The MCS Opponents
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.
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 are 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
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)
Return to MCS - The Poisoned Web
Exit Menu
| ||
|---|---|---|
| Option | Entry Location | Exit Action |
| 1 | From inside Satori-5 | Close this webpage |
| 2 | From outside Satori-5 | Visit Satori-5 Homepage |
| 3 | From outside Satori-5 | Use browser "Back" button to return |
| Goodbye | ||
