack of correlation" but rather quite correlated. "People diagnosed with MCS suffer widely assorted symptoms blamed on exposure to trace levels of environmental chemicals.” This lack of correlation between symptom and chemical trigger makes research difficult.”
• Under Treatment the best known treatment for MCS per peer-reviewed scientific studies is avoidance and making the home chemical free. This section is misleading and needs revision. The statement about co-occurring mental disorders is not only consistent with the occurrence of mental disorders in the general population but the treatment of "co-occurring" disorders does not address the treatment of the MCS. Quite to the contrary the treatment for many mental illnesses is drugs that have been show (and are cited further down) to cause harm and exacerbation of symptoms in most MCS patients. This is a critical and important topic that should be discussed as an additional notation after the treatment for MCS is laid out.
• This statement is subjective and based on opinion. Doctors are doctors and many who are not in environmental medicine prescribe the same treatments. This statement needs references and citations to support it. "Treatments offered by practitioners of environmental medicine specify the avoidance"
• The sections were rearranged and make no sense under Treatment. The bullets are a protocol, widely used, called the Ziem/Pall protocol, yet the paragraphs have been rearranged in nonsensical order so that the bullets are not explained and appear after other irrelevant citations. Another attempt to make the article sloppy to discredit the illness rather than make an objective presentation based on scientific facts.
• Under Possible Triggers "Many chemicals are claimed to be culprits of MCS" this statement is subjective and designed to create doubt and controversy. Many studies have been peer-reviewed and published that ascertain the symptoms and they symptoms sets are rather consistent as the disease progresses. This statement needs to be removed and has no citation or scientific basis.
  • Given the significant doubts other scientists have about the causal link between chemical exposure and MCS, this sentence structure is waranted. I fully intend to do more work in this area. Cool Hand Luke 06:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That is a subjetive statement based on opinion with no ctiations or references to back it up. Read some of the full text research articles where this has been studied and cite them with proper references. Let me know if you'd like the pub med abstract links. I also have many PDF's of full text I am happy to share. Irregardless of that time consuming endeavor, a simple, non-controversial and objective way to revise this sentence could be "Many chemcial are reported to trigger symptoms". That is a true, objective, and non-controversial statement. Just the facts. The issue with the statement as it is is that it claims that chemicals the "culprits" of MCS, which converts to "cause" of MCS which is not the case. There are now 4 studies that show certain genetic variation is what causes MCS, not the chemicals. The chemicals are merely the triggers of they symptoms that patients report. In 2004, McKeown-Eyssen studied 203 MCS sufferers and 162 controls and found that genetic differences relating to detoxification processes were present more often in those with MCS than those without. The study concluded that "a genetic predisposition for MCS may involve altered biotransformation of environmental chemicals. Haley found similar, confirmatory results in a 1999 study with the PON1 gene in Gulf War syndrome veterans. A new study by Schnakenberg et al (2006) confirmed the genetic variation previously found by McKeown-Eyssen and Haley. A total of 521 unrelated individuals participated in the study. Genetic variants of four genes were analyzed: NAT2, GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1. The researchers concluded that individuals who are NAT2 slow acetylators and those with homozygously deleted GSTM1 and GSTT1 genes are significantly more likely to develop chemical sensitivity. According to the study the glutathione S-transferases act to inactivate chemicals so people without these GSTM1 and GSTT1 genes are less able to metabolize environmental chemicals. If a person cannot metabolize chemicals they build up in the body and cause disturbances in normal body function which produces symptoms upon exposure to any level of chemical contamintants. Schnakenberg and fellow researchers explain that "glutathione S-transferases play an important role in the detoxification of chemicals". The researchers also noted that diseases such as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, hepatocellular and prostate carcinoma, and Alzheimer's disease have been associated with the common chemicals metabolized by GSTP1. The deletion of the GSTP1 gene leaves individuals more susceptible to developing these diseases, as lack of these genes means a loss of protection from oxidative stress. There a a 4th study too, an older one, that I've just received that explains how people who lack the gene are more susceptible to endocrine damage and chemcial sensitivity from pesticide exposure. I ordered the full text and will be reading it soon. salvadorlourdes
• Under Critical Reviews Barrett is not an MD, he fabricated his credentials and is currently being sued and his sites are all either in process of being removed or already removed from the Internet by the Court. His views, being opinion and not scientific fact, are not those of an MD but those of a scam artist who falsely identified himself with medicine however he has not completed any medical or scientific education. His links need to be removed. "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: a spurious diagnosis, Stephen Barrett, MD. — A skeptical article hosted on Quackwatch"
  • Justly removed. Cool Hand Luke 06:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you salvadorlourdes
      • I have added the quackwatch link again (to the critical reviews section), as I think it is good article. His site is still up, and doesn't seem to be in the process of taken down. He does actually have a medical education, and he was an MD - he just was never a psychiatrist. A lot of people naturally like to slander Stephen Barrett when he shows them up as quacks. --Sciencewatcher 15:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• If the tags are put up, then the person ought to be willing to fix it or work to fix it rather than just slap them up without reading the article as occured in this case. It was only later that the article was read and revised, yet again, to be sloppy enough to warrant the tags. This appears to be an effort to not have a valid article. I am seeking a collaborative effort to make this article objective, clear, and cited with the most recent evidence (unless listed under a history heading) and the removal of "needs cleanup" and "disputed" tags. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Salvadorlourdes (talk • contribs) 05:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

I do intend to make further changes to the article. This kind of article is an enormous project, and I've no intention of abandoning it. Where you find disagreement, feel free to be bold and change sections you disagree with. Wholesale reversions, are rarely helpful, however. Cool Hand Luke 06:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I did make changed and you just deleted them. What good is that. That's as much an "editing war" as anything else. However, since you have invited me, I will change a few minor things though I think any major revisions should be collaborated upon. I have the data to finish this article in a few days to the point where it should be up to Wikipedia standards and the tag can be removed. At that point it can be updated as time permits and new studies surface. How about we work together on this? I'm not going anywhere either. Share your vision for the article and I'll do the legwork. I'm a good researcher and have good connections to obtain most anything needed in the way of supporting documentation. The concern at the moment is we've got you, me, and my partner jumping in and changing or deleting stuff with no explanation and none of the parties knows the others goals. I think I've stated mine. I want objectivity, non-controversial language, and clear presentation of the facts on all sides of the story. The article should not bash either side but present both clearly and entirely with supporting evidence in a factual manner. I can go further... perhaps do a bullet point TOC to be agreed upon for the layout and then we can work each section one by one. If we team on this we can have a great article, don't you think? salvadorlourdes
    • I noticed you did not comment on the other bullets one way or the other. salvadorlourdes
    • Sounds good, but the article cannot completely ignore literature that goes against your chosen hypothesis. This is an article about MCS, not a partisan screed for those who believe it's caused by actual chemical exposure in the normal sense. It takes a long time to verify citations, and I haven't even begun to check content for most of the article. I was not pleased, however, to discover that the demographics section was a misunderstanding of the cited study. I probably over-reated, and I'll certainly be more selective in my changes going forward, but we must make the article balanced. Cool Hand Luke 19:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Issues

