MEpedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity

2021-10-01T22:54:53Z

Silliestchris:/* What's in a name? Adding synonyms to the introductory sentence and stub pages -- Silliestchris (talk) 22:53, October 1, 2021 (UTC) */

== Formatting problem with references -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:04, June 4, 2020 (EDT) ==

There seems to be a problem with some references disappearing. They remain as numbers without the reference. This seemed to start after the insertion of "see also"s, although I don't know if it's related.

Does anyone know how to fix? Thanks [User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:I have only just seen this. Which references are affected? If the text looks OK but the references list has entries like: <nowiki > 20. ^ </nowiki > then click on the up arrow symbol and it should show you whwre it comes from. The source editor view can then be used to see what the issue is. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:57, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

== Images -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT) ==

Could anyone please direct me to where I can read about policies relating to image use.

Also, I uploaded three images and they didn't seem to be well formatted on the mobile app, with the image apearing in the middle of sentences. I tried to fix, but unless my mobile is showing the old version, I'm not sure how to fix it, if anyone can help. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

::It looks like I missed answering this before. [[MEpedia:Copyright policy]] says which image rights are needed for reuse on MEpedia, [[Help:Images]] and [[Help:Files]] have further info including where to find some. Google's images search allows you to do an advanced search for "images for reuse", then you just need to double check on the page which license they are under. Photos and original computer graphics you made can be uploaded too. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 22:31, September 27, 2021 (UTC)

==Electrohypersensitivity==
Does this belong as part of the page, or is it better on a separate page? Are there specific types or subtypes of MCS to cover?
If EHS goes on this page this this image
and reference look worth adding. Skin lesions on a patient with [[electrohypersensitivity]] (EHS).
[[File:Electrohypersensitivity_MCS_skin_lesions.png|thumb|center|200px|[https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 Skin lesson caused by electrohypersensitivity. Source: 2020, Belpomme and & Irigaray. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.]]]
*2020, Belpomme, Dominique; and Irigaray, Philippe. Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.<ref name="Belpomme2020">https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915</ref> - [https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 (Full text)]
Could MCS be broken down into Electrohypersensitivity, Food/drink allergies and intolerances, and chemical/environmental allergies and sensitivities? The MCSAware website (for instance) seemed to concentrate on those areas. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 20:43, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:56, June 4, 2020 (EDT)===

:Thanks for raising this. It's important. EHS is included under the umbrella term Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances, but most of the researchers into MCS don't like this term, since it has certain political associations. I think the consensus would say that EHS is a commonly comorbid condition to MCS and ME/CFS. I think it needs its own page.

:Likewise, food/drink allergies and intolerances are not MCS, which has a specific diagnostic criteria. Even though, many people with MCS do have food intolerances as well.[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:29, September 23, 2021 (UTC)===

: Hi, anectodally I have observed that EHS and MCS seem to be comorbid for some people. The Belpomme article really drives this home, as well. I think a statement should be made on the possible relationship, but EHS should have its own distinct page.

::There is now a basic stub page for [[Electrohypersensitivity]]. There are also pages aimed at ME/CFS for:
* [[Development of new sensitivities]]
* [[Chemical sensitivities]]
* [[Food sensitivities]]
* [[Medicine sensitivities]]
* [[Odor sensitivities]]

plus a number of other pages in [[:Category:Sensitivities]]. Info from MCS could be added under a subheading there.

The [[allergy]] page is a stub.

~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 22:31, September 27, 2021 (UTC)

==Scientific sources==
Some sources don't meet the [[MEpedia:Science guidelines]], which have been updated quite recently. Sources that are blogs, websites belonging to an individual or a small group, or patients have been used as sources (or in Learn more) in some places without making it clear whose view these are. Verywellhealth for instance is simply a patient/health website without medical oversight. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Scientific sources -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:24, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: Surprisingly, not a lot of scholarly articles on the controvery itself except in miniature: like, controversy of mast cells' role in neuroendocrinology.

:: I'm looking into this now. Will add a list here. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:51, May 15, 2020 (EDT)

==Popular culture==
This isn't a section we normally cover (see [[MEpedia:Article_outlines]] and I would like it remove it. This page is already very long. The popular culture pages here are only for NE/CFS, so if there is something notable covering ME/CFS and MCS it could have a separate page in the culture category. [[User:Aletheia2020]] [[User:Kmdenmark]] [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]
I think the should also be less weight given to skeptics, Wikipedia and blogs in the controversy section. Wikipedia often includes excessive skeptical sources and excessive weight is given to them, but here we are mostly concerned with MCS as it relates to ME/CFS and possibly fibromyalgia or other comorbidities. Surely there should be some peer-reviewed research relating to the controversy? Articles on myths or misconceptions could be useful here, and in the Learn more section. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)===

: Hey [[User:Notjusttired]] Thanks very much for taking the time to review the page and for your thoughts. I'm new to MEpedia so will rely on the adivce of more established users but this was my rationale.

I'll go through your points one by one.

CC: [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]

'''Long, dense page''': I kept it all on one page primarily for SEO purposes, and following the Wikipedia model.

'''Popular culture:''' (taken from Wikipedia format) In the review of Safe, I tried to give a psychosocial perspective on how MCS is widely perceived and how this impacts the lives of sufferers. From my perspective, as an MCS sufferer, this is the more important section on the page because the scientific studies I don't think really describe how profound the social disslocation is that many people with MCS experience as a result of stigma.

'''Weight to skeptic argument:''' First, I do hear you on questioning my inclusion of this. I chose to cover it (what I see as the elephant in the room) because skeptics have dominated the Wikipedia page on MCS for many years. They delete anything there that contradicts their view and delete their accounts.

I hoped the summary of the controversy would give readers an intellectual and political context for Wikipedia's content--after all, Wikipedia has a big influence.

Also, because I'd read that Quackwatch and SBM invest a lot in their SEO, I thought that referring to many of their articles and using the language that they use to denigrate people with MCS may help the page's SEO. That hypothesis might have worked since the page has moved from page 30 to page 1 on a range of MCS search terms.

Re peer-reviewed research relating to this controversy, other than the consensus of last year (which said that the scientists arguing that MCS was psychologically-caused had conflicts of interest), I'm not aware of anything. It may be out there, but I've not seen it. Unfortunately, research into MCS has been limited.

'''General direction'''
I wrote this page for MEpedia on the understanding that this would just be a page about MCS--one that wasn't subject to the censorship restrictions of Wikipedia.

While there is a section on how it relates to ME, that certainly wasn't my goal in investing my time in this. My goal was to create
a reputable source that people with MCS could go to for resources and that they could direct others to (ie. loved ones, new friends, doctors, hospitals).

If MEpedia would prefer for the focus to be on how MCS relates to ME, I don't think I'd want to be involved with that. One, because I'm not an expert on that subject (I'm also not sure if much research has been done on that subject); and two, because I don't think it's what people with MCS need.

Sensitivities can be a symptom of ME, but MCS is a standalone condition, and I'd like it to get the space and spotlight it needs as a very serious standalone condition.

If MEpedia isn't the place for that, I understand. I also wish I'd known that before I'd given my content to MEpedia and invested a lot of time on the page. In light of that, I'd like to be able to take my content with me, if you decide to change the direction of the page significantly. I wrote all of it except for the section ME and MCS. It's the culmination of several years work for me, and I'd like to see it published somewhere.

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

:::Thanks for your reply [[User:Aletheia2020]]. I perhaps was a bit unclear about how it impacts ME - I think a stand alone page is incredibly useful, but any extra sources that cover it as a comorbidity of ME/CFS and/or fibromyalgia would be really useful. MCS is a huge complication for many with ME so the page is extremely useful. Similarly, the Fibromyalgia has ended up very long, there's a separate [[Fibromyalgia drugs]] page - would a [[Fibromyalgia treatments]] summary page be helpful? Anything that could be added to individual treatment pages about MCS would be helpful, just add a subheading for it (not sure what potions there are in terms of management / treatments).
I think if you have time, some of what is here would be useful on pages like [[Medically unexplained symptoms]], and [[psychologization]]. As regards SEO, the MediaWiki software controls so much of that. Things I've noticed that are very useful are adding some images (quotes or other pictures), careful wording of the first 2 lines of the article, increasing the number of subheadings and having subheadings related to things that are commonly searched for since these then appear as short links in the search results.
Perhaps the "popular culture" heading could be changed to something about what it's like to live with MCS?
Regarding the "learn more" section - are there some leaflets for patients or Consensus guidelines and criteria that could go there?
I've noticed the huge amount of work you are putting into the page, I can't think you enough for that. :-) I see so many online struggling with MCS and with few reliable places to go, and difficulties explaining things to others. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 06:58, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for your note and suggestions[[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] and [[User:JaimeS]].

I took from your further comments that you're OK with leaving the page generally as is but that you wanted the popular culture section changed and more on how MCS impacts ME. Is that right? Or do you still think further sections should be cut, reduced or separated out onto other pages?

As for how MCS impacts ME, I agree it's an important subject, and it's actually not one I had thought much about until this conversation.

Myself I have both conditions, and I would say that out of the people I know with severe and longstanding MCS, the majority seem to also have ME.

From my perspective, the biggest complication MCS creates for a person who also has ME is access/disability issues, which can greatly compromise getting accommodation, support and medical care. Of course, these disability aspects of MCS create these complexities for the sufferer in relation to any comorbid medical condition, not just ME. It complicates them getting medical care for MCS symptoms.

Access issues is a section I've been meaning to write (and it's alluded to in hospital care). I've been procrastinating on it cos it's literally such a big subject, I'm still figuring out how to summarise it into a small section.

So, im summary, I agree that this subject is important. It's just not what I had in mind when I wrote this page page. And to me it seems a bit specific for this page.

I wrote this page with a general, unninformed target audience in mind, hence talking a little about a wide range of subjects, with the idea that the reader could come to the page with literally no idea what MCS is.

In contrast, how MCS impacts ME would be for an informed audience (ie. mostly likely people with both conditions or their loved ones or carers).

As for SEO, the reason I started paying more attention to that, is that when the page was first up (for the first month or so), it was coming up around page 30 on Google--really too deeply buried to make a difference for random searches. I consulted an SEO expert and he suggested incorporating certain words and questions into the content, where possible. Two weeks after I started doing that, I noticed the page coming up much higher in Google for certain subjects. And it seemed to come up higher still the more I did it. It wasn't the only SEO tactic I used, so I don't know for sure whether it was responsible for it coming up higher, but I think it might have been.

Like you [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] the SEO consultant said that incorporating common googled phrases and questions in headings is the best, although I thought your page followed a similar template to Wikipedia in relation to headings, so didn't want to mess with them. It sounds like there is some flexibility there, though?

On images [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]], thanks, that's good to know. They would be good to incorporate. Is there a place that MEpedia contributors commonly get stock images?

And [[User:JaimeS]] with the Safe review having non-scientific resources quoted, I assumed this was OK because a movie review is a movie review--ie. it's not making any controversial scientific claims (and obviously there are no scientific sources about movies). I still thought there was value in quoting media and academic sources about the film because it gives a glimpse into the director's intent and how it was widely interpreted.

I see that Safe has been shortened and some of that content moved to the Safe page. Wasn't sure if that related to the sources I'd used to you just wanting to shorten it.

But I wonder if you'd consider leaving it as is. I ask because the review was carefully written, dense with terms and phrases that I thought could potentially help SEO. It was easier to do that in this section because it had freer form that the scientific sections.

As well, I think the detail about Safe is important because it's not a straight-out narrative about someone having MCS.

The film is actually very vague about what's happening to Carol and why (even though it's a perfectly realistic depiction of what MCS looks like). This vagueness is probably why the film was interpreted in many diverse ways (eg. as a horror film, as a feminist film).

The summary as brief as it is now I don't think really conveys the nuance of how nuance of how the condition is presented. For example, I think it's an important detail to include that nowhere in the film does it mention MCS. It's just that Haynes has confirmed that this was the condition he wrote the film about. Haynes actually wrote the film as a metaphor for how patients with AIDS were treated. I didn't go into that cos it did seem like unnecessary detail for the MCS page, but, basically, Safe isn't a clear cut film about MCS.

Also, I thought because it is at the bottom of the page, I didn't think it would distract from other content by being a little detailed.

Finally re Mepedia policies, apologies if I haven't adhered to all of them and for the time it takes other editors to fix my mistakes [[User:JaimeS]] [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]. I did read through them at the start, and probably didn't retain all I read. I'll go over them again. But my memory isn't great, so thanks for nudges about times that I've deviated from them. [[User:Aletheia2020]]

Hello all, I am just coming up to speed on the discussion and I am very impressed with what, mainly, [[User:Aletheia2020]] has put together here. The MCS page has taken on a life of its own, and I think that Mepedia in general has grown into something far beyond what the founders originally envisioned. I actually found this page because I was appalled at the bias on wikipedia's MCS page. I used to donate to Wikipedia, but my donations will be going to Mepedia instead, now.

====Re: Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 19:29, May 16, 2020 (EDT)====

:: Replace this text with your reply

====Re: Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 00:07, September 26, 2021 (UTC)====

:: Replace this text with your reply

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:13, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: I agree that the section that exists now is a little over-sourced and could be edited down. Re: censorship, I know that Wikipedia has a really frustrating and demeaning history of falling on the side of reactionary skepticism/mockery of people with chronic conditions. MEpedia is moderated by a patient advocacy organization, not would not seek stifle the voice of people with chronic conditions.

I think you and I have had conversations on this, Aletheia2020! You know I agree with you that good information should be available for those who seek it. As I mentioned when we spoke about this, we do have particular requirements for which sources are considered scholarly, and some general editing rules of thumb (like how many sources are cited per fact). You can find most of these in the science guidelines (http://me-pedia.org/wiki/Science_Guidelines).

Since this is a Wiki, the page would be open to improvement by anyone at any time. In the case of vandalism or unhelpful edits, we have the ability to revert to the previous edits, but locking a page indefinitely after one set of edits would be something we would only do if we were seeing (or suspected we would see) repeated vandalism on the page.

[Edit -- reading quickly through, let me know if there's anything I've missed.]

== Missing reference #19 -- [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST) ==

[[User:Aletheia2020]] Thanks for your great work on this page! There is one reference missing though, currently numbered #19. Please double-check. Thanks again.
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST)

:[[User:Pyrrhus]] Thank you, and sorry about that reference. For some reason, a few disappeared. It will take me a bit of time to work out which ones went missing when I cut and pasted. I'll try to fix it in the coming days <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

== First section on chemical sensitivities in ME/CFS ==

Hey, I wasn't sure who edited this section, but I envisaged this page as one about MCS as a standalone condition--a condition which is commonly comorbid with ME/CFS. I didn't want it to be chemical sensitivities or MCS in ME/CFS, since the content that follows that section isn't that.

I was going to change it back, but if you don't agree, happy to chat about it.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:I'm afraid I don't understand what exactly you are referring to. Could you clarify? Generally speaking, pages on MEpedia should state at the outset what the relevance to ME/CFS is. This section is usually titled "Such-and-such in ME/CFS". The point of the section is to explain why this topic is RELEVANT to ME, to avoid having the page deleted for falling outside the scope of MEpedia. The merits of considering a particular condition as a COMORBIDITY are typically covered in a separate section. I hope this helps.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:51, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Hey [[User:Pyrrhus]] thank you for the extra details. I understand.

::My concerns is that medication, food and odour sensitivities are not MCS and the way that the paragraph is now phrased makes it a little confusing on a page about MCS--especially when it's the first section after the intro.

::MCS has specific diagnostic criteria, and, yes, it often is accompanied by medication, food and odour sensitivities, but not always. And the MCS community has some good reasons to distinguish between odour and chemical sensitivities because different studies and conclusions apply to these two phenomenon.

::If you'd rather leave the title like that because its your convention, no worries. I think that works OK.

::But I think that taking the paragraph back to what I had would make it clearer about what MCS is. Food sensitivities etc are really for a whole nother page.

::Also, I spelled out ME/CFS here since it's the first time it's mentioned on the page and people may come to this page from Googling MCS and not know what ME/CFS is. I also thought it important to specify that the consensus documents were about ME/CFS since it's not clear otherwise what they are consenses about.

::What do you think?[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::You make some very good points [[User:Aletheia2020]]. Give me a little time to incorporate your points into a draft section, which I will post here on the discussion page for you to review and edit. Thanks.
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:41, February 12, 2020 (EST)

:::Okay, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], how does the following section look?
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:59, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::::Thanks for doing that [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]]. Looks good. I think that that is very clear. Whether that level of detail is required above what was there before, I don't know. But I found it interesting to read the details.

::::The only thing I didn't agree with was the last bit, saying some studies differentiate odour and chemical sensitivities. I think it's a very important to make clear that MCS is not odour sensitivity. I think this is a common misconception.

::::If you look at the 1999 criteria for MCS (and proposed changes to that in the 2019 consensus) there is nothing about sensitivities to odours mentioned in the diagnostic criteria.

::::Some triggering chemicals have odours and some people with MCS have exaggerated senses of smell, but many triggering chemicals (eg. many pesticides) don't have a perceptible smell and many people with MCS have normal senses of smell, and some have no sense of smell at all (which makes avoiding triggers pretty tricky).

::::In my experience, studies into odour sensitivity are often more focused on a perceived nocebo/psychosomatic angle, and in relation to MCS, these have been used in attempts to discredit MCS as a physical disorder. So I'd rather keep my distance from them.

::::From what I can tell, the Quackwatch/SBM mob like to characterise MCS as something like: a bunch of hysterical women getting anxious, angry and upset when they smell perfume or petrol, in some kind of paranoid fit of chemophobia.

::::But this characterisation doesn't explain MCS when the triggering chemical has no smell or when the reaction is from topical contact, ingestion or injection (eg. in the case of anaesthetics, which are notorious for making people with MCS ill).

::::Anyway, in summary, I'd just cut the final sentence. I think the rest of the contact makes it clear MCS is not sensitivity to odours. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::::Thanks for all the background, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]]. I have learned a lot about MCS in this conversation. I think many people in the ME community, including those with MCS, are unaware that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria. So your work on this page helps a lot. I'll go ahead and cut the final sentence and then copy it over. Thanks again.
:::::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:17, February 14, 2020 (EST)

::::::It's really good to read that feedback : [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] -- thank you. I think the "is MCS real?" conversation has really eclipsed conversations about what the condition actually is. And that hasn't helped sufferers. Hopefully this page is of use to other people with chemical sensitivities or MCS.

::::::Also, thank you also for your patience with me as I've been learning how things work on here.````Aletheia2020

<div style="background:#FFFFE0;border:1px dotted black">
== MCS in ME and ME/CFS ==
MCS has been described as a comorbidity of [[ME/CFS|myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]] (ME/CFS) and [[fibromyalgia]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ammes.org/overlapping-conditions/|title=Overlapping Conditions – American ME and CFS Society|website=ammes.org|language=en-US|access-date=2018-08-12}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.verywellhealth.com/fibromyalgia-comorbid-overlapping-conditions-716184|title=Illness That Come Along with Fibromyalgia & Chronic Fatigue Syndrome|last=Dellwo|first=Adrienne|authorlink=Adrienne Dellwo|date=Feb 26, 2018|work=Verywell Health|access-date=2018-08-23|archive-url=|archive-date=|url-status=}}</ref> The [[Canadian Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing ME/CFS lists "new sensitivities to food, medications and/or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)" as a comorbidity. The [[International Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) lists "sensitivities to food, medications, odours or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "multiple chemical sensitivities" as a comorbidity. A 2019 publication of the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition lists "chemical sensitivity" as a symptom of ME/CFS and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities" as a commonly comorbid condition.<ref>“Diagnosing and Treating ME/CFS” by the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition, August 2019. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SG7hlJTCSDrDHqvioPMq-cX-rgRKXjfk/view</ref>

However, it is important to note that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria which do ''not'' include medication, food or odor sensitivities.<ref name="pmid10444033" /> Furthermore, some studies have differentiated odor sensitivity and chemical sensitivity as two separate phenomena.{{citation needed}}
</div>

== On This is a Potential comorbidities page ==
I wondered how we can resolve whether it is or isn't a comorbidity. I know the US Coalition on ME/CFS consensus from last year said it was, but I'm really not up on other ME/CFS stuff.

I think removing the banner would look better if it can be agreed either way.

Thanks <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:A page is expected to objectively weigh the evidence for and against considering a condition as a comorbidity. As much as possible, we leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Because of this, we recently renamed our "Comorbidities" category to "Potential comorbidities", in order to let the page itself weigh the evidence, and in order to let the reader come to their own conclusion.

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, got it. Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:These sorts of debates just don't belong in category-naming decisions. Categories are simply a convenient way to group articles, nothing more, and we don't want to complicate things by politicizing category names. We did the same thing with the "Treatments" category, which is now called "Potential treatments". With that said, the banner is indeed ugly and distracting. We have developed a better banner and are (still) waiting for our technical people to finally implement the better banner. For the time being, we just have to put up with the current ugly and distracting banner...

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK. That's good to know. Yes, it's very dominating as it is atm. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:07, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Oops, [[User:Aletheia2020]], I forgot to mention that the word "comorbidity" on MEpedia has a specific meaning: it means a condition that is statistically more likely to be found in the original condition, than it is to be found in the general population. I only mention that since there are other definitions out there...
::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:28, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, noted. I'll stick with your definition. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== English or American spelling? ==

[[User:Pyrrhus]] I noticed that you changed some ss to zs in words but changed centers to centres. So I was unsure if you went with American or English spelling on this page? Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:44, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:The [[MEpedia:Manual of style]] specifies American spelling and dates, which I why I changed some spelling, including changing "centres" to "centers". Then I realized that the word "centres" was part of a quote from a Canadian, so I changed "centers" back to "centres". I hope this clarifies things. Good catch!
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:48, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::Ah, I got it [[User:pyrrhus|pyrrhus]]. No worries.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== Questionable comparison that could be interpreted as bias ==

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], I notice that you make a comparison between "merchants of doubt", who are paid to disseminate disinformation that they don't themselves believe, and intolerant skeptics, who may use similar tactics but are unpaid and actually believe what they are claiming. Some may say that this is an unfair comparison that displays bias on our part. Perhaps rephrase?
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 14:34, February 12, 2020 (EST)

===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.

