User talk:SamuelBurckhalter

December 2018
Hello, I'm Natureium. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Multiple chemical sensitivity seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Natureium (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, this is SamuelBurckhalter

I think this was a mistake. You need to clarity which sentences, phrases or citations of mine are biased before you blanket delete all edits.

The current content for this page IS biased (especially in how information is ordered), omits important information and research and contains deliberately misleading language.

The general intention of the current content -- at least the top half -- is to paint MCS as a psychogenic disorder, when the biological mechanism for MCS is as yet unknown and unproven. It is blatant and unashamed in this -- as "psuedomedical diagnosis" in the top right box shows.

This condition is not considered a pseudomedical diagnosis by medical associations in the countries I mentioned in the section on recognition (eg. Germany, Austria, Spain, Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Finland). The current content is US centric. But the world is bigger than that.

Other examples of deliberately misleading content includes: Eg. "saying MCS sufferers" vs "MCS sufferers in one study" -- and these two phrases have very different scope. Eg. putting the psychogenic argument up in the introduction when it's appropriate place is under causes/psychological -- why should the psychogenic cause argument take precedence over the other hypothesised causes? THAT is bias.

My changes reinforced that the mechanism of MCS is not agreed upon. My content attempted to make it more balanced.

The main new sources I cited were an fact-fiding inquiry by a national government designed to identify key research needs around MCS (this report involved extensive public consultation) and a review of European policies to accommodate people with MCS by the Danish government -- not what I would consider the most biased sources out there. These multi-author sources are unlikely to be as biased as a single-author journal article.

If you want to undo my changes again, do it edit by edit and provide evidence that the changes are biased or highlight statements that you think require citations where I haven't provided one.