• • • • I have not chosen a hypothesis. I am seeking factual reporting without bias. I felt this article, when I first happened upon it, was biased on the psychological aspects... derogatorily so as every condition known in science was once "psychological" until proved otherwise such as asthma, diabetes, blood disorders, etc. It had not provided any evidence of the physiological aspects and seemed an attempt to prove the condition psychological with a one sided view. There were also wrong citations which I removed or edited after reviewing the studies, but I think I noted those above. salvadorlourdes
      • There is still one in the first paragraph that makes no sense as it is written about the placebo effect. I'll look at it later. It seems to contradict itself though I'm certain, and will verify after I retrieve the study, that the conclusion of the study was that there was a placebo effect though the methods of study was flawed in that the substances used for a "placebo" were indeed items that many patients report reacting to and contained naturally occuring toxins. That seems to be what the sentence is saying but it somehow contradicts itself and will be confusing for a lay person to read. An example,is d-limonene, which occurs naturally when citrus is concentrated and is a naturally occuring toxin to even those without MCS. Using such products as a "placebo" because they are not a chemical in individuals who cannot detoxify normally will cause a reaction from the naturally occuring toxins even though toxicants are absent. The methods were flawed then in finding a true placebo that subjects would not react to. Further testing is needed to attempt to replicate this study with substances (both placebo and chemical) that either have no odor (both experiemental and control groups) or with placebo odors that contain no toxicants. Probably odorless is the best way to go to see if subjects react to odorless chemicals as opposed to a puff of air. Substances such as natural gas that is not fragranced with the gas scent used in gasoline or substances that have been chemically masked to be "scent free" would do the trick when compared against a puff of air in control groups. That would elimiate the potention of IgE or MCS responses to a purpoted placebo and make the study more reliable and valid.salvadorlourdes
        • Yes. Reword it. The study itself does not cover this angle (it's a review, but the cited studies used furfuryl mercaptan, vanilla, and peppermint among other things). I am aware that many clinical ecologists object to odor masking and argue that practically any masking odor triggers MCS, so I added the sentence as a quick afterthought (which is convenient because it makes psychological conditioning theories virtually untestable). Feel free to fix it. Cool Hand Luke 04:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I suggest having 2-3 articles supporting each sentence/statment on both sides of the coin to ensure problems with methods have been addressed and what is being reported is factual. Studies of interest without replication should be labled as such. salvadorlourdes
      • Okay, let's start with that demographics concern. What do you feel was mistated. When I slept on it I figured perhaps the wording could be more clear. Samples, taken properly, are meant to be representative of the population in statistics. Perhaps the wording was unclear and could be revised to indicate "samples representing the population. Also, I have several studies that agree on the 16% figure. The 33% figure was specifically on Gulf War Veterans. I can rewrite this section to cite each study more specifically (type of study... ie survey, etc.), rather than summing them in a single sentence. Please let me exactly what you felt was the misinterpretation as the main study I cited is widely used in the medical community for prevalence purposes. Also, was there concern with the demographics (gender, income level, etc.) and if so, what? I think it's important to have a prevalence and demographics in the article salvadorlourdes
        • 15% has many studies for it self-reported, although studies place prevalence in self-reporting to below 5%, and those actually treated for the disease are below 1% by some measurements. You should have no problem finding these studies; I found them in less than five minutes on PubMed. As for the demographics: This is what I removed. this is the article. You used the wrong data, data that represents the whole sample set instead of those who actually identify as sensitive. Probably you misread the tables, but it was wrong so I just removed it. Better to have no data than bad data. I have no objection to including demographics, but I would prefer broader studies, preferably synthesizing several such studies. Incidentally, it's because I read this study (reporting 12.6%) that I was so confident to remove the entire "Prevalence" heading which absurdly claimed 16-33%. You must have seen at least one example of less than that writing the rest of the article! But yes, the 33% figure is not at all representative of any civilian population, so should not even be listed as an upper bound. Also, comparisons to diabetes are very poor, because MCS is honestly less well-defined considering the vagauries of asking for a self-diagnosis over the phone. These comparisons appear to be sensationalistic and have no place in the article. Cool Hand Luke 04:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree the article should be balanced. We should present the facts, perhaps saying "The etiology of MCS is controversial in the medical community" and leave out the opinions. We can then go on to examine both sides. "Some feel that MCS is of psychological origin and others feel that MCS is of physiological origin." In other words, keep it neutral rather than bashing one side or the other. How's that sound? salvadorlourdes
        • It sounds radically different than what you wrote. You didn't cite a single article in favor of a psychological hypothesis, but instead bring up the posibility only to dismiss it because "it ignores" studies which have almost no currency outside of this movement. In fact, there are multiple psychological hypothesis including misdiagnosis (essentually claiming that the disease is a manifestation of known psychological disorders), sociological learning, and Pavlovian conditioning. I do not think that psychological theories relegates the illness or lowers its status. My brother suffers from mental illness and I know that they're as real as any other (do you?). Besides, modern science rejects mind-body dualism. A "psychological" theory is just a physiological theory whereby the chemical exposure causes symptoms through the brain. Cool Hand Luke 04:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • How about we check with each other if one posts something or changes something the other disagrees with rather than just deleting or reverting? We can chat here about it, share links to the supporting referenes, and come to a resolution, and then change it. salvadorlourdes
      • By the way, thanks for consolidating the references. salvadorlourdes
        • Feel free to make any changes you like. I don't have much time to devote to this, but I'll try not to be so hasty with revisions in the future. Cool Hand Luke 04:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Incidentally, for the sake of full disclosure (so that you can better correct my work), I am a chemistry graduate now attending law school. I have worked for labs, but never for a pharmaceutical company or industrial chemical manufacturer. However, as you can probably tell, I doubt very much that MCS is caused by chemical exposure in the traditional sense. My POV should not bleed into the article, however, and you should feel free to correct passages that might sound overly dismissive. I'll try not to write such biased prose. I simply want the prevailing ("psychological") point-of-view to be fairly covered in the article. Cool Hand Luke 04:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Okay, I can work with that. salvadorlourdes
• I pulled some studies on MCS prevalence and here are direct quotes from PubMed

1: Occup Med (Lond). 2007 Mar;57(2):137-40. Epub 2006 Oct 17. Links University of Toronto case-control study of multiple chemical sensitivity-3: intra-erythrocytic mineral levels. Baines CJ, McKeown-Eyssen GE, Riley N, Marshall L, Jazmaji V. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. cornelia.baines@utoronto.ca BACKGROUND: Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) has an estimated American prevalence of 15%. PMID: 17046989 [PubMed - in process] Will post the rest (survey studies designed to determine prevalence) later on. This one was testing for something else but cited the prevalance from another source which I have to find in the full text version.salvadorlourdes

Yes, I see. That's an interesting study. Kreutzer R, Neutra RR, Lashuay N. (1999) Prevalence of people reporting sensitivities to chemicals in a population-based survey. Am J Epidemiol 150:1–12. Looks like a good source representing California, large sample cross-section by state doctors. Looks like the largest and best study ever conducted, and I think it's reliable and representative. 11.9% described being sensitive to more than one type of chemical (15.9% includes those describing sensitivity to just one or "unknown"). Similar to the Georgia study that found 12.6 +/- 3 in , so it looks to be the right ballpark estimate for the US who describe themselves this way. Just be careful in phrasing it because it does not necessarily mean that this many people have MCS, just that this many self-report sensitivity to more than one chemical. The study also suggests that only 0.6% were diagnosed with MCS and reported it was a restrictive health problem, and 1.8% are made "very sick" by cologne/aftershave. Should probably also mention that it affects people across class, race, and region in California, but that it is much more prevalent among women. Cool Hand Luke 07:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem with self-reporting. One example is that a lot of people, probably more so in California, would describe themselves as having a "gluten allergy." But except for those with coeliac (which is quite rare) their problem is not one conventional medicine takes seriously.Merkinsmum 10:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Poor Writing

1) I happened upon this article and noticed a number of poor verb choices, such as:

Practitioners argue that MCS

Psychologists suppose that MCS

... this sort of thing. Doctors do not argue, nor do they suppose. They create theories based on available evidence, and refine those theories in the face of confirming or contradictory evidence.

2) I also notice that there's an editing war of sorts going on, between a physiological vs a psychological basis for MCS. Speaking as someone with MCS who has been working with traditional AMA certified physicians for 8 years, and has discussed numerous journal articles with these same AMA certified physicians, I can assure you that this debate is settled. The psycholigical/idiopathic theory of MCS is no longer supported by the evidence and is several years out of date.

The evidence presented for the psychological origin of MCS in this article are mainly dated around 1995-1997, with one pilot study referenced in 2002. I would suggest that studies referenced in this article keep pace with current research.

Erikschimek 17:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Erik Schimek

This debate is not settled. I agree that the article needs to be updated, but a 2006 article just added to this morass support psychological theories. Cool Hand Luke 13:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Body Burden

I've just rewritten the body burden section. Previously it was very poorly written and had 30 references that had nothing to do with it (presumably the author thought weight of references would add to his shaky theory). I have rewritten it to reflect the evidence, as it stands. If anyone has a problem with it please discuss it here. --Sciencewatcher 15:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I don't like these sentences "...doctors disagree about whether symptoms are physiologically or psychologically generated. Science rejects mind-body dualism, so the distinction between these causes is difficult to discern."

I don't think there is any problem discerning the difference, one point of view is that MCS symptoms are a physical reaction to external factors, the other is that they arise from the patients mind. The fact that the mind can be regarded as neurochemical reactions doesn't confuse anyone when describing depression/etc as mental illnesses. 220.244.146.142 12:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Jac

Commentators do mention the modern collapse of dualism when discussing the symptoms. MCS is different from many mental illnesses because its symptoms are triggered by external factors. The difference in the etiologies is primarily that one supposes that the brain psychosomatically generates the symptoms, while in the clinical ecology theory, the chemicals react with other parts of the body in some way. In both cases, symptoms may be non-voluntary, and this is what makes them difficult to test without taking great care. Cool Hand Luke 08:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the discussion of the legal issues related to MCS does not belong in the intro for two reasons.

First, the legal issues related to MCS are only one somewhat tangential aspect of MCS and thus do not really belong at the beginning of the article.