: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.

: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).

: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

==References==
{{reftalk}}

== Headings and SEO -- ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT) ==

Please avoid using questions as headings, and avoid using the page name within headings. The MediaWiki software is built by Wikipedia so should already be able to work out that a subheading is linked to the topic page, and phrasing the first line under the heading carefully should be enough, e.g. The symptoms of MCS include...". Headings should be worded as per the examples on [[MEpedia:Article outlines]].

SEO rankings increase when small pages cover the exact topic, e.g. you could create a few small page in the format of a '''list''', [[Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms]] then use <code><nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity}}</nowiki></code> to point back to the original page. The original page would a less detailed description of symptoms, and could use <nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms}}</nowiki></code> to take users back to it. The new page would go in the [[Category:Lists]] and [[Category:Signs and symptoms]]. I am thinking of creating a list page for [[Deaths from myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]], so will be interested to see how this ranks compared to the [[causes of death]], [[Sophia Mirza]], and [[severe and very severe ME]] pages. (Sophia's is one of the top pages on MEpedia). ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

==Images==
I believe images would help SEO. If you would like a simple image creating eg for the symptoms, can you let me know what design and colors (green? primary colors?) you would like or links to any images with the layout you want. Images are highlighted by search engine results and encourage views and also get saved to pinterest which results in more views. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

== Additions to history -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:54, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

It could aid patient advocacy to put some precedent setting decisions in here. One court case example that comes to mind is the Canada Revenue Association vs a woman (a large MCS advocate in Canada, forget the name) who had claimed tax deductible renovations on her home to accommodate MCS. Would this be helpful here, or would a section on MCS in the court system be more suitable?

== MCS as a symptom of a disease, not a disease. -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 06:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

This is a controversial idea, I know, and I am not aiming to make any additions or changes. However, given the rapidly advancing state of knowledge on the underlying mechanisms of MCS, I think it will be helpful to have a discussion about this idea.

The more I learn about MCS and talk to people with it, the more it becomes apparent that the sensitivity is a symptom of underlying problems which are diverse, complex, and different for every individual. And yes, the underlying problems are almost universally caused or initiated by toxic exposure. One example is Mast Cell Activation Syndrome. Another is Oxidative Stress. You get the idea. Thoughts?

== Additions to recognition section -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 16:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 16:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

It would be helpful for patients to add some more detail on legal recognition. For example, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has taken a rather firm stance on environmental sensitivities: https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/policy_sensitivity_0.pdf

"Individuals with environmental sensitivities experience a variety of adverse reactions to environmental
agents at concentrations well below those that might affect the “average person”. This medical condition is a
disability and those living with environmental sensitivities are entitled to the protection of the Canadian
Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability."

== New references for notable studies section -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 16:38, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

A recent review paper, published in reviews on environmental health about a week ago, would be useful to have in this section:

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2021-0043/html

== What's in a name? Adding synonyms to the introductory sentence and redirect pages -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 22:53, October 1, 2021 (UTC) ==

MCS is known by many names, depending on the legal context and jurisdiction. For example, The Canadian Human rights commission likes to call it "environmental sensitivity" although this is a more broad umbrella term. Another term being used in pathophysiological literature is TILT. Some more examples:

Environmental illness
Chemical intolerance
Gulf War syndrome
Sick building syndrome

Or perhaps we should remove IEI from the first sentence altogether and have a section dedicated specifically to alternate names?

Thoughts?

===Re: What's in a name? Adding synonyms to the introductory sentence and stub pages -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 22:54, October 1, 2021 (UTC)===

: Replace this text with your reply

Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity

2021-10-01T22:53:46Z

Silliestchris:/* What's in a name? Adding synonyms to the introductory sentence and stub pages -- ~~~~ */ new section

== Formatting problem with references -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:04, June 4, 2020 (EDT) ==

There seems to be a problem with some references disappearing. They remain as numbers without the reference. This seemed to start after the insertion of "see also"s, although I don't know if it's related.

Does anyone know how to fix? Thanks [User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:I have only just seen this. Which references are affected? If the text looks OK but the references list has entries like: <nowiki > 20. ^ </nowiki > then click on the up arrow symbol and it should show you whwre it comes from. The source editor view can then be used to see what the issue is. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:57, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

== Images -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT) ==

Could anyone please direct me to where I can read about policies relating to image use.

Also, I uploaded three images and they didn't seem to be well formatted on the mobile app, with the image apearing in the middle of sentences. I tried to fix, but unless my mobile is showing the old version, I'm not sure how to fix it, if anyone can help. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

::It looks like I missed answering this before. [[MEpedia:Copyright policy]] says which image rights are needed for reuse on MEpedia, [[Help:Images]] and [[Help:Files]] have further info including where to find some. Google's images search allows you to do an advanced search for "images for reuse", then you just need to double check on the page which license they are under. Photos and original computer graphics you made can be uploaded too. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 22:31, September 27, 2021 (UTC)

==Electrohypersensitivity==
Does this belong as part of the page, or is it better on a separate page? Are there specific types or subtypes of MCS to cover?
If EHS goes on this page this this image
and reference look worth adding. Skin lesions on a patient with [[electrohypersensitivity]] (EHS).
[[File:Electrohypersensitivity_MCS_skin_lesions.png|thumb|center|200px|[https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 Skin lesson caused by electrohypersensitivity. Source: 2020, Belpomme and & Irigaray. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.]]]
*2020, Belpomme, Dominique; and Irigaray, Philippe. Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.<ref name="Belpomme2020">https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915</ref> - [https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 (Full text)]
Could MCS be broken down into Electrohypersensitivity, Food/drink allergies and intolerances, and chemical/environmental allergies and sensitivities? The MCSAware website (for instance) seemed to concentrate on those areas. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 20:43, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:56, June 4, 2020 (EDT)===

:Thanks for raising this. It's important. EHS is included under the umbrella term Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances, but most of the researchers into MCS don't like this term, since it has certain political associations. I think the consensus would say that EHS is a commonly comorbid condition to MCS and ME/CFS. I think it needs its own page.

