Jump to content

Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Archive

All previous discussions (April 2004 through December 2007) have been moved to the first-ever archive of this talk page. If you need to refer to a previous discussion (for example, to make sure you're not repeating things that were discussed in detail already), please click on the archive link. Active discussions, however, belong here, on this page, so please don't edit the archive.

(Note to anyone who archives this page in the future: I used the page move procedure to create this archive.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this article. Cool Hand Luke 00:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Gripe

I just want to say that the words "some" and "many" and "a subgroup" (and so forth) already mean not everyone. If "just" a quarter of people with MCS-related symptoms are helped by an anxiolytic, and "just" another quarter are helped by an antidepressant (even if it the first drug they try isn't a good match for them), then that's good news for the people who are helped -- and our readers are smart enough to figure out that "helps a quarter of people" means "doesn't help three-quarters of people." Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting one treatment over another; nor should we be in the business of denigrating options that have apparently helped half of the people with ongoing MCS-related concerns.

I'm reminded of a distinction that the EMF community makes between people who are EMF-anxious (nearly everyone) and people who are EMF-sensitive (extremely rare). People do not "choose" to have an EMF-related anxiety any more than they choose their skin color -- so there's no justification for blame here -- but ultimately it is in the best interests of the individuals who are EMF-sensitive that people with anxiety disorders get properly diagnosed and treated for their actual disease instead of being lumped in with EMF-sensitive people. Similarly, if antidepressants and anti-anxiety drugs didn't help your MCS symptoms, that's your experience (it's also the experience of many people who have straightforward depression or anxiety: nothing's perfectly effective), but don't run down the treatment option for someone else. If you "really" have MCS, it's in your own self-interest to get depressed, anxious, and allergic people properly diagnosed and treated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Doing a little thread necromancy, but drugs for terminal cancer that help 10% of patients are considered great medications. Given that this particular syndrome can cause total debilitation, I'd think that a couple of 25% chances are a huge help, especially considering that the side effects on anxiolytics and antidepressants are trivial in comparison to chemotherapy. Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Government "recognition"

The recent sentence about recognition of MCS by the federal government is misleading at best. The Social Security rules, for example, say that MCS probably doesn't exist, that it's probably not caused by chemicals, but that if someone one claims MCS, they might still be disabled, so you evaluate it according to all the facts and circumstances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Real People With MCS

I would like to know if WhatamIdoing and Cool Hand Luke have MCS or if they are just making assumptions without the experience of living with the illness.Carylred (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)CarylredCarylred (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that couldn't possibly be related to the article, but to satisfy your curiosity, no, I do not have MCS.
We don't root articles in personal experience, we just follow reliable published sources. The sources suggest that it's a terrible thing to have MCS, and my heart goes out to those who have it. They also suggest that most authorities believe the illness is not caused physiologically. That doesn't make the suffering less real, but in any case we have to follow the sources. Cool Hand Luke 22:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible to answer your question usefully without first agreeing on a definition for MCS. Instead, I will tell you that I do not self-identify with any condition as imprecise as MCS. I know several people who do, but I do not.
I also don't think that it makes the least bit of difference for editing this article, except that I might be somewhat less invested in promoting The Truth™ than a pro-MCS activist might. In this sense, we are not "real people" here: we are editors. Real people have blogs; "impersonal" editors have encyclopedias.
I'd like to know why you think that it matters (honestly). Wikipedia does not report personal experiences. We write what is verifiable. But even if I self-identified as having MCS, surely (for example) a person with MCS would be especially aware that mainstream science generally rejects MCS, and thus could easily understand why Wikipedia's standards wouldn't allow promotion of MCS as undisputed fact, no matter what I personally believed about my own situation. Do you worry that your friends will read this article and quit believing that their BBQ smoke or scented candles can make you sick? Do you find the stigma against psychogenic disorders so strong in your area that it's socially safer to claim something "physical" like MCS instead of something like "emotional" like panic attacks or depression? (I'm not saying that you personally have these particular problems, only that some people might reasonably think these were plausible diagnoses for a subset of MCS-claiming people.) In short, why does it matter to you that this article support your point of view, even though mainstream science clearly does not? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd also like a list of the "assumptions" you think I've made. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)



The reason I asked if you two had MCS is because typically, what is written about MCS is from people who don't have the illness. Many do not work hard enough to seek the newer information that is out there regarding MCS and how it has been found NOT to be a Psychological Illness. You can find more of this information by going into Google and entering Dr. Martin Pall. I have had MCS for eight years now and it is a devastating illness to have, but it most certainly is not Psychological. All mainstream science generally rejects illnesses that they do not understand, but it doesn't take away from the fact that MCS exists and the numbers of people who are sick with this illness are growing daily. Carylred (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)carylredCarylred (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

At one level, my response is "So?" Most of what's written about cancer is not written by cancer patients. Most of what's written about heart disease is not written by heart attack patients. Everything written about promptly fatal congenital conditions is written by people without those conditions. That does not make their work any less accurate or verifiable.
At another level, I understand your complaint, and that's why the article is so careful about certain issues. For example, "people who talk to their doctors about MCS" is a much larger group that "people with MCS." Nearly all of the people who tell their primary care doc "I think I have MCS" do not, in fact, have MCS. Many have anxieties, depression, or plain old allergies. As I said above some months ago, people who "really" have MCS benefit strongly from getting non-MCS people properly diagnosed with their real conditions. Weeding out non-MCS people reduces the odds of "real" MCS cases being dismissed with "MCS is all in your head." This article helps do that by clearly stating that "More than half of the people who talk to their doctor about MCS have somatoform disorder or panic disorder." This is a documented fact. It doesn't mean that "real" MCS patients have this problem, but the fact is that most maybe-I-have-MCS patients do not have MCS.
To give you a different example, I reviewed the chart of a woman some years ago who was absolutely convinced that she had acquired AIDS from her ex-boyfriend. He was HIV negative (several tests). She was HIV negative (many tests). Her blood work was normal. And she was (still is, for all I know) absolutely, invincibly convinced that she had AIDS. Her proof: she was tired all the time, and it started one day right after she had sex with the boyfriend.
She self-identified as an AIDS patient. She strongly insisted on the accuracy of her self-diagnosis. She was utterly convinced that her experience reflected AIDS. She changed her lifestyle to accommodate her conviction that she had AIDS. She even found some other self-identified AIDS patients who agreed with her.
She produced just as much evidence for her AIDS claim as the typical MCS case produces to support a claim of MCS.
So do you think she had AIDS?
I don't. A self-diagnosis is not sufficient for AIDS.
I don't think a self-diagnosis is sufficient for MCS, either. I expect that it's reasonable to apply similar standards to MCS as you would any other disease. Because of this, I tend to ignore the "patient story" and "self-identification" systems of defining MCS. They are not reliable. Some of the I-have-MCS people are just as likely to have MCS in reality as the above-mentioned woman was likely to have AIDS. Furthermore, and pointfully for this discussion, they are not reliable sources, no matter how accurate you or I think they are.
Finally, I resent your implication that psychological disorders are not "devastating" and that people with psychological disorders are not "sick." People who have uncontrollable panic attacks (for example) can be every bit as sick as people who have (or claim to have) MCS. People with depression or anxiety or somatoform disorder may be fully disabled by it. They are certainly suffering, no matter what label they or their physicians put on it. I suggest that you not minimize other people's real suffering as a way of promoting the validity of your personal view of MCS's cause. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I just had to say here, (even though we're very close to WP:NOT#CHAT), that this is beautifully written. My brother suffers from a variety of mental illnesses, and it's most certainly real and he has suffered greatly from it. For whatever reason, many people seem to think that people with mental illness are all weak-willed, or lazy, or reckless, or seeking attention, or faking it—the same things people arrogantly say about MCS sufferers. Those people are generally wrong.
MCS is real, the symptoms are often involuntary, but the evidence suggests it's not physiological. There's nothing contradictory about this. Cool Hand Luke 06:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that almost all people who tell their doctor that they have MCS....do not? Do you know these people? It appears that you are generalizing way over the top. Why do you think anyone would want to say they have MCS if they didn't? That's presuming a lot to say that. I guess you are quoting only what you believe from old readings, but I urge you to further educate yourself on this subject. I wouldn't and haven't made light of people with psychological disorders. I agree that they are devastating. I simply said that people with MCS do not have Psychological problems because of the illness. In fact, if they do at all, it's because they constantly have to disprove the ridiculous information out there negating this illness. Carylred (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)carylredCarylred (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's all about the sources. Can you produce a source that says every person, or even nearly every person, who says "I think I might have Multiple Chemical Sensitivity" to any healthcare provider actually has the disease? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing apparently thought you were denigrating psychological illnesses because you say that MCS is "NOT...a Psychological Illness," then you conclude with "MCS exists." The implication is that if MCS were a psychological illness, that wouldn't exist somehow. That's simply false. Psychological illnesses are quite real, and so is MCS. Cool Hand Luke 06:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"How do you know that almost all people who tell their doctor that they have MCS....do not?" Occam's razor. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Occam's razor is the principle of not postulating unnecessary plurality. It does not apply here. And the answer to your question is: because that's what all the sources say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I meant Occam's razor in the sense that the simplest explanation is often right. As in, for each person who thinks he or she has a rare and somewhat mysterious condition, the simplest explanation is that the person is experiencing a much more common condition. But I agree, "that's what all the sources say" is also a good reason. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make a suggestion. I noticed someone named Elburts recommended reading up on Dr. Martin Pall, a doctor of Molecular Sciences. He has done some of the most recent scientific studies about MCS and is well worth the read. He puts to rest the misconceptions that have abounded in the past. Please look at molecularbioscienceswsu.edu./faculty/pall.html Go to the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity headline. Also, please read www.mcs-america.org/pall.pdf Multiple Chemical Sensitivity-toward the end of controversy. I hope that by reading these, you will see that the tide has turned away from the old mind set of what MCS has been thought to be. Because of the new information coming out about MCS and it's etiology, many more people are able to be diagnosed correctly instead of being tossed around for years in a seemingly endless sea of misinformation.

