i have no problem if this is rephrased or moved out of the lead but barrett and this blistering staudenmeyer review are not being cited for their research authority they're being cited as examples of argument that's why the only citation to barrett a controversial source is following a sentence that begins critics of clinical ecology charge that such arguments are important because they've won over a majority of doctors and courts even if they are demagogic i think its important to concisely introduce perhaps the primary controversy about the subject whether or not mcs is an organic and physiological disease incidentally a free amino acid is claimed to cause mcs luke