Re: hi Mary

More | Report Post

Thanks for the reply.

The problem is, you still do not understand what I'm saying.

Below is a brief, re-enactment of your logic in response to the data I
have presented.

"Dudley tested the brain electrical activity of 20 MCS patients before
and after they were exposed to chemicals. There was a profound
abnormality with the P300, a brain wave that is not influenced by
emotional factors. Those 20 patients were having a biological response
to chemicals"

Your reply: "Most doctors say its not real" -- Where is the actual
counter argument. Such would have to explain why Dudley's study is not
reliable.

"Most MCS patients show multiple enzyme deficiencies after chemical
exposure, a biological phenomenon"

Your reply: "Most doctors say its not real" -- Again, no counter is
made to the data.

"Several *doublte blind* studies confirmed a biomarker for the
diagnosis of MCS, CFS, and FM(S). Such are elevated DPGs"

Your reply: "Most doctors say it's not real"-- you know.

"MCS has been defined a number of times, whose definitions have been
used in studies that confirm MCS can exist on a biological basis"

Your reply: same as always.

Do you see the pattern here? You are not clinging to your views
because of data. You are fanatically clinging to your views despite
the data.

This is a reality you have yet to come to terms with.

That isone reason MCS sufferers often become paranoid. Because when
they see people who are faced with undeniable data, they still cling
to old ideas-- which is fanatical.

The same reaction was made to the "idea" of germs.

MCS/MCSS Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST