In a previous post that I've referenced several times, I reported on an article by Dr. Ann
McCampbell entitled Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Under Siege.I spoke of non-profit organizations formed specifically for the purpose of combating
awareness and acceptance of MCS and listed some of the activities of one of
them. The efforts of the chemical industry to discredit MCS go far beyond that,
however, and today I'm going to revisit the issue and share some of the other
points the article made.
McCampbell notes that chemical
manufacturers are behind a concerted campaign to cast doubt on the existence of
MCS. She reports:
“To that end, they have launched a
multipronged attack on MCS that consists of labeling sufferers as ‘neurotic’
and ‘lazy,’ doctors who help them as ‘quacks,’ scientific studies which support
MCS as ‘flawed,’ calls for more research as ‘unnecessary,’ laboratory tests
that document physiologic damage in people with MCS as ‘unreliable,’ government
assistance programs helping those with MCS as ‘abused,’ and anyone sympathetic
to people with MCS as ‘cruel’ for reinforcing patients’ ‘beliefs’ that they are
sick.”
Taking a page from the playbook of
the tobacco industry, chemical manufacturers often use non-profit front groups
with neutral, pleasant sounding names, third party spokespeople and what is
labeled “science-for-hire studies” to try to make the point that their products
are safe and those who believe otherwise are deluded.
The article notes that “the industry
has enlisted the aid of vocal anti-MCS physicians who promote the myths that
people with MCS are ‘hypochondriacs,’ ‘hysterical,’ ‘neurotic,’ suffer from
some other psychiatric disorder, belong to a ‘cult,’ or just complain too
much.” These doctors work for the chemical industry as high-paid expert
witnesses, but since they don’t usually disclose their financial ties in their
writings or speaking engagements, people are generally unaware that the
opinions are not unbiased, but reflect the chemical industry’s agenda.
Interestingly, as I mentioned
previously, drug companies are also working to deny the existence of MCS.
McCampbell explains this by pointing out that many companies that make
medications also manufacture pesticides, which are widely implicated in causing
and worsening chemical illness. The article names eight large and well-known
companies that each have ties to both the pharmaceutical and pesticide
industries.
Opposition from the pharmaceutical
industry plays out in many ways. One is that researchers supportive of MCS find
it difficult to get their studies published in the medical literature. Because
medical journals rely on drug advertisements for funding, they are hesitant to
publish pro-MCS articles for fear of alienating their advertisers.
This dynamic affects other avenues
of information sharing as well. Funding for the American Medical Association
relies in large part on the sales of drug advertisements in its journals, and
drug companies are major donors to the American Academy
of Family Physicians. Doctors find it difficult to receive accurate information
about toxic illness and are unprepared to deal with patients suffering from the
condition. As a result, according to McCampbell, “their responses to MCS
patients have tended to range from dismissive to blatantly hostile.”
The pharmaceutical industry exerts
its influence however it can. Despite being a major source of funding for
medical research, they are not only failing to pursue research on chemical
sensitivities, but attempting to block research by others. The article notes
that industry lobbyists commonly call for more research on MCS while
simultaneously attempting to suppress it. They state that you can’t prove it
exists without more study, but that you can’t study it because it doesn’t
exist.
The chemical industry is also very
involved in suppressing the truth of environmental illness in the justice
system, through such avenues as filing briefs, supplying “expert” witnesses and
distributing anti-MCS literature to attorneys and witnesses. They’ve been
influential in convincing many judges not to allow toxic illness testimony in
court, despite the fact that there are over six hundred articles on MCS and
related conditions in the published literature, which, despite the chemical
industry’s efforts, support a physiological rather than a psychological basis
for MCS in a ratio of two to one.
The attacks come from every angle.
In the last decade, the chemical industry has attempted to remove “chemical”
from the name MCS and designate it as “idiopathic environmental intolerance”
(IEI) instead. There have also been escalating attempts to get medical
licensing boards to revoke the licenses of physicians who diagnose and treat
chemically sensitive patients.
This is a
very real fight with very real consequences. Please pray for the brave
physicians and researchers in the battle and for all who are affected by this
conflict. And don't believe everything you read.
2 comments:
And while you're praying for the physicians and researchers, put in a prayer for the lawyers (plaintiffs', of course). The field is called "Toxic Torts." Here's an interesting link to a Continuing Legal Education course (I don't know the state, I just Googled Toxic Torts, CLE):
http://www.ali-cle.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=courses.course&course_code=CM072
Good point. They're definitely on the front lines, too. Three cheers and plenty of prayers for the lawyers who fight the good fight.
Post a Comment