Re: test

More | Report Post

On 3/20/03, SaraH wrote:
> On 3/17/03, Pat wrote:
>> 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
>> symptoms".
>>
>> 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
>> "recycled opinion"
>>
>> 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
>> representatives.
>>
>> Reading Gots can make an MCS sufferer angry, but it won't do
>> much to contribute to scientific integrity.
>>
>> ~ Pat
>>
> Pat,
> You have the book down pat (no pun intended). You have
> obviously done a great deal of research on the subject. Thanks
> for your synopsis of the book!
>
> A couple of more illnesses that don't have one single test are
> headaches, PMS, Alzhemiers until the patient is dead and a
> biopsy of the brain can be done. Interesting that there's no
> test for a headache yet no one calls the person psychological
> when they complain of the pain. Doctor's even go on to
> differentiate between the types of headaches as cluster,
> miagraine, tension etc., without a single test to prove it.
>
> The last I heard Dr. Pall hadn't published his protocols. My
> treating Dr. happen to attend one of his lectures when he was
> in town. I also don't think that he has obtained necessary
> funding yet.:( If his theory proves right then there is hope
> for MCS suffers as the cycle can be broken!!!
>
> Good news is his protoccol doesn't cost big bucks!!! Sorry
> pharmaceticual companies.
>
> You might take a look at Integrated Defense System Overlaps as
> a disease Model With Examples for Multiple Chemical
> Sensitivities. It appears to me a nonmedical person that the
> cycle Pall talks about also overlap with this study. It makes
> perfect sense for the body to have set up a loop that it got
> stuck in. Don't alot of chronic pain suffers have the same
> thing occur even when the pain cause has been treated? I
> believe I saw something about chronic headaches and the same in
> the news recently.
>
> As for a test for MCS are you talking about the SPECT one?
> Otherwise as far a I know it is a combination of many tests. I
> would be extremely interested in any info you have on a test.
>
> Thanks for sharing info.
> SaraH

Hey Sarah! The test I was referring to was a blood test for DPG
levels. Go to
http://www.environmentalhealth.ca/fall99breakthru.html for more
information.

I think SPECT scans are also good but PET and FMRI scans are
probably better to have done (sidenote: FMRIs are safer than both
PET and SPECT).

You brought up great examples of health conditions for which there
is no single test. With those doctors have no problem. But when it
comes to MCS doctors are all, "oh no forget it, I'm not going
there". Sadly, they do this despite strong, consistent data.

Best regards,

~ Pat

MCS/MCSS Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST