THE TWENTIETH CENTURY DISEASE

Early (1983) CBC Documentary. Sympathetic but obscures history, confuses clinical ecology with sensitivities in general, claims that sensitivities other than strict allergy are "new" to medicine, that it is only a fringe group of physicians who know of sensitivities other than IgE mediated allergy. In 1987, the producers kindly agreed not to air the documentary again, as it reduced the situation to "is it allergy or are they nuts?" Journalists, to 2019, are still incapable of looking at the issue of sensitivities without hiding the reality behind the stereotypes forwarded in this 1983 documentary.

[@LisaGoudzwaard]

I'm writing an article about the history of the development of the knowledgde about MCAS and MCS. This video gives a good view on what MCS in the 80's looked like. It mostly speaks of formaldehyde, but now we now it's much more. Thank you for sharing this.

[@liquidvisual]

Lisa - The producers of this documentary agreed not to air it again precisely because it hides our history rather than telling it. It hides the actual history of sensitivities behind a debate about the flaky and dangerous ideas of 'clinical ecologists'. MCS is a misleading term that does the same. It refers to a small, indistinguishable percentage of persons with sensitivities, and, as such, contributes to many misconceptions,.
Sensitivities are not a single disease. They are not new. They are not, principally, caused by the modern environment. Unfortunately, the cult of environmental medicine, where the term MCS comes from, helps abusers eclipse the actual group, our actual history, and much else behind a stereotype that pretends our history began in the 1950s.
There are a lot of people who write histories who have no idea what our history actually is. They help disappear abuse by disappearing 80% of the people affected, invisibilizing clinical methods, acts of officialdom, dating back centuries. Did you know that in 1870, sensitivities were called "idiocyncracies", and family physicians were valued for knowing a patient's idiocyncracies, which often ran in families?
The mumbo-jumbo of people who have grabbed on to the MCS stereotype does a huge disservice by disappearing their own history. The real history, in which MCS is a very poorly defined distraction, carries with it legal obligations the MCS stereotype helps to disappear. In fact, the term MCS is consciously used by some abusers who know it's a misdirect, to eclipse liability for damages being caused to all persons with sensitivities, including those who arbitrarily use the essentially meaningless term, MCS.
Old timers can quickly tell when someone clearly does not know our history. You use made-up terms that 'describe' a set of 'new' problems when the problems are not new, at all. Such people would do less damage if they learned our actual history before pretending to be in a position to write it.
You should also learn to use inclusive terminology instead of arbitrary terms that exclude most of the people affected, and that also undermine the rights of even the people who do fit the MCS stereotype.
Here's how I started to learn: ages.ca/betrayal
You should also learn about the misonceptions and stereotypes that newbies often adopt:
ages.ca/stereotypes/
The documentary is provided as an example of how people in the cult of environmental medicine were confusing the theories of clinical ecology with the very different actual history of the group. I guess you didn't get it. This is not part of our history. It is part of how our history got buried under pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo. The experiences of patients are real. The mumbo-jumbo around of us, much of it coming from amateur epidemiologists, is our second worst enemy. Only abusers' fear of liability provides a greater obstacle.
"An important point is the fear of liability (at the legal and moral level) which perpetrates attitudes and actions. The protective psychological mechanism that comes into action when one knows deeply other people have been harmed, because of their negligence, or because they have been hiding behind the presumed lack of science, because they have minimized, belittled the issues, this mechanism which hides behind denial, camouflage, or aggression needs to be uncovered. Consequences need to be brought to the conscious level, for healing to take place, and prevention to take its role. Now people at governmental, industrial and academic level hide behind the oppressive properties of fear, fear of acknowledging what has happened." - Michel Joffres, PhD, M.D., Dalhousie University. (retired)

[@richardmaunz1375]

Good point. Logically, it must be evaluated.