Cool Hand Luke, I do agree Psychological illnesses are quite real. They do exist. I was merely trying to say that MCS is not, in of itself a Psychological illness. Because of living with this illness for the past eight years, I continually study and keep up with all the new information that is available out there on this subject. I realize that many others may not have the kind of time to devote to this that I do. I would still like to change the first part of the sentence about MCS at the beginning of Wikipedia and hope that if I do, you will see by reading the sites that I have cited here, that it will be justified. Carylred (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)carylredCarylred (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It just seems odd that a community of sufferers decide they have a certain disease. This doesn't happen with cancer, AIDS, STDs, heart disease or mental illnesses - most of whose sufferers deny they have these diseases until confronted with irrefutable evidence. Normally you present certain symptoms, go to the doctor and he/she diagnoses the illness. But there is a group of diseases - ME for instance - where the sufferer more or less self-diagnoses. Why? Are we scared that a disease might be diagnosed as psychological and not therefore a "real" disease? Or that we might be thought to be malingering?

138.253.103.78 (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Both me and WhatamIdoing have been working on this article on and off for months. I've read Pall, and his POV is covered in the article because many clinical ecologists do in fact think that he has the answers. Most scientists do not, and they're the majority. It's moreover easy to understand why they don't.
Provocation studies suggest that symptoms are linked to the detection of smells. Incidentally, the vast majority of MCS sufferers are not former chemicals workers (as one might expect by reading Pall), but women from non-industrial backgrounds, who in fact have a superior sense of smell. This squares well with psychological etiologies, but not with Pall's hypothetical mechanism. But at any rate, what I think about the debate doesn't really matter. WP:NPOV matters, and this article covers both the mainstream and clinical ecology POV—as it should. Cool Hand Luke 13:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Planned edit

I ran across this today, and wanted to discuss it here. IMO, the single biggest problem with getting acceptance for "real" MCS cases is getting all of the non-MCS people properly diagnosed. Study after study by mainstream scientists and physicians says that the vast majority of self-labeled MCS sufferers do not have MCS. So it's refreshing to see that Grace Ziem's pro-MCS organization has taken the importance of accurate diagnosis on board. There's a large orange box on the front page of their website that says "Over 90% of the people who contact us about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity actually have Multi-Sensory Sensitivity." (This is their name for overreacting to strong stimuli, like loud noises, and they blame it on carbon monoxide.)

One of my primary goals for this article is to have it acknowledge that just about everyone, whether strongly pro-MCS or virulently anti-MCS, agrees that merely thinking you might have MCS is not sufficient for a diagnosis. So what I'd like to do is add a new paragraph under "Misdiagnosis" that says something like this:

"MCS Referral and Resources, an organization that supports MCS patients,[1] states that more than 90% of the people who contact them about MCS do not have MCS. Instead, they believe that most of them have a kind of sensory processing disorder. One hallmark of such a disorder is reaction to non-chemical exposures, such as bright lights, loud sounds, or temperature changes."[2]

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I went to that site to see the sentence you mentioned. I don't think it's viable all on it's own because it doesn't go on to really explain much about the why's and wherefore's. It sounds like another denigration of people who have MCS. People with MCS, usually start with very little but strange symptoms that grow and get worse with subsequent toxic exposures. Meaning, if someone believes that they have MCS symptoms or sensitivities, most likely they do and it may not have yet gotten to be full blown MCS. I appreciate your asking and hope that my opinion really counts here.Carylred (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)carylredCarylred (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been following this give and take discussion with nearly as much interest as the back and forth between Clinton and Obama. I'm a little surprised at the extent to which the psychosomatic school puts so much weight on their perceived majority among researchers. A majority of Marie Curie's colleagues at the University of Paris would, I suspect, have perceived no danger in the way she kept radioactive isotopes in her pocket and in her desk. Similarly, J Harlan Bretz was overwhelmingly outnumbered by most archaeologists in his early career who scoffed at his theories on a cataclysmic flood. (See the Bretz quotation in his biography) MCS is a relatively new field, where good research will put no great stock in majority opinion.

Accordingly, as promised earlier, I am making some edits to the introductory material in the MCI article. Among my targets, the phrase, "these proposals have uniformly been rejected by critics." Elburts (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Carylred, I'm surprised that you don't think it's a good source. Grace Ziem founded and runs that organization. Martin Pall names her as the source of all of his MCS patients. So we pretty much either have to accept that she knows how to differentiate MCS from non-MCS people, or we have to reject all of Pall's research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Still too much reliance, imo, on the authority of this school or that school. Perhaps as editors of this encyclopedia, we should recognize controversy when we see it, acknowledge the division of opinion, and await further developments in the research -- in the meantime being reticent about taking sides. Elburts (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Taking sides has no place in Wikipedia. Where there is a fundamental difference of opinion, Wikipedia should describe this (without undue weight, of course). --Una Smith (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, You are right about Grace Ziem being a great source for MCS. The problem I have with the statement is that the Muses syndrome was so named by Albert Donnay (executive director of MCS Referral and Resources)http://www.mcsrr.org/resources/biomarkers.html, to discuss the effects of carbon monoxide poisoning. While carbon monoxide is a true problem for most people with MCS, and a likely component among the many pollutants that harm us, it doesn't comprise the majority of MCS patients. It is more measurable and treatable, but does not rule out the harm caused by other sources. Carylred (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)carylredCarylred (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


Actually, I don't know where this belongs, but I am the litmus test. I didn't diagnose myself. My physician over time realized that my asthma and other reactions were tied to pesticide spraying at my work. I hadn't put the information together myself. I got an ADA Accommodation which after approval my employer fought. When everything was sorted out, I discovered after a year that the maintenance dept still sprayed illegal cans of pesticides in the buildings and the in-house sprayer sprayed as well without informing me. I was sick often, missed a lot of work, and in my mind without cause until I discovered the repeated violations. I didn't receive an accommodation that I was supposed to. Once I got the spraying under control, I thought I was finally safe at work and no more sickness. Then I went down. I didn't smell it. I didn't know about it. I don't know who did it. I have been in bed since October 2007. I would like the scientific community to research this illness from a non-prochemical point of view. Chemicial sensitivity effects the brain and all organ systems. I should know. Chemical sensitivity is real. I hope someone would start to show this reality. It's not in my head if I didn't know about it. I can't believe I am allergic to all sorts of medications now after I tried them, including inhalers which are supposed to save my life. Now the most innocuous things set off my reactive airways. Things I don't believe will harm me. When my throat burns, swells, and feels like sandpaper (asthma attack included for driving the point home) for a week after taking a children's chewable Vitamin C tablet, there's something wrong with the plumbing not the patient. Thanks for listening and hope the information that is listed shows chemical sensitivity is not psychosematic, I wasn't sick until poisoned. Other diseases have been promoted falsely by the estrablishment. HIV/AIDS weren't taken seriously either for years. Even Homosexuality was deemed a psychological disorder until someone woke up. Know why hysterectomy is named so? Women got hysterical. That's why taking out their female organs is called such. This is a woman's disease so far in the number of women versus men diagnosed. Therefore, no one takes the disease seriously. Why should they when chemical companies would have to show how chemicals are not dangerous? Canada is now independently testing chemcials because so called safe levels have never been verified by third parties. I've done my homework too. Show all sides of the debate. Not one. I am living proof chemcials can cause terrible consequences in humans. Just for verification purposes: I'm not a psycho. I have five college degrees, am an artist, writer, and poet. Well, used to be . . . (Samuntha (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

I'm sorry that you have had so many problems. However, this page is not the right place to discuss your personal health or the ideal research priorities. This page is for discussions about improving this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping that the discussion would improve the article. The article seems skewed toward the establishment instead of what's happening in the world. As I stated before, there have been a number of misconstrued theories to hide real diseases. When I read this article, after reading many medical opinions from doctors with patients and their own studies, I believed the article was not conveying anything but misconception. A device of misinformation implemented to exhibit one school of thought in the medical community about MCS. Doctors who do not deal with MCS because the disesse doesn't exist. How can one have an unbiased study or objective idea if one does not believe the existence of said ailment? Can't. The opinion is formed. Scientific theory is based on what if, not it can't be. I hope this information helps improve the research ability of the article writer and inspires them to seek out all relevent information on the topic. Thank you- (Samuntha (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC))
This article is based upon what reliable sources actually say about the subject, and it does encompass minority points of view. At the very least, "not conveying anything but misconception" is gross hyperbole. Cool Hand Luke 12:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Unclear statement

"Science rejects mind-body dualism... What does that mean, exactly? I would expect it means psychosomatic illness, which is definitely flakier than many etiologies (it is, after all, a major cornerstone of a notable cocaine pusher), but last I checked it is generally acknowledged to exist. Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

From the cited source. Science generally does not think that the mind is made of fundamentally different stuff than matter. In other words, whether this (or any mental illness) is called a "mental illness," or "chemical imbalance," or a "psychosematically-triggered response," is all just semantics. Cool Hand Luke 00:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense, but debating philosophy in the midst of an article about a possible medical condition seems odd and it's a bit of a non sequitur from the previous paragraph. I'll poke at the language. Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. Cool Hand Luke 00:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Note to POV pushers

I see people inserting the word "synthetic" and striking the word "organic." In the first place, compounds don't remember whether they're synthesized or not. More importantly, "organic compound" is a term a art. It refers to the chemistry of carbon—and most the "trigger" compounds are indeed organic (because the the myriad of organic compounds detected by the sense of smell). Unless you have sources stating otherwise, you ought to let this stand.

In general, see WP:V. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 00:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes: the critical difference between organic chemistry and organic farming. Thanks for your efforts to fix this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

2006 systematic review: most reliable study in the article

PMID 17137865 appears to be the most reliable, comprehensive, and recent review available -- it is a systematic review of studies simply analyzing victims' responses to chemicals. Perhaps it should be moved into the lead? Unfortunately, I don't have access to it. If someone could mail it to imperfectlyinformed@gmail.com, I would appreciate glancing over it, although it probably would make no difference. II | (t - c) 02:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's eight pages. Got it though my school and have posted it here Would gladly do this for any other journal articles editors might need. (Don't link to this in the article, of course. This will only be a temporary fair use posting for improving this article, not an illegal republication of copyright material.) Cool Hand Luke 23:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The paper itself doesn't say much more than the abstract. What do you think about putting it in the lead? II | (t - c) 07:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Needs garbage cleanup

Keeps erasing a couple of letters, such as the middle ys in systems, so article now contains:

"sProxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0

tems,"


Help. Whenever I try to take the "Proxy" string out, it appears somewhere else, and erases another couple of letters or a whole word or two when it appears.

