Talk Cancer » Cancer Symptoms » MCS
MCS
Question:
Yet all over the newsgroups I’m seeing people who have suffered catastrophic exposures to chemicals of one kind or another. Worse yet, physicians have no idea how to treat such. Yet if a high-profile person died from chemical exposures… , I bet the scientists would be crawling all over the body finding various levels of chemicals…for the high-profile lawsuit, right? http://www.ehcd.com/index.html (apparently they diagnose, not so sure if they have any treatment but it requires big bucks, either way) J – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thank you Susan for another bit of discouraging information. It would be interesting to know if the judges for this case were elected or appointed. And, if appointed, by whom? Regardless of elected or appointed, where the campaign funds came from that resulted in them being on the Supreme Court bench? It seems that, in many cases these days, science is not as important as the money that puts the "right" people on the bench. If Bush gets an opportunity to do for the U.S what he has done for Texas, we should have some interesting times ahead. The Doonsberry carton has been very interesting lately! Rogene Readers interested in evidence aspects of this case may also like to read the following articles from Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2000. By MARGARET A. BERGER Suzanne J. and Norman Miles Professor of Law Brooklyn Law School in Brooklyn, New York: Expert Testimony: The Supreme Court’s Rules http://www.nap.edu/issues/16.4/berger.htm By DONALD KENNEDY Bing Professor of Environmental Studies and president emeritus of Stanford University and RICHARD A. MERRILL Daniel Caplin Professor of Law and the Sullivan and Cromwell Research Professor of Law at the University of Virginia Law School: Science and the Law http://www.nap.edu/issues/16.4/kennedy.htm By STEPHEN BREYER Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court: Science in the Courtroom (This article is adapted from the introduction to the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Second Edition (Federal Judicial Center, 2000). http://www.nap.edu/issues/16.4/breyer.htm Information above is taken directly from the articles named. I found the Berger article particularly interesting. Louise Kosta chief writer, The Human Ecologist Human Ecology Action League, Inc. Atlanta GA The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued a decision in an MCS case, Thersa Canavan vs. Brigham and Women’s Hospital on 8-17-00. The case sets a broad precedent in this state for the acceptance of scientific expert witness testimony for both MCS and other cases where concerns about "junk science" have been raised. The court ruled that the trial judge erred in admitting into evidence the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness to the effect that she suffered from a diagnosis of MCS and that any condition was caused by her work as an operating room nurse.
Response:
Just took the time to read this … right on Rogene … the JunkScience Propagandists score another victory. I find it disgusting. ** The court, while not precluding that some future case may not be able to ** prove the existence of MCS, and having done so, be able to prove that ** the entity is caused by chemical exposure, has placed a very high hurdle ** in the path of clinical ecologists who provide expert testimony in the ** courts of this state. So similar to the breast implant cases … they know the truth will eventually come out … but pay millions to have the it hidden as long as possible.
**Thank you Susan for another bit of discouraging information. ** **It would be interesting to know if the judges for this case were elected or **appointed. And, if appointed, by whom? Regardless of elected or appointed, **where the campaign funds came from that resulted in them being on the **Supreme Court bench? ** **It seems that, in many cases these days, science is not as important as the **money that puts the "right" people on the bench. ** **If Bush gets an opportunity to do for the U.S what he has done for Texas, we **should have some interesting times ahead. ** **The Doonsberry carton has been very interesting lately! ** **Rogene ** **
** Readers interested in evidence aspects of this case may also like to read ** the following articles from Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2000. ** ** By MARGARET A. BERGER ** Suzanne J. and Norman Miles Professor of Law ** Brooklyn Law School in Brooklyn, New York: ** ** Expert Testimony: The Supreme Court’s Rules ** http://www.nap.edu/issues/16.4/berger.htm ** ** ** By DONALD KENNEDY ** Bing Professor of Environmental Studies and president emeritus of Stanford ** University ** and RICHARD A. MERRILL ** Daniel Caplin Professor of Law and the Sullivan and Cromwell Research ** Professor of Law at the University of Virginia Law School: ** ** Science and the Law ** http://www.nap.edu/issues/16.4/kennedy.htm ** ** By STEPHEN BREYER ** Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court: ** ** Science in the Courtroom ** (This article is adapted from the introduction to the Reference Manual on ** Scientific Evidence, Second Edition (Federal Judicial Center, 2000). ** ** http://www.nap.edu/issues/16.4/breyer.htm ** ** ** Information above is taken