The Challenge of MCS Validation

Comment by Dr. Robert Simon with Response from Don Paladin

[ More Info on MCS ]

[ Back to Article ] * [ Note from Author ]

The problem is in the diagnosis. It is well accepted in medicine that chemical hypersensitivity exists. The Gulf War papers have brought this diagnosis to the forefront. While some federal agencies have recognized MCS it is important to diagnose the disease, not prove the existence of MCS in a patient. I prefer evaluation of medical data like immune panels, cholinesterase, urine organophosphates, brain scans, as part of a differential diagnosis. If you want to prove that you have MCS the defense will focus on psychological and psychiatric depression and other problems to move the focus from differential diagnosis. If you take the approach of evaluation for organic disease, confounding variables, autoimmune evaluations, then the diagnosis can lead to a sound conclusion without the baggage of the MCS term. Those who claim MCS will think I am negative about MCS but the opposite is true. However the disease state must be proven before you put a name on it. R. K. Simon

RESPONSE FROM AUTHOR:

Yes, there is often an admission that people with chemical sensitivity have a REAL "problem" in the scientific literature. If they come from an anti-MCS perspective, they often suggest that those with MCS need psychological treatment. There is not "universal" acceptance of a disorder that is triggered by environamental simuli. I would prefer to call MCS an "environmentally induced disorder" rather than a disease. I believe we are responding to a collective set of environmental stimuli. Those of us with MCS know when particular stimuli trigger our responses. For example, when my neighbor or the Public Works spray Roundup, I usually have a consistent response pattern. I usually become angry and irritable (fight response mechanism) and then within about ten minutes, I want to get away and withdraw because I am experiencing brain fog, pain, fatigue and other symptoms (flight). The pattern is consistent for me. I recognize a cause and an effect.

When I wrote my article I believed that the key to recognition of a problem was "cross documentation" of abnormal objective laboratory measures so that we could move on with remediation of the problem. I believe the more objective evidence we have, the more powerful our argument becomes. If we had funds to look at hundreds of objective measures to find a way to document an environmentally induced disorder, then we should try to use them. Without VALIDATION and RECOGNITION of the problem, we cannot move onto research to find a solution that leads to remediation.

Just because a group of researchers, scientists, and medical professionals do not understand the mechanism of MCS is no reason to try to avoid describing the condition or using the label. For the millions of us that have it, it is REAL. The term MCS is NOT baggage anymore than any term that is used to prejudge a class of people and not understand the complexity of their uniqueness. Because someone is ignorant about the mechansims of MCS is no reason to feel that we should not acknowledge a real problem and resolve that problem.

Permission granted to forward.

Take care,

Don Paladin

TOP