User talk:Bananaplum

Welcome
Greetings... Hello, Bananaplum, and  welcome to Wikipedia! 
 * To get started, click on the green welcome.
 * I hope you like it here and decide to stay!
 * Happy editing! Six words (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Addition to Multiple chemical sensitivity
I'm sorry I had to revert your addition, but it's not Wikipedia's job to collect and combine primary sources. Wikipedia summarises what reliable secondary sources have to say about a topic. --Six words (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

All of the statements are specifically stated within the sources. For example Veronesi2001 states diseases involving chemicals have damage to the barrier that lines the airways. I did provide sources that just provided more definition of the picture - I could delete those. But my statements are advanced and specifically stated by the most credible researchers. This is very strange - because I observe many false statements within the MCS article that are not consistent with the sources sited or come without a reliable source. My sources are the most advanced and credible in the world. as I just mentioned would it help if I delete those that aren't direct verification of the statements? MCS is a disease of interrelationships. The statements I made are those of the researchers I cited - not my original research. It is more advanced than a 6th grade language. Deluca2010 for example is cited by another but was not edited off - the person who referred to it made a relatively simplistic statement from it. I studied this material more closely and thus have brought out their more complex analysis that you may mistake as my synthesizing. Deluca et al actually made those statements. Bessac2008 states the multiple chemical sensitivity of TRPA1 just a more precise advance beyond the work of Meggs that you retained just above on the page. To say again I can see that it makes sense that I should remove collected material that appears to be a synthesis and retain those that specifically verify that I'm not being original. Would that help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananaplum (talk • contribs)
 * First off: statements that are not consistent with the sources they cite can and should be fixed or challenged - you can either do this on the article talk page or by adding the Verify source template. Unsourced statements that you think are wrong can be challenged, too (talk page, or add the Citation needed template). I'm not sure what you want to say about Deluca et al. - it's not used in the article as far as I can see. Do you mean that another scientific source used it as a citation for a simplistic statement? That doesn't necessarily make it a good source for Wikipedia articles. This guideline tells you how to choose good sources for Wikipedia.
 * As to your specific proposal: there are a few problems here, and the multitude of sources is just one (using ~70 sources is neither necessary nor appropriate). The article already uses too many primary sources, there's no excuse to add more. What you can (and should) do is to first go through your sources and find those that are secondary sources (reviews and meta-analyses) - with the amount of sources you found there are bound to be a few secondary ones, but I neither have the time nor the inclination to do that for you. Once you've identified the secondary sources you summarise them. Make sure you use language a layperson can understand. To avoid being reverted, you should probably also suggest the change you want to make on the talk page first and wait for approval/suggestions, but this is not mandatory. If your change is reverted, however, you mustn't simply re-add it but have to discuss your proposal on the talk page and gain consensus for inclusion. --Six words (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess you've noticed MCS is a mess. There are no credible broad reviews or meta-analysis. And yet in contrast the research community is overflowing with determinations that conclusively define it. In the Wiki article I'd have to challenge a high percentage. There is enormous fiction here. Deluca makes the statement I reported: that inflammatory cytokines and nitric oxide production mediate dysfunction of detox enzyme chemical defense systems - this is true of what he said and verified by the other sources provided with it. In contrast you've got statements cited with Mckeown-Eyssen and Schnakenberg that are nonsense - those studies warned that no conclusion should be drawn from them - one wasn't