Second, I am an attorney who has dealt with MCS cases in the past. In my experience, the legal issues surrounding the admissibility of expert causation evidence, potential liability for industry, and the legal effect of MCS symptoms being deemed "psychological" are far more nuanced than the few sentences on the subject in the intro section suggest. For instance, while Daubert may be applicable in federal courts, it has not been adopted in every state court by any means. Much of the MCS liability will be workers' compensation based. Workers' compensation is governed by state law. Thus, Daubert is not the sole "answer" to admissibility of MCS causation evidence.

In any case, I am interested in this subject and would be happy to put some time in to the editing of this article if that would be amenable to those moderating this article. Trianglelawdevil 02:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's appropriate to discuss this in the intro because it brings the etiology into focus and is one of the most controversial and notable aspects of the disease. You are right that many states are more open to junk science than the federal rules, so a more accurate and nuanced account would be welcome. Incidentally, you don't need to ask for permission to edit articles. Be bold. Cool Hand Luke 03:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I know I don't have to ask permission before editing. However, considering that there has been what looks like a real editing war raging over this page, I thought it would be more polite to ask before making changes. Cooperation on this difficult subject might be more worthwhile than conflict. Trianglelawdevil 03:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but I think the legal aspects should be cut if we ever get the lead section down to a more reasonable length. Some of the redundancy should be moved down to the body of the article, and if we have a tighter lead, there's no reason to mention legal aspects in the lead. Cool Hand Luke 03:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of the "Clinical Ecologist" Label

From my understanding of the subject, many proponents of the physiological etiology of MCS theories do not view themselves as "clinical ecologists." As an attorney who has dealt with experts on both sides of the MCS causation debate, "clinical ecologist" is a label given to all physiological etiology proponents by psychological etiology proponents. The problem is that while there are many "environmental medicine" practitioners who can accurately be described as "clinical ecologists," there are many experts who believe in chemical causes for MCS that do not accept the "clinical ecologist" label. For many of those who do not accept the clinical ecologist label, the label is in fact incorrect based on their credentialing and methodology.

For instance, there is a professor at East Carolina University Medical, whose name escapes my, who is a proponent of chemical causes for MCS and is trained as a medical toxicologist. The label "clinical ecologist" is inappropriate to describe him.

The problem here is that the subject of MCS is quite contentious in the medical community. During depositions I have heard psychological cause proponents refer to the physiological cause proponents as charlatans. Similarly, I have heard the physiological cause proponents refer to the psychological cause proponents as slanderers. This is important because it shows that the label of "clinical ecologist" is not really being used as a descriptor for physiological cause proponents. Rather, it is being used as an attack by some psychological cause proponents, because "clinical ecologists" are not as widely accepted as practitioners of good science. For evidence of this, look no further than the wikipedia article on "clinical ecologists," which states, without citation, "There has been much resistance in the medical community to accepting their claims."

In any case, I think that the MCS article should not simply label all physiological cause proponents as clinical ecologist as I think that label lacks neutrality. Trianglelawdevil 03:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The article simply does not label "all physiological cause proponents as clinical ecologist." It needs to be mentioned in the article, however, because it's the most widely recognized term for the proponents and "clinical ecologist" is strongly linked with MCS. Feel free to mention that many physicians find it to be a derogatory term. Cool Hand Luke 03:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

MCS is political

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is a civil rights issue and a political issue. This fundamental problem is not addressed in the article, much less is it given prominence in the intro. We should quit imagining that this is nothing more than a medical debate.

People come to this page looking for immediate relief from their MCS symptoms. Easy and effective answers, such as using burn unit sheets on MCS patients, removing MCS sufferers from fumed indoor environments and switching non-toxic marker pens, are not available on this site.

Imagine if a Wikipedia article on global warming dealt solely with scientific theories, con and pro (and I deliberately put con before pro here) but not with probable or possible impacts on the earth or possible steps to reduce global warming gases. The MCS article should also not be reduced to dull-written notations of scientific theories. This is an injustice to the charged politics of the issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul K (talk • contribs) 17:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

References

Hello, just trying to edit the references, doesn't seem to be working. I'm trying to add to ref. 29, (Overstreet) and paste this url: http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/933/1/92 Yvan Roy 21:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Footnotes#How_to_use. -- THF 21:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks THF, but something seems to be missing. I can't see any footnotes in Firefox when I hit edit, and there does not seem to be an explanation telling me how to modify an existing footnote/reference in the link you gave me. I'm guessing there are assumed software automations that are not being stated. Clear as mud! ;) I don't have much time to investigate this oddness at the moment.  :/ Yvan Roy 04:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

An simplified version of how to make footnotes: put the text of a footnote after the appropriate sentence between reference tags like this: <ref>Plato, ''Republic''</ref>. The text of the footnote will not show up in preview if you're just doing a section edit, but you will see the number added, and when you save the edit, it will be at the bottom of the page. Wikipedia handles the numbering and other technical aspects.

That said, the problem with this block is that the research does not actually support the quoted remark. It's mentioned as a path for future research. Studies citing this show no analogy between humans and the sensitive rats (so far). Cool Hand Luke 05:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Cool Hand! I'm slowly groking the footnote system. But now with what you are saying, I'm wondering if I should just cut all that bit back out....  :)Yvan Roy 07:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jewett DL, food sensitivity and allergens.

Okay now about footnote 19, Jewett. It seems this relates only to food sensitivity and allergens. There is no mention of MCS anywhere in the abstract. I don't understand how that relates to this wiki article. Is MCS mentioned in the full Jewett article proper?? I have not yet found it on line.

I guess if no one can confirm that it is specifically about people with MCS, itwill have to be cut...Yvan Roy 08:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's about MCS. See also Jewett DL. and treatment of the hypersensitivity syndrome. Toxicology and Industrial Health8(4):111–117, 1992. -- THF 03:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks THF. That 1998 Quackwatch report is not exactly neutral, nor does it seem to provide a coherent definition of MCS (who does! lol), even though it does provide a wealth of good information. It also covers a lot of ground without providing much structure, and is sometimes outdated. Jewett is mentioned in it, and his experience and work seems very interesting, but there is no clarification made between food allergies/intolerences, and chemical sensitivities. These two can not be lumped together as they often were in 1992 when he published or even in 1998 when the Quackwatch report was written.

Very different possible causes of MCS are usually defined now, with most researchers (over 60% iirc) now favouring a non-allergenic, non-immunologic mechanism. It is obviously too slow to account for some symptoms. For example, this quote from the Quackwatch report:

A National Research Council (NRC) subcommittee has concluded that hypersensitivity has an immunologic basis, but “multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) syndrome” does not.

Here is a snippet from something writen in 2003:

Perceived Treatment Efficacy for Conventional and Alternative Therapies Reported by Persons with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Pamela Reed Gibson, Amy Nicole-Marie Elms, and Lisa Ann Ruding

Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is a condition in which persons experience negative health effects in multiple organ systems from exposure to low levels of common chemicals.

End of snippet. Note how things are specifically restricted to chemicals. From what I can understand this is one of the predominant views now, such as the alternative view that it is phychophysiological. My point is that if Jewett was investigating an outdated or now minority hypothesis, then that needs to be stated clearly. I would just prefer that this wiki article not be as outdated as the Quackwatch report.  :)

BTW, thanks for the link but can't seem to find the acticle at PubMed or other places I've looked. Does it have to be purchased? It's old and doesn't seem to be available on line. I'm rather new a this...  :/ Yvan Roy 07:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of Barrett, but we don't have to agree: a report doesn't have to be neutral, it just has to be a reliable source. WP:NPOV requires fair presentation of all points of view, and the article was ridiculously lopsided in its weighting of the quack clinical-ecologist point of view over the mainstream point of view. Now it's a little closer to even, but I'll leave the final judgment up to C.H.Luke.

Note also the bar on original research. It's irrelevant whether you personally think Barrett's or Jewett's analysis is outdated or whether I think it isn't. The question is whether a reliable source says so, in which case, you can link to that.

This is a page to discuss improving the article, not to debate the underlying subject. -- THF 16:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

THC, I am attempting to improve the article, Barrett seems to be a reliable source(but outdated IMHO), Jewett seems to have done a good study. But, there must be a distinction made between chemicals and food intolerences/allergies. Just take a look in the wiki article itself under "Possible triggers" there is no mention of food there. I would be strongly opposed to anyone adding food to that list, just as I am opposed to using research that relates only to food, regardless of what they -thought- they were in vestigating.

This is the problem with shacky "science" done by certain people as fairly well explained in the Quackwatch report, they don't pick things apart. All matter of unpleasantness gets lumped together and terms like "universal reactor" get hatched from that.

If I write a blurb on schizophrenia stating that fridgid moms are or are not a cause, it needs to be stated that this is an old outdated hypothesis no longer taken seriously by contemporary researchers.

