Multiple chemical sensitivity: study of 52 cases
in [MCS]
|
From: Ilena Rose on 28 Sep 2007 16:37 Note from Ilena Rosenthal: Unfortunately, the industry / ACSH / quackwatch / Barrett & Gots etc. have mislabeled MCS a "fad diagnosis" and minimized the severity and insulted the victims. http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm http://thetruthaboutmcs.blogspot.com/2007/08/multiple-chemical-sensitivity-study-of.html Sunday, August 19, 2007 Multiple chemical sensitivity: study of 52 cases.] Med Clin (Barc). 2007 Jun 16;129(3):96-9. [Multiple chemical sensitivity: study of 52 cases.] [Article in Spanish] Nogu� S, Fern�ndez-Sol� J, Rovira E, Montori E, Fern�ndez-Huerta JM, Munn� P. Unidades de Toxicolog�a y de Fatiga Cr�nica. Hospital Cl�nic. IDIBAPS. Universidad de Barcelona. Barcelona. Espa�a. SNOGUE(a)clinic.ub.es. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is characterized by a loss of tolerance to various environmental chemicals. The objective of this study was to describe patients with MCS seen in our hospital. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Patients consecutively seen by the Toxicology and Chronic Fatigue Units who presented symptoms of MCS were included. The diagnosis was clinical. All patients completed the Quick Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory (QEESI) questionnaire. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were included. The average age (standard deviation) was 47.2 (7.6) years, and 46 (88%) were females. The origin of the syndrome was related to occupational exposure to various chemical agents in 31 cases (59.6%), including occupational accidents in 14 patients (fumigation of the workplace with insecticides). In 20 patients (38.5%), the syndrome could not be associated with any toxic exposure and was considered a manifestation of chronic fatigue syndrome. The QEESI showed mean scores of 72.9 (18.6) on the chemical inhalant intolerance scale, 45.5 (20.6) on the other intolerances scale, 69.8 (20.6) on the symptom severity scale, 4.4 (1.8) on the masking index and 66.6 (21.7) on the life impact scale. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 12 months, and during this period they remained stable with no deaths. CONCLUSIONS: MCS normally affects middle-aged women. It is frequently triggered by exposure to chemical agents, especially insecticides. An association with chronic fatigue syndrome is common. The prognosis is good but the patients' quality of life is seriously affected. PMID: 17594860 [PubMed - in process] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17594860&itool=iconabstr&itool=pubmed_DocSum Posted by MCS America at 11:06 AM )
From: edgger on 8 Oct 2007 11:17 Peter Moran, Instead of spewing out your lies why don't you show us some evidence?
From: Peter Moran on 8 Oct 2007 18:12 "edgger" <edgger(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message news:1191856639.483335.88810(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > Peter Moran, > Instead of spewing out your lies why don't you show us some evidence? > Why accuse me of lying? What on earth could my motive be for saying things I don't believe about what can be such a potentially devastating condition? Why assume bad faith on my part, rather than that I could simply be mistaken, or presenting a biased slant on the evidence, or relying too much on my own anecdotal observations in relation to patients I have encountered with this condition? Do a Pubmed search on multiple chemical sensitivity and you will find studies confirming that blinded challenge of patients with the label of MCS usually shows that the avoided chemicals can be tolerated when the exposure is not signalled to the patient. You will also find studies confirming a very high rate of associated psychiatric disorder. Other studies show that patients can improve , but not usually while engaged in trying to avoid all chemical exposure as per the script the pseudo-diagnosis confers. There may be some patients with genuine sensitivities to a few different chemicals in tiny doses, just as there are patients with genuine allergies to a variety of chemicals. But full-blown MCS is something else. PM
From: edgger on 8 Oct 2007 20:43 On Oct 8, 2:12 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...(a)internode.on.net> wrote: > "edgger" <edg...(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message > > news:1191856639.483335.88810(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > Peter Moran, > > Instead of spewing out your lies why don't you show us some evidence? > > Why accuse me of lying? What on earth could my motive be for saying things > I don't believe about what can be such a potentially devastating condition? > Why assume bad faith on my part, rather than that I could simply be > mistaken, or presenting a biased slant on the evidence, or relying too much > on my own anecdotal observations in relation to patients I have encountered > with this condition? > > Do a Pubmed search on multiple chemical sensitivity and you will find > studies confirming that blinded challenge of patients with the label of MCS > usually shows that the avoided chemicals can be tolerated when the exposure > is not signalled to the patient. You will also find studies confirming a > very high rate of associated psychiatric disorder. Other studies show that > patients can improve > > , but not usually while engaged in trying to avoid all chemical exposure as > per the script the pseudo-diagnosis confers. There may be some patients > with genuine sensitivities to a few different chemicals in tiny doses, just > as there are patients with genuine allergies to a variety of chemicals. But > full-blown MCS is something else. > > PM Well, your statement that a diagnosis of MCS is "pseudoscience" didn't help my perception of you any and the fact that I know some people with this illness. It is possible that you might be mistaken and I apologize if that's the situation. Pubmed also has studies that conclude MCS is not psychosomatic.
From: Peter Moran on 9 Oct 2007 03:32
"edgger" <edgger(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message news:1191890580.719833.227670(a)d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 8, 2:12 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...(a)internode.on.net> wrote: >> "edgger" <edg...(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1191856639.483335.88810(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> > Peter Moran, >> > Instead of spewing out your lies why don't you show us some evidence? >> >> Why accuse me of lying? What on earth could my motive be for saying >> things >> I don't believe about what can be such a potentially devastating >> condition? >> Why assume bad faith on my part, rather than that I could simply be >> mistaken, or presenting a biased slant on the evidence, or relying too >> much >> on my own anecdotal observations in relation to patients I have >> encountered >> with this condition? >> >> Do a Pubmed search on multiple chemical sensitivity and you will find >> studies confirming that blinded challenge of patients with the label of >> MCS >> usually shows that the avoided chemicals can be tolerated when the >> exposure >> is not signalled to the patient. You will also find studies confirming >> a >> very high rate of associated psychiatric disorder. Other studies show >> that >> patients can improve >> >> , but not usually while engaged in trying to avoid all chemical exposure >> as >> per the script the pseudo-diagnosis confers. There may be some >> patients >> with genuine sensitivities to a few different chemicals in tiny doses, >> just >> as there are patients with genuine allergies to a variety of chemicals. >> But >> full-blown MCS is something else. >> >> PM > > Well, your statement that a diagnosis of MCS is "pseudoscience" didn't > help my perception of you any and the fact that I know some people > with this illness. I did not use that word. I said MCS is a pseudo-diagnosis.. It implies something about the patients which is usually not true. That would not matter if the very words did not contain the threat that they may end up a socially isolated chronic invalid, through the belief that they are being poisoned by tiny amounts of common chemicals. >It is possible that you might be mistaken and I > apologize if that's the situation. Pubmed also has studies that > conclude MCS is not psychosomatic. Some are not. Some have other illnesses that are actually the source of the dominant symptoms. Some have real sensitivities to one or two chemicals but are still able to lead normal lives without collapsing in a full-blown MCS heap. Even many bona fide alternative practitioners accept that psychological factors are critical. Peter Moran |