even an MCS group and the other had a small statistical result - and also their results were in mutual contradiction!! Berg and Deluca - both with large diagnosed MCS groups found no difference between MCS and controls concerning detox enzyme genetics further confirming the invalidity of the earlier studies in application to MCS and Berg and Deluca specifically referred to them. It all may have started when someone tried to use the studies to make a name for him/her self - (I'm not impugning anyone) - but the statements are blatantly false. They are not only synthesizing - they are falsifying. At this point those who posted it secondhand may just have such poor research judgement that they basically never read the sources. Its just a total mess. How can I possibly resolve this with contributors who obviously have little research experience and don't know the subject? Concerning reviews and MCS - the Australian gov't sponsored a review (2010) It was very inclusive of material where the words MCS were used - but included nothing else - so the review was lost. The politics of MCS are that the most valuable researchers speak in code - saying everything but those three words MCS. Therefore it goes around in a circle of shut out info - such as Bessac2008 review of the body of science now on TRPA1 - he did squeek out and say "the multiple chemical sensitivity" of TRPA1. In 2011 they determined you can't get a headache if you block TRPA1. But if you read the MCS reviews - the Aussie gov't said to the effect we don't see how it connects up. So MCS is a problem - nobody is letting the facts be applied. I guess I'll have to give up.Seriously - and I know its difficult - what can you do? - but there is a free for all of unqualified bogus remarks in the MCS article and I can't report the best science on the subject. Its frustrating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananaplum (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, the article is quite a mess in places, but I wouldn't say that there aren't any credible secondary sources that discuss MCS. A quick search on PubMed finds 49 reviews and four meta-analyses tagged with "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity", surely there'll be a few that can be considered credible? I cannot decide if it's worth your time to work on the article. If you think it is too much work for you alone you can start a thread at the talk page or try and get a few editors from WikiProject Medicine involved (you'll have to outline your concerns on their talk page and see if some of their members are willing&able to help out). Please keep in mind that we're all volunteers, so it can take some time to get responses there. --Six words (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi six words talk - I apologize for my initial comments after being turned down - thank you for your comments and criticisms. I have severe MCS and am away from the computer for 2-3 weeks at a time - I was away the last 12 days and took some time to work on the proposal. I respond to talk messages soon as I see them. Of the 49 reviews and 4 meta analysis to which you refer - only 3 are of value in defining the physiology of MCS - actually only number 15 or was it 16? anyway only the article Bessac 2008 do I recommend as especially worthwhile in defining the physiology out of all that material. Bessac 2008 is one of my citations already - and nearly every citation I have is more valuable than the material to which you refered. I have prepared explanatory notes of my citations for your consideration - and propose deletion of about 25 citations - 15 from statement number 4 and move of some citations up into the sentence. Also if you prefer we can delete the statement above statement 1 - and remove the numerical designations if you prefer. I think the designations are helpful but if you prefer the numbers deleted I'll agree - but the order of the statements must be preserved - no interruption of the order by any subsequent contributor. I am a slow typist so I'll stop here for a moment and post this talk message and then immediately begin typing the explanatory notes. Thanks, Bananaplum is just plum bananas! Hi again Six words talk - I have the proposal prepared in an organized way - I hope. First though - a note: I don't prefer challenging existing material in the article even where knowing it is incorrect. If statements 11 and 12 of my proposed submission are taken as contradicting material previously submitted by other contributors - analysis would show the proposal statements correct.

