Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Misc

hi- Big Canary here,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


hi there Anonymous User 80.60.71.117,

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

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

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

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

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

I've reverted the edit made by 80.60.71.117. As the previous article was not a violation, we can't just delete it, and there is currently no way of deleting individual revisions. Angela. 18:55, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
I'm glad to see the old article back. It needs work, but it has value. Thanks, Angela! heidimo 15:55, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ahh okay I understand now. I guess this comes back to not being able to delete individual revisions. If we were threatened with suit for copyright material being in our revision history we'd have to do something so major but while we're not, it's a good idea to try to always preserve the authors. I'll reread GFDL now. :) Zuytdorp Survivor 04:29, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If we were threatened, then a developer could delete the revisions concerned. See also Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages. Angela. 06:43, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

ZS I suggest reverting it. heidimo 17:36, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
What of User:62.238.121.175's edits; do you think they're NPOV?
I do not think those edits are NPOV. It looks like the same POV that's been hammering many articles on Alternative medicine topics lately. heidimo 20:39, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hmmmm it's tricky. Certainly everyone who knows something about an issue has an opinion. I don't really know much about MCS - followed one of the anon users here - but I'm starting to get a bit of an impression. I don't think 175's edit seems very biased. I'd like him/her to give a reference for the air & water test, and I plan to remove the sympathetic magic reference which is not a correct comparison. Sympathetic Magic is described as "looks like so cures like" - most commonly: phallic-looking vegetables allegedly curing impotence. Zuytdorp Survivor 23:17, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Exactly. You may be interested in the new project on Alternative medicine, which is attempting to deal with similar problems. Perhaps this article could be added to the list, when the list is ready for additions. I will probably bring it up, since I'm already signed on to the project, and watching this article. heidimo 15:44, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I changed a paragraph saying that MCS should be taken serously (I think it should, but the article shouldn't think so IMO) and took the initiative of removing the NPOV warning. I hope this is OK. A5 05:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-standard header

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

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

[edit] Suggestion

Hi all, new to this editing of Wikipedia stuff.

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

[edit] Question

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


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

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

[edit] Small Criticism

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

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

[edit] Removed paragraph starting "Chemical injuries kill people every day"

Here it is:

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

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

[edit] Major proposed insertions to page

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

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

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

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

So, what do you think?

Here's what I wrote:

Chemical Sensitivity

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

Competing physiological theories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First aid for sufferers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cures and Preventions

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

Chelation of toxic metals from the body

Acupuncture and other forms of energy work

Meditation

Vitamin therapy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civil Rights of Canaries and Asthmatics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--30--

June 10, Paul K.

[edit] NPoV

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

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

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

[edit] editing of MCS page

Hello

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] editing of MCS page

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

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

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

)

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

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

[edit] Article seems no NPOV to me, and has inaccuracies

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

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

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

Justbrent 03:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is garbage. Any help you could give it would be appreciated—even if it's just deleting the nonsense. I've been meaning to work on it, but it's an intimidatingly large project. Cool Hand Luke 06:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I should quickly add that I wasn't aware of the sweeping changes done to this article. It appears to still have severe problems though, but is not even more verbose. Cool Hand Luke 06:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

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

[edit] Issues to be mediated

  • Misuse of administrator position (threatening editors, purposefully making the article sloppy).
    • I've not used any admin authority. I'm acting solely as an editor and had no intent to unduly threaten. Informing users of Wikipedia policy is a burden shared by all editors. Cool Hand Luke 06:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I have evidence that states otherwise from my partner who helped make some edits. Using the administrator to control an articles contents - poorly at that - and delete valid content is abusive. Telling another person they will be banned from editing for providing contents clearly within Wikipedia standards is in poor taste. salvadorlourdes
  • Lack of interest in correcting the article with intent to discredit the topic by keeping it labeled for "Clean Up" or "Disputed" with no clear reason why. It appears that the "dispute" is the fact that the article exists to begin with. Personally I'd rather see it removed entirely than misrepresented.
  • Subjectivity of article (biased on opinion rather than science)
  • Removal of prevalence statistics cited with references from peer-reviewed scientific studies with the claim that the studies were "bogus". No statistics have been replaced.
  • Repeated subjective labeling of medical doctors who specialize in toxicology and environmental medicine as "clinical ecologists" who are "in minority" when they are actually MD's who belong to the AMA and are real doctors.
  • Subjective wording in the definition section that segregates doctors and downplays environmental specialists as noted above. Doctors are doctors and are all licensed as such.
  • Labeling of the Case Criteria for MCS as "Environmental Medicine Definition of MCS" when a cohort of nearly 100 scientists, MD's, PhD's, and researchers developed the Case Criteria.
  • Derogatory tone towards environmental medicine rather than factual statements. "Clinical Ecology is not recognized by the American Medical Association or any other mainstream medical body, although several have commented on the paucity of evidence for the disease and its mechanism." This statement is untrue and requires revision and citations. There have been hundreds of studies on MCS. A simple PubMed search will show that.
  • Removal of a proper addressing of the recognition of the condition with cited references to the many organizations that do and don't recognize the condition. The statement in the bullet above is not true as the Centers for Disease Control has recognized and issued statements on MCS, Social Security grants disability on the basis of disabling symptoms based on the diagnosis of MCS, Housing and Urban Development supplies housing accommodations for MCS patients, and the Americans with Disabilities Act recognizes the limitations MCS imposes on patients who need accommodations to access public facilities. These were all cited with reference and deleted.
  • Numerous incorrect citing of references past and present(opposite of true findings).
  • Numerous incomplete citing of references past and present(citing flawed findings without noting the flaws for objectivity).
  • Partial sentences and sloppy editing that appears intentional to discredit the topic.
  • First sentence in Etiology "MCS may be a physical or psychological disease, and there is no clear consensus about what causes the symptoms". Indeed, there may be several causes." is untrue. This statement is not factual and designed to create controversy and should be deleted in favor of findings of valid, scientific studies.
  • Under Psychological Disorders "Conventional medicine does not..." is not factual. Many doctors who diagnosed MCS are just that... doctor's, MD's, members of the AMA, allergists... very "conventional" doctors. This statement needs revision to be made objective and not subjective based on the authors personal opinion.
  • Miscellaneous Theories needs to be removed. It has no scientific basis connecting it to MCS. Review of the studies in PubMed shows no relation or studies that connect coagulation and MCS. This is subjective opinion and not scientific fact.
  • This statement is untrue, subjective, and emotional. Words like "blamed" need to be removed. A citation is also needed, if one can be found. There are many studies that show pesticides cause endocrine disruption, air fresheners cause asthma, etc. These symptoms are not "lack of correlation" but rather quite correlated. "People diagnosed with MCS suffer widely assorted symptoms blamed on exposure to trace levels of environmental chemicals.” This lack of correlation between symptom and chemical trigger makes research difficult.”
  • Under Treatment the best known treatment for MCS per peer-reviewed scientific studies is avoidance and making the home chemical free. This section is misleading and needs revision. The statement about co-occurring mental disorders is not only consistent with the occurrence of mental disorders in the general population but the treatment of "co-occurring" disorders does not address the treatment of the MCS. Quite to the contrary the treatment for many mental illnesses is drugs that have been show (and are cited further down) to cause harm and exacerbation of symptoms in most MCS patients. This is a critical and important topic that should be discussed as an additional notation after the treatment for MCS is laid out.
  • This statement is subjective and based on opinion. Doctors are doctors and many who are not in environmental medicine prescribe the same treatments. This statement needs references and citations to support it. "Treatments offered by practitioners of environmental medicine specify the avoidance"
  • The sections were rearranged and make no sense under Treatment. The bullets are a protocol, widely used, called the Ziem/Pall protocol, yet the paragraphs have been rearranged in nonsensical order so that the bullets are not explained and appear after other irrelevant citations. Another attempt to make the article sloppy to discredit the illness rather than make an objective presentation based on scientific facts.
  • Under Possible Triggers "Many chemicals are claimed to be culprits of MCS" this statement is subjective and designed to create doubt and controversy. Many studies have been peer-reviewed and published that ascertain the symptoms and they symptoms sets are rather consistent as the disease progresses. This statement needs to be removed and has no citation or scientific basis.