If anyone knows why this happens, or how to stop it, please note an explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.204.98 (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted all your recent edits. It looks like there is a problem with your browser. Try rebooting, then make some edits in the WP:Sandbox to see if it's fixed. Franamax (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Turpines

About this change, I found a webpage with an informal description of turpines. They're aromatic (=smelly) plant extracts. If you are familiar with the original Pine-Sol cleaner, then you've probably got the right idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's terpenes! I corrected that on the 3rd of February, but later someone reverted all my changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Kvaalen (talk • contribs) 11:38, 4 August 2009

About the Sears paper

An editor added a bunch of stuff out of the Sears paper (now correctly sourced), and I wanted to go over the changes so we can (I hope) avoid similar problems in the future. Here's the original text, with my explanations below:

  • In Germany, for instance, Multiple chemical sensitivity is formally recognized by the national health care system, while The German General Medical Council has supported extensive education of medical practitioners regarding environmental medicine. (Seidel HJ. Environmental medicine in Germany--a review. Environ Health Perspect. 2002;110 Suppl 1:113-8.:113-118)
    1. These statements are cut-and-paste copyright violations from page 14 of this pdf copy of the Sears report.
    2. It's not okay to read Sears' report, and then pretend that we read Seidel's paper. We have to say where you got it, not where Sears got the information.
    3. The GGMC statement is about environmental medicine in general, including things like second-hand smoke and lead poisoning (which everyone agrees with).
  • In Denmark, The Danish Environmental Protection Agency recently published a report on multiple chemical sensitivity, and concluded that there is ample evidence that sensitivities are due to environmental contaminants, and that Danish initiatives to minimize off-gassing materials in the indoor environment may have contributed to a somewhat lower incidence in the Danish population. (Danish Environmental Protection Agency and Danish Ministry of the Environment. Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, MCS, Environmental Project no. 988, 2005. Danish Environmental Protection Agency . 2005.)
    1. Another WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT error.
    2. Another copyright violation.
  • The Canadian Human Rights Commission recognizes and requires workplace accommodation for chemically sensitive workers. (http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/research_program_recherche/esensitivities_hypersensibilitee/page8-en.asp) and publishes guides for managers and building owners on how to accommodate the environmentally sensitive (http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/research_program_recherche/esensitivities_hypersensibilitee/page8-en.asp#82) Europe has responded in like manner with a 2006 legislation requiring substitution of office materials with less-toxic alternatives.(European Parliament Press Service. Parliament adopts REACH - new EU chemicals legislation and new chemicals agency. Exp.Biol.Med.(Maywood.). 13-12-2006.)
    1. The first claim -- "recognizes and requires" -- is ref'd to page 8 of the HTML version of the Sears paper -- but these words do not appear anywhere on the page. Furthermore, the entire report has a big warning on the front page that plainly states that the CHRC does nothing of the sort: the paper is on their website, but does not represent CHRC's opinion.
    2. The second claim -- "publishes guides" -- is a material and verifiable falsehood, because CHRC does nothing of the sort. The listed website provides links to four guides that are published by independent publishers.
    3. The third claim -- about the European legislation -- is another WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT error. It is also specific to construction of buildings (not "office materials"), and there is no evidence (in Sears) that REACH has anything to do with MCS.

I have re-written what I think could be reasonably salvaged, but I also felt, in a quick scan through this 86-page (pdf) document, that these points were being rather cherry-picked. There's a good deal in this report about MCS not being recognized, such as its complete absence from the World Health Organization's ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Other substances (a minor nit)

I removed "other substances" from the lead the other day. I did this because it is absolutely impossible for a substance -- any substance -- to exist, and to not be a chemical. Every single physical thing, from pure oxygen to the worst smog, is made out of chemicals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead

In 24.17.110.94's edit summary it says that the reactions are real, and "it says so in the next paragraph". The next paragraph says that patients "do not actually react to chemicals" and they react when they "believe they are being exposed to a trigger". How on earth does that equate to the reactions being real? --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The patients react to a perception of chemicals. The reactions are real. The perceptions are real. However, chemicals do not actually contribute to either. 24.17.110.94 (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and no. Your statement is true as far as the tests go, but MCS people also frequently attribute all kinds of undesirable sensations to "unperceived" chemical exposures: e.g., "I'm utterly exhausted today; I must have been exposed to some chemical yesterday." This isn't unique to MCS: all unpleasant symptoms are due to blood sugar for diabetics, chemotherapy for cancer survivors, blood pressure pills for those on them, and so forth.
Additionally, on a minor point, some MCS people believe that natural substances are just as bad as synthetic ones; the scent of pine trees in particular is called out as a "natural" substance that affects some people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Medically unexplained

I have some sympathy for this MUPS reference, but the symptoms need not be medically unexplained for the patient to claim MCS. When the symptoms are entirely explainable, but the explanation is rejected by the patient, then you can still claim MCS (whose definition does not include "cannot be adequately explained by other conditions").

It might be appropriate to include that information somewhere else in the article, suitably qualified. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thx, i moved it to later when are mentioned the other syndromes with MUS. RetroS1mone talk 12:29, 21 July 2009 (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)

I think that since there is already a section for the psuedo-psycho view that the sentence at the beginning referring to it should be moved there. It is not necessary to put it at the beginning - especially since so little is known about the safe level of various chemicals and the questionable methodology in the research in question. Also, it should be noted there how much the air freshener industry makes each year and the hypothetical link between big pharma, the pesticide industry and the air freshener industry because of the influence Big Pharma has on those who prescribe drugs (ie psychiatrists).

At the very beginning it should be noted that MCS is an - umbrella term - and that some are sensitive to some things more than others. Some are very sensitive to gas but can handle chlorine as well as ordinary people and visa versa. It should also be noted that the symptoms that those with MCS report are similar to those that solvent abusers abusing the same substances often report. Ordinary people get the same symptoms huffing gas or air freshener or Lysol as a person with MCS does when they walk into the room where these products have been used. Don't solvent abusers go through chemical withdrawal in which symptoms of anxiety and depression may be common?

Substance Intoxication Delirium http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/intoxdelir.htm Inhalant Intoxication http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/inhalantintoxication.htm

Also, you may smell the carton of milk you left on the counter when you first come home but you don't smell the sour milk after you've been home for a while. Would not the same be true of the chemicals - if a chemical makes one sick, one is apt to avoid it so one is apt to notice it when first exposed to it. However, after a while if the person stays put, even those with chemical sensitivity will become less able to notice the smell - though that doesn't prevent them from getting sick from it. One should ask those with MCS if they can smell food in the stove better if they are sober or sick from a chemical exposure - and the ability to smell food usually alerts one to when it should be removed from the oven. 24.77.75.185 (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits redux

Alright, I'll concede the issue on creating an introductory section heading. But the opening sentence that administrator WhatamIdoing seems so attached to is, quite frankly, stylistically convoluted. As a longtime factual writing teacher I fail to see what it is about simplicity and lucidity that he finds so objectionable.

As for balance: Why eliminate a reference (with endnote) to the work of Prof. Martin Pall, school of molecular biosciences at WSU? And why insist on the loaded phrase at the end of the intro, namely "although these proposals have uniformly been rejected by critics." WhatamIdoing leaves us to conclude that the "critics" either have an ax to grind, or else that they are of one mind in opposing "clinical ecological" proposals in all forms. Elburts (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the introductory paragraphs are in dispute, I sectioned it off for easier access. The opening sentence preferred by WhatamIdoing was, imo, difficult to understand. Replaced it based on (rather than quoted from) the Michaels' article. Should be no copyright problems. Elburts (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am amused by being called an administrator. You will not find my name on that list. I'm just a normal editor, like you. In fact, as far as I can tell, none of Wikipedia's 1500+ admins are involved in editing this page.
As for the other issues:
  1. I don't especially mind the current phrasing for the first sentence, except for the phrase "chronic state of illness," which is very likely to be misleading. I think it suggests to the average that all people with MCS are suffering, maybe even sick in bed, round the clock, day in and day out, when in fact nearly all of them figure out how to manage their issues and are in fact fine most of the time. You wouldn't describe my friend with the life-threatening Type 1 allergy to milk as having a "chronic state of illness," would you? He's perfectly fine 99% of the time because of environmental controls (milk avoidance). My major point was simply that the previous two attempts were either unnecessarily wordy or copyright violations, not that the 'original' one was perfect. The original one even has a grammar error (affects/effects), now that I look at it more closely.
  2. I have looked at the recent changes I made, and I see no evidence that I deleted any references to Martin Pall.
  3. I have looked at the recent changes I made, and I see no evidence that made any changes to the phrase "although these proposals have uniformly been rejected by critics." It is true that I think that some critics are irrevocably opposed to MCS. Not all critics, but certainly some of them. I also think that at least one MCS critic has rejected every single one of these proposals, so the statement appears to be accurate. However, I have made no changes relating to this phrase in any recent edits.
  4. Your dispute over the "Introduction" header is also with another editor (although I agree with OrangeMarlin's interpretation of WP:MoS here).
I'd be happy to discuss your proposals further here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Um...I'm an admin, but when editing articles we're all supposed to be equal, and I believe strongly in that.
And I'm not attached to the current intro, but the introduction cannot say flatly that MCS is caused by chemicals. That's the main controversy about MCS, which the article covers it in depth. If anything, the dominant view is that MCS is not caused by chemicals in the ordinary sense, although it's quite possibly triggered by the perception of chemical smells.
Also, your sentence about Social Security recognition is extremely misleading, as WhatamIdoing says below. Cool Hand Luke 19:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, how about after Easter I resurrect the introductory material in a form that hopefully we can all compromise on, as neither POV nor slanted toward the chemical causes side of this issue. As it stands, it strikes me as slanted toward the psychosomatic POV. A little literary improvement would be nice also. Elburts (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


If it cannot say that MCS is caused by chemicals then it cannot say that MCS is not caused by chemicals either - in fairness. It can, however, be said that it is associated with an exposure to chemicals and that it is an umbrella term since not everyone complains about being exceptionally affected by all the same substances. 24.77.75.185 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Weeds

