Multiple chemical sensitivity: study of 52 cases
Ilena Rose
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]
Nogué S, Fernández-Solá J, Rovira E, Montori E, Fernández-Huerta JM,
Munné P.
Unidades de Toxicología y de Fatiga Crónica. Hospital Clínic. IDIBAPS.
Universidad de Barcelona. Barcelona. España. SNO...@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
)
Peter Moran
"Ilena Rose" <B...@mundo.com> wrote in message
news:401ig3lsgpnt2ln4a...@4ax.com...
"-- they remained stable with no deaths." Shame! The reason the
pseudo-diagnosis of MCS doesn't help the sufferers is that it de-emphasises
the obvious role that psychological factors have in the induction of
symptoms in most of them. Many patients do improve when shown that their
intolerance of certain chemicals has psychological triggers. Otherwise
many face a downward spiral of self-reinforcing avoidance behaviour.
Peter Moran
edgger
Instead of spewing out your lies why don't you show us some evidence?
Peter Moran
"edgger" <edg...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1191856639....@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
edgger
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.
Peter Moran
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
rpautrey2
> On Oct 8, 2:12 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "edgger" <edg...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1191856639....@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?
>
> >
>
> 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
>
> - Show quoted text -
I had severe environmental sensitivities for many years. They were
induced with a surgical infection along with prescriptiion antibiotics
and steroids. I beat it when I cured my chronic sinusitis. PA
Medusa
> "-- they remained stable with no deaths." Shame! The reason the
> pseudo-diagnosis of MCS doesn't help the sufferers is that it de-emphasises
> the obvious role that psychological factors have in the induction of
> symptoms in most of them. Many patients do improve when shown that their
> intolerance of certain chemicals has psychological triggers. Otherwise
> many face a downward spiral of self-reinforcing avoidance behaviour.
I suppose second smoke exposure is psychological, too. Why don't you
get that poisons in small doses affect people who cannot process the
chemicals out of their bodies? This is *not* a psychological
condition. "Avoidance" is the only way I can cope with it. Oh, yeah,
avoidance has helped me recover a little bit.
Medusa
AA #2281