directly from the articles named. I found the ** Berger article particularly interesting. ** ** Louise Kosta ** chief writer, The Human Ecologist ** Human Ecology Action League, Inc. ** Atlanta GA ** ** The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued a decision ** in an MCS case, Thersa Canavan vs. Brigham and Women’s Hospital on ** 8-17-00. The case sets a broad precedent in this state for the ** acceptance of scientific expert witness testimony for both MCS and other ** cases where concerns about "junk science" have been raised. The court ** ruled that the trial judge erred in admitting into evidence the ** testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness to the effect that she ** suffered from a diagnosis of MCS and that any condition was caused by ** her work as an operating room nurse. ** ** The Supreme Court concluded that an expert witness’s testimony based on ** his personal observations must rely on methods that are "generally ** supported by the relevant scientific community or otherwise reliable to ** support a scientific conclusion relevant to the case" and determined ** that the methodology of clinical ecology did not meet this test. The ** decision stated that the expert witness, one of the state’s most ** prominent clinical ecologists and a professor of pediatrics at the ** University of Massachusetts Medical School, "did not identify any ** specific studies that show the existence of MCS based on specific ** symptoms and did not identify tests that can be performed to prove that ** a patient suffers from MCS." Finding that the existence of MCS, and ** tests to diagnose such an entity, are not generally accepted in the ** medical community, the judges unanimously ruled that it was an abuse of ** discretion for the trial judge to have admitted the expert’s testimony ** regarding this diagnosis. ** ** The court noted that the exclusion of diagnosis testimony would be ** sufficient to dispose of the case, but chose to continue the opinion to ** address the issue of causation by the plaintiff’s work because of the ** "importance of the question." The plaintiff had contended that exposure ** to a number of chemicals including ethylene, diesel fuel and ** formaldehyde at the hospital was the cause of her condition. Applying a ** similar test to the expert’s testimony on causation as had been applied ** to diagnosis, the court concluded that the trial judge erred admitting ** the expert’s opinion absebt a reliable methodology to demonstrate ** causation. ** ** The expert witness testified that the tests he performed were "accepted ** by doctors familiar with environmental toxicity," i.e. by clinical ** ecologists. The court, in footnotes to its opinion, stated that ** criteria for reliability and admissibility should include "general ** acceptance, peer review, and testing." It further stated that, in ** assessing "general acceptance," the "relevent scientific community" may ** not be defined "so narrowly that the expert’s opinion will inevitably be ** considered generally accepted…the relevant scientific community must ** be defined broadly enough to include a sufficiently broad sample of ** scientists so that the possibility of disagreement exists." The court ** found no general acceptance of either the existence of MCS or of the ** tests the expert cited in support of his opinion that the condition was ** caused by chemical posure. Having ruled on both the issues of diagnosis ** and causation, the court found no need to make a ruling on whether the ** expert’s treatment of the nurse with intravenous vitamin C was ** reasonable and necessary. ** ** The court, while not precluding that some future case may not be able to ** prove the existence of MCS, and having done so, be able to prove that ** the entity is caused by chemical exposure, has placed a very high hurdle ** in the path of clinical ecologists who provide expert testimony in the ** courts of this state. It seems unlikely that they will be able to have ** testimony accepted in either tort or workers’ compensation cases in ** Massachusetts unless and until the mainstream medical community finds ** their testing methodolgy convincing and it is validated by publication ** of trials in peer reviewed scientific publications. ** ** The entire decision and opinion may be read or downloaded at: ** ** http://www.socialaw.com/sjcslip/8226.html ** ** James Ryan, MD, MPH, FACOEM ** Boston Medical Center
Response:
Readers interested in evidence aspects of this case may also like to read the following articles from Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2000. By MARGARET A. BERGER Suzanne J. and Norman Miles Professor of Law Brooklyn Law School in Brooklyn, New York: Expert Testimony: The Supreme Court’s Rules http://www.nap.edu/issues/16.4/berger.htm By DONALD KENNEDY Bing Professor of Environmental Studies and president emeritus of Stanford University and RICHARD A. MERRILL Daniel Caplin Professor of Law and the Sullivan and Cromwell Research Professor of Law at the University of Virginia Law School: Science and the Law http://www.nap.edu/issues/16.4/kennedy.htm By STEPHEN BREYER Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court: Science in the Courtroom (This article is adapted from the introduction to the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Second Edition (Federal Judicial Center, 2000). http://www.nap.edu/issues/16.4/breyer.htm Information above is taken directly from the articles named. I found the Berger article particularly interesting. Louise Kosta chief writer, The Human Ecologist Human Ecology Action League, Inc. Atlanta GA – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued a decision in an MCS case, Thersa Canavan vs. Brigham and Women’s Hospital on 8-17-00. The case sets a broad precedent in this state for the acceptance of scientific expert witness testimony for both MCS and other cases where concerns about "junk science" have been raised. The court ruled that the trial judge erred in admitting into evidence the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness to the effect that she suffered from a diagnosis of MCS and that any condition was caused by her work as an operating room nurse. The Supreme Court concluded that an expert witness’s testimony based on his personal observations must rely on methods that are "generally supported by the relevant scientific community or otherwise reliable to support a scientific conclusion relevant to the case" and determined that the methodology of clinical ecology did not meet this test. The decision stated that the expert witness, one of the state’s most prominent clinical ecologists and a professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, "did not identify any specific studies that show the existence of MCS based on specific symptoms and did not identify tests that can be performed to prove that a patient suffers from MCS." Finding that the existence of MCS, and tests to diagnose such an entity, are not generally accepted in the medical community, the judges unanimously ruled that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial judge to have admitted the expert’s testimony regarding this diagnosis. The court noted that the exclusion of diagnosis testimony would be sufficient to dispose of the case, but chose to continue the opinion to address the issue of causation by the plaintiff’s work because of the "importance of the question." The plaintiff had contended that exposure to a number of chemicals including ethylene, diesel fuel and formaldehyde at the hospital was the cause of her condition. Applying a similar test to the expert’s testimony on causation as had been applied to diagnosis, the court concluded that the trial judge erred admitting the expert’s opinion absebt a reliable methodology to demonstrate causation. The expert witness testified that the tests he performed were "accepted by doctors familiar with environmental toxicity," i.e. by clinical ecologists. The court, in footnotes to its opinion, stated that criteria for reliability and admissibility should include "general acceptance, peer review, and testing." It further stated that, in assessing "general acceptance," the "relevent scientific community" may not be defined "so narrowly that the expert’s opinion will inevitably be considered generally accepted…the relevant scientific community must be defined broadly enough to include a sufficiently broad sample of scientists so that the possibility of disagreement exists." The court found no general acceptance of either the existence of MCS or of the tests the expert cited in support of his opinion that the condition was caused by chemical posure. Having ruled on both the issues of diagnosis and causation, the court found no need to make a ruling on whether the expert’s treatment of the nurse with intravenous vitamin C was reasonable and necessary. The court, while not precluding that some future case may not be able to prove the existence of MCS, and having done so, be able to prove that the entity is caused by chemical exposure, has placed a very high hurdle in the path of clinical ecologists who provide expert testimony in the courts of this state. It seems unlikely that they will be able to have testimony accepted in either tort or workers’ compensation cases in Massachusetts unless and until the mainstream medical community finds their testing methodolgy convincing and it is validated by publication of trials in peer reviewed scientific publications. The entire decision and opinion may be read or downloaded at: http://www.socialaw.com/sjcslip/8226.html James Ryan, MD, MPH, FACOEM Boston Medical Center
Response:
Thank you Susan for another bit of discouraging information. It would be interesting to know if the judges for this case were elected or appointed. And, if appointed, by whom? Regardless of elected or appointed, where the campaign funds came from that resulted in them being on the Supreme Court bench? It seems that, in many cases these days, science is not as important as the money that puts the "right" people on the bench. If Bush gets an opportunity to do for the U.S what he has done for Texas, we should have some interesting times ahead. The Doonsberry carton has been very interesting lately! Rogene