Same with Jewett, if he was not specifically dealing with chemicals, that needs to be clearly stated. Things have now focused on neurochemical and/or phychophysiological causes, like M. Pall is proposing for example. Yvan Roy (Sorry, can't sign in I'm on a different computer!)

Please sign your talk comments. And please sign in if you have an account before leaving a talk comment.

Your response completely misses the point of the talk page and Wikipedia. No one cares what you think about Barrett or Jewett or whether their refutations are correct. (Similarly, no one cares what I think.) Thus there's no point in the two of us debating it here: even if one of us could ultimately persuade the other and every reader of the talk page, it would have no effect on the article, which has to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:A -- so the Barrett and Jewett stuff goes in, and my opinion and your opinion about the Barrett and Jewett stuff doesn't go in the article. (Note also the rules about improper synthesis when writing a Wikipedia article.) If you find a reliable source saying that Barrett is talking about an old outdated hypothesis, you can add that point of view to the article even if I disagree with it; if you can't, you can't, even if you think it's right. Either way, debating it on the talk page is pointless. Please review the introduction to Wikipedia and the Chinese-communist-like-named five pillars. THF 20:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "possible triggers" section does not seem to be verifiable. (In the case of "formaldehyde and aldehyde", the list isn't even sensible—aldehyde is a functional group, not a chemical compound, and formaldehyde is a compound with this group.) This list is not actually contained in the nearby citations, although Rea does mention many of them (I imagine that they've been added ad hoc over time). A comprehensive list of all the chemical classes and items suggested as triggers would be ponderous. I think the section should be scrapped in favor of something more modest and verifiable. The provocations studies simply show that patient-detectable odors can cause MCS symptoms. Cool Hand Luke 21:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool Hand, yes I agree, for example "anything scented or perfumed" doesn't add up. Plants are scented, but I've not read anything about MCS and flowers... Once again this zigzagging from one category to the next, airborn allergens to VOC...

THF, I been accepting much of what you have been saying, and I've been evolving my responce due to the information you are presenting. You should also note I've been keeping all my opinions exclusively on the talk page, -not- the wiki article. One thing I'm tripping up on is that the Quackwatch site seems to be all self-published. That's why I said "seems" to be relaible source, but doesn't WP guidelines on self-published sources leave Barett on shaky ground?

I would really like to get a copy of the Jewett study, just to find out exactly what he did. I think a blurb needs to be added in the wiki article clearly stating that his study did not involve chemicals (unless it did, although it seems it was strictly related to food).

Lurching from chemicals to food and back without clear statements is just muddying the wiki article. The phrase "when fed suspected food extracts" leads me to wonder if there were suspected because of presumed chemicals in the food extracts. Were they trying to test for pesticides? Unidentified contamination suspected by the MCS sufferer? What did Jewett think or know was in the food? After all, the wiki article is about chemical sensitivities, not food sensitivities. You could even imagine that the people were just reacting to chemicals that Jewett didn't know was in the food. That whole quote just leaves my (and other wiki readers I'm sure) stumped as to what was being attempted and what was going on. We need more information!  :-) Yvan Roy 22:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." THF 22:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I spotted that wiki page too, I don't know how Barett fits in there. Is he a professional researcher or a journalist? Has his report on MCS been published beyond his website? Yvan Roy 03:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

At the least, this report was published in a slightly different form in No. 2, Vol. 14; Pg. 9, Nutrition Forum (1997). I just found a link here. The sections "What is MCS?" through "Conclusions" appear to be the very similar, but this published form doesn't include appendices. At the bottom of the article it says, "Dr. Barrett, a retired psychiatrist, is a board member of the National Council Against Health Fraud. This article is condensed from a forthcoming 60-page report that can be ordered for $ 8 from LVC-AHF, Inc., P.O. Box 1747, Allentown, PA 18105." It does not appear to be a peer-reviewed journal, it seems to now be out of publication, and Barrett seems to have been a consulting editor, but it's not exactly self-publication either. Cool Hand Luke 14:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well thats something... Barrett is not untrustworthy, just seems he has a bit of a reputation for going a little to far at times. I don't just mean by iffy doctors that have been stung by him. :-) I'll keep an eye out for comments from reliable sources that point out limitations, like not mentioning the genetic research(hence my comments about his report being a bit outdated). Same with Jewett, I now think he just needs a comment to provide structure to what he was trying to test in back in 92. If I spot them again I could add a snippet.

BTW, the article is much better than it used to be a while back. Was a real eye-roller.  :-) Yvan Roy 20:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yvan Roy, some MCS sufferers do react to plant smells, particularly pine and eucalyptus. If the smell of roses gives you a headache, then you say that you're allergic to roses. If the smell of a pine tree gives you a headache, then you call it MCS. 70.137.171.41 23:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Potential Triggers

I found this list while looking up the Magill reference. Seems like a typical one, it sticks to day to day chemicals, and it's alphabetical. Humm... I hope that is not to much text to put on WP like that without the authors permission. Yvan Roy 06:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

removed a reference

I removed a reference that does not seem to relate to the sentence to which it was attached. Please feel free to relocate. Staudenmayer H, Selner JC. Failure to assess psychopathology in patients presenting with chemical sensitivities. Journal of Occupational Medicine 37:704–709, 1995.

I disagree with your characterization and have restored the citation. THF 11:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi THF. I Didn't mean to step on any toes here, but I still don't see the relationship between this sentence:

• Critics of clinical ecology charge that: (1) MCS has never been clearly defined, (2) no scientifically plausible mechanism has been proposed for it, (3) no diagnostic tests have been substantiated, and (4) not a single case has been scientifically validated.[2][3]

and the cited information:

• Failure to assess psychopathology in patients presenting with chemical sensitivities.

Staudenmayer H, Selner JC.

Allergy Research Institute of Colorado, Denver 80222, USA.

Mediating processes can be inferred from self-report data only if it can be assumed that the patient has a valid capacity for introspection. That assumption is invalid when beliefs can be shown to influence sensory perception and symptom reports. Another serious limitation of self-reporting is that the individual has only a limited awareness of his or her psychological state. Also, we cannot ignore the observations that come from the psychodynamic tradition, that unconscious or subconscious ideas also can affect and distort self-reporting. The lack of validity of self-reports is summarized by Brewin: "[T]he value of self-reports would appear to be more in their relation to intentional future actions than in any insight they might provide into complex feeling states or into the contingencies governing past behavior." A more objective procedure for obtaining information about EI/MCS patients' beliefs is clearly needed before their symptom reports can be taken at face value.

PMID: 7670917 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

While this could be a valuable source elsewhere in the article, it seems misplaced here and thus diminishes the validity of the article. How about we move it to something more appropriate? -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the article or just the abstract? It supports the quoted text. -- THF 13:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference points to the abstract. Do you have access to the article? -- Dēmatt (chat) 13:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference points to the article. The hyperlink points to the abstract. But you can find lots of lunatics on the web complaining about Staudenmeyer for daring to point out that MCS is mental. -- THF 13:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not having any luck getting a look at the article itself (without paying to see:). I would assume others are having similar trouble as well. I do think that the key quote in the abstract is in the last two sentences:

• A more objective procedure for obtaining information about EI/MCS patients' beliefs is clearly needed before their symptom reports can be taken at face value.

Along with the inferrence that "future plans" may play a role in the patient's self reported symptom picture.

• "[T]he value of self-reports would appear to be more in their relation to intentional future actions than in any insight they might provide into complex feeling states or into the contingencies governing past behavior."

There certainly could be a sentence or two about this and then we don't need the article. -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why the objection to a scientific reference noting the lack of evidence for MCS that you haven't even read? The reference belongs, and this is getting tendentious. THF 14:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No ill-will here. Just responding to a NPOV tag and workign to clean up articles. I believe I have made my point as have you. -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is just barely beyond the horizon where the journal sells articles online (they have everything volume 38 forward). However, my school happens to subscribe to this journal, and I'm looking at a full text copy of the article.

Seems to follow the claims better than the abstract might suggest; he's definably a critic. Staudenmayer and Selner cite the usual sources in the introduction (like the Council on Scientific Affairs report in JAMA), and they note that "It defies measurement. The time course is indeterminate, its effects can come and go in a flash. Instead, it is described as a systemic, polysymptomatic disorder characterized by general malaise complaints from every biologic system, which can be caused by virtually any environmental agent known to mankind." They then criticize MCS experimental methodology for its failure to discover anything other than self-reported symptoms and self-reported mental health. Particularly criticizes a study which they say was held up as evidence of MCS' physiological/toxicological cause (Fiedler N, Maccia C, Kipen H. Evaluation of chemically sensitive patients. J Occup Med. 1992;34:529-538, which we do not cite). I can email it to either of you, if you like (assuming fair use). Cool Hand Luke 20:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Cool Hand Luke. That is all I need. It sounds like it follows the line that it is being used to reference. I apologize for causing the extra work, but feel better to know it is verified as making those statements. If someone else has a real problem with the subject matter, they can dig deeper for it. -- Dēmatt (chat) 00:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Section - Etiology (cause) of MCS

Most patients (85 to 90 percent) complaining of MCS syndrome are women. There is no clear consensus as to what causes the symptoms of MCS. Indeed, there may be several causes.