These links:

are probably proper reliable sources for this article, and per ELNO #1 are not appropriate external links (because they should be used to build the article, instead of getting lost in the weeds). The ones that aren't from Martin Pall, in particular, are really better suited for the article than for the external links section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You have deleted almost all the external links, including the ones you mention above as being probably reliable sources. I have put them back for the time being. I haven't checked them all to see which ones are useful, but I don't know whether you did either. It seems to me that you're deleting a valuable resource in deleting this list. Here, in case they get deleted again, are the external links: Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
MCS groups
"Clinical Ecological" perspective
Scientific analysis
  • I'd think the main issue is that there are simply too many external links. Let's pick five or so and leave the rest to the electronic dustbin. SDY (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there were simply too many. There were other problems, though: do we really think that we need three links about a single individual? Especially since one of them has almost no information in it, and certainly none that isn't in the others?
Eric, the the relevant part of the External links guideline does not allow external links that should be used as reliable sources to support article content. It's far better to use these to build a good article than to dump them in a long list of links at the end. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

OR and clarification

Considering that the concept of a psychosomatic response is used to downplay people's complaints about sensitivities to foods and medications during periods of ill-health in general, I'm surprised that the vast majority of the information and research in this article is about scent perception, although I didn't look into the issue until recently. I noticed that some but not all reviews I've accessed on MCS include a brief mention of drugs and foods (or "chemicals" in foods) in the description of MCS, but the research on mechanisms does not appear to. The article itself vaguely lists tartrazine and caffeine, but without sources. Obviously part of the problem is that there is no universally recognized criteria for MCS and some areas of the research are lacking.

Is "MCS" mainly or solely about scent, and if not, where's the research on the ingestion of offensive chemicals? Even the single reference (PMID 2374564) about "food" in this article uses an "intradermal injection" of food extracts; this 19 year old study is cited 3 times in the article, with the second citation -b- being suspected WP:OR; the text says "purported MCS sufferers claimed symptoms in nonblinded tests when fed suspected food extracts", but no one was actually "fed" anything as far as I can tell (I haven't read the full-text though, but when reading the abstract and the article text that cites this study, I'm betting that feeding wasn't involved).

The review PMID 8711750 states that "Feeling ill from odors is a symptom reported by approximately one-third of the population.". The review PMID 10416281 states "Depending on the format of survey questions, 15-30% of the general population report CI to at least a mild degree..." while "Epidemiological studies suggest that 4-6% of the population may carry an MCS diagnosis...". WhatamIdoing posted an interesting comment about the universal nature of attributions: "This isn't unique to MCS: all unpleasant symptoms are due to blood sugar for diabetics, chemotherapy for cancer survivors, blood pressure pills for those on them, and so forth.".[2] Sensitization would obviously make this worse, but itself could result from a range of sources, eg; an underlying disease process, being over-stressed and/or exhausted, being a "highly sensitive person", previous medications, temporary flu. Regardless of the nature of "MCS", it is unsurprising that "sensitization" may be involved, since this occurs in some of the conditions that MCS is allegedly more often comorbid with (eg CFS, IBS, FM). Many people with these conditions appear to avoid alcohol and caffeine, do they all now have "MCS" too even if they have no issue with scent?

One concern is that a moderately increased sensitivity to consuming alcohol and caffeine, smoking ciagrettes, and the adverse affects of prescription medications such as SSRI's and benzodiazepines for example, will be automatically dismissed as an "error of cognition" based on scent research (and at best, maybe MSG research), and if it is more than one substance it will now be called "MCS". It should not be surprising that people with chronic illness often have an increased sensitivity to these substances when adverse effects are commonly observed in healthy people.

_Tekaphor (TALK) 04:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Before addressing your issues, can you tell me what "sensitization" means here? This term in my world is always and exclusively sensitization (immunological), and that's not what's going on with MCS (because it if was, we'd be calling it "allergies"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Oops. The "neurobiological" type, of which there are various flavours. MCS is briefly mentioned in the main sensitization article. The concept of "central sensitivity" in supposed "overlapping" conditions is explored here for example: PMID 17350675. - Tekaphor (TALK) 05:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd lost track of this discussion; I apologize for the delay in responding. You make some good points. Of immediate importance, PMID 2374564 has nothing to do with MCS; it's about food intolerances of the "egg whites give me indigestion" kind. I'm going to kill all of those in a minute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

For the sake of neutrality, causes should not be dealt with at the beginning - which should be limited to a description of the MCS condition including more common and less common MCS symptoms. Each potential cause (PC) should have its own section - and the pros and cons of a PC should be limited to its particular section. The section should name the PC, evidence in support of the PC, evidence against the PC and any vested interest in promoting that particular PC. Note that saying that another cause is the right one is not evidence against a PC but opinion. This should satisfy everybody. Remember that MCS is something that no one knows a lot about. Also, other than direct quotes, opinion laced language such as "vague" should be kept out of this article as much as possible - there is a wik thread on headaches unless one figures that all headaches are vague - or a sign that nerve endings have been irritated. Finally, the person who fixes up the metabolism section should link to Wikipedia's antabuse thread because that is where all metabolism related theories originated - and it should be noted which of these chemicals listed that those of the MCS believe cause their symptoms are also abused by solvent abusers or have an MSDS - and which are/do not. If MCS is metabolism related, a person with MCS should have symptoms similar to either a solvent abuser abusing the same product or to a regular person exposed to much more of the same chemical. I would add chlorine, ammonium chloride, propanol, propylene and airfreshener laced personal care products to the list of substances and state that not all people with MCS claim to be affected by all listed substances - which makes MCS an umbrella syndrome (ie a collection of related syndromes) rather than a single syndrome.

I doubt that those who keep vandelizing the page by promoting their favourite cause at the beginning would go into the thread on headaches and say that they are all imaginary and should be ignored or would promote solvent abuse as an imaginary condition(ie people who huff gas only think that they are getting high - only think they are being affected by that activity but are not) - though, if they do, I would not be completely surprised. 24.77.75.185 (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the concept of the WP:LEAD, which requires that important information be summarized at the top. The purported causes, and the level of acceptance by mainstream experts, are truly important subjects and therefore must be included. I have reverted the changes that you made based on this misunderstanding.
As for "vague" and "non-specific", those words are common descriptors used not only in many sources about MCS, but also in many other conditions. There are hundreds of major illnesses that involve "I'm kind of tired a lot" and "My head hurts sometimes". See, for example, Sarcoidosis#Signs and symptoms, Bradycardia#Management, Hypoglycemia#Presence_or_absence_of_effects, and Metagonimiasis#Clinical_presentation for similar descriptions -- all in "real", widely accepted, mainstream conditions. "Vague" doesn't mean "imaginary"; it means vague, that is, indistinct, imprecise, fuzzy, and impossible to pin down.
No mainstream expert believes that MCS patients are just making up complaints for the fun of it. The disagreement is entirely about mechanism, not about whether the patient is distressed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have misunderstood nothing! What makes the promotion of one theory concerning cause over all others - "important" - vested interest, that's all! I figure it a good compromise for you to put your hate propaganda as a possible theory (or a couple of theories in a couple of sections) - but putting it at the beginning and making it sound like it is the only theory worth presenting - that is not the definition of either "important" or "unbiased" - that is the action of ... The "all in your head" theory not only prevents a person from getting help but can be used to punish them if they complain. Most MCS sufferers put up with a certain amount, but if they like themselves and respect themselves enough to stand up for themselves once in a while and say what is way too much, your favourite theory can be used to punish them for it - to shut them up - to destroy them - to justify mistreating them further.

Vague does mean "indistinct" which means it is either there or not there - or not there as much as a more "real" symptom. To have a headache, it means that the nerve endings are irritated but not numbed - numbed doesn't feel as bad but is probably a more serious symptom. If the person is half out of it and trying to explain a symptom, they are not going to do a very good job. What you are describing as "vague" probably has more to do with a numbing of sensory comprehension rather than to do with a headache that is less serious or intense than what you consider a real unvague headache. You are asking people who are half out of it to explain what is happening to them! You are referring to a study which presumes that the effects of the first huff is out of a person's system completely before they huff the second substance in the study. If one was doing the study with alcolhol instead of "scents" and the participant started off already a bit tipsy, they would be going by when the previous drinks hit them as well as whether or not you gave them alcohol or something that tastes similar.

I have nothing against you listing the potential theories at the beginning - even the ones I disagree with and believe to be hate oriented - but to JUST present the hate theory at the beginning at the exclusion of all others is a bit much. Big Pharma is not infallible and they are the ones who fund much of the research that goes into the DSM - you've read "Biomedical conflicts of interest: a defence of the sequestration thesis—learning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy" [3]. I remember back in the old days when every clinical scientist was recommending that one use Methylphenidate from birth to old age when the longest study involving use out there was 18 months! And always wondered why the ADHD samples they used were morbid with CD or ODD - it turned out that the researchers used these morbidities to hide the fact that Methylphenidate has a side effect of conduct problems over time. I also remember coming across an article stating that Novartis (which makes Methyphenidate) owns a pesticide company and thinking at the time that Novartis would benefit if exposure to pesticides mimicked ADHD symptoms. You want vague - try "easily distracted" because I can give you three very different descriptions of this symptom describing very different phenomena under one symptom label. This was back in the day when I could read research articles for fun - before I got stupid.

