Multiple Chemical Sensitivity - The End of Controversy

May God protect these brave scientists from the ravages of the MCS
fake skeptics. How typical of Quackwatch Shill Mark Thorson trying to
highjack these threads with the anti-skeptical Barrett version of MCS.



http://ilenarose.blogspot.com
Health Lover


Written by Dr. Martin Pall/Matthew Hogg
Wednesday, 17 October 2007

http://www.ei-resource.org/articles/...f-controversy/

Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), where people report being
exquisitely sensitive to a wide range of organic chemicals, is almost
always described as being "controversial." The main source of this
supposed controversy is that there has been no plausible physiological
mechanism for MCS and consequently, it was difficult to interpret the
puzzling reported features of this condition. As discussed below, this
is no longer true and consequently the main source of such controversy
has been laid to rest. There still are important issues such as how it
should be diagnosed and treated and these may also be allayed by
further studies of the mechanism discussed below.

The descriptions of MCS made by a several different research groups
are remarkably consistent. MCS sufferers report being hypersensitive
to a wide variety of hydrophobic organic solvents, including gasoline
vapor, perfume, diesel or jet engine exhaust, new or remodeled
buildings where building materials or carpeting has outgassed various
solvents, vapors associated with copy machines, many solvents used in
industrial settings, cleaning materials and cigarette and other smoke.
Each of these is known to have volatile hydrophobic organic compounds
as a prominent part of its composition. The symptoms of MCS sufferers
report having on such solvent exposure include multiorgan pain
typically including headache, muscle pain and joint pain, dizziness,
cognitive dysfunction including confusion, lack of memory, and lack of
concentration. These symptoms are often accompanied by some of a wide
range of more variable symptoms. The major symptoms reported on
chemical exposure in MCS are strikingly similar to the chronic
symptoms in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and may be explained by
mechanisms previously proposed for the CFS symptoms

(1). Perhaps the best source of information on the properties and
science of MCS is the Ashford and Miller book

(2). Many individual accounts of MCS victims have been presented in an
interesting book edited by Johnson

(3). Most MCS sufferers trace their sensitivity to chemicals to a
chemical exposure at a particular time in their life, often a single,
high level exposure to organic solvents or to certain pesticides,
notably organophosphates or carbamates.

Some MCS cases are traced to a time period where the person lived or
worked in a particular new or newly remodeled building ("sick building
syndrome") where the outgassing of the organic solvents may have had a
role in inducing MCS. One of the most interesting examples of MCS/sick
building syndrome occured about 15 years ago when the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency remodeled its headquarters and some
200 of its employees became chemically sensitive. The obvious
interpretation of this pattern of incidence of MCS is that pesticide
or high level or repeated organic solvent exposure induces cases of
MCS. This interpretation has been challenged by MCS skeptics but they
have, in my judgement, no plausible alternative explanation.

Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007 Aug;15(4):274-80.
Multiple chemical sensitivities: review.
Das-Munshi J, Rubin GJ, Wessely S.
Section of Epidemiology, Department of Health Services
and Population Research, Institute of Psychiatry, King's
College London, London, United Kingdom.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There have been a number of recent
studies examining behavioural and social factors in the
potential cause of Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, or
Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance. The current review
will draw together recent research and suggest directions
for future investigation.

RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies have implicated a number
of different perspectives which may be helpful in
understanding the cause of chemical sensitivities.
A multifactorial model incorporating behavioural,
physiological and sociological approaches may be useful.
Cultural and historical factors, alongside individual
expectations and beliefs, as well as maladaptive
learning and conditioning processes, may be important
in the specific cause of chemical sensitivities.
Iatrogenesis, through the promise of unproven 'therapies',
may perpetuate reported symptoms further. Although there
are many recent experiments implicating potential
behavioural or psychological causes for Multiple Chemical
Sensitivities, there remains a paucity of treatment trials
for this condition.

SUMMARY: Good-quality treatment trials examining
psychological/behavioural approaches in the management
of Multiple Chemical Sensitivities are urgently needed.

On Oct 31, 2:40 pm, Ilena Rose wrote:

Hey Ilena. I just read recently somewhere that the director of
Quackwatch is on the editorial board for Medscape. It is common
knowledge from reading Quackwatch that they are against the MCS
diagnosis. And from reading in the blurb in an online newspaper out of
Texas, Barrett is definitely not a Bill Rea supporter. I know his
background is for the psychiatry; do you know how the psychiatry world
views MCS? I remember reading an article about the drug, Paxil (?)
that was supposed to be the cure-all for MCS. But I remember reading
the controversary over the use and side effects of the drug. Why do
you suppose there is so much rah rah ism against MCS when there is so
much knowlege available presently about the chemicals in our
environment? Also, do you think it is fair that doctors are on the
editorial boards of medical studies companies that might possibly
have a conflict of interest with the information coming from studies
that they might not necessarily like? Would this not be fair to
insurance companies; the lack of pro studies might not even have
opportunity to get into the medical publishing. In light of this,
do you think it would be much fairer to our society as a whole, if all
of the information was available, pro and con studies?

