Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity

Picking apart studies

This was added:

However, the methodology of the blinded study depended on olfactory maskers, which may themselves have caused reactions in MCS patients, in effect making “clean air” chemically contaminated. In addition, it is unclear how long patients were given to recover from any given chemical challenge before being given a new challenge. Patients may have been still reacting to a past chemical when exposed to a new one, or to “clean air.” Research has shown that chemically sensitive individuals take longer than controls to regain their baseline state after exposure to chemicals. The researchers concluded that the adaptation time after chemical exposure needs to be considered in future research.

and I thought that I'd explain the problems. The main problem is that encyclopedia articles don't pick apart studies. We normally say what happened, and skip the whole "he said, she said" debate between the various factions.

Additionally, I thought the following points might interest you, if you have an interest in the subject:

• The "clean air" did not contain any olfactory masking agent. That's what makes it "clean air" rather than "masking agent control".
• In at least most of these studies, the patient chose the olfactory masker on the basis that previous experience proved to the patient's satisfaction that it would not produce symptoms in that patient.
• If it's "unclear" much time passed between prompts, the time-honored response from scientists is to demand a fuller account of the research from the authors of the paper, not to assume that obviously it wasn't enough because you didn't get the results you expected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

SPECT and psychometric scale changes after a chemical challenge suggest neurogenic origin of MCS - PMID 19801154

Orriols R, Costa R, Cuberas G, Jacas C, Castell J, Sunyer J.

Brain dysfunction in multiple chemical sensitivity.

J Neurol Sci. 2009 Dec 15;287(1-2):72-8. Epub 2009 Oct 3.

Abstract

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) is a chronic acquired disorder of unknown pathogenesis. The aim of this study was to ascertain whether MCS patients present brain single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and psychometric scale changes after a chemical challenge. This procedure was performed with chemical products at non-toxic concentrations in 8 patients diagnosed with MCS and in their healthy controls. In comparison to controls, cases presented basal brain SPECT hypoperfusion in small cortical areas of the right parietal and both temporal and fronto-orbital lobes. After chemical challenge, cases showed hypoperfusion in the olfactory, right and left hippocampus, right parahippocampus, right amygdala, right thalamus, right and left Rolandic and right temporal cortex regions(p<or=0.01). By contrast, controls showed hyperperfusion in the cingulus, right parahippocampus, left thalamus and some cortex regions (p<or=0.01). The clustered deactivation pattern in cases was stronger than in controls (p=0.012) and the clustered activation pattern in controls was higher than in cases (p=0.012). In comparison to controls, cases presented poorer quality of life and neurocognitive function at baseline, and neurocognitive worsening after chemical exposure. Chemical exposure caused neurocognitive impairment, and SPECT brain dysfunction particularly in odor-processing areas, thereby suggesting a neurogenic origin of MCS.

PMID 19801154 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Alleged

Every now and again, we get someone who wants to change the article to say something like "MCS is the alleged condition..."

The thing is, it's not true. MCS is a real chronic medical condition. What's "alleged" is that "chemicals" have anything to do with the condition. The fact that these people don't feel well for months at a time (=the definition of a chronic medical condition) is widely acknowledged by all sides.

So I wonder whether it might help to say something directly about that fact, like "Experts on all sides of the debate agree that people with MCS experience genuine suffering. What is disputed is the cause of that suffering." What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not agreed that MCS is a valid illness diagnosis. Have a look at the electromagnetic hypersensitivity article - it starts with "Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) is a set of claims of adverse medical symptoms purportedly caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields". We should maybe use similar language here. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the wording should make it clear that some medical experts do not agree that the condition exists. Instead, they believe that the patients with these symptoms should always receive other diagnoses. Also, I think that we should try to avoid the words "alleged" and "claims" per WP:WORDS. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Perfume allergy

I somehow completely missed this, but last week a bit of content was added arguing that perfume allergy is a “more widely accepted” “alternative explanation” for MCS, sourced with this: PubMed. I haven't read the whole article yet (I will, but not tonight) but the abstract doesn't indicate that there's any discussion of MCS in this study. It's also a primary source, so I will remove this (at least for now). --Six words (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)