Anonymous
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Search
Editing
Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity
(section)
From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
Namespaces
Page
Discussion
More
More
Page actions
Read
Edit source
New topic
History
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===Re: Questionable comparison that could be interpreted as bias -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:47, February 12, 2020 (EST)=== : I hear you, and they are good points. But I used the comparison (and think it's important) because Barrett, Gots and Quackwatch have been documented to receive corporate funding. : As well, I don't think "controversy" as the heading for the section originally labelled "politics" is accurate. Β :In my view, the idea that there is a controversy has been manufactured, and I don't want to give it any more oxygen by using a heading that reinforces the idea that there is a heated academic debate going on about MCS being real or not when there isn't. :In the case of MCS, the views of SBM and Quackwatch are fringe. I also don't consider them genuine skeptics. I know the president of the national association of skeptics, and he thinks SBM is very little to do with skeptic philosophy and a lot to do with pursuing an already-decided agenda. So it's an ideology, not a method for critical thinking. :No academic review on MCS studies that I've seen has concluded the condition is fake or bogus. Certainly this isn't the conclusion of at least the past five large-scale reviews.Β :I called this section politics, to show that there are powerful interests involved, which have influenced the debate and are continuing to influence it (just as we have seen with tobacco, DDT, asbestos and now climate change).Β :The most recent large-scale academic review of MCS studies in 2019 (the Italian consensus) even said that the few studies claiming a psychological cause all had clear conflicts of interest and could not be considered reliable on that basis alone (in addition to the methological criticisms levelled at those studies).[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:47, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020 ::Thanks for sharing some of the backstory here. What you describe is perfectly familiar to the ME community. We also have powerful interests who prominently claim that ME is a fake disease, receive funding from insurance companies to give speeches to doctor conventions "informing" them that ME is a fake disease, are paid by the insurance companies to testify at disability pension hearings to deny disability payments to ME patients, who then have no choice but to commit suicide. ::These powerful interests have even gone so far as to set up their own academic journals to publish their "peer-reviewed" work, and have set up their own media organization to plant stories in various newspapers claiming that bedridden ME patients are plotting to assassinate innocent scientists. (not a joke) ::Yes, it's immensely frustrating that, in these days, anyone can manufacture a controversy simply by stating that a controversy exists. If we were a public relations organization, we would gladly ignore all manufactured controversies. But we're an encyclopedia, and we have a duty to objectively report on all controversy, regardless of the controversy's merit (or lack thereof). ::MEpedia's editorial guidelines (see [[MEpedia:POV]]) state that section headings describing controversies can be titled "Controversy" or "Criticism". I chose the word "Controversy" because "Criticism" implies legitimate criticism, but the word "Controversy" does not. ::And I don't think you have to worry about readers equating skepticism with critical thinking. The common use of the word "skeptic" is just someone who doubts something. (like a "climate skeptic" who doubts climate change) But if you fear readers may use a more nuanced definition of "skeptic", you can just refer to them as "critics" or "bloggers" instead of as "skeptics". ::Hope this helps. [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:28, February 13, 2020 (EST) ::[[User:pyrrhus|pyrrhus]] OK. I understand. Thanks. And, yes, you're probably right that most people don't know much about the divisions in skeptic movements.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020
Summary:
Please make sure your edits are consistent with
MEpedia's guidelines
.
By saving changes, you agree to the
Terms of use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 3.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
This page is a member of a hidden category:
Category:Pages with reference errors
Navigation
Navigation
Skip to content
Main page
Browse
Become an editor
Random page
Popular pages
Abbreviations
Glossary
About MEpedia
Links for editors
Contents
Guidelines
Recent changes
Pages in need
Search
Help
Wiki tools
Wiki tools
Special pages
Page tools
Page tools
User page tools
More
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Page logs