Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Dr. Gott Gets It Wrong!

  1. #1
    Veteran Member mellowsong's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th September 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,570

    Default Dr. Gott Gets It Wrong!

    by Susie Collins
    Apr. 16, 2011

    Physician with syndicated column tells reader suffering from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity that MCS is “controversial” and that “there has not been much research done since the late 1990s.” Dr. Gott is wrong on both counts and more.

    Dr. Peter Gott is a nationally syndicated columnist with a large audience. According to the United Feature Syndicate Newspaper Enterprise Association, Gott, a general internist in practice in Connecticut since 1966, has 6,000 readers write to him each month. One such letter carried at The Monterey County Herald and probably 100s of other newspapers last week started like this:

    Dear Dr. Gott: Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is a crippling problem for those who suffer from it. I would like to educate people about the problem because most people think that I’m crazy or that “just getting fresh air” will resolve the problem. The effects of chemicals used in personal and laundry products act as neurotoxins on my system, resulting in neurological difficulties — diminished cognitive function, loss of equilibrium, fogging vision, etc. Local drugstores and laundry-detergent aisles are lethal vats of poison for MCS sufferers. I am a massage therapist and have asked clients to refrain from wearing fragrance, but I have found their use of fragrant laundry products more dangerous than cologne. In particular, dryer sheets are extremely poisonous and cannot be purged from the room just by airing it out. I urge people to investigate the toxicity of their laundry products.

    To which the doctor answers with outdated information, parroting the chemical and psychiatric industries that Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is “controversial” and that “there has not been much research done since the late 1990s.” Admitting that he was “unfamiliar with MCS” before receiving his reader’s letter, he states, “There are plenty of online sources for information, but most refer to information more than 10 years old.” What kind of research is that to discover the current literature on MCS? How does that help the person suffering from MCS who needs some support? (I wish she could find her way to The Canary Report!)

    Now dig this. A comment was left by someone using the moniker Brain Fan. I wonder if Brain Fan is a member of The Canary Report? Here’s what he/she had to say in response to Gott, quoting him along the way and destroying Gott’s position sentence by sentence (italics added for Gott’s quotations):

    “Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is a somewhat controversial topic.”

    This is the design of the chemical industry and its front groups. As long as it’s “controversial” — as long as they can get media to just use the word controversial — it will BE controversial. Remember: it took 75 years to ban asbestos. Was it safe until it was banned?

    “There are some who believe it is a true disease, while others argue that the immense variety of symptoms can often be explained by other, well-established disorders.”

    Those who believe it is a real disease have taken the time to consider it. Those who don’t either haven’t taken the time or they have a stake in its denial. Attributing it to “other, well-established disorders” is a form of obfuscation to perpetuate the denial. Considering its mechanism of action, it’s no surprise that there is an immense variety of symptoms. There are any number of diseases that affect multiple organ systems. Additionally, MCS is proposed to be a new disease paradigm as noted below, so this charge is simply outdated and irrelevant. We cannot hold one disease process hostage within the confines of our knowledge of other disease processes.

    “From what I was able to find, there has not been much research done since the late 1990s.”

    With respect, you really must not have taken the time. The most promising scientific research has taken place after the 90s. A working theory has been proposed by Dr. Martin Pall based on his research and the previous research of others. His work on this has a chapter in a recent toxicology text published by Wiley. An independent research team in Rome has found biological markers that confirm his theory. This work is also informed and confirmed by the study of animal models of MCS. There have also been six genetic predispositions found for MCS. His work can be found here: http://thetenthparadigm.org/. Also note that his original paper on this, published in 2002, was subtitled, “The End of Controversy.”

    “I did note that in a 1999 position statement by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, the condition received a new name — idiopathic environmental intolerance. This is just the newest in a long history of name changes, including multiple chemical sensitivity, chemical injury, chemical sensitivity, environmental illness, sick-building syndrome and more.”

    Just another deliberate obfuscatory ploy. The organizations responsible for the name “idiopathic environmental intolerance” were intentionally trying to remove the word “chemical” from the name while attempting to suggest that the causative factor is completely unknown. This is evasive semantics, not a logical proof against the physiological disease process. The disease is there whether we agree about what to call it or not. A rose is a rose by any other name.

    “Being unfamiliar with MCS before your letter and knowing only what I was able to learn from research, I am on the fence about this condition. The condition might be real, but not enough research has been done regarding symptoms, diagnosis and treatment.”

    Sadly, asthma, MS, allergies, ulcers, and many other physical ailments “might have been real” long before the medical establishment had an explanation for them and that establishment denied the reality of them before it did have an explanation. How awful it must have been for the sufferers of those conditions to have been treated with skepticism in the midst of their suffering. I do know how that feels.

    There is a campaign to prevent the funding of research. The paucity of treatment is also hardly a witness against the condition: what diagnosis and treatment is available for multiple sclerosis after all its years of recognition and study? That disease received the same skepticism as MCS at the beginning as it also did not fit with contemporary medical knowledge. For a thoroughly documented report of how the chemical industry is doing all it can to prevent the recognition and understanding of MCS, refer to this physician and fellow MCS sufferer: http://www.mindfully.org/.


    “There are plenty of online sources for information, but most refer to information more than 10 years old.”

    This is a common talking point. Perhaps you’d like to divulge your source for this?

    “I invite readers to send me personal experiences and any recent research that has been done.”

    If genuine, this is truly appreciated. The progression of knowledge about this issue is truly an example of the best of science at work. Even for the layperson, researching the biological detail will have you putting together information from so many varied sources of study and you’ll find that not only does MCS share portions of etiologies of many “well-established disorders,” you’ll find those other disorders have common ground with each other as well, like MS, Huntington’s, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, and more.

    Bravo!

    In Gott’s bio, the syndication association says Dr. Gott is “an old-fashioned family doctor with the outspoken fervor of a patients’ rights advocate.” Hmmmmm. Seems that precludes people with MCS. At the end of the column, Dr. Gott invites readers to send him personal experiences and any recent research that has been done on MCS. You can write to Dr. Gott c/o United Media, 200 Madison Ave., 4th fl., New York, N.Y. 10016.

    http://www.thecanaryreport.org/2011/...#comment-60099
    Last edited by Islander; 04-21-11 at 01:22 PM.

  2. #2
    oceanforkids
    Guest

    Default Re: Dr. Gott Gets It Wrong!

    Dr. Gott also writes for the JWR (Jewish World Review) and even thought I'm far from Jewish I always find good stuff there. Except his. He is absolutely drenched in allopathy. Phewww!

  3. #3
    Veteran Member Reesacat's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th September 2007
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    7,112

    Default Re: Dr. Gott Gets It Wrong!

    Go Brain Fan!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What is wrong with our food?
    By Reesacat in forum Nutrition in General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-13-11, 05:12 PM
  2. How to Make Oatmeal . . . Wrong
    By Islander in forum Nutrition in General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-02-11, 09:32 PM
  3. A Diagnosis Doesn't Mean You Know What's Wrong
    By mellowsong in forum Other Health Concerns
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-26-11, 11:05 PM
  4. You Walk Wrong
    By Islander in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-26-11, 08:27 AM
  5. Replies: 40
    Last Post: 01-26-11, 01:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<<<<<<<< Your Customized Value <<<<<<<<