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Readers interested in evidence aspects of this case may also like to read the following articles from Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2000. By MARGARET A. BERGER Suzanne J. and Norman Miles Professor of Law Brooklyn Law School in Brooklyn, New York: Expert Testimony: The Supreme Court’s Rules http://www.nap.edu/issues/16.4/berger.htm By DONALD KENNEDY Bing Professor of Environmental Studies and president emeritus of Stanford University and RICHARD A. MERRILL Daniel Caplin Professor of Law and the Sullivan and Cromwell Research Professor of Law at the University of Virginia Law School: Science and the Law http://www.nap.edu/issues/16.4/kennedy.htm By STEPHEN BREYER Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court: Science in the Courtroom (This article is adapted from the introduction to the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Second Edition (Federal Judicial Center, 2000). http://www.nap.edu/issues/16.4/breyer.htm Information above is taken directly from the articles named. I found the Berger article particularly interesting. Louise Kosta chief writer, The Human Ecologist Human Ecology Action League, Inc. Atlanta GA The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued a decision in an MCS case, Thersa Canavan vs. Brigham and Women’s Hospital on 8-17-00. The case sets a broad precedent in this state for the acceptance of scientific expert witness testimony for both MCS and other cases where concerns about "junk science" have been raised. The court ruled that the trial judge erred in admitting into evidence the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness to the effect that she suffered from a diagnosis of MCS and that any condition was caused by her work as an operating room nurse. The Supreme Court concluded that an expert witness’s testimony based on his personal observations must rely on methods that are "generally supported by the relevant scientific community or otherwise reliable to support a scientific conclusion relevant to the case" and determined that the methodology of clinical ecology did not meet this test. The decision stated that the expert witness, one of the state’s most prominent clinical ecologists and a professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, "did not identify any specific studies that show the existence of MCS based on specific symptoms and did not identify tests that can be performed to prove that a patient suffers from MCS." Finding that the existence of MCS, and tests to diagnose such an entity, are not generally accepted in the medical community, the judges unanimously ruled that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial judge to have admitted the expert’s testimony regarding this diagnosis. The court noted that the exclusion of diagnosis testimony would be sufficient to dispose of the case, but chose to continue the opinion to address the issue of causation by the plaintiff’s work because of the "importance of the question." The plaintiff had contended that exposure to a number of chemicals including ethylene, diesel fuel and formaldehyde at the hospital was the cause of her condition. Applying a similar test to the expert’s testimony on causation as had been applied to diagnosis, the court concluded that the trial judge erred admitting the expert’s opinion absebt a reliable methodology to demonstrate causation. The expert witness testified that the tests he performed were "accepted by doctors familiar with environmental toxicity," i.e. by clinical ecologists. The court, in footnotes to its opinion, stated that criteria for reliability and admissibility should include "general acceptance, peer review, and testing." It further stated that, in assessing "general acceptance," the "relevent scientific community" may not be defined "so narrowly that the expert’s opinion will inevitably be considered generally accepted…the relevant scientific community must be defined broadly enough to include a sufficiently broad sample of scientists so that the possibility of disagreement exists." The court found no general acceptance of either the existence of MCS or of the tests the expert cited in support of his opinion that the condition was caused by chemical posure. Having ruled on both the issues of diagnosis and causation, the court found no need to make a ruling on whether the expert’s treatment of the nurse with intravenous vitamin C was reasonable and necessary. The court, while not precluding that some future case may not be able to prove the existence of MCS, and having done so, be able to prove that the entity is caused by chemical exposure, has placed a very high hurdle in the path of clinical ecologists who provide expert testimony in the courts of this state. It seems unlikely that they will be able to have testimony accepted in either tort or workers’ compensation cases in Massachusetts unless and until the mainstream medical community finds their testing methodolgy convincing and it is validated by publication of trials in peer reviewed scientific publications. The entire decision and opinion may be read or downloaded at: http://www.socialaw.com/sjcslip/8226.html James Ryan, MD, MPH, FACOEM Boston Medical Center
Response:
They put toxic chemicals into our atmosphere, food, homes, and workplaces. People get sick!? Blame the victim! It’s a chemical world. Nature puts toxic chemicals into our atmosphere.
NATURE KEEPS ITSELF IN BALANCE…HUMANS INTERRUPT THAT SENSITIVE BALANCE The proper treatment for MCS is detoxification. Not denial of MCS. "Detoxification" for "MCS" sounds like a good way to separate fools from their money.
