Follow us!

    Re: inappropriate

    Posted by Patrick on 2/28/03

    Hi Mary, I appreciate your response. I am glad you replied because
    there are some issues I'd like to comment on.

    >>> This person, who expresses all kinds of troubles, is roaming the
    internet looking for the RIGHT CHAT ROOM to solve their problems. Is
    this really a good plan?<<<

    Probably not. But try to understand that this person is greatly
    distressed as is looking for at least a little support. People with
    MCS hardly get to socialize and the net is often all they have.

    >>> Has this person derived any meaningful benefit from the
    reponses? What distinguishes the RIGHT chat room from the WRONG
    chat room? What would 'help' even look like? <<<

    The first two questions are not relevant to my point. My point is,
    as I said, that this person is suffering and will not benefit from
    being put down or insulted.

    As to the third question, help would be providing this person with
    relevant information, such as treatments, where to find a good
    doctor, etc.

    >>>Is sarcasm an invalid means of expressing an opinion? You
    certainly figured it out.<<<

    It is a valid means of expressing opinions. But, allow me to draw
    an analogy. Let's say a person is highly allergic to peanuts, and
    that peanuts are found practically everywhere, public places and
    even the sufferer's home. The person becomes home-bound, forced to
    be an out-cast and not socialize. Then the person finds a chat room,
    and vents out some of the frustration but is still clearly upset and
    perhaps even scared that things won't get better.

    Do you believe that in such a case sarcasm and insults would be an
    appropriate response?

    >>> Would it have been more 'objective'and helpful to say
    something like this:

    Your writing suggests to me that you may not be rational. I
    think seeking solutions at a website designed by lawyers to
    troll for plaintiffs is a bad idea and you should reconsider
    your approach. I suggest you consider that the vast majority of
    public health authorities doubt that MCS is real. While this
    fact may trouble you, and may upset those with contrary
    opinions, it remains a reality. And, dear writer, because of
    this reality, you are potentially dealing with those on the
    fringes, some of whom may be seeking to exploit you.<<<

    That would have been excellent, since you did not insult an innocent

    But moving on, I would like to reply to the comments within that

    >>> the vast majority of public health authorities doubt that MCS is

    That is partly true. Most major health organizations either doubt
    MCS' physical nature, or have no opinion. However, most of those
    authorities have not actually gone through the medical literature on
    the subject.

    The American Medical Association, American Lung Association,
    Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Consumer Product
    Safety Commission all stated that MCS should not be dismissed as
    psychogenic. In addition there are a great many well qualified
    doctors and scientists who accept MCS' physical nature, and do not
    belong to any Clinical Ecology organization.

    It is unscientific to accept the views of some medical authorities,
    while ignoring others.

    Most of the critical statements on MCS by medical organizations were
    made before 1993, or in 1993. This is significant because at that
    time there was not a lot of published researched on MCS. As I have
    said before: As of 1999, there had been 609 published peer-reviewed
    articles on MCS. Of these, 311 present data supporting a physical
    origin while 137 present findings (mostly opinionated) of
    psychological origin. This gap is continuing to grow. To argue that
    those 311 pro-MCS articles, which all show physical laboratory
    abnormalities in MCS patients and, again, exclude clinical ecologist
    Journal articles, were all tainted and biased is absolutely ludicrous.

    So to be more accurate, the vast majority of scientists and doctors
    who actually study MCS believe it has a physical cause/ or causes,
    whilst most of the skeptics have not gone through the published

    However, even IF the vast majority of such researchers doubted MCS'
    physical cause(s) (which they do not), such would not be = to a
    rebuttal to the studies that show MCS being a physical disease. For
    example, double blind studies show that CFS and MCS sufferers have
    an excess of 2,3-DPG enzymes "due to body's attempt to provide more
    O2 into tissues by unloading more from hemoglobin (which is what
    2,3-DPG does)" (Donnay's review). To try to counter that scientific
    argument by saying "most doctors say it's not real though", does not
    constitute a counter argument.

    My point is, you are making a cop out with that statement, seeing as
    how it does not provide a counter to the numerous scientific studies
    showing MCS is a physiologic. Am I wording this in an understandable
    way? I hope so.

    To further elaborate on this point, I'd like to say that I believe
    you are an intelligent person. I think you should view the
    literature for yourself, and come to your own conclusion.

    I believe that there are two groups of chemically sensitive
    sufferers. In one group, chemicals on a physical basis adversely
    effect the sufferers, whereas chemicals on a psychogenic basis
    (often due to traumas involving sexual abuse) adversely effect the
    other group. An analogy can be drawn from a recent study on food
    allergies. In the study, many people who reacted to chocolate and
    thought they were allergic only reacted to the food when they
    thought it was chocolate (placebo study). It is well known that food
    allergies exist, but it is now also known that many people have
    reactions to foods on a psychological basis. Thus, there are two
    groups of people adversely effected by certain foods, just as there
    are two groups of people harmed by chemicals.

    Although the etiology of chemical sensitivity conditions has not
    been fully researched, there is clear and abundant enough data to
    confirm the existence of chemical sensitivity on a physiological
    basis. However, I have been studying the theory put forth by Dr.
    Martin L. (Marty) Pall, Professor of Biochemistry and Basic Medical
    Sciences, Washington State University, which can be read at He
    proposes that a "vicious cycle" involving elevated levels of nitric
    oxide causes MCS, and there is overwhelming evidence supporting his
    theory. I encourage you to review the essay thoroughly.

    >>> Well, reading through it, I think you're right. The 'objective'
    approach is probably better than the sarcastic approach. Do you
    prefer this style?<<<

    Yes, I don't like insulting people because then the issue at hand is
    never resolved.

    Take care,

    ~ Pat

    Posts on this thread, including this one

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.

The Counsel.Net ChatBoardsm. All Rights Reserved.