Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Non-standard header

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Small Criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph starting "Chemical injuries kill people every day" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPoV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  editing of MCS page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  editing of MCS page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Article seems no NPOV to me, and has inaccuracies 

message: --Regarding the statement (above) that "Reading the article would lead an uninformed reader to believe that the acceptance of MCS is nearly universal",  actually, (as also stated above) the article is repetitive and one of the things it repeats is that the AMA _et al_ don't recognize MCS.
--Diseases don't pop into existence the day the AMA figures out they exist any more than acupuncture became effective when the AMA recognized it (centuries after it was invented). The point is, a lot of us are suffering from toxins in food, buildings, perfumes and etc. etc. more or less severely whether or not the AMA, with its highly materialistic model of disease, presently understands this.  So a sensitive article such as this one is highly appropriate.
--Thank goodness you folks with healthly immune systems can't comprehend what it's like to have a defective one.  Please try to understand that there are some things it's difficult to understand if you simply have no experience of them.
--BTW I know someone with MCS who eventually won their case with SSA although to work around the AMA's incomprehension, had to call their disease "organic brain syndrome" (the point being that the white blood cells weren't eliminating some of the breathed-in [and otherwise acquired] chemicals, which were affecting the person's brain). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.171.21.156 (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Not Garbage, etc.

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation
===Issues to be mediated===
*Misuse of administrator position (threatening editors, purposefully making the article sloppy).
**I've not used any admin authority. I'm acting solely as an editor and had no intent to unduly threaten. Informing users of Wikipedia policy is a burden shared by all editors. Cool Hand Luke 06:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for Mediation 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Issues to be mediated

message: ****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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Issues

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Poor Writing 

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

message: I don't like these sentences "...doctors disagree about whether symptoms are physiologically or psychologically generated. Science rejects mind-body dualism, so the distinction between these causes is difficult to discern."
I don't think there is any problem discerning the difference, one point of view is that MCS symptoms are a physical reaction to external factors, the other is that they arise from the patients mind. The fact that the mind can be regarded as neurochemical reactions doesn't confuse anyone when describing depression/etc as mental illnesses. 220.244.146.142 12:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Commentators do mention the modern collapse of dualism when discussing the symptoms. MCS is different from many mental illnesses because its symptoms are triggered by external factors. The difference in the etiologies is primarily that one supposes that the brain psychosomatically generates the symptoms, while in the clinical ecology theory, the chemicals react with other parts of the body in some way. In both cases, symptoms may be non-voluntary, and this is what makes them difficult to test without taking great care. Cool Hand Luke 08:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: From my understanding of the subject, many proponents of the physiological etiology of MCS theories do not view themselves as "clinical ecologists."  As an attorney who has dealt with experts on both sides of the MCS causation debate, "clinical ecologist" is a label given to all physiological etiology proponents by psychological etiology proponents.  The problem is that while there are many "environmental medicine" practitioners who can accurately be described as "clinical ecologists," there are many experts who believe in chemical causes for MCS that do not accept the "clinical ecologist" label.  For many of those who do not accept the clinical ecologist label, the label is in fact incorrect based on their credentialing and methodology.  
For instance, there is a professor at East Carolina University Medical, whose name escapes my, who is a proponent of chemical causes for MCS and is trained as a medical toxicologist.  The label "clinical ecologist" is inappropriate to describe him.
The problem here is that the subject of MCS is quite contentious in the medical community.  During depositions I have heard psychological cause proponents refer to the physiological cause proponents as charlatans.  Similarly, I have heard the physiological cause proponents refer to the psychological cause proponents as slanderers.  This is important because it shows that the label of "clinical ecologist" is not really being used as a descriptor for physiological cause proponents.  Rather, it is being used as an attack by some psychological cause proponents, because "clinical ecologists" are not as widely accepted as practitioners of good science.  For evidence of this, look no further than the wikipedia article on "clinical ecologists," which states, without citation, "There has been much resistance in the medical community to accepting their claims."  
In any case, I think that the MCS article should not simply label all physiological cause proponents as clinical ecologist as I think that label lacks neutrality.  
Trianglelawdevil 03:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article simply does not label "all physiological cause proponents as clinical ecologist."  It needs to be mentioned in the article, however, because it's the most widely recognized term for the proponents and "clinical ecologist" is strongly linked with MCS.  Feel free to mention that many physicians find it to be a derogatory term. Cool Hand Luke 03:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the "Clinical Ecologist" Label 

message: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is a civil rights issue and a political issue.  This fundamental problem is not addressed in the article, much less is it given prominence in the intro.  We should quit imagining that this is nothing more than a medical debate.
People come to this page looking for immediate relief from their MCS symptoms.  Easy and effective answers, such as using burn unit sheets on MCS patients, removing MCS sufferers from fumed indoor environments and switching non-toxic marker pens, are not available on this site.
Imagine if a Wikipedia article on global warming dealt solely with scientific theories, con and pro (and I deliberately put con before pro here) but not with probable or possible impacts on the earth or possible steps to reduce global warming gases.  The MCS article should also not be reduced to dull-written notations of scientific theories.  This is an injustice to the charged politics of the issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul K (talk • contribs) 17:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MCS is political 