In reviewing a case today about an insurance company who had been feed
false information from their client, because it was beneficial to the
client (their insured), the only information they had available was
what the "experts" had deemed was correct. However, the "experts"
were willing to go along with the client, because the client was a
prominent member of society, and after speaking with the Insurance
Commissioner's office, he had to agree with me, that it was time to
return to the insurance company and open up a fraud investigation
based on the fact that "the experts" had an apparent conflict of
interest that they had not disclosed.

Do you think insurance companies should be held liable for medical
studies or information that they purchase or use in court cases or
claims to deny claims if it can be proven that the investigator or the
insurance company themselves have conflict of interests with either
the doctor's diagnosis or the medical studies available are limited.
I have to admit, the in resident cut and paster who only comes up with
Anti-MCS studies for some reason can only see one side of the coin.
He has yet to post anything to support the MCS in any fashion unless
it is linked the Psychiatry world. I would consider this information
one-sided. You begin to wonder if those that are Anti-MCS using
alternative therapies have stock in PRO Conventional Medicine, Pharma
drugs, that they have failed to disclose, or they have relatives that
are Psychiatrists who are making big bucks off of people with MCS or
any other questionable diagnosis.

I'm interested in your comments, Ilena.

On Oct 31, 4:16 pm, Mark Thorson wrote:

SUMMARY: Good-quality treatment trials examining
psychological/behavioural approaches in the management
of Multiple Chemical Sensitivities are urgently needed.

Agreed, especially for those individuals that spent all day
exposed to the harmful rays of their computers.

On Nov 8, 12:04 am, Debbee wrote:
On Oct 31, 4:16 pm, Mark Thorson wrote:



SUMMARY: Good-quality treatment trials examining
psychological/behavioural approaches in the management
of Multiple Chemical Sensitivities are urgently needed.

Agreed, especially for those individuals that spent all day
exposed to the harmful rays of their computers.

How about for individuals who spend all day lying about Mark Lyndsay
exposing himself to them?

On Nov 8, 5:39 am, The One True Zhen Jue
wrote:
How about for individuals who spend all day lying about Mark Lyndsay
exposing himself to them?

Look up the court case for yourself, it is all a matter of public
record; call the attorneys
associated in the case, and read for yourself.

The cow died, I, and the rest of the readers here do not need your
bull.

Debbee wrote:
On Nov 8, 5:39 am, The One True Zhen Jue
wrote:
How about for individuals who spend all day lying about Mark Lyndsay
exposing himself to them?

Look up the court case for yourself, it is all a matter of public
record; call the attorneys
associated in the case, and read for yourself.

The cow died, I, and the rest of the readers here

Do provide the URL where you are appointed to speak for the rest of the
readers. There are inquiring minds who would like the truth.

On Nov 9, 4:57 am, Mark Probert wrote:
Do provide the URL where you are appointed to speak for the rest of the
readers. There are inquiring minds who would like the truth.

As I have told anyone that has emailed me and asked, you can go to
PACER,
and look it up for yourself. It is a matter of public record.

I made no statement.."where you are appointed to speak for the rest of
the
readers." These are your words.

I said, Look up the court case for yourself, it is all a matter of
public
record; call the attorneys
associated in the case, and read for yourself


Don't you work for an attorney? Are you not readily familiar with
public records?

Debbee wrote:
On Nov 9, 4:57 am, Mark Probert wrote:
Do provide the URL where you are appointed to speak for the rest of the
readers. There are inquiring minds who would like the truth.

As I have told anyone that has emailed me and asked, you can go to
PACER,
and look it up for yourself. It is a matter of public record.

Non sequitur.


I made no statement.."where you are appointed to speak for the rest of
the
readers." These are your words.

You made the statement, which I responded to, and you snipped:

"The cow died, I, and the rest of the readers here..."

Clearly, you are implying that you are speaking for the rest of the
readers. If not, you should not have typed that phrase.


I said, Look up the court case for yourself, it is all a matter of
public
record; call the attorneys
associated in the case, and read for yourself


Don't you work for an attorney? Are you not readily familiar with
public records?

Since I have no interest in that lawsuit, why would I waste my time? I
was commenting on your antics.