:Likewise, food/drink allergies and intolerances are not MCS, which has a specific diagnostic criteria. Even though, many people with MCS do have food intolerances as well.[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:29, September 23, 2021 (UTC)===

: Hi, anectodally I have observed that EHS and MCS seem to be comorbid for some people. The Belpomme article really drives this home, as well. I think a statement should be made on the possible relationship, but EHS should have its own distinct page.

::There is now a basic stub page for [[Electrohypersensitivity]]. There are also pages aimed at ME/CFS for:
* [[Development of new sensitivities]]
* [[Chemical sensitivities]]
* [[Food sensitivities]]
* [[Medicine sensitivities]]
* [[Odor sensitivities]]

plus a number of other pages in [[:Category:Sensitivities]]. Info from MCS could be added under a subheading there.

The [[allergy]] page is a stub.

~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 22:31, September 27, 2021 (UTC)

==Scientific sources==
Some sources don't meet the [[MEpedia:Science guidelines]], which have been updated quite recently. Sources that are blogs, websites belonging to an individual or a small group, or patients have been used as sources (or in Learn more) in some places without making it clear whose view these are. Verywellhealth for instance is simply a patient/health website without medical oversight. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Scientific sources -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:24, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: Surprisingly, not a lot of scholarly articles on the controvery itself except in miniature: like, controversy of mast cells' role in neuroendocrinology.

:: I'm looking into this now. Will add a list here. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:51, May 15, 2020 (EDT)

==Popular culture==
This isn't a section we normally cover (see [[MEpedia:Article_outlines]] and I would like it remove it. This page is already very long. The popular culture pages here are only for NE/CFS, so if there is something notable covering ME/CFS and MCS it could have a separate page in the culture category. [[User:Aletheia2020]] [[User:Kmdenmark]] [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]
I think the should also be less weight given to skeptics, Wikipedia and blogs in the controversy section. Wikipedia often includes excessive skeptical sources and excessive weight is given to them, but here we are mostly concerned with MCS as it relates to ME/CFS and possibly fibromyalgia or other comorbidities. Surely there should be some peer-reviewed research relating to the controversy? Articles on myths or misconceptions could be useful here, and in the Learn more section. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)===

: Hey [[User:Notjusttired]] Thanks very much for taking the time to review the page and for your thoughts. I'm new to MEpedia so will rely on the adivce of more established users but this was my rationale.

I'll go through your points one by one.

CC: [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]

'''Long, dense page''': I kept it all on one page primarily for SEO purposes, and following the Wikipedia model.

'''Popular culture:''' (taken from Wikipedia format) In the review of Safe, I tried to give a psychosocial perspective on how MCS is widely perceived and how this impacts the lives of sufferers. From my perspective, as an MCS sufferer, this is the more important section on the page because the scientific studies I don't think really describe how profound the social disslocation is that many people with MCS experience as a result of stigma.

'''Weight to skeptic argument:''' First, I do hear you on questioning my inclusion of this. I chose to cover it (what I see as the elephant in the room) because skeptics have dominated the Wikipedia page on MCS for many years. They delete anything there that contradicts their view and delete their accounts.

I hoped the summary of the controversy would give readers an intellectual and political context for Wikipedia's content--after all, Wikipedia has a big influence.

Also, because I'd read that Quackwatch and SBM invest a lot in their SEO, I thought that referring to many of their articles and using the language that they use to denigrate people with MCS may help the page's SEO. That hypothesis might have worked since the page has moved from page 30 to page 1 on a range of MCS search terms.

Re peer-reviewed research relating to this controversy, other than the consensus of last year (which said that the scientists arguing that MCS was psychologically-caused had conflicts of interest), I'm not aware of anything. It may be out there, but I've not seen it. Unfortunately, research into MCS has been limited.

'''General direction'''
I wrote this page for MEpedia on the understanding that this would just be a page about MCS--one that wasn't subject to the censorship restrictions of Wikipedia.

While there is a section on how it relates to ME, that certainly wasn't my goal in investing my time in this. My goal was to create
a reputable source that people with MCS could go to for resources and that they could direct others to (ie. loved ones, new friends, doctors, hospitals).

If MEpedia would prefer for the focus to be on how MCS relates to ME, I don't think I'd want to be involved with that. One, because I'm not an expert on that subject (I'm also not sure if much research has been done on that subject); and two, because I don't think it's what people with MCS need.

Sensitivities can be a symptom of ME, but MCS is a standalone condition, and I'd like it to get the space and spotlight it needs as a very serious standalone condition.

If MEpedia isn't the place for that, I understand. I also wish I'd known that before I'd given my content to MEpedia and invested a lot of time on the page. In light of that, I'd like to be able to take my content with me, if you decide to change the direction of the page significantly. I wrote all of it except for the section ME and MCS. It's the culmination of several years work for me, and I'd like to see it published somewhere.

