Re: hi Mary
Posted by Pat on 3/28/03
>>> 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
Mary, although the post was not for me, I have indeed already
replied to your above comments. The fact that you are repeating
such comments is very interesting to me.
Gots wrote, "[MCS] has been rejected as an established organic
disease by the American Academy of Allergy and Immunology, the
American Medical Association, the California Medical Association,
the American College of Physicians...."
The American Academy of Allergy and Immunology?s Annals? editor in
chief is currently reviewing the data that the organization had
not reviewed when it published its anti-MCS position statement.
In 1995 the California Medical Association, after reviewing some
of the literature supporting MCS, stated that its previous (1985)
anti-MCS statement was a "historical document only", nothing more.
The American College of Physicians now has no position statement
on MCS. Neither they nor the California Medical association have
ever reviewed the vast majority of literature showing MCS as
The AMA, Gots cleverly fails to state, made a joint statement in
1994 with the ALA and other authorities condemning the labeling of
MCS as psychogenic.
SSA recognizes MCS a biological impairment.
I have said this before and I will say it again: The majority of
scientists who study MCS believe it is a biological condition, and
not psychogenic. That is a reality that you appear oblivious to.
The consistent association with the disturbingly elevated 2,
3-diphosphoglycerate -- which provide a biomarker sufficient
enough to serve as a diagnostic test for the conditions in
question --; ALA-D, PBG-D, UPG-D deficiencies, and abnormal
neurological electrical activity in sufferers -- none of which has
ever been explained by you, Gots, or any other MCS skeptic, since
psychogenic conditions are not capable of producing such profound
biological changes-- close the windows of debate to whether or not
they are psychogenic conditions.
Gots is fully aware of this as Ashford and Miller brought it to
public attention in 1998. In fact, Ashford ? UN Public Health
Advisor ? is upset with the Government?s slow action in regards to
the Gulf War Veterans. He went as far as to refer to this as a
"national disgrace" as he praised the way the Canadian Government
has been handling these issues. A repeat of the Government?s
original response to pollution is the last thing we need.
A complete, somewhat-comprehensive look into MCS is available at
http://www.ecolivingcenter.com/articles/mcs.html (The essay was
written by me and the information of such has been sent to many
medical authorities, including Barrett, who refused to respond to
it-- no suprise there). A search through the National Library of
Medicine will show a lot of literature discussing studies that
very strongly support a biological basis for [the real] MCS.
MCS skepticism is a thing of the past. Since the last decade, a
major shift in medical opinion has taken place. It's time to catch
up and stop playing games.
>>> 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?s ridiculous. Even an analysis of Clinical Ecology?s success
rate will disprove the above comment. It has been documented that
when MCS patients are given psychiatric medication, it usually
makes them sicker. That is consistent with the metabolic changes
reported in sufferers.
>>> Yes, from time to time I believe I probably do torment the
Psychogenic diseases are real diseases. Even if MCS were
psychogenic that would not justify ?torment[ing]? the sufferers.
Would you torment people who are terrified of water? You have a
prejudiced opinion about MCS and its sufferers that clouds you
from actually being objective, despite your claims to the contrary.
>>> So, that is what I think and how I am doing. I know that Pat
may be upset with me (or perhaps not), but I'm really trying
to be objective here. <<<
Just disappointed. You claim that you are trying to be objective,
yet your statements are not. Once again, MCS has consistent
biological changes reported in it. Every time I point out such
biological data you either avoid countering it, or you refer to
uninformed doctors who say MCS is psychogenic ? which, once again,
does not counter the biological data. It just makes a big circle
in the discussion that gets such nowhere.
If you are not going to counter the data, then how are you being
objective by continuing to post comments suggesting something
opposite to what the data say?
I hope you will take this review of your position seriously and go
over it again. But to make an uncritical, supportive statement, I
am impressed with the way you have changed your grammatical
Posts on this thread, including this one