Women don't cause MCS and I am sure you are not saying that, but if you are going to have it in an etiology section, then you need to explain the reasoning, i.e. hormonal links, psychological tendencies, or the like. As an alternative, it should be inthe signs and symptoms section where it would not need explanation. -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually there's some interesting stuff in there. Pre-menopausal adult women do indeed comprise nearly all of the patients. Nearly all of them present with an acute sense of smell. Nearly all of them react only to chemicals which they can smell. Both their perceived sensitivity to chemicals and their ability to detect smells varies with the state of their menstrual cycle. So while I agree that the demographics (perhaps "risk factors") and the causes should be in separate paragraphs, the mere fact that nearly all presenting patients are female is important.70.137.171.41 23:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Signs and symptoms

This article is okay, but it is set up backwards. The signs and symptoms are down at the bottom, after etiology. That is what is giving it the appearance of bias. A simple switch and a little cleanup is in order. Clarifying some of the terms would go a long way in helping a reader understand the concept and the controversy. -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients

This journal does not seem to meet the criteria of a reliable source; in any event, while the cited article is critical of the chemical industry, I didn't see anything in there that says they conspire to prevent research for fear of liability. THF 13:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is biased and opinionated, rather than scientific. Barret is not a legitimate source. He is not the MD he purpots and has been sued for misrepresentation. Citations missing/unsupported statements without evidence. Needs MAJOR cleanup.

Disagree that the article is not NPOV. This is a controversial subject with strongly held views on both sides, as with similar effects. Both sceptics and supporters have added good material. Particularly commendable in the current article is the list of external links stating clearly the POV of each, and thus giving good balance. Some further citations would be useful however. Incidentally, statements such as the ones above should be supported by user identification (and ideally by citations themselves); otherwise by pointing the finger, four fingers point back at the originator. Hyperman 42 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Barrett is relied upon only once in the article, and that one time it refers to his views as a "critic of clinical ecology." Critical views deserve clearly-labeled coverage in controversial articles like this. Please tag statements you find unsupported with {{fact}} or similar templates. It would also be helpful if you explain further how the article is biased. With no more detailed explanation, I'm inclined to remove the template after about a week or so. Cool Hand Luke 02:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How to create a good lead

I know the following is long, but the lead in this article is in desperate need of a diet! It's much too long and detailed. I have a rule of thumb that ensures proper coverage in the WP:LEAD:

• If a topic deserves a heading, then it deserves short mention in the lead.

Here is a table we can use to help in creating and managing the lead. Just add the headings (done) and create short summaries of the entire contents of the sections. The final result is created by placing all that content in one big paragraph in the order it is found in the table. Then make appropriate paragraphs out of it, and make appropriate changes so it flows as brilliant prose. Have fun!

Definition of MCS	bla bla bla
Symptoms	bla bla bla
History and epidemiology	bla bla bla
Etiology (cause) of MCS	bla bla bla
Diagnosis and treatment	bla bla bla

Each item should contain no more than one or two sentences that sum up the basic idea of each section in the article that has a heading. The whole thing can then be lumped together and divided up into two to four paragraphs.

There should not be anything in the lead that doesn't refer to specific content in the article. There should not be any elaboration or detail in the lead. Elaboration should be in the body of the article, not in the lead. Sum each section up in two to four sentences, and use them in the lead.

Keeping references out of the lead makes the lead easier to read. The explanatory and more detailed text with the refs are found in the article. I don't know of any policy or guideline regarding including refs in the lead, one way or the other, so it's a matter of taste....;-) Since refs are used to document specific content, and since the lead is a short summation in a generalized format, I would see the use of refs in the lead as a duplication of effort. If there are any refs in the lead, they should be kept to a minimum. If a ref is required in the lead, then that might be a symptom that something is being introduced there that is not in the body, which would be improper.

Because articles change and grow, the lead should reflect those changes and be revised accordingly.

Otherwise I think the lead should prepare the reader for whatever is in the body of the article. When they read the article they should not encounter any significant information that was not alluded to in the lead, IOW they should not be totally surprised. If they are then it should be mentioned in the lead.

Wikipedia articles should cover all notable aspects of a subject. When our readers have read an article and then talk to others about the subject, they should be able to always answer "Of course, I already read about that at Wikipedia." They should at least have a basic knowledge of all aspects of a subject, enough to discuss it and not be totally surprised by what someone else tells them. -- Fyslee/talk 23:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's very bad behaviour

That's a very big deletion and a very little explanation, Orangemarlin.

Just plain wrong. Don't do it again, okay?

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 09:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I found the following quote on the User page of the user WHO SUPPRESSED ALL MY EDITS in the name of POV: "A POV pusher will always interpret any disagreement to constitute proof the editors in question are members of a cabal."-Addhoc

I think I need help with this. Anybody? (Let's make cabal!) Just joking...

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 09:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin's reversion was explained in the edit summary: your edits violated NPOV. (They certainly violated WP:LEAD.) Orangemarlin is entitled to revert a bold edit; you're the one who is violating Wikipedia etiquette by skipping the third step in the WP:BRD cycle, and by making personal attacks on an editor. Please also adhere to WP:CIVIL. THF 12:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Your proposal for the LEAD would violate WP rules for a LEAD. Treating this controversial malady as factual and with a long set of diagnosing criteria in the first couple of sentences not only makes the LEAD a POV LEAD, but also makes the LEAD less readable.--Filll 13:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take those criticisms one at a time. Thanks for the input -- at last.

1. The definition of MCS can be abridged, put it still belongs to the LEAD section

2. The controversial nature of MCS should be described in the LEAD section as well.

3. The position of the World Health Organisation is a valid and authoritative one, and it violates all basic rules of scientific and WP conduct to delete it completely. Provide a NPOV to introduce it, if my POV was personal.

4. Giving a list or organizations who question the diagnosis of MCS, in the LEAD section, without providing a fair view of diverging views (held by the World Health Organisation and other authoritative organizations accross the world, including the US), blatantly violates the Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV).

Please answer.

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 18:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The more recent WHO position on MCS is considerably more ambiguous than PAG makes it out to be: Both EHS and MCS are characterized by a range of non-specific symptoms that lack apparent toxicological or physiological basis or independent verification. A more general term for sensitivity to environmental factors is Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance (IEI), which originated from a workshop convened by the International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS) of the WHO in 1996 in Berlin. IEI is a descriptor without any implication of chemical etiology, immunological sensitivity or EMF susceptibility. IEI incorporates a number of disorders sharing similar non-specific medically unexplained symptoms that adversely affect people. That's not inconsistent with what the lead currently says. The 1999 WHO document does not belong in the lead. THF 18:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I thought my edit summary was sufficient, since there was a lot of POV-pushing in the edits, especially the whole part about what you're supposed to do if some American insurance company denies a claim because of MCS. I'm not a big fan of American insurance companies, but I doubt a WHO statement (especially the more recent ones) are going to hold much weight. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not "making (things) out". This is a personal attack. Please retract, Ted Frank.

"lack apparent toxicological or physiological basis or independent verification" is consistent with the edit I made (that it takes time to evaluate what the etiology is. The word "apparent" is obviously important).

TedFrank, another thing. The lead section, how it is now, is evidently not biased like the section Orangemarlin chose to put in place of my edits. So this is a misrepresentation of the facts. I'm relieved to see that the lead section has been improved. Good job.

I have to go. Ciao.

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

To TedFrank (Hey, I read TedFrank last time, and now I see THF) so,

To THF: Oh my... I just read WP:BRD... This is an excellent method. I appreciate your bringing it. Seriously: it makes me more comfortable with the deletion of what I had provided. You can imagine what it is.

But I'd still like to see you retract that: "The more recent WHO position on MCS is considerably more ambiguous than PAG makes it out to be". I have to be sure that you assume good faith from me. I did not know that the WHO had chosen Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance (IEI) as an umbrella term and it was a mistake, period. (It's interesting to note that conditions under the IEI umbrella might leave it if evidence is shown; it's no longer idiopathic: the genetic polymorphisms evidence is building up...) To tell you the truth, after double checking, I was surprised to see that, especially in light of the studies evidencing genetic differences in people who satishy the MCS criteria. I am puzzled. Anyways.