AVOIDANCE OF CHEMICALS DOESN’T COST A PENNY AND BY BUYING LESS YOU ACTUALLY SAVE MONEY AND YOUR HEALTH — Joseph Henry Environmental Studies 2001 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, DC 20007 Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
-Jean
Response:
Joseph, Studies mean nothing. When I am near someone who is wearing perfumes, I get physically ill. (not allergic, not sensitive, ILL). When I get away from the perfume, I feel better. That’s enough proof for me. Ever heard of porphyria..this is verifiable in blood tests and acute attacks (AIP) can be brought on by exposures to chemicals. I know, my grandfather paid with his life because of this at work, at age 40 (otherwise healthy non-smoking, non-drinking male with no known organ problems). Jean – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The following was provided courtesy of the American Council on Science and Health, Copyright 1991 American Council on Science and Health Special Report: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity By Thomas Orne, Ph.D. and Paul Benedetti . Contents Executive Summary What is Multiple Chemical Sensitivity? MCS Concepts The Scientific Viewpoint Clinical Ecology’s Approach Severe Criticism The Burden of Proof and Testability Prominent Voices in the "Debate" How Prevalent is MCS? The Politics of "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity" MCS in Court Conclusion References About the Authors Executive Summary In the United States and Canada, advocacy groups are fighting hard for recognition of "multiple chemical sensitivity" ("MCS") as a specific disease. These groups and the patients they represent are demanding that insurance companies cover the cost of expensive and unproven treatment by "clinical ecologists." They are also seeking payment through worker’s compensation and Social Security Disability programs and pressing for special workplace and housing conditions. "Clinical ecologists" who number about 400 in the United States and Canada are physicians who practice what they call "environmental medicine." They claim that MCS is a widespread condition caused by exposure to common foods, chemicals and other "stressors" that can sensitize people, causing them to react adversely to even tiny amounts of these substances. Many people who believe they have MCS suffer greatly. In extreme cases, afflicted individuals perceive almost everything around them as allergy-causing and potentially life-threatening. Many of these individuals change their lifestyle drastically and attempt to live in a pristine, controlled environment, virtual prisoners of their perceived sensitivity. Unfortunately, the "MCS" diagnosis and its associated treatments rarely lead to improved health status and may divert patients from appropriate medical treatment. Some individuals spend tens of thousands of dollars in fruitless attempts to attain relief. The prevailing rational and scientific viewpoint is that although some people are sensitive to small amounts of one or a few specific chemicals, there is no general hypersensitivity to chemicals. Scientifically oriented allergists, psychiatrists and occupational health clinicians suspect that the majority of "MCS" patients suffer from psychological disorders such as depression, anxiety reactions and somatization (bodily reactions to stress).1 Some people who currently have no symptoms are seeking damages based on the premise that mere exposure to extremely low levels of environmental chemicals, such as carpet fumes, airborne pollutants and pesticide residues in food, has damaged their immune system and jeopardized their future health. Claiming to have "chernical AIDS," they want compensation in advance for what they allege will be an inevitable decline into poor health. These claims are supported by a network of clinical ecologists and attorneys who assert that exposure to environmental toxins causes the immune system to over-load, leaving people susceptible to infection, cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases.2The economic implications for many industries and insurance programs are potentially catastrophic. Unless the problem is properly addressed, the millions of dollars now changing hands through claims and lawsuits will become billlions, wreaking havoc with many industries and insurance programs and ultimately raising costs to all consumers. The American Council on Science and Health believes that false claims related to "multiple chemical sensitivity" and its associated pseudoscientific practices constitute a serious problem in our society. Some observers, including a committee of the National Research Council, have expressed hope that research can resolve the controversies described in this report. However, since "MCS" has not been clearly defined and many of its hypotheses are untestable, it is unclear what further research can accomplish. What is Multiple Chemical Sensitivity? CLINICAL ecology, which is not a recognized medical specialty, relies on the concept that multiple symptoms are caused by hypersensitivity to minute amounts of common foods and chemicals. Clinical ecologists hypothesize that repeated small exposures (or a single high exposure) to environmental agents can sensitize people and cause their immune system to malfunction. They also claim that once "sensitized," afflicted individuals become intolerant to a wide range of, and possibly