Re: Dr. Gotts
Posted by Pat on 3/17/03
Gots has a remarkable talent in writing. He can words things
in a way to suggest something in which the opposite is true,
and do so without it "technically" being a lie. But in other
cases, he simply lies as seen later on.
The theme of the book is as follows: Since MCS is not an
immunologic disease, then it does not exist. Donald Dudley,
MD, wrote, "Multiple chemical sensitivity has none of the
characteristics of an immunologic disease, and as long as
immunologic criteria are required as proof of its [MCS?s]
existence, it will be seen as a non-disease".
Gots likes to focus on the fact that the *cause* of MCS has
not yet been proven and that the mechanisms are unknown
(though this may change due to Pall's research). That is not a
rational approach. MS (Multiple Sclerosis) has no known
"uniform cause", nor even a diagnostic laboratory test (I
believe MCS now does however), yet those would not be excuses
to deny its harsh biological reality.
Ashford and Miller talk about Gots' earlier work in 95 and 96.
Gots wrote, "[e]verything that is known about MCS to date
strongly suggests behavioral and psychogenic explanations for
Ashford and Miller said the above statement was
"unjustifiable", and that, "Even if he [Gots] were correct
about the absence of physiological evidence (and he is not),
the presence of psychological problems in patients is not
proof of psychological causation. The work of Fiedler et al.
(1992), and that of Simon et al. (1990, 1993) amply
demonstrate that there are MCS patients with no premorbid or
subsequent psychological problems", write Ashford and Miller
(pg. 280). They go on to describe Gots' work of 95 and 96 as
Why does Gots manipulate data? As you know, Gots in the head
of ESRI (Environmental Sensitivities Research Institute).
ESRI's contributors and board members consist of pesticide
manufacturers; representatives from The Cosmetic, Toiletry,
and Fragrance Association; and other industry dominated
Reading Gots can make an MCS sufferer angry, but it won't do
much to contribute to scientific integrity.
Posts on this thread, including this one