    • Given the significant doubts other scientists have about the causal link between chemical exposure and MCS, this sentence structure is waranted. I fully intend to do more work in this area. Cool Hand Luke 06:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • That is a subjetive statement based on opinion with no ctiations or references to back it up. Read some of the full text research articles where this has been studied and cite them with proper references. Let me know if you'd like the pub med abstract links. I also have many PDF's of full text I am happy to share. Irregardless of that time consuming endeavor, a simple, non-controversial and objective way to revise this sentence could be "Many chemcial are reported to trigger symptoms". That is a true, objective, and non-controversial statement. Just the facts. The issue with the statement as it is is that it claims that chemicals the "culprits" of MCS, which converts to "cause" of MCS which is not the case. There are now 4 studies that show certain genetic variation is what causes MCS, not the chemicals. The chemicals are merely the triggers of they symptoms that patients report. In 2004, McKeown-Eyssen studied 203 MCS sufferers and 162 controls and found that genetic differences relating to detoxification processes were present more often in those with MCS than those without. The study concluded that "a genetic predisposition for MCS may involve altered biotransformation of environmental chemicals. Haley found similar, confirmatory results in a 1999 study with the PON1 gene in Gulf War syndrome veterans. A new study by Schnakenberg et al (2006) confirmed the genetic variation previously found by McKeown-Eyssen and Haley. A total of 521 unrelated individuals participated in the study. Genetic variants of four genes were analyzed: NAT2, GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1. The researchers concluded that individuals who are NAT2 slow acetylators and those with homozygously deleted GSTM1 and GSTT1 genes are significantly more likely to develop chemical sensitivity. According to the study the glutathione S-transferases act to inactivate chemicals so people without these GSTM1 and GSTT1 genes are less able to metabolize environmental chemicals. If a person cannot metabolize chemicals they build up in the body and cause disturbances in normal body function which produces symptoms upon exposure to any level of chemical contamintants. Schnakenberg and fellow researchers explain that "glutathione S-transferases play an important role in the detoxification of chemicals". The researchers also noted that diseases such as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, hepatocellular and prostate carcinoma, and Alzheimer's disease have been associated with the common chemicals metabolized by GSTP1. The deletion of the GSTP1 gene leaves individuals more susceptible to developing these diseases, as lack of these genes means a loss of protection from oxidative stress. There a a 4th study too, an older one, that I've just received that explains how people who lack the gene are more susceptible to endocrine damage and chemcial sensitivity from pesticide exposure. I ordered the full text and will be reading it soon. salvadorlourdes
  • Under Critical Reviews Barrett is not an MD, he fabricated his credentials and is currently being sued and his sites are all either in process of being removed or already removed from the Internet by the Court. His views, being opinion and not scientific fact, are not those of an MD but those of a scam artist who falsely identified himself with medicine however he has not completed any medical or scientific education. His links need to be removed. "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: a spurious diagnosis, Stephen Barrett, MD. — A skeptical article hosted on Quackwatch"
    • Justly removed. Cool Hand Luke 06:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you salvadorlourdes
  • If the tags are put up, then the person ought to be willing to fix it or work to fix it rather than just slap them up without reading the article as occured in this case. It was only later that the article was read and revised, yet again, to be sloppy enough to warrant the tags. This appears to be an effort to not have a valid article. I am seeking a collaborative effort to make this article objective, clear, and cited with the most recent evidence (unless listed under a history heading) and the removal of "needs cleanup" and "disputed" tags. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Salvadorlourdes (talk • contribs) 05:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
I do intend to make further changes to the article. This kind of article is an enormous project, and I've no intention of abandoning it. Where you find disagreement, feel free to be bold and change sections you disagree with. Wholesale reversions, are rarely helpful, however. Cool Hand Luke 06:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I did make changed and you just deleted them. What good is that. That's as much an "editing war" as anything else. However, since you have invited me, I will change a few minor things though I think any major revisions should be collaborated upon. I have the data to finish this article in a few days to the point where it should be up to Wikipedia standards and the tag can be removed. At that point it can be updated as time permits and new studies surface. How about we work together on this? I'm not going anywhere either. Share your vision for the article and I'll do the legwork. I'm a good researcher and have good connections to obtain most anything needed in the way of supporting documentation. The concern at the moment is we've got you, me, and my partner jumping in and changing or deleting stuff with no explanation and none of the parties knows the others goals. I think I've stated mine. I want objectivity, non-controversial language, and clear presentation of the facts on all sides of the story. The article should not bash either side but present both clearly and entirely with supporting evidence in a factual manner. I can go further... perhaps do a bullet point TOC to be agreed upon for the layout and then we can work each section one by one. If we team on this we can have a great article, don't you think? salvadorlourdes
      • I noticed you did not comment on the other bullets one way or the other. salvadorlourdes
      • Sounds good, but the article cannot completely ignore literature that goes against your chosen hypothesis. This is an article about MCS, not a partisan screed for those who believe it's caused by actual chemical exposure in the normal sense. It takes a long time to verify citations, and I haven't even begun to check content for most of the article. I was not pleased, however, to discover that the demographics section was a misunderstanding of the cited study. I probably over-reated, and I'll certainly be more selective in my changes going forward, but we must make the article balanced. Cool Hand Luke 19:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issues