Since the senses are memory cues, I cannot completely rule out the idea that some people have an aversion to a scent because it makes them relive bad emotions or bad experiences - that a person could have PTSD - but there is no evidence what-so-ever that it is psychosomatic - there would be a specific association. A person can have an aversion to food but that would only make it taste gross, it would not make them drowsie and mellow to the point where they can stagger across the street and not be scared of a car's screech until they perk up later - even if they eat a lot of it - same with "scents". 24.77.75.185 (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead accurately presents the mainstream opinion of MCS: MCS is not a single organic disease entity. The level of mainstream acceptance of MCS is discussed in practically every reliable source that mentions it, and practically every source -- on both "pro" and "anti" sides -- agrees that it's not widely accepted. WP:DUE therefore requires us to include this information in the lead.
Please remember that "MCS doesn't meet the requirements to be called a disease" is very, very different from saying, "These people aren't truly suffering." Fever doesn't meet the requirements to be called a disease, either, and nobody says that running a high temperature is all in your head. Mainstream experts believe (1) that these people are truly suffering but (2) that they are not suffering from 'exposures to low levels of chemicals'. What MCS patients are actually suffering from appears to vary, although there's some evidence that nearly all people who talk to a physician about MCS have a non-MCS neurological problem. In fact, at least half of the people who initially claim to have MCS turn out to have either depression or an anxiety disorder that resolves with common medications and standard therapy.
If you personally don't happen to be in that group, then let me remind you of this basic fact: "real" MCS patients are actively harmed by the "pretend" MCS people that want to pass their non-MCS medical conditions off as MCS. Getting these "chemically nervous" people properly diagnosed with their real disorder is obviously in the best interest of every "real" chemically sensitive person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you agree that MCS is not a single entity, then why did you take out the word "umbrella" - which means that means that MCS is not a single entity - that MCS people may differ from each other - even in something as simple as which chemicals they associate with their symptoms. Some react to a lot of things and some react to a few things. You have to look at who is doing the research and the quality of the research - not just quote something blindly. Your big study you quoted would work for no other intoxicating substances - why do you expect perfume to test differently than alcohol or pot etc! And that is assuming that a proper placebo was used. Remember that it used to be accepted "fact" that both tobacco and DDT were completely safe and that the latter was nonaddictive. Facts change - usually when one stops accepting the view put out by the producers and start looking into their research methodology. MCS is neither a disease or a disorder - though, untreated it may become a permanent disability over time(during the short term, one tends to recover completely from one's symptoms if sober long enough). Until then, it amounts to either an involuntary drug problem or perpetual sabotage where one is trying to function half out of it. What you call the established position - it is basically eugenics. One would not write an article on the holocaust and put the opinion of holocaust deniers in the first paragraph - yet, basically that is what you are doing with the MCS article. Isn't it good enough to present hate theories in the body of the article where the reader can judge them on their own merit? The hate theory(s) allow one to deny that the person with MCS is being harmed in the present and to continue harming them in the future. The hate theories suggest that one expose a person to even more chemicals - which only makes their ability to tolerate the chemicals they have problem with worse.

24.77.75.185 (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have asked you no questions and made no accusations. Whether you are a "real" MCS patient or one of the many mis(self-)diagnosed people that blame other problems on chemicals is unimportant to me. (I should probably start that reductio ad Hitlerum list, though: That's twice in the last few months that someone has called me a Holocaust denier for supporting mainstream expert opinions on subjects entirely unrelated to the Shoah.)
I merely state Wikipedia's standards: when the validity of a concept is widely questioned, then the current mainstream opinion is appropriately stated in the lead.
If you can present a high-quality reliable source that claims that MCS is an "umbrella term", then I have no objection to including it. Personally, I think that would be like saying that "Food allergies is an umbrella term for people that are allergic to different kinds of food" -- because nobody is allergic to all foods -- but I have no problem including properly sourced information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that "Lack of widespread recognition" may not be the best section title, but "AMA theory concerning MCS" has problems with ambiguity about the word "theory" and attributes a widely held opinion to that one medical association and implies there are other mainstream explanations. The current doesn't quite meet the expectations of a scientific theory, as there are a few too many unanswered questions, but it's also not easily rejected as "just that guy's opinion" (the popular definition of theory) because it has widespread acceptance and is consistent with experimental results. SDY (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you create a section for each of the theories, then their merits have a place for inclusion. If you present one theory as being paramount, then NONE of the theories get judged on their merits. What are you afraid of! That your hate theory will not stand up to scrutiny! The Air Freshener industry, for example, is a multi million dollar industry who will do what they can to promote your theory - and since they have the funds, they will have the most research out the quickest - and that is all your AMA endorsement means - that those doing other research with more limited funds are not getting their research out as fast or promoting it as much - but it is coming out. The AMA was promoting pemoline as an alternative to methylphenidate and recommending that autism be treated with methylphenidate - but don't do that any more (and for good reason). I have already listed some of the methodological problems with the one piece of research you hold out as the ultimate "proof" - and hope that your side has something a little bit better than that to justify the suffering it leads to. You can sell the hate theory as much as you want in that space devoted to the theory. You can even put the AMA endorcement there for it - just not at the beginning because that goes against Wik policy of fairness.

The term "Umbrella" refers to the fact that not everyone associates their symptoms with all the same substances - that those who can handle bleach but not pesticides may be different than those who can handle pesticides but not bleach, for example. There is no indication that everyone reacts to the same substances - ergo umbrella term. Will look up where I heard MCS is an umbrella term - because, until I did, I did not think that getting wasted when exposed to airfresheners and strong cleaners counted as MCS - that they were just a group of people who had some of the same problems and who can tell me what to do when ABC laundry detergent changed their formula.

There is a group who stands to make a lot of money as long as they can convince doctors and other professionals that MCS sufferers are delusional. It means that those with MCS will be denied not just medical help (ie being forced to accept their fate so as to avoid the punishment the hate theory advocates) but safe housing and work - and even an education (ie a place where they will not suffer brain fog and memory problems - which makes learning new things difficult). Is making money worth all that? I guess it is - and there is no talking you out of that. I will look where I found MCS being referred to as an umbrella term. If you allow this article on MCS to be neutral, I will encourage those who have done the research to contribute to the appropriate section - which would allow you to judge the more methologically sound theories on their merits.

The reason that two different people have made the same comment is because they feel that the promotion of your hate theory (and many hate theories have been mainstream at one one or another in history) caused them serious trauma as well as made it much more difficult to stay healthy - that people feel that they have been damaged emotionally because of the way your theory has been applied to their lives. Your theory promotes the idea that those with MCS are basically subhuman entities unworthy of basic human rights of any kind. That is why they oppose it so vehemently. It is an emotional response born out of pain CAUSED by they way your theory has been used - pain that was unnecessary heaped upon those already suffering and trying to get by.

BTW - important information for any condition (even the ones people wish to deny exist) is a definition of what it is and the symptoms associated with it. Since the definition is contested, the language describing it needs to be neutral - thus I will accept "symptoms they associate with various chemicals - including ..." rather than the more accurate "symptoms caused by various chemicals - including ..." . 24.77.75.185 (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Again:
  • The most common position held by mainstream experts is that MCS is not a "disease" and that it is (in at least the vast majority of cases) not "caused by" chemicals. This is very important and therefore including it in the introduction to the article is required to meet Wikipedia's definition of neutrality. Neutrality doesn't mean pretending that all ideas are equally valid. Wikipedia requires us to give more weight and more prominence to the positions of mainstream experts.
  • Please provide a high-quality reliable source if you want to add the phrase "umbrella term" to this article. I kind of doubt that you will be able to find this claim outside of advocacy websites, because it's really no more an umbrella term than "food allergies" is, or "heart disease" is, but I'm entirely open to whatever sources (as opposed to "assertions by a random person on the Internet") you can provide. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Again - I have asked that the article be neutral in that all theories concerning MCS be given their own subsection - a place where information concerning the merits of each theory can be presented - and have already stated that I agree that most of the information should come from the citing of research articles or summaries there of written by scientists. What is your problem with setting up the article so that this can be done? Who is paying you? There are presumably 6 genes associated with MCS that the scientists know so far. Why do you not want a place for that information in the article by having that phrase at the beginning which says "Don't look at any other theory because they are all meaningless"?

The "umbrella term" distinction is a little harder to prove - because it basically just means that one hasn't figured out how to divide MSC yet. It gets a bit confusing since while MCS is an umbrella term (was created as an umbrella term originally), it has also been labled as a component under other newer umbrella terms with similar meanings such as “Environmental Illness” and CIND (will leave those for you since you can do a search as easily as I can). Though I can’t find the original article I was looking for, these will have to do since I limit myself to what is free and on the computer (ie frugal).

“Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) is the umbrella term used to describe this cluster of multi-system and multi-symptom illnesses” – Doug Dromey [4]

“Darkroom disease and type IV latex allergy have similarities to MCS, and may even fall under the common umbrella of MCS.” – Jeff Killion et al [5]

“Environmental sensitivities are not easily defined, as they are a complex and often poorly understood group of chronic conditions.” – Canadian Human Rights commission [6]

Finally, MCS (which is more common than diabetes, BTW) is not alone in once being falsely thought of as imaginary - all of the following used to be thought of the same way: Multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson’s disease, Lupus, Interstitial cystitis, Migraine, Rheumatoid arthritis, Asthma, Gastric and duodenal ulcers, Ulcerative colitis. From Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: Toxicological Questions and Mechanisms, chapter XX of General and Applied Toxicology, 3rd Edition by Martin L Pall. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.75.185 (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

  • The article already has five subsections for different theories. You'll find them listed under "Causes".
  • Pretending that all theories are equally plausible -- or even that one "pro" and one "anti" idea are equally well-respected among the experts -- is exactly what Wikipedia is not allowed to do. Since a single view is (currently) widely held by mainstream experts, that view must be presented in the lead, and it must be presented in the lead in a way that the reader understands that view to be the widely accepted mainstream opinion as advanced by various medical experts. We cannot omit it (as if it were unimportant), or pretend that it's just an idea cooked up by some uninformed haters one day, or pretend that the supporters are just as likely to represent the mainstream view.
  • The difficulty in finding sources that claim MCS is an umbrella term suggests that including this potential fact is probably not WP:DUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Aerotoxic Syndrome

I think there should be reference to Aerotoxic Syndrome somewhere in the article, as MCS is a symptom for a lot of sufferers of this illness. --TCP146 (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As stated in my edit comment, you need to fix the Aerotoxic article. At present, it is likely to be deleted because it doesn't have any reliable sources. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
In the source I found, AS is lumped together with Gulf War syndrome as being "MCS-like" (PMID 11869820). I'm not sure that is close enough for anything more substantial than a "see also", and since it's the only source I found that says this, I'm not sure that even that much is justifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