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

message: Most patients (85 to 90 percent) complaining of MCS syndrome are women. There is no clear consensus as to what causes the symptoms of MCS.  Indeed, there may be several causes.
Women don't cause MCS and I am sure you are not saying that, but if you are going to have it in an etiology section, then you need to explain the reasoning, i.e. hormonal links, psychological tendencies, or the like.  As an alternative, it should be inthe signs and symptoms section where it would not need explanation. -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually there's some interesting stuff in there.  Pre-menopausal adult women do indeed comprise nearly all of the patients.  Nearly all of them present with an acute sense of smell.  Nearly all of them react only to chemicals which they can smell.  Both their perceived sensitivity to chemicals and their ability to detect smells varies with the state of their menstrual cycle.  So while I agree that the demographics (perhaps "risk factors") and the causes should be in separate paragraphs, the mere fact that nearly all presenting patients are female is important.70.137.171.41 23:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section - Etiology (cause) of MCS

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

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

message: This article is biased and opinionated, rather than scientific.
Barret is not a legitimate source.  He is not the MD he purpots and has been sued for misrepresentation.  
Citations missing/unsupported statements without evidence.  
Needs MAJOR cleanup.
: Disagree that the article is not NPOV.  This is a controversial subject with strongly held views on both sides, as with similar effects. Both sceptics and supporters have added good material. Particularly commendable in the current article is the list of external links stating clearly the POV of each, and thus giving good balance. Some further citations would be useful however.  Incidentally, statements such as the ones above should be supported by user identification (and ideally by citations themselves); otherwise by pointing the finger, four fingers point back at the originator. Hyperman 42 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell, Barrett is relied upon only once in the article, and that one time it refers to his views as a "critic of clinical ecology." Critical views deserve clearly-labeled coverage in controversial articles like this. Please tag statements you find unsupported with  or similar templates. It would also be helpful if you explain further how the article is biased.  With no more detailed explanation, I'm inclined to remove the template after about a week or so.  Cool Hand Luke 02:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I know the following is long, but the lead in this article is in desperate need of a diet! It's much too long and detailed. I have a rule of thumb that ensures proper coverage in the WP:LEAD:
* If a topic deserves a heading, then it deserves short mention in the lead.
Here is a table we can use to help in creating and managing the lead. Just add the headings (done) and create short summaries of the entire contents of the sections. The final result is created by placing all that content in one big paragraph in the order it is found in the table. Then make appropriate paragraphs out of it, and make appropriate changes so it flows as brilliant prose. Have fun!  
Definition of MCS       	bla bla bla
Symptoms                	bla bla bla
History and epidemiology	bla bla bla
Etiology (cause) of MCS 	bla bla bla
Diagnosis and treatment 	bla bla bla
Each item should contain no more than one or two sentences that sum up the basic idea of each section in the article that has a heading. The whole thing can then be lumped together and divided up into two to four paragraphs.
There should not be anything in the lead that doesn't refer to specific content in the article. There should not be any elaboration or detail in the lead. Elaboration should be in the body of the article, not in the lead. Sum each section up in two to four sentences, and use them in the lead.
 
Keeping references out of the lead makes the lead easier to read. The explanatory and more detailed text with the refs are found in the article. I don't know of any policy or guideline regarding including refs in the lead, one way or the other, so it's a matter of taste....;-) Since refs are used to document specific content, and since the lead is a short summation in a generalized format, I would see the use of refs in the lead as a duplication of effort. If there are any refs in the lead, they should be kept to a minimum. If a ref is required in the lead, then that might be a symptom that something is being introduced there that is not in the body, which would be improper.
Because articles change and grow, the lead should reflect those changes and be revised accordingly.
Otherwise I think the lead should prepare the reader for whatever is in the body of the article. When they read the article they should not encounter any significant information that was not alluded to in the lead, IOW they should not be totally surprised. If they are then it should be mentioned in the lead.
Wikipedia articles should cover all notable aspects of a subject. When our readers have read an article and then talk to others about the subject, they should be able to always answer "Of course, I already read about that at Wikipedia." They should at least have a basic knowledge of all aspects of a subject, enough to discuss it and not be totally surprised by what someone else tells them. -- Fyslee/talk 23:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to create a good lead 

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

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

message: I killed this today:
: However, the etiology of MCS is of particular legal significance in the United States. If the symptoms are labeled "psychological", defendants in lawsuits may avoid liability by arguing that MCS is caused by a plaintiff's mental condition. Under the Daubert ruling in 1993, courts are charged with acting as gatekeeper for the scientific reliability of expert testimony.  Although physiological etiologies are championed by clinical ecologists who treat MCS, US courts have consistently rejected such testimony as inadmissible on the ground that the multiple-chemical sensitivity theory has not been validated by scientific testing.Gary D. Centola, "Court Decisions Since Daubert And Kumho Tire And Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome," 4-9 Mealey's Daubert Rep. 12 (September 2000)Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, second edition, 30 (2000); see surveys of federal case law in Summers v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Sys., 132 F.3d 599, 603 (10th Cir. 1997); Bradley v. Brown, 42 F.3d 434, 438–39 (7th Cir. 1994); Coffin v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 20 F. Supp. 2d 107, 109–11 (D. Me. 1998). 
on the grounds that it doesn't really seem to fit into the article.  WhatamIdoing 23:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: This is a "teach the controversy" article, not unlike what Intelligent Design advocates tried in Dover. There is no scientific controversy on this topic. The only people who maintain the existence of such a controversy are either ignorant of the facts or are quite simply lying. This is a bullshit diagnosis, and falls within the realm of "alternative medicine". Where "alternative" invariably means "not". --76.224.86.43 (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally agree, although I'm sympathetic to those who suffer from this psychogenic disorder. I can only assure you that the article used to be much worse—it used to host rebutted claims that the syndrome is actually caused by chemical exposure. Needs more work, I'll admit. Cool Hand Luke 21:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete this 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Recent edits