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

:::Thanks for your reply [[User:Aletheia2020]]. I perhaps was a bit unclear about how it impacts ME - I think a stand alone page is incredibly useful, but any extra sources that cover it as a comorbidity of ME/CFS and/or fibromyalgia would be really useful. MCS is a huge complication for many with ME so the page is extremely useful. Similarly, the Fibromyalgia has ended up very long, there's a separate [[Fibromyalgia drugs]] page - would a [[Fibromyalgia treatments]] summary page be helpful? Anything that could be added to individual treatment pages about MCS would be helpful, just add a subheading for it (not sure what potions there are in terms of management / treatments).
I think if you have time, some of what is here would be useful on pages like [[Medically unexplained symptoms]], and [[psychologization]]. As regards SEO, the MediaWiki software controls so much of that. Things I've noticed that are very useful are adding some images (quotes or other pictures), careful wording of the first 2 lines of the article, increasing the number of subheadings and having subheadings related to things that are commonly searched for since these then appear as short links in the search results.
Perhaps the "popular culture" heading could be changed to something about what it's like to live with MCS?
Regarding the "learn more" section - are there some leaflets for patients or Consensus guidelines and criteria that could go there?
I've noticed the huge amount of work you are putting into the page, I can't think you enough for that. :-) I see so many online struggling with MCS and with few reliable places to go, and difficulties explaining things to others. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 06:58, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for your note and suggestions[[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] and [[User:JaimeS]].

I took from your further comments that you're OK with leaving the page generally as is but that you wanted the popular culture section changed and more on how MCS impacts ME. Is that right? Or do you still think further sections should be cut, reduced or separated out onto other pages?

As for how MCS impacts ME, I agree it's an important subject, and it's actually not one I had thought much about until this conversation.

Myself I have both conditions, and I would say that out of the people I know with severe and longstanding MCS, the majority seem to also have ME.

From my perspective, the biggest complication MCS creates for a person who also has ME is access/disability issues, which can greatly compromise getting accommodation, support and medical care. Of course, these disability aspects of MCS create these complexities for the sufferer in relation to any comorbid medical condition, not just ME. It complicates them getting medical care for MCS symptoms.

Access issues is a section I've been meaning to write (and it's alluded to in hospital care). I've been procrastinating on it cos it's literally such a big subject, I'm still figuring out how to summarise it into a small section.

So, im summary, I agree that this subject is important. It's just not what I had in mind when I wrote this page page. And to me it seems a bit specific for this page.

I wrote this page with a general, unninformed target audience in mind, hence talking a little about a wide range of subjects, with the idea that the reader could come to the page with literally no idea what MCS is.

In contrast, how MCS impacts ME would be for an informed audience (ie. mostly likely people with both conditions or their loved ones or carers).

As for SEO, the reason I started paying more attention to that, is that when the page was first up (for the first month or so), it was coming up around page 30 on Google--really too deeply buried to make a difference for random searches. I consulted an SEO expert and he suggested incorporating certain words and questions into the content, where possible. Two weeks after I started doing that, I noticed the page coming up much higher in Google for certain subjects. And it seemed to come up higher still the more I did it. It wasn't the only SEO tactic I used, so I don't know for sure whether it was responsible for it coming up higher, but I think it might have been.

Like you [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] the SEO consultant said that incorporating common googled phrases and questions in headings is the best, although I thought your page followed a similar template to Wikipedia in relation to headings, so didn't want to mess with them. It sounds like there is some flexibility there, though?

On images [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]], thanks, that's good to know. They would be good to incorporate. Is there a place that MEpedia contributors commonly get stock images?

And [[User:JaimeS]] with the Safe review having non-scientific resources quoted, I assumed this was OK because a movie review is a movie review--ie. it's not making any controversial scientific claims (and obviously there are no scientific sources about movies). I still thought there was value in quoting media and academic sources about the film because it gives a glimpse into the director's intent and how it was widely interpreted.

I see that Safe has been shortened and some of that content moved to the Safe page. Wasn't sure if that related to the sources I'd used to you just wanting to shorten it.

But I wonder if you'd consider leaving it as is. I ask because the review was carefully written, dense with terms and phrases that I thought could potentially help SEO. It was easier to do that in this section because it had freer form that the scientific sections.

As well, I think the detail about Safe is important because it's not a straight-out narrative about someone having MCS.

The film is actually very vague about what's happening to Carol and why (even though it's a perfectly realistic depiction of what MCS looks like). This vagueness is probably why the film was interpreted in many diverse ways (eg. as a horror film, as a feminist film).

The summary as brief as it is now I don't think really conveys the nuance of how nuance of how the condition is presented. For example, I think it's an important detail to include that nowhere in the film does it mention MCS. It's just that Haynes has confirmed that this was the condition he wrote the film about. Haynes actually wrote the film as a metaphor for how patients with AIDS were treated. I didn't go into that cos it did seem like unnecessary detail for the MCS page, but, basically, Safe isn't a clear cut film about MCS.

Also, I thought because it is at the bottom of the page, I didn't think it would distract from other content by being a little detailed.

Finally re Mepedia policies, apologies if I haven't adhered to all of them and for the time it takes other editors to fix my mistakes [[User:JaimeS]] [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]. I did read through them at the start, and probably didn't retain all I read. I'll go over them again. But my memory isn't great, so thanks for nudges about times that I've deviated from them. [[User:Aletheia2020]]

Hello all, I am just coming up to speed on the discussion and I am very impressed with what, mainly, [[User:Aletheia2020]] has put together here. The MCS page has taken on a life of its own, and I think that Mepedia in general has grown into something far beyond what the founders originally envisioned. I actually found this page because I was appalled at the bias on wikipedia's MCS page. I used to donate to Wikipedia, but my donations will be going to Mepedia instead, now.