I. Proposal

Citations are of the most credible research authorities - conclusions reached in extensive reviews. All statements are fact - documented with the most credible evidence - concise, advanced, and comprehensive.

Proposal is same as the original except:

a) deletion of the statement preceding point number one and the numerical designations if you prefer. (I think the statement and numerical designations are helpful but willing to delete if you prefer)

b) deletion of approx 15 citations from those of statement number 4, move of some citations up into the sentence, and deletion of several to perhaps 10 citations elsewhere

Each statement can be taken as a statement of fact concerning MCS. However, MCS is an interrelated involvement - a chain reaction of cause and effect relationships. For example, it is not necessary to have genetic deletions in detox to have dysfunction of those systems - it occurs due to neurogenically mediated hyperinflammatory immune response originating from the airway.

II. Explanatory Notes on Citations

Although I offer to delete numerical designations if you prefer - I refer to them here for convenience.

1)2)3) Eberling 2009 - study results consistent with Veronesi 2001 review and Roy 2000 EPA metadata report      Veronesi 2001 - review of studies basis for Roy 2000 EPA metadata report       Roy 2000 - EPA metadata report       Jung 1921 - one of the most monumental works in the field of Psychology - consistent with EPA metadata report

4) Deering-Rice 2011, Li 2011, Taylor-Clark 2010, Baulig 2009, 2003, Calderon-Garciduenas 2008, 2000, Gerde 2001, and Veronesi 2001 (move up into sentence after the word "condition") - studies and reviews of advancing precision, high credibility, review discussions building on foundation - consistent with Roy 2000 EPA metadata report  OSHA 2012, Block 2009, Schauer 2002, 2001, 1999, Kleeman 1999 (move to after the words "tobacco smoke") - Block 2009 is review concerning effects of aerosol, the remainder measure and define components of aerosol   Lucchini 2012, Mohankumar 2008, Inoue 2005, Cadle 1999, Kittelson (after the word "nanoparticles") - define and review effects of nanoparticles

The following are after the words "nerve pathways":

Calderon-Garciduenas 2010 - credible research authority - autopsies confirm PM in CNS olfactory bulb Matsui 2009 - confirm PM via olfactory neurons to the CNS Elder 2006 and Lewis 2005 - confirm trigeminal pathway for PM to the CNS

5) Deluca 2010 - important study - MCS plasma measurements - with expanded review discussion

Kimata 2004 - important study - MCS plasma measurements - expected and consistent with Veronesi 2001 review, Roy 2000 metadata report, findings of Bascom 1992, Meggs 1997, Millquist 2005, Nogami 2004 - and the reviews of Latromiele 2009, Bessac 2008, and Nilius 2007

6) Deering-Rice 2011 and Taylor-Clark 2010 - studies of advanced precision with review discussion, very important, expected and consistent with Bessac 2008 review  Bessac 2008 - advanced review on TRP receptors - consistent and building on Veronesi 2001 review and EPA metadata report   Nassenstein 2008 - study with discussion building on Bessac 2008   Nilius 2007 - extensive review on TRP with 543 references - again consistent   all of the above consistent with Roy 2000 EPA metadata report and review discussions of Costa 2010, Oslund 2008, Mohankumar 2008, Calderon-Garciduenas 2008, Veronesi 2001, Meggs 1997, and Bascom 1992

7) Meggs 1997 - MCS biopsy results - tight junction defects, focal desquamation, multiplied nerves, thickened basement membrane, lymphocytic infiltrates - and review discussion consistent with Veronesi 2001 review, Roy 2000 metadata report, and numerous studies and reviews including those mentioned above  Meggs 1996 - MCS biopsy results   Meggs 1993 - MCS rhinoscopy results

8) Millquist 2005 - measure MCS nerve growth factor increase on capsaicin provocation - expected and consistent  Nogami 2004 - MCS airway reactivity on capsaicin provocation - expected and consistent   Lee and Pisarri 2001 - review of airway reactivity   Bonham 2001 - measure reactivity and review discussion   Castranova 2002 - review including study of nerve multiplication   Kimata 2004 - MCS plasma measurements including nerve growth factor - expected and consistent   Bascom 1992 - review of findings at the Environmental and Airway Disease research Facility at the Univ of MD - consistent with Veronesi 2001 review, Roy 2000 EPA metadata report and numerous studies and reviews including those mentioned above   Doty 1994 - measure MCS airway resistance and respiratory rate - expected and consistent   Tran 2013 - measure MCS hyperalgesia - consistent with review of Latromiele 2009   Latromiele 2009 - very important review of central sensitization - 408 references Kunkler 2011 - very important review discussion of TRPA1 and meningeal vasodilitation Nassini 2011 - very important confirmation of TRPA1 pathway - expected and consistent Jordt 2011 - review including statement of trigeminal-olfactory-opthalmic connection Finger 1993 - determination of trigeminal-olfactory-opthalmic connection consistent with Jordt 2011