        • I have not chosen a hypothesis. I am seeking factual reporting without bias. I felt this article, when I first happened upon it, was biased on the psychological aspects... derogatorily so as every condition known in science was once "psychological" until proved otherwise such as asthma, diabetes, blood disorders, etc. It had not provided any evidence of the physiological aspects and seemed an attempt to prove the condition psychological with a one sided view. There were also wrong citations which I removed or edited after reviewing the studies, but I think I noted those above. salvadorlourdes
        • There is still one in the first paragraph that makes no sense as it is written about the placebo effect. I'll look at it later. It seems to contradict itself though I'm certain, and will verify after I retrieve the study, that the conclusion of the study was that there was a placebo effect though the methods of study was flawed in that the substances used for a "placebo" were indeed items that many patients report reacting to and contained naturally occuring toxins. That seems to be what the sentence is saying but it somehow contradicts itself and will be confusing for a lay person to read. An example,is d-limonene, which occurs naturally when citrus is concentrated and is a naturally occuring toxin to even those without MCS. Using such products as a "placebo" because they are not a chemical in individuals who cannot detoxify normally will cause a reaction from the naturally occuring toxins even though toxicants are absent. The methods were flawed then in finding a true placebo that subjects would not react to. Further testing is needed to attempt to replicate this study with substances (both placebo and chemical) that either have no odor (both experiemental and control groups) or with placebo odors that contain no toxicants. Probably odorless is the best way to go to see if subjects react to odorless chemicals as opposed to a puff of air. Substances such as natural gas that is not fragranced with the gas scent used in gasoline or substances that have been chemically masked to be "scent free" would do the trick when compared against a puff of air in control groups. That would elimiate the potention of IgE or MCS responses to a purpoted placebo and make the study more reliable and valid.salvadorlourdes
          • Yes. Reword it. The study itself does not cover this angle (it's a review, but the cited studies used furfuryl mercaptan, vanilla, and peppermint among other things). I am aware that many clinical ecologists object to odor masking and argue that practically any masking odor triggers MCS, so I added the sentence as a quick afterthought (which is convenient because it makes psychological conditioning theories virtually untestable). Feel free to fix it. Cool Hand Luke 04:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I suggest having 2-3 articles supporting each sentence/statment on both sides of the coin to ensure problems with methods have been addressed and what is being reported is factual. Studies of interest without replication should be labled as such. salvadorlourdes
        • Okay, let's start with that demographics concern. What do you feel was mistated. When I slept on it I figured perhaps the wording could be more clear. Samples, taken properly, are meant to be representative of the population in statistics. Perhaps the wording was unclear and could be revised to indicate "samples representing the population. Also, I have several studies that agree on the 16% figure. The 33% figure was specifically on Gulf War Veterans. I can rewrite this section to cite each study more specifically (type of study... ie survey, etc.), rather than summing them in a single sentence. Please let me exactly what you felt was the misinterpretation as the main study I cited is widely used in the medical community for prevalence purposes. Also, was there concern with the demographics (gender, income level, etc.) and if so, what? I think it's important to have a prevalence and demographics in the article salvadorlourdes
          • 15% has many studies for it self-reported, although studies place prevalence in self-reporting to below 5%, and those actually treated for the disease are below 1% by some measurements. You should have no problem finding these studies; I found them in less than five minutes on PubMed. As for the demographics: This is what I removed. this is the article. You used the wrong data, data that represents the whole sample set instead of those who actually identify as sensitive. Probably you misread the tables, but it was wrong so I just removed it. Better to have no data than bad data. I have no objection to including demographics, but I would prefer broader studies, preferably synthesizing several such studies. Incidentally, it's because I read this study (reporting 12.6%) that I was so confident to remove the entire "Prevalence" heading which absurdly claimed 16-33%. You must have seen at least one example of less than that writing the rest of the article! But yes, the 33% figure is not at all representative of any civilian population, so should not even be listed as an upper bound. Also, comparisons to diabetes are very poor, because MCS is honestly less well-defined considering the vagauries of asking for a self-diagnosis over the phone. These comparisons appear to be sensationalistic and have no place in the article. Cool Hand Luke 04:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I agree the article should be balanced. We should present the facts, perhaps saying "The etiology of MCS is controversial in the medical community" and leave out the opinions. We can then go on to examine both sides. "Some feel that MCS is of psychological origin and others feel that MCS is of physiological origin." In other words, keep it neutral rather than bashing one side or the other. How's that sound? salvadorlourdes
          • It sounds radically different than what you wrote. You didn't cite a single article in favor of a psychological hypothesis, but instead bring up the posibility only to dismiss it because "it ignores" studies which have almost no currency outside of this movement. In fact, there are multiple psychological hypothesis including misdiagnosis (essentually claiming that the disease is a manifestation of known psychological disorders), sociological learning, and Pavlovian conditioning. I do not think that psychological theories relegates the illness or lowers its status. My brother suffers from mental illness and I know that they're as real as any other (do you?). Besides, modern science rejects mind-body dualism. A "psychological" theory is just a physiological theory whereby the chemical exposure causes symptoms through the brain. Cool Hand Luke 04:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
        • How about we check with each other if one posts something or changes something the other disagrees with rather than just deleting or reverting? We can chat here about it, share links to the supporting referenes, and come to a resolution, and then change it. salvadorlourdes
        • By the way, thanks for consolidating the references. salvadorlourdes
          • Feel free to make any changes you like. I don't have much time to devote to this, but I'll try not to be so hasty with revisions in the future. Cool Hand Luke 04:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Incidentally, for the sake of full disclosure (so that you can better correct my work), I am a chemistry graduate now attending law school. I have worked for labs, but never for a pharmaceutical company or industrial chemical manufacturer. However, as you can probably tell, I doubt very much that MCS is caused by chemical exposure in the traditional sense. My POV should not bleed into the article, however, and you should feel free to correct passages that might sound overly dismissive. I'll try not to write such biased prose. I simply want the prevailing ("psychological") point-of-view to be fairly covered in the article. Cool Hand Luke 04:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Okay, I can work with that. salvadorlourdes
  • I pulled some studies on MCS prevalence and here are direct quotes from PubMed