MSG

I have restored one of the two recently provided sources to support MSG as a chemical of concern. It was removed for not containing any information about MSG, which was an error, since it contains one sentence about MSG: "Miller and Mitzel reported that many MCS patients appear to be hypersensitive to monosodium glutamate, a potential excitotoxin that can act to stimulate NMDA receptors". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't an error. I checked the Miller and Mitzel ref and there is no mention of MSG in the abstract. I don't have access to the full paper, but you might want to see what it says. --sciencewatcher (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Do they comment as to whether people with MCS react in the same way other MSG-sensitive folks do, or just remark that it's a common "comorbidity?" SDY (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there is no such thing as "MSG-sensitive folks". The reaction is purely imaginary or psychosomatic. Check out the research into MSG sensitivity and you'll see that people react the same way to MSG as to placebo. What we are talking about in the MCS article is people believing they are sensitive. --sciencewatcher (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Sciencewatcher, we can't do that. The paper that we're citing provides the single sentence that clearly makes an MSG-related statement. Declaring that Pall lied about the contents of Miller and Mitzel on the basis of solely the contents of the other paper's abstract is unacceptable. If you don't accept this, then we'll take the question to WP:NORN.
SDY, the bulk of the paper is on the author's pathophysiology idea. (He cites the MSG factoid as a sort of vague support for his neurological notion of MCS.) The full text is available for free, if you'd like to review it. I'm not sure how you would experimentally differentiate between MSG as a "true trigger" and a "co-morbidity" for this condition. In this case, however, the distinction is unimportant, as the source only needs to support a claim that MSG is reported as a problem for MCS patients. Flying pigs could be listed in that section -- so long as a reasonable source said that flying pigs were a chemical that affected MCS patients.
As for the non-existence of MSG hypersensitivity, saying that "there is no such thing" is not the same as saying that absolutely every human responds exactly the same way to the stimuli. There are variations in response, just like people have different ideas about what they smell in wines and different responses to bright lights. It is possible for MCS patients to respond "more" than average (the only claim made here) without that stronger response constituting a disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying anyone is lying or that we can't use the ref. All I'm saying is that it's probably better to quote the actual study rather than someone commenting on it. I was happy to leave it without a ref, just like caffeine - that ref didn't really seem to help much IMO. Regarding responding "more than average": the research shows that even "msg sensitive" people have no reaction at all to MSG. --sciencewatcher (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Sciencewatcher, Wikipedia prefers exactly the opposite of your recommendation. We're supposed to rely on the secondary source's interpretation of the study rather than the original study itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Remembering the context is relevant here: It doesn't say "X causes..." or "X triggers...". It says "Multiple chemicals have been reported to trigger MCS symptoms.[11][16] In addition to anything which is perfumed or scented, complaints are commonly formed about..." Even a simple survey demonstrates that these are "reported" and "complained about". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The reference isn't a review, so it's no better than the primary source in this case, and it's probably not correct to call it a "secondary source". MEDRS says "Literature reviews, systematic review articles and specialist textbooks are examples of secondary sources". --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
In this particular sentence, it's reporting what someone else said, which makes it a secondary source for this fact. But you don't have to take my word for it: if you still think that declaring that Pall's paper misrepresents Miller and Mitzel on the highly limited basis that the M&M abstract doesn't include the exact term monosodium glutamate is acceptable, then I'm perfectly willing to let NORN arbitrate. Just let me know... WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fact-tagging 'controversial'

Gobonobo has requested a citation for the description of clinical ecology as "controversial". Although sources are quite obviously readily available -- [7][8][9] -- I don't think that it's necessarily appropriate to provide a source for a single, widely accepted description. It's a bit like providing a citation for saying that the sky is blue.

The problem with citing an individual word like that is that it tends to make it stick out in the readers' minds. It can lend WP:UNDUE emphasis on a passing comment. But if that's what you really want... just leave the tag there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"Controversial" has loaded language problems, though, so it's a word that should probably be cited as a matter of course. Given the nature of this article, the standard of "likely to be challenged" isn't a big reach either. SDY (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
If you don't think that it's going to be perceived as giving undue emphasis to the obviously controversial nature of Clinical ecology, then I don't mind... Like I said, finding refs that say that it is "controversial" is quite easy. I could probably just as easily turn up refs that say it is "rejected", "unproven", "fringe", "junk science", and more. "Controversial" seems more polite, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Just adding a single reference tag at the end of the sentence is sufficient. Having seventeen references that call it controversial or citing it in the middle of the sentence would be a problem, but it should be clear to the 12-year-old who has never heard of this before that this isn't Wikipedia's opinion. SDY (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
If we name a ref at the end of the sentence-with-four-bullets, it will be assumed that it supports the last sentence, not the single adjective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Looking at the text, I'm not really sure that calling it a "field of medicine" is appropriate, frankly, and I think I'll try a hand at a section rewrite in the spirit of WP:SOFIXIT. Feel free to revert, I don't care much either way. SDY (talk) 08:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this simply doesn't belong where it is. It might fit better in a new section about proponents. Randolph and Pall seem to be proponents; are there any others? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Might consider putting it in the treatment section. I'm not that familiar with the players in that game, so can't help you there. SDY (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fragrances are the first or second most common cause of contact allergy in dermatitis patients PMID 9601907

Am J Contact Dermat. 1998 Jun;9(2):80-6. Identification of risk products for fragrance contact allergy: a case-referent study based on patients' histories.

Johansen JD, Andersen TF, Kjøller M, Veien N, Avnstorp C, Andersen KE, Menné T.

Department of Dermatology, Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Hellerup, Denmark.

< WP:Copyright violation removed >

PMID 9601907 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.0.16 (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

But that has nothing to do with MCS. Eczema is completely different from MCS. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it is unrelated to MCS. For a paper to be useful in this article, it must mention MCS by name (including known synonyms/near-synonyms, like TILT).
Additionally, abstracts to papers are copyrighted, and pasting it here is a violation of Wikipedia's policies. I've removed the abstract but left the WP:Magic word link to PMID 9601907. Anyone that wants to read it can click on the link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Germany and Austria

This is a claim that's repeated by several MCS websites, and one of them repeats the claim and "cites" this letter. The text of the letter reads:

Regarding your letter of April 17, 2009 to Federal Minister Stöger, be advised that the ICD-10 code of the WHO, as modified for Germany by DIMDI, is also used in Austria. With respect to your question about the extent to which MCS represents a handicap in Austria, it is concluded that the evaluation of handicaps does not fall within the scope of responsibility of the Federal Ministry for Health. Please direct your corresponding inquiry to the Federal Ministry for Labor, Social and Consumer Protection, 1010 Vienna, Stubenring 1

Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Given that Germany and Austria are not the World Health Organization and don't control the ICD-10, the way this was stated was unhelpful. Given that it's a rather controversial claim, it'd be helpful to have a reference that explicitly states that it was classified that way as a decision, rather than simply as a convenience for coding purposes. I can't find any such reference, but speaking German would be a big help. SDY (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made my husband dictate a closer translation, which is now above; he adds that its tone is an example of "bureaucrat-ese".
It's not clear whether the original question was "Is MCS a handicap [almost certainly with respect to social benefits]?" or "How many people in Austria have MCS?" Either of these questions could be prompted the Austrian ministry to refuse to state "the extent" of MCS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just undid the POV-edits made to the article

I'm not going to go into too much detail here, listing every change I undid, just the first two so it's clear they're neither NPOV nor encyclopaedic:

“Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is a chronic medical condition characterized by symptoms that that are caused by exposure to toxic chemicals.” (my bold) What are "toxic chemicals"? According to Paracelsus everything is toxic given the dose is high enough.

“There are some who dispute that MCS is a valid medical condition - namely, the chemical industry, doctors, and lawyers working in conjunction to suppress its recognition.” (my bold again) Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

Before reinserting ANY of those changes please discuss them here on the talk page. --Six words (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and thank Six words for doing this.
Wikipedia wants this article (and all articles) to reflect primarily the views of mainstream experts -- while also adequately describing any alternative views, for sake of completeness. "What the current experts say" is what Wikipedia means when it describes an article as being neutral; "what supporters say" is what Wikipedia means when it describes an article as being non-neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not factitious

One thing I think that should be added to this article, if someone has a good source handy on this point, is that MCS isn't a factitious disorder or malingering. That is, MCS people might not actually be harmed by any chemicals, and the outdated story about allergy-style immunological sensitivity has been thoroughly debunked, but something's really truly wrong: they're not "pretending" to have symptoms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

WP:LEAD gently discourages a proliferation of citations in the introduction to an article. Most of the 'requested citations' can be trivially found by glancing at Multiple chemical sensitivity#Limited_recognition_in_some_situations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. However I think the reason many articles have a ton of refs in the lead is because if anything is unreferenced someone invariably comes along and puts a tag next to it, so it's usually easier just to put the refs in. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's true that many editors tag things because of a mistaken belief that every sentence must have an inline citation. I think they're trying to be helpful. (There's a current discussion at WT:V on that point, with a couple of editors ludicrously asserting that fact tags are never placed after known-to-be-correct sentences for which citations aren't required, or are even discouraged.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Chemistry is everywhere

As for the number of chemicals in the body, the "hundreds" is based on the limited testing done by proponents of this theory, and they only mean to include "toxic" chemicals (i.e., anything that sounds scary to undereducated members of the public, especially if it's synthetic or elemental. So Diphtheria toxin, is "natural" and not a "toxic chemical", even though the LD50 for an adult human is about half a teaspoon).

The actual number of differentiatable molecules in the human body is probably in the low hundreds of thousands. For example, each human has about 30,000 genes, which (over a lifetime) produce more than 30,000 different RNA molecules, and, through differential splicing, far more than 30,000 different proteins -- and that's only chemicals that are naturally and inevitably produced by the body itself, without considering the thousands of separate chemicals that exist in every single bite of even the purest grain, vegetable, fruit, or meat that we eat.

However, these aren't "chemicals" as far as the body burden people are concerned, and we more accurately report their views by sticking to the several hundred that they test for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Adverse Effects

On 11 May 2009, this article was edited to change a sentence in the introduction from

"adverse effects from exposure to low levels of chemicals or other substances in modern human environments."

to

"symptoms that proponents say are adverse effects from exposure to low levels of chemicals in modern human environments."

Then, on 25 May 2009, it was edited to say "symptoms that the patient says are adverse effects..."

