|
5.0étoiles sur 5
Well written and balanced presentation of data, Mars 30 2003
Recent published studies have brought forth new and essential information that should be included when the authors update the book again (Ashford told me that he and Miller *will* eventually add another edition).Ashford and Miller don't care what is politically incorrect. The book is extremely comprehensive, covering just about all of the literature pertaining to the adverse affects of certain chemicals. The authors have an appendix at the end listing sensitivities that have been observed in persons with other diseases as well. For example, one study showed that a significant number of patients with Schizophrenia (an organic disease with psychological manifestations) were sensitive to tobacco smoke. The results of many other fascinating studies are listed. The book's 2 editions both discuss definitions, mechanisms, and etiology, among other things, with newer information in the second edition-the authors deliberately chose to add another edition, as opposed to updating the original. They did this because all of the info from the first edition remained accurate and appropriate. The authors were "struck" by the consistency of the condition despite demographically diverse victims. This by itself is powerful evidence for organicity, but then the authors also discuss advances in ascertaining organic abnormalities (i.e., sluggish blood after eating certain foods[citing Rae], etc.). But again, recent information should be included in the next edition. When the authors wrote the book they felt that a single case definition of MCS may be premature, if not unscientific. They felt that perhaps MCS is part of a new, poorly understood class disease-- in other words, a whole new class of disease. This new class of disease, they argue, may have a multiplicity of etiologies-see below---and mechanisms (as far as what chemical process creates symptoms). They draw an analogy to infectious disease: Different germs cause different problems but the underlying mechanism is the same. We would never treat a fever and AIDS as one and the same, yet we know both are due to infections (or both are at least via immune system in etiology). The authors argue that MCS is probably biopsychosocial, meaning it can be caused by psychological stressors, organic stressors, or varying combinations of organic and psychological stressors. "Etiologies for these conditions can be wholly physical, wholly psychological, or varying combinations of the two", write Ashford and Miller (pgs. 221-222). Since MCS sufferers are frequently intolerant of various foods, drugs (medicines), alcohol, and caffeine, they feel that "MCS" is not the best term. They propose the term "Toxicant-Induced Loss of Tolerance" (TILT). TILT is said to be a 2-stage process: Initiation and triggering. According to authors' research, the bodies of MCS/TILT sufferers become, in essence, addicted to the substances they're intolerant of. Thus, not only do they experience symptoms from exposures to substances they're intolerant of/ sensitive to, but then also from withdrawal from such exposures. It is a truly remarkable aspect of the condition(s?). The authors thoroughly examine and criticize the writings of anti-MCS authors, including Gots (whose 96 work was labeled by the authors as "recycled opinion"). The authors severely criticize the notion that "the dose makes the poison", and make Gots look like an uninformed--or dishonest--fanatic. Ashford and Miller are the ideal for objective scientists. Their rigorous analyses of data in regards to chemical sensitivity are inspiring. They also expose the politics surrounding the MCS "debate", why [biological] recognition has been slow and unjustifiably challenged. This book is an excellent scientific resource for those who are seriously interested in obtaining [factual] knowledge about chemical sensitivity. If you are one such person and you choose to not own a copy of this book, you will be making a huge mistake.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
 
|
|
|
|