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

Yes, I see. That's an interesting study. Kreutzer R, Neutra RR, Lashuay N. (1999) Prevalence of people reporting sensitivities to chemicals in a population-based survey. Am J Epidemiol 150:1–12. Looks like a good source representing California, large sample cross-section by state doctors. Looks like the largest and best study ever conducted, and I think it's reliable and representative. 11.9% described being sensitive to more than one type of chemical (15.9% includes those describing sensitivity to just one or "unknown"). Similar to the Georgia study that found 12.6 +/- 3 in , so it looks to be the right ballpark estimate for the US who describe themselves this way. Just be careful in phrasing it because it does not necessarily mean that this many people have MCS, just that this many self-report sensitivity to more than one chemical. The study also suggests that only 0.6% were diagnosed with MCS and reported it was a restrictive health problem, and 1.8% are made "very sick" by cologne/aftershave. Should probably also mention that it affects people across class, race, and region in California, but that it is much more prevalent among women. Cool Hand Luke 07:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the problem with self-reporting. One example is that a lot of people, probably more so in California, would describe themselves as having a "gluten allergy." But except for those with coeliac (which is quite rare) their problem is not one conventional medicine takes seriously.Merkinsmum 10:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Writing

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

Practitioners argue that MCS

Psychologists suppose that MCS

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

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

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

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

This debate is not settled. I agree that the article needs to be updated, but a 2006 article just added to this morass support psychological theories. Cool Hand Luke 13:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/u/l/Talk%7EMultiple_chemical_sensitivity_0bc9.html"