The MCS Opponents

http://wsmcsn.s5.com/opponents.htm
by Don Richard Paladin

I was the middle child of a large family. This is a unique position in
family dynamics. I have always been able to see both sides of the
issue. In fourth grade American History, I learned from my teacher of
political fence straddlers who were called "mugwumps" because their
faces were on one side of the fence and their rumps on the other side.
I am a proud centrist, Mugwump. I have also learned to value all sides
of an issue and to listen. It is a useful tool, being able to listen
to and understand others. Often we want to polarize issues and
demonize our opponents. I may not agree with the opponents of MCS;
but, I do not believe they are demons.

Many of the opponents of MCS are motivated by their own level of
understanding and their own personal agendas. As a teacher I learned
that we all bring to our ability to understand what we have already
experienced and what we have already learned. We often filter
information that we relate to based upon both our experience and that
with which we identify. The idea that even a centrist "mugwump" with
chemical intolerance can be any more objective about the issues of
chemical injury will be hard to believe. I do have a bias because I
speak to my experience and understanding of my experience. I am
strongly motivated by a desire to find safe alternatives to toxic
chemicals that make me ill. I want others to understand my illness.
There are others who are opponents of MCS who have a different set of
experiences and motivations.

Those who are opponents of MCS can be characterized in two classes
some of whom are in both: 1) those who really don't understand the
mechanism of the disorder and genuinely feel that it is a
psychological problem and 2) those who might feel there is a problem
with chemically induced disorders and are afraid of the economic
liabilities associated with recognition of the Toxic Induced
Disorders. For the most part, most opponents fall into the category of
the unaware. Unfortunately, there is also a very strong economic
incentive overlay in maintaining opposition to recognition of MCS. I
really do not know which category the network of pro industry,
opponents of MCS experts are. It is much easier to focus upon and
support a system of belief about anything if it benefits you to do so.
Still, there are many in the medical and scientific community who have
not accepted MCS as a valid medical disorder because it has no
conventionally accepted, definitive diagnostic marker. That is a
legitimate concern. However, those who are truly objective do not
lobby against recognition. They do not attempt to prevent research by
using a ruse of a "psychological" diagnosis to diminish and discount
the individuals with a not well understood disorder.

One also must look at the associations formed by any opponents or
proponents of any group. If money is a factor, as it is often in
research, one must follow the money trail. When evaluating any
research one must determine if the supposed experts are coming from a
position which would benefit or be harmed from the hypothesis being
supported by the research. One must ask on which side of an issue is
the researcher. If someone is passing themselves off as an expert on
any issue, one must determine whether they would benefit from
maintaining their expert position if truth on the issue contradicted
their belief system and view.

I have no real first hand knowledge about the players in the arena of
MCS opponents except for that which I have read. I have added links to
this page in order that the details of the stories of the opponents of
MCS must be followed. I can only suggest a list of questions we all
must have answered about the opponents of MCS recognition. There are
no implications in these questions that those named are guilty of
anything except acting upon their own belief systems. We all believe
we are right. Learning is about recognizing and learning from our
errors. There are no doubt a number of errors on our website. The
objective of pursuit of truth is to resolve our problems.



Here are some questions that only those who are closely involved in
the issues can answer. We do not know the answers and are not begging
the question.

1. Why did Ronald Gots create Environmental Sensitivity Research
Institute?

2. Did he and other proindustry groups like ACSH create their groups
to create scientific misinformation (aka cigarette science) and PR for
their economic supporters?

3. What is the financial and interactive association, if any, among
Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch, Elizabeth Wheland of ACSH, and Cindy
Richard and/or Ronald Gots of ESRI?

4. Why were groups like Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch actively lobbying
against recognition of MCS?

5. Did Frank Mitchell, a board member of ESRI and former employee of
ATSDR, create a very pro industry document as a consultant for ATSDR
when writing the Interagency MCS Draft Report?

6. Has Ronald Gots created a network of pro-industry, anti-MCS experts
to prevent recognition of MCS and to protect the economic interests of
his business industry backers?

7. If one checked the oppositional research on MCS, would there be a
money trail that led to an association of a network of expert
witnesses against MCS?

Reference Links [The opinions and information of links below are those
of the writers and not necessarily ours.]

1. Cover: Best Science Money Can Buy at
http://web.cln.com/archives/charlotte/newsstand/c031498/cover11.htm
2. Corporate Manipulation of Scientific Evidence Linking Chemical
Exposures at http://consumerlawpage.com/article/chemical.shtml 
3. "It's All In Your Head" at
http://www.speakeasy.org/wfp/08/Boeing6.html
4. "A New Mechanism of Disease?" at
http://www.monitor.net/rachel/r585.html
5. Cigarette Science [Multiple Chemical Sensitivity] at
http://www.monitor.net/rachel/r464.html
6. "The Junkyard Dogs of Science"
athttp://www.prwatch.org/98-Q4/dogs.html
7. "Strange bedfellows: Journalists as corporate shills," by Mark
Shapiro, at http://www.salon.com/media/media961022.html 8. Prime-time
propagandist: Is ABC's John Stossel a reporter or a right-wing
apparatchik? by David Mastio at
http://www.salon.com/media/feature/2000/02/25/stossel/index.html

9. MCS R & R Press Release, ABC’s John Stossel Denounced For Sending
Phony Patients to Discredit Diagnosis of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
group charges Stossel with pursuing chemical industry agenda, 26 Sept
96, at http://www.mcsrr.org/pressreleases/prabc96.html 

10. Mulitple Chemical Sensitivity Under Siege by Ann McCampbell, M.D.
at http://www.getipm.com/personal/mcs-campbell.htm (A must READ!)



The MCS Adversaries

1. QuackWatch Home Page at
http://www.familyinternet.com/quackwatch/index.html
2. Pesticide Related News Briefs
athttp://www.pestlaw.com/news/index.htm
3. Environmental Sensitivities Research Institute Home Page at
http://www.esri.org/
4. Michael Fumento on pesitcides at http://fumento.com/supest.html

MCS Adversaries' articles on MCS

1. The American Council on Science and Health, Inc. (ACSH)
athttp://www.acsh.org/about/index.html
2. Multiple Chemical Sensitivity ACSH at
http://www.acsh.org/publications/booklets/mcs.html
3. MCS: Mis-Concern Serious by Dr. Stephen Barrett of QuackWatch
(ACSH) at http://www.acsh.org/publications/priorities/1101/mcs.html

4. 1990 Chemical Manufacturer Association's Enviornmental Illness
Briefing Paper  at
http://users.lanminds.com/~wilworks/books/cmaeibri.htm (Shades of the
master plan - The Coalition)

5. MCS, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1994, "The chemically sensitive controverrsy,"
Issues of Injury, Medical Consultants Network, at
http://www.mcn.com/ioi/1994/mcs.htm (An objective presentation ...
worth the read)