The definition of MCS was abridged, and it looked like the 1999 consensus definition. So the BRD rule worked, since the word "believe" was ultimately deleted. I used the very parcimonious definition in the 1999 consensus paper to complement the definition. I don't think it is a bold edit: if you compare the two versions, you'll see that they are very similar.

Since I believe that some edits I made were valuable and not "NPOV violations", and since I don't have time to lose, I'd like to know if I'll be answered (the Discuss step in the BRD cycle) if I provide the evidence and justifications to my edits later. Otherwise, the BRD cycle will be broken. As you can see, I accept your point about the WHO, even if it came with a personal attack, an assumption of bad faith.

Now on my personal attack on an editor. I quoted this from his page:

"A POV pusher will always interpret any disagreement to constitute proof the editors in question are members of a cabal."-Addhoc

I can't believe that editors of this page have let so many inaccuracies and misrepresentations stay on this page. I do think that this article is terribly biased, and other people on the talk page have said the same thing (I also received support on my personal Email). It is true that I tried to "respond" instead of editing meticulously the inaccuracies I saw. In that, I appeared non-NPOV. This is a methodological mistake­. This is what I'll try to show in my next contribs, which will be more critical and less "bold". Boldness, in fact can also be in details. I HOPE THAT THESE SIMPLE EDITS WILL BE EXAMINED WITH CIVILITY AND NOT REVERTED. No, I'm not shouting (with those capitals), I'm trying to make sure that all editors see that, because this reply is rather long.

If one assumes that ALL that I brought was a lack of NPOV, of neutrality, one means that all that I brought was going against the neutrality of this article. (Yeah, I know, two non-NPOV editors can attack each other for eons and attacking a non-NPOV article doesn't mean you're neutral) But seriously, when I look at what I did, I am reassured about the value of my contribs and I remember that I have a lot of work to do to correct factual innacuracies, misrepresentations, and unencyclopedic attention-getting. Will I get again reversions and pompous declarations like "your edits violated NPOV"? Because, of course, I could prove that it was not quite true. What will you do? I propose a first editing. It is minor. Let's see. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 06:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There was undeniably a problem with the lead, but some of your changes violated several policies at the same time:

"In spite of the warning issued by the World Health Organization that "it takes time before there is enough knowledge and experience to set up well-defined diagnostic criteria and to conclude on (the) etiology of multiple chemical sentivitiy", several organizations have already concluded that MCS is not an organic disease, invoking the argument from ignorance."

See WP:SYN (on WHO's relevance), WP:OR (on characterizing a half dozen official body's reports as arguments from ignorance) in addition to the above-mentioned WP:NPOV.

You also really didn't justify your personal attack. It's difficult to imagine how Orangemarlin's user page is related in any way to the content of this article, but I trust you won't make further attacks in the future. Cool Hand Luke 07:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You keep hitting the same nail. Please understand what I'm saying. This editor assumed that I was not neutral and suppressed all my edits. I consider this to be vandalism. However, I will play according to the BRD rule. You are adopting the position that I attacked personally OrangeMarlin because you assume that his editing of all may contributions was justifed on the grounds of NPOV. If you thought that I had a point about the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance, you wouldn't say that. But you choose to believe that all these organizations arguing that they don't know give them the right to say that there's nothing to know. This is a fallacy.

I'll be more explicit. This sentence you write "It's difficult to imagine how Orangemarlin's user page is related in any way to the content of this article" is dishonest. Of course there is a relationship: his beliefs leads him to think that a new contributor with new insights are not neutral, and he has opinions about neutrality, which he publicly declares! Do you get it or not?

I'm not sure I can trust you either: when you say I'm "characterizing a half dozen official body's reports as arguments from ignorance", you're right in that I should explain how and why this argument is fallacious. But do you really believe that half a dozen official body's reports can't be an argumetn from ignorance because of the number? I mean you, personally. Half a dozen is okay? Or is it that I said bluntly "argument from ignorance" and it appeared too bold? I recognize that I felt justified to use this term based on the bias of the article. I will probably never say "argument from ignorance" again. But I'll still think that it applies to matters related to the precautionary principle... Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 08:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

People who say that they have MCS may have beliefs about chemicals, therefore "not a single case has been scientifically validated"

So here's the first minor edit. How can an article from 1995 arguing that self-reports cannot be trusted in MCS because of the belief systems of people saying that they have MCS (PMID:7670917) can support that "not a single case has been scientifically validated"? Personally, I don't perceive that the reference supports the claim made in the WP article. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 07:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed that. The article is a much harsher attack on MCS than the abstract suggests. See Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity#removed_a_reference. Cool Hand Luke 07:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, these are merely claims by critics, and the article couches them that way. Whether cases have been validated is hotly contested, of course. If you'd prefer, we can move this reference after 1, 2, and especially 3 because it certainly makes those claims. Cool Hand Luke 07:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read your responses more than one time and I must admit I don't understand what you're saying. What do you mean by moving the reference "after 1, 2, and especially 3 because it certainly makes those claims"? Are you referring to the numbered list made by critics? If, so I don't understand:

(1) MCS has never been clearly defined,

(2) no scientifically plausible mechanism has been proposed for it,

(3) no diagnostic tests have been substantiated, and

(4) not a single case has been scientifically validated

Why does the claim, that was summarized in the discussion made before (I read it, and I do find methodological errors) apply to any of those refutations? How do you put them in context?

::"It defies measurement. The time course is indeterminate, its effects can come and go in a flash. Instead, it is described as a systemic, polysymptomatic disorder characterized by general malaise complaints from every biologic system, whichtie can be caused by virtually any environmental agent known to mankind."

I mean, if I understood well, this is the "harsh criticism". But it's refuted by the very definition (consensus definition, 1999). If it "can come and go in a flash", it's not MCS: MCS comes with exposure and disappears with exposure. This is misreprenstation, a strawmam argument.

Then, after this condemnable fallacy, you have "Instead, it is described as a systemic, polysymptomatic disorder". Why not? What's so harsh about that? First, it's not "instead": the authors behaved like bullies; then, why is it so surprising that a reaction affects various cells in the body? Where's the point?

And then we have: "which can be caused by virtually any environmental agent known to mankind". Hey, this is not Jerry Springer! Are those authors saying that glucose, lipids and amino acids are causing MCS? Are they saying that air, water, and other elements essential to life can trigger chemical sensitivity? Look. This is bullying. This reference should not be in any wikipedia article, no matter who wrote it. And, as most people used to this kind of fallacious writing already witnessed, terminating a sentence with mankind is, generally, demagogic. The speaker wants us to belong to his definition of mankind. This has nothing to do with MCS. I hope I made my point.

But I'd like you to tell me the same thing in other words, because, after reading it again, I still don't understand: "Incidentally, these are merely claims by critics, and the article couches them that way." is a sentence I don't comprehend. Thanks in advance. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 08:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is with your definition, as MCS supporters have propounded far broader definitions than the narrow one a handful of supporters propounded to try to achieve some modicum of science. You are arguing that Staudenmeyer is wrong, but the test is verifiability, and it is verifable, and from a reliable source. The reference stays. Please stop POV-pushing. THF 11:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a Consensus definition which is the basis for the research showing genetic polymorphisms in MCS, which allows to select cases from controls in provocation studies, it is the basis for most of the research happening right now (even studies promoting the POV that MCS is psychogenic!). This MCS definition is the backbone of most of what is cited in this article, pro and con included... So this definition works across the board. When you say "far broader definitions", you should (in order to edit meticulously) back your claim, first, and also wonder if the term "symptoms" can encompass a wide range of symptoms and if "multiple unrelated chemicals" spares us the need to account for those "far broader definitions". In the 1999 Consensus paper, they proposed to include a 6th criterion, to the effect that symptoms were affecting multiple systems. Would you like me to add this to the definition?

I'm arguing that Staudenmeyer is not conforming to the rules of scientific enquiry (not that he is "wrong") in that he attacks a strawman, and also resorts to other methods that do not belong to the realm of scientific enquiry (see above). What do you mean by verifiability? Please read again my response above and tell me that you think it is a way to scientifically appraise a putative disease and that it deserves inclusion in the lead section. Please see my response to Cool Hand Luke, below.

BTW, I should remind you that you have assumed bad faith from me (see above) and that you still did not retract, despite of my apology for the mistake of quoting an outdated WHO declaration. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem if this is rephrased or moved out of the lead, but Barrett and this blistering Staudenmeyer review are not being cited for their research authority—they're being cited as examples of argument. That's why the only citation to Barrett (a controversial source) is following a sentence that begins "Critics of clinical ecology . . . charge that:" Such arguments are important because they've won over a majority of doctors and courts, even if they are demagogic. I think its important to concisely introduce perhaps the primary controversy about the subject: whether or not MCS is an organic and physiological disease.