9) Orriols 2009 - important study of MCS CNS function with review discussion  Bell 1999 - review of MCS CNS studies   Bell 1998 - MCS measured alterations - consistent with review

10) Deluca 2010 - MCS plasma measurements and important review discussion of oxidative stress chain reaction   Calderon-Garciduenas 2008 - advanced authority - including autopsy work - airway breakdown precedes CNS disease - expected and consistent    Yang 2008 - review discussion concerning 4-HNE - consistent with Deluca 2010    Terlecky 2006 - review includes catalase deficiency - consistent with Deluca 2010    Kennedy 2005 - review discussion concerning oxidative stress - consistent with Deluca 2010    Daniell 1997 - review of MCS porphyrin abnormalities (disturbances in heme synthesis)    Hahn 1997 - important cautions for MCS people concerning porphyrin abnormalities    Emch 2000 - study and review showing that cytokine TNF alpha causes gastrointestinal stasis via vagal circuitry - perceived as queasiness

11) Berg 2010 and Deluca 2010 - important large studies of diagnosed MCS groups including measurements of genetics in detox compared to controls

12) Schnakenberg 2007, Mckeown-Eyssen 2004, and Haley 1999 - studies often misapplied to MCS

13) Block 2011 - study and review discussion of GSTM1 and GSTT1 deletions including percent occurrence in the population   Piacentini 2011, Ginsberg 2009, and Hayes 1995 - consistent with Block 2011

14) Lu 2009, Wu 2003, and Griffith 1999 - reviews of glutathione synthesis and metabolism   Oslund 2008, Sterner-Koch 1999, and Tanabe 1996 - substance P and NO production    Canals 2003 - NO production and glutathione depletion    Darmaun 2005 - example and discussion of excessive glutathione utilization

15) a summation with citations repeated

Thanks again for your consideration. Bananaplum

Why have you not responded to my talk message? It took some time to write up a summary of my sources for your better consideration. You can't just go through reviews and summarize them to adequate address this topic. Almost all of the reviews to which you referred are not credible - because the primary studies going into those reviews are not credible - or the primary studies have been misinterpreted by the reviewer - with few exceptions such as Bessac 2008.

I am the number one think tank in the World on this subject with by far the best bibliography full of credible reviews - especially that of the US EPA Environmental and Health Effects Research Laboratory and other academic facilities - they have more money and expertise to provide the right information on this topic. The summary of citations I listed above is the best bibliography on this topic. There has been this circle of confusion - review after review - one parroting the other - almost totally lost - because there sources are inadequate ant the lack of follow through in adding 2 plus 2 and getting 4. If we can't add 2 plus 2 - it amounts to dishonesty. They haven't done their homework - their bibliography is inadequate. There is nothing wrong with my material. Will you respond to this talk? Bananaplum

Hi Bananaplum,

I don't know if User:Six words has seen your reply yet. WP:There is no deadline, so take your time.

I've taken a quick look at some of the sources you listed, and most of them are simply not useable here. Here are some notes that might help you understand the issues.


 * Eberling 2009 - primary source; review articles or major, mainstream textbooks are strongly preferred
 * Veronesi 2001 - more than ten years old
 * Roy 2000 - more than ten years old
 * Jung 1921 - more than ten years old
 * Deering-Rice 2011 Li 2011, Taylor-Clark 2010, Baulig 2009, 2003, Calderon-Garciduenas 2008, 2000, Gerde 2001, and Veronesi 2001 - all primary sources
 * OSHA 2012, -
 * Block 2009 - ,
 * Schauer 2002, 2001, 1999, Kleeman 1999 - more than ten years old
 * Lucchini 2012 -
 * Mohankumar 2008 - ,
 * Inoue 2005 - primary source
 * Cadle 1999 - more than ten years old
 * Kittelson - more than ten years old

There are useable source out there, so I hope this will help you avoid the problematic ones. I know these aren't exactly intuitive "rules", but they help us avoid outdated information and problems with cherry-picking studies that give the "right" answer (whether purely inadvertent or deliberate, e.g., by sales people).