There are major differences in meaning between "what proponents say" and "what the affected person attributes". The latter implies that it is in the person's head. The former is neutral, and only means that if this is an actual condition, these are what the causes are.

"characterized by adverse effects from exposure to low levels of chemicals or other substances in modern human environments" encompasses all suspected causes of reactions, and doesn't imply that it is actually a physical reaction or that it is strictly mental. Therefore, it is a neutral statement and much more encyclopedia appropriate. CLL80 (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this point, but they are both technically correct sentences: both proponents and patients make this claim, and without the patient making this claim, a diagnosis of MCS cannot be made. There's nothing that Wikipedia can do about the fact that the MCS definition is fundamentally flawed in a way that prevents diagnosis of MCS in any person that doesn't make a claim about "chemicals".
Your leap of logic that "if the patient says it, then it must be all in the person's head" is insulting to patients everywhere. Patients routinely name causes, like "my finger is swollen up, and I'm certain the swelling was caused by the bee sting" without being accused of inventing or imagining the bee sting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
All of the articles about disease I have come across on wikipedia do not take a subjective tone in the description of the symptoms. I feel the best way to describe this is to word the first paragraph like this:

"Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is a chronic medical condition characterized by symptoms that may be vague and non-specific, such as nausea, fatigue, and headaches. Commonly suspected substances include smoke, pesticides, plastics, synthetic fabrics, scented products, petroleum products and paints.[1]"

As the tests have shown, these are the symptoms of MCS, whether they are psychosomatic or not, is an issue to be brought up elsewhere. This edit would be conducive to neutrality and consistency. CLL80 (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Your description is accurate as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough to provide an adequate desciption. Early-stage pregnancy is also a medical condition that is characterized (in part) by vague and non-specific symptoms, such as nausea, fatigue, and headaches. Chronic fatigue syndrome has nausea, fatigue, and headaches. Orthostatic intolerance has nausea, fatigue, and headaches. Optical migraine has nausea, fatigue, and headaches. Low blood sugar produces nausea, fatigue, and headaches.
What makes MCS different from all of the other vague-and-non-specific problems is specifically the patient's claim that these symptoms are triggered by chemicals. Without this claim, the patient does not—cannot, by definition—have MCS. Consequently, the initial description of MCS really must contain a reference to the patient's belief that symptoms are triggered by chemical exposure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

POV correction

On 4 August 2009, a change was made that drastically altered the meaning of a section.

"Trials have shown that MCS patients do not consistently react to chemicals"

was changed to

"Blinded trials have shown that MCS patients do not actually react to chemicals".

The addition of "blinded" appears to be constructive, but changing "consistently" to "actually" twists the meaning into something completely different. "Do not consistently" means that although there were reactions, they weren't consistent. "Do not actually" means that there was no reaction at all.

CLL80 (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The trials show no difference between the tested substance and placebo, so therefore even though there are positives in both active and placebo groups, because there are the same number of reactions it is safe to conclude they are due to the placebo effect. If you say 'not consistently react' that implies that some people DO occasionally react to the chemicals (other than due to the placebo effect), which is clearly incorrect and giving a false POV. So I think we should remove the word 'consistently' and either put back 'actually' or just leave it as 'do not react'. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Although Sciencewatcher's analysis and description of the study is entirely accurate, as a compromise, perhaps we'd drop the adverb altogether: "Blinded trials have shown that MCS patients do not react to chemicals." What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Fine with me. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Removing the adverb also changes the statement to mean that there were no reactions whatsoever. The test showed that the reactions were not consistent, and this is the only way I can see it being relayed without misleading the reader. The test subjects did react to the exposure--whether or not the reaction was physically based or psychological is another thing entirely. Stating that they "did not react" is a very definite statement about something that is not so definite. --CLL80 (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
If you say that then you are implying that the chemicals themselves caused a reaction, which is incorrect. The studies clearly show that the reactions to the placebo and chemicals were the same, i.e. there was nothing other than the placebo effect. I personally don't need to explain this, and people can read the refs if they want. However if you did want to expand it you would need to say [1] placebo and active reactions were the same and [2] this indicates that all reactions were due to the placebo effect. But I don't see the point in stating this because it is basic science and it just needlessly adds extra gumpf to the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
They did have reactions, but there were reactions to the placebo as well as the chemicals. To say they "did not react" would be incorrect.--CLL80 (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
But the reactions were due to the placebo effect, not to the chemicals themselves - that is what the experiment showed (no reaction over and above placebo). --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This is your own inference from the information. We cannot have this in an encyclopedic article. Also, many would say that this test was inconclusive at best--CLL80 (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not my inference - it's what the study says, so that's what we use in wikipedia. If you don't understand the science, you need to read up on the placebo effect and double-blind placebo-controlled trials. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
CLL80, we don't say that they didn't react: we say that they didn't react to the chemicals, which is exactly what the source itself says. They did "react" -- to something, sometimes -- but they did not react to the chemicals that were being tested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
There are longer ways of describing this study that might please you more, but we can't get away from the fundamental fact that the reaction is independent of chemical exposure. Perhaps this would work:

"Researchers have conducted blinded trials, in which MCS patients were exposed to both the chemicals that they claimed to be sensitive to, and chemicals that they claimed not to be sensitive to, without the patients knowing which exposures contained which substances. These tests showed that people with MCS are equally likely to report symptoms, or to not report symptoms, after any test exposure, regardless of whether the exposure actually contained a substance that the person previously identified as being a trigger. Because people with MCS do not react predominantly to exposures containing the chemicals that they claim affect them, and they do react to the substances that they claim do not affect them, researchers have concluded that any perceived reaction is not caused by the patient-identified chemicals."

This is, IMO, a long-winded way of saying ""Blinded trials have shown that MCS patients do not actually react to chemicals", but I'm willing to be long-winded if it seems more accurate to everyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
In the interest of brevity and neutrality, I suggest the following:

"Researchers have conducted blinded trials, in which MCS patients were exposed to both the chemicals that they claimed to be sensitive to, and chemicals that they claimed not to be sensitive to, without the patients knowing which exposures contained which substances. Researchers conducting these tests concluded that people with MCS are equally likely to report symptoms, or to not report symptoms, after any test exposure, regardless of whether the exposure actually contained a substance that the person previously identified as being a trigger."

CLL80 (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't have access to the full text, but the abstract says that the placebo was "clean air", so (unless the full text says differently) the MCS patients and the control group "reacted" both to solvents and clean air, making "the trial has shown MCS patients don't react to chemicals" a valid conclusion. --Six words (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Six words, you don't have access to the full text, but you have access to the abstract, don't you? If you read this all the way through to the end, you will see that the conclusion states "that the hypotheses were not confirmed." This means that they cannot verify whether they did or didn't react to chemicals. Now that I have read this, I propose to remove this part altogether. An inconclusive study is not worthy of placement in the article's introduction - especially in the way it is twisted right now.CLL80 (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Before attacking me I suggest you read the abstract yourself once more and understand it. Their hypotheses were: "that patients with MCS can distinguish reliably between solvents and placebo, and that there are significant differences in objective biological and neuropsychological parameters between solvent and placebo exposures." These weren't confirmed, which means their conclusion was that patients with MCS can't distinguish reliably between solvents and placebo and there aren't significantly different reactions to solvent vs. placebo. The study wasn't inconclusive, you just don't understand what it says. --Six words (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. This is simply a case of CLL80 not understanding the science. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
CLL80, we can't skip the researchers' conclusions. Wikipedia primarily wants to present conclusions, especially in the lead (which is what this article currently does) instead of study descriptions.
Additionally, there have been other studies that didn't use clean air (which also technically made of chemicals) as the control. They've all produced the same results, and they've all come to the same conclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Magnesium (identified as helpful by a majority of MCS sufferers) inhibits release of neurogenic inflammatory cytokines such as Substance P

PMID 1384353

Weglicki WB, Phillips TM.

Pathobiology of magnesium deficiency: a cytokine/neurogenic inflammation hypothesis.

Am J Physiol. 1992 Sep;263(3 Pt 2):R734-7. Department of Medicine, George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20037.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 18:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You might want to look at this. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
You might also want to look at WP:Copyright violations. Abstracts are copyrighted works, and you must not paste them onto any page at Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
About the actual content: This is a study in rodents. It does not say a single word about MCS in humans. Mentioning it in this article would be a clear and direct violation of WP:No original research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Disability claims

Since a cite was requested, I added a link to the US Social Security Administration's entry in their manual for determination of disability based on "Environmental Illness." The source states:

Therefore, in evaluating claims based on environmental illness, all of the claimant's symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings must be considered to determine if there is a medically determinable impairment and the impact of any impairment on the claimant's ability to work. This evaluation should be made on an individual case-by-case basis to determine if the impairment prevents substantial gainful activity.

Is it unreasonable to interpret this to say that the SSA may recognize individual cases as disabled ("prevents substantial gainful activity")? SDY (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's perfectly fine. MCS also meets the WHO definition of disability (specifically "a participation restriction is a problem experienced by an individual in involvement in life situations". "She doesn't leave the house because of symptoms she attributes to chemicals" is certainly "a problem" that prevents "involvement in life situations"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Notice

I have placed a NPOV notice on this article, due to the language used currently in much of the article--especially the introduction, and the stifling of other information that is currently taking place. This can be seen in the history page, with clearly cited material being removed completely--not even being moved to a more appropriate section. One of the main concerns is that there is a statement about testing that was done disputing the validity of mcs claims in the introduction, but statements with cited sources detailing testing that has proven physiological changes in those with MCS have been removed hastily. For this to be a dependable article, it must be written in a neutral manner, as per WP:NPOV.