I'm totally cool with the idea of presenting these critics as they present themselves. I agree we should rephrase. Then the word "belief" or an equivalent will perhaps come back, which is good in the context, since it is the core assumption of proponents of the psychogenic theory (Barrett and Staudenmeyer might be referenced there, although I believe it's a disservice to other proponents of the psychogenic theory). Instead of "Critics of clinical ecology" (which is very restrictive, to say the least), I propose:

"Proponents of the psychogenic approach and critics of clinical ecology (a controversial field of medicine that claims to treat MCS),"

OR "Proponents of the psychogenic approach and critics of clinical ecology"

Because these two sets overlap but are not identical.

It would be useful to include the following:

Instead of :

"whether symptoms are physiologically or psychologically generated or both"

perhaps:

"whether symptoms are generated physiologically or psychologically (psychogenic) or both". I thinks it's essential to have this word in the Lead.

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Psychogenic" and "psychological" are allied, but sometimes connotate slightly different theories—psychological being simple misdiagnosis of mental illness, but psychogenic typically connotating a mixture of environmental exposure and involuntary response in the brain, ie. It's not clear how different these ideas are, and much liturature doesn't distinguish them, but because they're not quite identical I think parentheses would be improper. Maybe a slash insted. Also, Barrett at least believes the disease is psychological (a fraud that doctors encourage by ignoring serious underlying mental disorders). His criticism is definately as a proponent of psychological etiology. Cool Hand Luke 21:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, a free amino acid is claimed to cause MCS. Cool Hand Luke 16:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This amino acid is the primary excitatory neurotransmitter. MCS involves, according to both sides of the debate on MCS, high excitabiliy in MCS sufferers (or MCS believers). Debate around this revolves around its putative ability to enter the brain without regulation, especially in deep brain regions where the blood-brain barrier is weak of absent (in accordance with neurophysiological evidence and in accordance with their physiological role in amino acid metabolism regulation). This is an issue that is intensely debated. This is why I don't think that you are providing a valid counter-argument. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to win points in a debate. This is not a chat. I just mean that Staudenmeyer's sensational language is not quite as hyperbolic as you suggest, because, yes, MCS proponents even think an amino acid (and indeed, virtually any agent) can trigger the disease. Cool Hand Luke 21:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I said "providing a counter-argument", not "trying to win points". And you don't address my response, instead you present me as someone who's here to "chat". This amino acid is glutamate and this matter ought to be approached cautiously, that's what I say. Your phrasing(glutamate=> an amino acid) is not neutral, because you're talking about a peculiar amino acid glutamate. I don't tolerate being treated like that ("I'm not trying to win points in a debate. This is not a chat"). I'm taking a break. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 22:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This sub-sub-subtopic has nothing to do with the article. I shouldn't have brought it up and I shouldn't have replied to it. I'm sorry. Glutamate is an amino acid, but all of this is irrelevant. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What does "not a single case has been scientifically validated" mean? I say it means nothing. Gobbledegook. Ladarzak 11:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly the problem. While we are at it, why not say :

"Not a hundred, not a dozen, not even a single case of something resembling so-called "multiple chemical sensitivity" (pardon the expression) have been reported by Science, our army of glorious warriors courageously fighting the darknesses of pseudoscience and supersititions". I think we should ask "Critics of clinical ecology" if they agree with this phrasing.Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC) (Don't mind a bit of humour?)

No offense, but no one cares about your original research that this is gobbledegook. Find a reliable source that says that; this reliable source says that not a single case has been scientifically validated. THF 11:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you validate a single case, scientifically? Cases are medical. Scientific matters don't involve single instances. This is about usage or word meaning, not research by me. The comment is simply a jargon attempt at dismissing a large number of differing cases with a little phrase that itself doesn't make sense. There was a time before cholera was understood that cases weren't scientifically analyzed, defined or if you insist, validated, but people still suffered from it. The phrase is meaningless and just raises a red flag about the source it comes from. Ladarzak 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Glancing at the source of that quote, the pdf by S.Barrett, I see the person is a psychiatrist. Laughable that such a source would be considered relevant to this topic at all. Psychiatrists make up disorders that change frequently and have no organic basis for the most part. Irrelevant garbage by Barrett, a self styled quackwatcher.

WP:NOT#FORUM. THF 13:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ladarzak, your point ("This is about usage or word meaning, not research by me.") is not original research but cautious WP editing. People who disagree with you should respond to this. I read what's under the WP:NOT#FORUM flag that TedFrank (THF) raised and I see no NPOV reason to raise it. In order to improve this article, WP editors will have to distinguish proponents of the psychogenic approach from people who write in such terms: "It defies measurement. The time course is indeterminate, its effects can come and go in a flash. Instead, it is described as a systemic, polysymptomatic disorder characterized by general malaise complaints from every biologic system, which can be caused by virtually any environmental agent known to mankind." (see the analysis of these statements above) Many WP editors will agree that this isn't quite the kind of criticism that a WP science article should contain, especially if we consider that there are lots of more informative criticisms coming from proponents of the psychogenic approach. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sticking to the topic. First, Barrett is a controversial source, but a psychiatrist is a physician trained in all aspects of medicine prior to specializing. The sources underlying Barrett's findings are notable, relevant, and reliable. Second, medicine is science. Either it is medicine or it is not, and medical procedures, diagnoses, pharmaceuticals, etc. need to be tested by the scientific method. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ladarzak tried to explain his point, he did not digress. The talk page is precisely the place for epistemological considerations: this analogy with cholera is an illustration of the argument from ignorance :(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_ignorance):

"The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:

Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.

Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proved.

Staudenmeyer might be doing just that. We have to discuss this. WP provides tools to assess the validity of our sources, and [1] is one.

[2] WP's "primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting." There's no consensus, TedFrank. This is, in my opinion, hasty editing.

It would be great if you could retract on your personal attack, because right now, your interventions on this talk page are consistent with the assumption you made that I (or others making similar assumptions) are making things out to appear as they wish. For instance, when you said that Ladarzak was into "original research" with his questioning of the phrasing and word usage, I found your response to be disrespectful. I wonder if others perceive this too. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You say "Staudenmeyer might be doing just that. We have to discuss this." Actually, we are forbidden from doing this. See WP:OR. You must cite a source which has made these arguments before you. Cool Hand Luke 21:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So you say that this excerpt: "It defies measurement. The time course is indeterminate, its effects can come and go in a flash. Instead, it is described as a systemic, polysymptomatic disorder characterized by general malaise complaints from every biologic system, which can be caused by virtually any environmental agent known to mankind." represents accurately a scientific position currently held in reputable peer-reviewed journals? Am I forbidden to ask this question? In any case, after being told "this is not a chat" and after TedFrank assumed bad faith from me (still no apologies), I consider that I'm not treated respectfully. I'm taking a break. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 22:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No; just keep your comments on the article. Once again, it's being presented as an argument—"critics...charge." If "charge" sounds too much like the assertion of a scientific consensus, change it to "argue" or "claim" or whatever you like. I think, however, that it's clearly an argument because the very next sentence argues against it. Cool Hand Luke 01:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm feeling better and I appreciated that you said you were sorry. THANK YOU. So here I am, again, although I had removed all this from my watchlist. Charge is very good. The problem is that this reference does not reflect the consensus (I'm talking about the consensus of those who argue against a physiological basis to MCS, against the toxic burden, etc.). I won't quote this old reference again. Could someone provide an up to date reference on the psychogenic/psychologic approach, so that we can make a good article?

Yes, I know it is appears clearly as an argument. But "not a single case has been scientifically validated" is way over the top. This is pseudoskepticism, dishonest attention-getting, and to tell you the truth, I think this is worse than shit. I really don't think I should contribute to an article in which editors feel that "not a single case has been scientifically validated" is fit to appear in the lead section. If there were more editors like Ladarzak, we could work on this. But right now, nobody else seems to realize that "not a single case has been scientifically validated" is junk science and an appeal to authority. I'm working on other things. I know (based on the support I received through Email and on Ladarzak's contribution) that, right now there are not enough people to debate what NPOV, original research, personal attack mean, in relationship to Multiple Chemical Sensitivities. I appreciate truly your kind apologies, but my gifts and qualities as a recognized terminologist and medical translator will florish elsewhere. I worked on MCS as a terminologist. I have found abyssal lacks of scientific rigour. I felt proud that the Canadian Armed Forces convened a symposium on MCS (as a Canadian). I felt that there were people who had vested interests in keeping MCS a "women's disease", despite of the Gulf War syndrome, despite of the MCS epidemics that happened in (male) workers exposed to toxic chemicals. This is a very sad period for science. But it is a glorious period as well, because we have to fight against bullies who assume bad faith (like TedFrank) and present MCS sufferers as coocoos. You knew I thought that. Now I'm not NPOV anymore, so I have to leave, to leave this article in such a despicable state. All this began with OrangeMarlin's behaviour. You can see, looking at his (or her) contributions, that he (or she) also attacked my contrib. on WHO's statements about traditional preventive and curative practices (that they should not be restricted by authorities) (see Alternative Medicine). I am basically a proponent of scientific enquiry who finds fascinating things, about MCS in particular. The editors of this article, right now, are clearly too biased to understand this. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 06:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors are not expected to be NPOV, but their edits are. Feel free to contribute. There are, of course, vested interests on both sides of this topic.