To make your comments easier to read, be sure to leave blank lines between the paragraphs. If you want to make a bulleted list, then start the line with an asterisk (*). For a numbered list, start with a hash mark (#).

Happy editing, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that after 10 years we chuck the study - cancel and rewrite the truth. Many important sources on this subject are over 10 years old.

Some of those articles you labeled as primary have substantial review discussion - and you omitted reference to major reviews I included such as Nilius, Latromiele, and Bessac. Deluca 2011 wrote a review that was - sorry to say - quite bad - I didn't include it - but a well researched and much more valuable discussion is contained in Deluca 2010 which you might dismiss as a primary article - which I did include. You are not knowledgeable on this subject to make such judgement on this material.

You are as if depending on rigid rules not taking into account the reality of the material. I know there are lots of "studies" out there that can be designed to push an agenda but that's not what I, or these sources are about. The most important MCS material is over 10 years old - the MCS review community to which you insist I refer have a bad case of amnesia. Wuth these rules - are you really concerned that we correctly represent MCS?

It has been established since Bascom 1992 that MCS is an altered airway epithelium. Dr. Bascom is one of the most highly regarded doctors in the USA - in those days had The Environmental and Airway Disease Research Facility specifically including MCS at the Univ of MD - more recently commissioned as investigator into the cardio-pulmonary effects of post 9/11 World Trade Center responders... Meggs 1997 came next and backed up Bascom with supporting biopsy studies of MCS people - and then Veronesi 2001 at EPA - advanced experimental evidence. There is no doubt. In those days the proof was exposed c-fiber nerves in damaged airway epithelial barrier - now the proof is down to the specific irritant receptor on the c-fiber nerves called TRPA1 - Bessac 2008, Nilius 2007, Deering-Rice 2011 etc. My question is whether you want to be knowledgeable on this subject and get it right instead of limited to those reviews where haven't done their homework or thought about it enough, and punt the ball - even asserting they don't see how the airway connects to the CNS - that is practically elementary by now - enter Calderon-Garciduenas and Latromiele.

And you say evidence with lab animals isn't proof - that is not true - it depends on the context of the evidence - and Calderon-Garciduenas performed human autopsies. The typical MCS review lacks evidence - period - even as studies 1992 to present all prove consistently - replicate and confirm - and are just refining the precision - and absent from the MCS Wikipedia article...

You also mention Lucchini doesn't refer specifically to MCS - MCS involves exposed trigeminal and olfactory nerves - it is important to note as Lucchini has done - that under such conditions PM irritants have a route of entry via the nerves bypassing the blood brain barrier - my addition uses the word expected to allow for the lack of specificity - Lucchini refers generically to "conditions" rather than saying MCS specifically.

Calderon-Garciduenas you referred to as primary - Calderon-Garciduenas 2008 discussion and 4 point conclusion is a review in itself of the highest credibility. Veronesi and Calderon-Garciduenas are two of the world's heaviest hitters on this subject - the MCS community is wearing blindfolds by not acknowledging them. They have had lots of funding and the most advanced research. It seems there is need for you to find time to get into the substance of this material - if you understood you would not reject Veronesi and Calderon- Garciduenas. I have to admit the material isn't very pleasant.

I thought Wikipedia was the "Free Encyclopedia". Your position is as if to say: its not true unless reported in a secondary review - and will never be acknowledged unless the political situation will allow revealing the facts in something specifically labeled a secondary review.

Do you have record of my original submission? I couldn't find it - though I have another copy filed away. My question to you is are you really going to shut out my material - and thus what may be the most important? Maybe I can't help if Wikipedia staff is not knowledgeable on this subject.

With all the points of view you have allowed in the MCS article - it seems fair you could allow inclusion of my submission - I'm not trying to take away the rights of others to their submissions.

Sincerely and best wishes to you, Bananaplum