"...representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

The introduction must be neutral - this is most important. Unfortunately, this is not the case at this point in time. CLL80 (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Neutrality" can be misleading, and it's probably worth reading WP:YESPOV. The arguments that are being removed are governed by the WP:FRINGE policy. NPOV more or less means that Wikipedia sticks with the mainstream opinions of experts on the subject. The overwhelming mainstream opinion on MCS is that it is not a reaction to chemicals, and the article reflects that opinion. SDY (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, and I have removed the tag. The consensus is that the article is NPOV. One newbie disagreeing is not a reason to tag the entire article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV does NOT mean that Wikipedia sticks with the mainstream opinions of experts on the subject, but rather searches for truth via facts. Truth and facts are rarely found among people with an agenda. This is not meant to suggest that the editors here have an agenda (they may), rather that the scientists who are involved in the studies have a bias. When the "overwhelming mainstream opinion" is a couple of industry funded studies, we are all getting the wool pulled over. This is like suggesting that since the FDA says a drug is safe, it must be safe, because they tested it. It should be obvious to all of us that studies can be manipulated, and usually are because they require funding. Just "another" newbie disagreeing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourfinger (talk • contribs) 17:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect. See WP:TRUTH. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes—the bearers of the truth being met by great opposition. This article has heavy use of POV wording. The second paragraph of the article is focused on stating instances of opposition. Where is the opposing viewpoint? Surely, the medical bodies where it is recognized should be mentioned in this introduction. Looking at the history, those parts have been removed repeatedly with bias. The notice is going up until this is remedied.--69.141.124.198 (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, from this talk page and the turbulent page history, we have not come to a consensus. In fact, efforts to come to a consensus in the preceding two topics on this discussion page were completely disregarded when this [10] change was made . A consensus is not a vote. Again, reasonable efforts to propose neutral information or other views have been stifled, and this is why I am disputing the neutrality of this article. The mainstream opinion on MCS, for the most part, is inconclusive - the American Medical Association has stated that MCS requires more research before any decision can be made on its validity. Also, there is not "one newbie" disputing the neutrality of this article, there are many editors who have attempted to contribute some valid, cited information, and these can be seen clearly in the history page. The problem is, any edits they have made to show the other major view on MCS have been quickly removed without a second glance. These editors are even sometimes given a warning that they are edit warring or similar. This does not seem like a constructive way to invite all viewpoints into this article. To the contrary, this seems like a very effective way of keeping this article very one-sided and biased. I agree, "One newbie disagreeing" is not a reason to tag the entire article. The repeated blatant suppression of constructive efforts to come to a reasonable conclusion by multiple editors-with scare tactics, no less, is a reason. This may even be a reason for further action, if this problem isn't remedied.
It has been shown, clearly, that the neutrality of this article is a problem. For example, in the introduction of this article there is information taken from a book written in 1995 by Ronald E. Gots, who is an outspoken opponent of MCS as a physiological disorder, and has known ties to the chemical industry. I do not see an issue with including his work in this article - in the interest of balance and presenting both views, but there is an obvious problem preserving neutrality with information like this in the introduction.
A major problem with this article can be seen in the history. A new editor will come on board. They will attempt to contribute something valuable, but because one of the few "owners" of this article doesn't agree with it, it is removed as POV, vandalism or just incorrect "just because it is." Then these editors are bullied away, usually never to be seen again, by a warning template, confusing terminology, or something similar. Through these tactics, these editors, who it seems consider themselves owners of this article, have maintained a stranglehold since shortly after its creation, in 2004.
In response to the claim that any view opposing the psychosomatic viewpoint is being removed by via the WP:FRINGE policy: The debate on MCS is hardly comparable to the flat earth concept, with many mainstream medical organizations in the world today acknowledging a physiological basis of MCS. For example, many government and medical organizations in Germany, Austria, Spain, Australia, Canada, and the United States among others, recognize MCS as something that is caused by chemical exposure or that needs much more research. As per WP:UNDUE "tiny minority views" should not be included at all. The physiological theory of MCS is definitely not a "tiny minority". Here I will mention a recent study on MCS that cannot be disputed because it is a reliable source, and it includes simple statements of scientific fact:
8 patients diagnosed with MCS and their healthy controls were involved in a study of brain changes after a chemical challenge. After exposure to a chemical in non-toxic concentrations, the patients diagnosed with MCS showed markedly reduced blood flow to a number of brain areas. The control subjects showed the opposite. The patients diagnosed with MCS also showed lower neurocognitive function after exposure. The outcome of this study was that exposure to chemicals in less than toxic levels "caused neurocognitive impairment, and brain dysfunction in the MCS patients, thereby suggesting a neurogenic origin of MCS." This report can be seen here [11].
I do not think for a second that anything about this study would be allowed to remain in this article for longer than a few hours. Why is it that a less scientific study with subjective observations by the scientists conducting it is allowed to remain in introduction of this article. Why is something like this removed before it is even given a chance to be seen?
Here is the reason: because the inclusion of this in the article and more sources like it would show that this view on MCS is not a minority view at all. To the current editors of this article, this seems to be unacceptable.
Finally, the neutrality notice states that it is not to be removed until the issue is resolved. One editor is not enough to resolve this issue. No matter how much they would like to be the "end all, be all" of this article, they are not. The template should stay in place until a consensus is reached. By removing this notice, you are violating wikipedia's policies and proving my point.
CLL80 (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
This study is already used in the article.--Six words (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
And it also wasn't placebo controlled. People with depression have abnormal blood flow, SPECT scans, etc. Simply believing that you are being given something toxic could cause these physiological/neurological changes. What we are interested in for this article is the science, and the science shows that double-blind placebo-controlled trials (the 'gold standard') show that MCS patients don't in fact react to 'trigger' chemicals any more than they react to placebos. For some reason you wish to remove these basic facts, perhaps because it doesn't fit with your POV? --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A "neurogenic" basis simply puts MCS in the same quandary as other psychiatric disorders ("software" vs. "hardware"). That at least some MCS patients are actually responding to specific chemicals has been strongly refuted by a direct and well constructed experiment. MCS is recognized as a problem, but it's mainly a question of whether it belongs in the category with allergies or the category with phobias. It isn't a valid diagnosis because there is no clear definition, and deciding how to categorize it is a basic step in making that definition. "Adverse effects" and "symptoms" (in the formal and strict sense) might be a little too jargonese for the intro. "Do not react to chemicals" might not be the most helpful way to state it. There is definitely a reaction, but it's fairly certain that it's not to any "toxicity" in the chemical. So long as the relationship between toxicity and symptoms is clear, the language could definitely be cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.148.0.65 (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

How about we say something along the lines of 'react equally to chemical triggers and placebos '. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
To the anon: There are more possibilities for the underlying problem (and I agree that MCS people are suffering from a real, non-factitious problem) than simply 'allergy' and 'phobia'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

CLL80, if you put a bunch of perfectly average, middle-of-the-road, healthcare professionals in a room, and handed them this article, do you think that they'd say it was an unfairly unsympathetic description? Or do you think that they'd say that, yes, it was unsympathetic to the proponents' ideas, but that this lack of sympathy for proponents' claims (but not for the clearly suffering patients) pretty much agreed with their position?

Another way of asking this: Isn't it generally true that if you go to a random physician, that you'd be pretty safe assuming that he (or she) holds approximately the same view of MCS as this article gives readers? Don't MCSers complain regularly about the difficulty, and in some places the impossibility, of finding a physician that agrees with them about MCS?

The impression that I have is that if anything, the average physician would say that this article doesn't go far enough to dismiss the MCSers' belief that the chemical is the actual trigger, and in particular, doesn't go far enough to dismiss Randolph's original immunological model. It seems to me that they would also want more emphasis on widespread misdiagnosis/missed diagnosis, and successful treatment through neurotropic medications (antidepressants and anxiolytics; the success of these drugs in improving, and sometimes entirely eliminating, symptoms is unsurprising to people that subscribe to the neurologic idea of MCS). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that both you and the anon are mistaken about what neurogenic means. Neurogenic means "caused by or arising in the nervous system". The test we are talking about showed physical changes in the subject's brains. Neurogenic has nothing to do with psychological factors.
WhatamIdoing, what you or I think should have no weight in this article. Therefore, the point you are trying to make above really is questionable. Unfortunately, the "impression that you have" is your opinion, and has no place in encyclopedic content. Did you ever think that maybe the reason you have this impression is because of the sources you limit yourself to? Other proven tests and experiments have a place in this article, but you seem to want to propagate only the experiments that can be construed to support a psychological basis. The policy of wikipedia is to include information from all reliable sources of opposing significant viewpoints. You and a few other editors of this article have succeeded for another day in making sure this is not happening in this article. Congratulations.
CLL80 (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
May be check out WP:MEDRS. RetroS1mone talk 14:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the article in question meets WP:MEDRS, but it's also fairly clear that it's not a very conclusive study. With a small N, no positive controls and no placebo challenge, it really can't say much other than there is a difference in reaction. The nature of that difference might be worth explaining and there may be some additional information in the full text of the paper. The abstract doesn't look like it refutes the Bornschein study's result of no relationship between identity of challenge and strength of response, consistent with a psychosomatic basis for disease. As one tertiary source puts it, "...although patterns seen in some studies have shown abnormalities that might be related to MCS (particularly with SPECT), these studies are deficient in standardization of techniques, replication of results using testable hypotheses, and use of appropriate control groups." SDY (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And of course, if you know anything at all about SPECT scans and brain blood flow, you will know that psychiatric illnesses also cause these effects. Even thinking about something will cause this. One poor study certainly doesn't undermine the large body of knowledge we know about the human brain! --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
CLL80, psychological conditions frequently are "caused by" the nervous system, and all of them "arise in" the central nervous system. It is not technically possible to have a psychological condition that does not affect the central nervous system in some fashion.
Again: "psychological" does not mean "fake". Psychological conditions can have real, measurable, physical manifestations in the brain.
If there is any high-quality source of information that you would like to see presented in this article, please share it with us. I don't mind presenting any significant view; I only object to twisting and misrepresenting mainstream views to pretend that they are equivalent to minority opinions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ "MCS Referral & Resources, Inc". Retrieved 2008-03-25.
  2. ^ "Carbon Monoxide and Sensory Sensitivity". MCS Referral & Resources. 23 Oct 2006. Retrieved 2008-03-25. Multi-Sensory Sensitivity or MUSES Syndrome....is characterized not just by hypersensitivity to chemicals but to all types of sensory stimuli, including light, sound, touch, hot or cold weather and even (in extreme cases) electromagnetic fields. People who develop MCS after exposure to other toxins such as pesticides or mold may also be sensitive to one or two other types of sensory stimuli such as light and sound but what distinguishes the MUSES cases...is their sensitivity to EVERYTHING.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Multiple_chemical_sensitivity/Archive_2&oldid=1137025665"