As for being up-to-date, the modern criticism cites almost precisely the same problems that Staudenmeyer articulated years ago. A December 2006 literature review by Das-Munshi et al. concludes, like Staudenmeyer, that prior expectations and sense of smell are required to for patients to exhibit MCS's symptoms, which is consistent with psychological and psychogenic etiologies. Das-Munshi is much more cautious in her review than Staudenmeyer, which I agree is more scientific, so she's cited for factual propositions. However, I think that Barrett and Staudenmeyer's blunt attacks are significant points of view. I also think it would be valuable to cover their opposite contemporary POV: the popularization of this disease by doctors and trial lawyers in 1990's media. The MCS promoter's sensationalism might help put Staudenmeyer's barbed words into context. I would like to find some reliable secondary coverage along these lines. Cool Hand Luke 07:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No. This study uses "probably" and "possibly" at two critical points of the demonstration. The conclusion that "prior expectations and sense of smell are required to for patients to exhibit MCS's symptoms", as you say, is entirely conditioned by one's belief that "probably" and "possibly" mean "certainly".

Out of the 37 studies analyzed, 19 of those prove that MCS was real, but Das-Munshi J, Rubin GJ and Wessely S believed that "odors of chemicals were probably apparent" in 21 out of 37. Hey, is this science? I ask you: is this scientific? What do these researchers in psychiatry mean by "probably"? Have you often seen the word "probably" in a research abstract? You say "Barrett and Staudenmeyer's blunt attacks are significant points of view." and also say that "The MCS promoter's sensationalism might help put Staudenmeyer's barbed words into context".

No, neither. This is a science article. There is evidence that MCS sufferers have polymorphisms in their detoxication enzymes (cytochromes, n-acetyltransferases, paraoxonases, glutathione transferases) and that chances of MCS are 18 fold increased when two specific polymorphisms are present at the same time. There is convincing statistical evidence about Gulf War veterans too (that's why my country's army convened the symposium on MCS). But I don't see sensationalism getting us anywhere.

What's happening right now is that you and others are hoping to find a reasonable balance between two points of view which aren't actually the points of view that this article should be about.

The genetic evidence (lost somewhere in the article, after the psychologic explanations) is, as always, a top quality evidence. Hard facts. The lead section should state this. The lead section should also state that from vituperous attacks from Staudenmeyer and others (it is against my principles to quote or refer to Barrett), the debate finally ended up to depend on what "probably" and "possibly" means according to self-appointed meta-analysts from a department of psychiatry (guess what, they show it's "probably", "possibly"... psychiatric) I mean, provide something else to chew on (until TedFrank (THF, who assumed bad faith from me) says we're doing "original research" or having a "forum", and then we'll have to bow before authority).Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 08:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I ran 2 searches on Medline: "probably" and "possibly". I must admit I did not go through the millions of hits it yielded. However, what I can see is that researchers use these terms to propose interpretations of evidence that will lead to further verifications (or, eventually, falsifications).

Further analyzing this abstract, I find evidence of outright fraud. Look at this:

1. In 21 studies odors of chemicals were probably apparent; 19 of these reported positive responses to provocations among chemically sensitive individuals

2. Three studies tested individuals by using nose clips/face masks and confirmed response, possibly mediated through eye exposure.

Conclusion:

these responses occur when they can discern differences between active and sham substances (suggesting that the mechanism of action is not specific to the chemical itself and might be related to expectations and prior beliefs.)

Hum, Das Munshi and colleagues, didn't you just say that odours were probably apparent, and that when the odours couldn't be perceived (nose clips/face masks), it was possible that those middle class hysterical female coocoos would annoy us to the point of finding a way to trick us and see or smell the difference? In other words, didn't you just say that there was a probability of methodological error? Because if this is what you said, then there's no way you can logically conclude that "these responses occur when they can discern differences between active and sham substances". It is just not possible. Use may, might, probably, possibly, but don't say they do occur.

Oh, I forgot. Researchers say "We conclude that ..." Well I, Pierre-Alain Gouanvic, conclude differently, based on what you said. I say it is possible and probable that "they" did not see or smell the difference. That their reaction was real and not influenced by prior beliefs. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 09:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you looked up "probably"; I used to do very uncontroversial work with my chemistry professors, and qualifying words are used all of the time in journal articles. In MCS, I imagine would be a given for such controversial research to be taken seriously. Scientists are very hesitant to reject a hypothesis entirely, but Das-Munshi's review is rather convincing in my view. It's telling that when odor is eliminated entirely, there's no statistically distinguishable effect. As for positives with supposedly obscured smells, their interpretation seems reasonable, and it was apparently reasonable to the peers reviewing their work. But we don't include material because we find it convincing, but rather because it accurately summarizes current thought without undo weight.

The genetic work you cite actually doesn't say very much—just a correllation between genes and self-reporting. Interestingly, MCS also seems to share some of the same genetics as mental disorders. However, I do not attempt to remove these findings from the article because their are points of view held by a significant minority. We must strive to cover all points of view here because it's still a live controversy. WP:NPOV applies to science articles as well.

Your project to discern unscientific opinion is original research and misplaced on Wikipedia. Our policies favor verifiability, not truth as we see it. Cool Hand Luke 16:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition of MCS

It should be noted that the 1999 case definition is not a consensus in the sense that all agree with it. It was a consensus in the sense that the majority of studies as of 1999 used most of those factors. The lead block should say something more modest about the definition of MCS because commentators still note that there is no consensus. See e.g. p. 21 of this 2006 dissertation. Perhaps we could insted mention the three criterion used in both definitions. Incidentally, this dissertation was just recently published online. I've never seen it before, but it includes a very thorough overview on the state of MCS research. Cool Hand Luke 16:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Flinders rats

I fixed the citation about the Flinders rats and added some information concerning the study itself. I particularly want to explain why I added the bit about how Flinders rats are not sensitive to perfumes. Flinders sensitive rats were, according to the article, bred for sensitivity to an organophosphate, not "organophosphates" in general. The article does not mention that the rats are sensitive to those organophosphates currently considered relatively safe. Moreover, the chemicals the rats were also sensitive to - alcohol and nicotine, for example - are ones that are already known to depress or enhance the effects of certain neurotransmitters, unlike perfumes and, I believe, many other chemicals like acetone. This means that the rats don't really address criticisms by skeptics that "no scientifically plausible mechanism has been proposed" for perfume-triggered MCS. --Sammka 17:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I killed this today:

However, the etiology of MCS is of particular legal significance in the United States. If the symptoms are labeled "psychological", defendants in lawsuits may avoid liability by arguing that MCS is caused by a plaintiff's mental condition. Under the Daubert ruling in 1993, courts are charged with acting as gatekeeper for the scientific reliability of expert testimony. Although physiological etiologies are championed by clinical ecologists who treat MCS, US courts have consistently rejected such testimony as inadmissible on the ground that the multiple-chemical sensitivity theory has not been validated by scientific testing.

on the grounds that it doesn't really seem to fit into the article. WhatamIdoing 23:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete this

This is a "teach the controversy" article, not unlike what Intelligent Design advocates tried in Dover. There is no scientific controversy on this topic. The only people who maintain the existence of such a controversy are either ignorant of the facts or are quite simply lying. This is a bullshit diagnosis, and falls within the realm of "alternative medicine". Where "alternative" invariably means "not". --76.224.86.43 (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree, although I'm sympathetic to those who suffer from this psychogenic disorder. I can only assure you that the article used to be much worse—it used to host rebutted claims that the syndrome is actually caused by chemical exposure. Needs more work, I'll admit. Cool Hand Luke 21:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive proposal

This page is a little long, and the comments go 'way back to 2004. Should we do an end-of-year archive? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Just a note to our new editors to say: It's not cool to delete properly sourced material just because you don't agree with it. If you want to present a different view, that's fine: This page will tell you what kinds of information should be included in an encyclopedia and how to list your sources (which need to be "reputable," not our favorite pro-my-personal-views activist websites).

Even if you find it personally offensive to suggest that some MCS-claiming people actually have an anxiety disorder instead of strictly chemical problem, that's what most docs believe, and our readers have a right to know that the docs think this and to know why the docs think this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)