all, synthetic chemicals – a situation that clinical ecologists call "multiple chemical sensitivity." These ideas originated with Theron Randolph, M.D., who, in the 1940s, asserted that allergies to common foods and substances could cause depression, fatigue, confusion and irritability. He further speculated that humans were not successfully adapting to modern synthetic chemicals. Proponents state that the symptoms of MCS can include virtually anything, but the most commonly cited problems are: headaches, mental confusion, memory loss, weakness, fatigue, depression, irritability, mood swings, inability to concentrate or think clearly, periods of confusion, drowsiness, sneezing, itching and watery eyes, runny or stuffy nose, wheezing, itchy nose, throat and skin irritation, muscle and joint pain, rashes, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, frequent urination, vaginal burning and joint or limb swelling. The severity of symptoms is said to range from intermittent discomfort to total disability. The supposed causative agents include pollution, perfumes, pesticides, exhaust fumes, natural gas, household cleaners, foods, food additives and preservatives and synthetic products found in clothing, carpets, fabrics, building materials and many other items. Some patients practice avoidance techniques including strict diets and limited exposure to things such as cigarette smoke, scented shampoos, deodorants and colognes. Other names for MCS include: "20th-century disease," "total immune disorder syndrome," "environmental hypersensitivity," "total allergy syndrome," "environrnental illness" and "chemical AIDS." The patients involved are often difficult to treat and not well managed by mainstream physicians. Each issue of the journal Clinical Ecology, published by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, contains this definition in a statement titled "What Is Clinical Ecology?": Ecologic illness is a polysymptomatic, multi-system chronic disorder manifested by adverse reactions to environmental excitants as they are modified by individual susceptibility in terms of specific adaptations. The excitants are present in air, water, drugs, and our habitats. In 1985, the ad hoc Committee on Environmental Hypersensitivity Disorders of the Ontario Ministry of Health consulted proponents and reviewed proponent literature with the hope of defining "environmental hypersensitivity." Although skeptical of clinical ecology’s tenets, the committee developed this "working definition": Environmental hypersensitivity is a chronic (i.e., continuing for more than three months) multisystem disorder, usually involving symptoms of the central nervous system. Affected persons are frequently intolerant to some foods and they react adversely to some chemicals and to environmental agents, singly or in combination, at levels generally tolerated by the majority. Affected persons have varying degrees of morbidity, from mild discomfort to total disability. Upon physical examination the patient is normally free from any abnormal, objective findings. Although abnormalities of complement and lymphocytes have been reported, no single laboratory test, including serum IgE, is consistently altered. Improvement is associated with avoidance of suspected agents and symptoms recur with re-exposure.3 The leading practitioner of clinical ecology is William J. Rea, M.D., who states that he has treated more than 20,000 patients at his Environmental Health Center in Dallas, Texas. He and his colleagues have suggested the following definition: Chemical sensitivity is… an adverse reaction to ambient doses of toxic chemicals in our air, food, and water at levels which are generally accepted as subtoxic. Manifestation of adverse reactions depend on: (I) the tissue or organ involved, (2) the chemical and pharmacological nature of the toxin, (3) the individual susceptibility of the exposed person (genetic make-up, nutritional state, and total load at the time of exposure),
… read more »
Response:
They put toxic chemicals into our atmosphere, food, homes, and workplaces. People get sick!? Blame the victim! What’s new? Based on my experience, it’s my opinion that, once one gets a toxic overload, MCS develops. I experienced significant relief from MCS after getting my implants removed and detoxifying. Prior to getting implants, I had no allergies! Afterwards I gradually developed so many that they controlled my life. I did not make the connection to implants until long after I had the implants removed! MCS is a real issue. It must not be denied by those who don’t understand it. The proper treatment for MCS is detoxification. Not denial of MCS. Rogene – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Quackwatch Home Page ||| Index to Fad Diagnoses Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: A Spurious Diagnosis Stephen Barrett, M.D. The expression "multiple chemical sensitivity" ("MCS") is used to describe people with numerous troubling symptoms attributed to environmental factors. Many such people are seeking special accommodations, applying for disability benefits, and filing lawsuits claiming that exposure to common foods and chemicals has made them ill. Their efforts are supported by a small cadre of physicians who use questionable diagnostic and treatment methods. Critics charge that these approaches are bogus and that MCS is not a valid diagnosis.
snip . . ..