====Re: Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 19:29, May 16, 2020 (EDT)====

:: Replace this text with your reply

====Re: Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 00:07, September 26, 2021 (UTC)====

:: Replace this text with your reply

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:13, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: I agree that the section that exists now is a little over-sourced and could be edited down. Re: censorship, I know that Wikipedia has a really frustrating and demeaning history of falling on the side of reactionary skepticism/mockery of people with chronic conditions. MEpedia is moderated by a patient advocacy organization, not would not seek stifle the voice of people with chronic conditions.

I think you and I have had conversations on this, Aletheia2020! You know I agree with you that good information should be available for those who seek it. As I mentioned when we spoke about this, we do have particular requirements for which sources are considered scholarly, and some general editing rules of thumb (like how many sources are cited per fact). You can find most of these in the science guidelines (http://me-pedia.org/wiki/Science_Guidelines).

Since this is a Wiki, the page would be open to improvement by anyone at any time. In the case of vandalism or unhelpful edits, we have the ability to revert to the previous edits, but locking a page indefinitely after one set of edits would be something we would only do if we were seeing (or suspected we would see) repeated vandalism on the page.

[Edit -- reading quickly through, let me know if there's anything I've missed.]

== Missing reference #19 -- [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST) ==

[[User:Aletheia2020]] Thanks for your great work on this page! There is one reference missing though, currently numbered #19. Please double-check. Thanks again.
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST)

:[[User:Pyrrhus]] Thank you, and sorry about that reference. For some reason, a few disappeared. It will take me a bit of time to work out which ones went missing when I cut and pasted. I'll try to fix it in the coming days <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

== First section on chemical sensitivities in ME/CFS ==

Hey, I wasn't sure who edited this section, but I envisaged this page as one about MCS as a standalone condition--a condition which is commonly comorbid with ME/CFS. I didn't want it to be chemical sensitivities or MCS in ME/CFS, since the content that follows that section isn't that.

I was going to change it back, but if you don't agree, happy to chat about it.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:I'm afraid I don't understand what exactly you are referring to. Could you clarify? Generally speaking, pages on MEpedia should state at the outset what the relevance to ME/CFS is. This section is usually titled "Such-and-such in ME/CFS". The point of the section is to explain why this topic is RELEVANT to ME, to avoid having the page deleted for falling outside the scope of MEpedia. The merits of considering a particular condition as a COMORBIDITY are typically covered in a separate section. I hope this helps.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:51, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Hey [[User:Pyrrhus]] thank you for the extra details. I understand.

::My concerns is that medication, food and odour sensitivities are not MCS and the way that the paragraph is now phrased makes it a little confusing on a page about MCS--especially when it's the first section after the intro.

::MCS has specific diagnostic criteria, and, yes, it often is accompanied by medication, food and odour sensitivities, but not always. And the MCS community has some good reasons to distinguish between odour and chemical sensitivities because different studies and conclusions apply to these two phenomenon.

::If you'd rather leave the title like that because its your convention, no worries. I think that works OK.

::But I think that taking the paragraph back to what I had would make it clearer about what MCS is. Food sensitivities etc are really for a whole nother page.

::Also, I spelled out ME/CFS here since it's the first time it's mentioned on the page and people may come to this page from Googling MCS and not know what ME/CFS is. I also thought it important to specify that the consensus documents were about ME/CFS since it's not clear otherwise what they are consenses about.

::What do you think?[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::You make some very good points [[User:Aletheia2020]]. Give me a little time to incorporate your points into a draft section, which I will post here on the discussion page for you to review and edit. Thanks.
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:41, February 12, 2020 (EST)

:::Okay, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], how does the following section look?
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:59, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::::Thanks for doing that [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]]. Looks good. I think that that is very clear. Whether that level of detail is required above what was there before, I don't know. But I found it interesting to read the details.

::::The only thing I didn't agree with was the last bit, saying some studies differentiate odour and chemical sensitivities. I think it's a very important to make clear that MCS is not odour sensitivity. I think this is a common misconception.

::::If you look at the 1999 criteria for MCS (and proposed changes to that in the 2019 consensus) there is nothing about sensitivities to odours mentioned in the diagnostic criteria.

::::Some triggering chemicals have odours and some people with MCS have exaggerated senses of smell, but many triggering chemicals (eg. many pesticides) don't have a perceptible smell and many people with MCS have normal senses of smell, and some have no sense of smell at all (which makes avoiding triggers pretty tricky).

::::In my experience, studies into odour sensitivity are often more focused on a perceived nocebo/psychosomatic angle, and in relation to MCS, these have been used in attempts to discredit MCS as a physical disorder. So I'd rather keep my distance from them.

::::From what I can tell, the Quackwatch/SBM mob like to characterise MCS as something like: a bunch of hysterical women getting anxious, angry and upset when they smell perfume or petrol, in some kind of paranoid fit of chemophobia.

::::But this characterisation doesn't explain MCS when the triggering chemical has no smell or when the reaction is from topical contact, ingestion or injection (eg. in the case of anaesthetics, which are notorious for making people with MCS ill).

::::Anyway, in summary, I'd just cut the final sentence. I think the rest of the contact makes it clear MCS is not sensitivity to odours. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::::Thanks for all the background, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]]. I have learned a lot about MCS in this conversation. I think many people in the ME community, including those with MCS, are unaware that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria. So your work on this page helps a lot. I'll go ahead and cut the final sentence and then copy it over. Thanks again.
:::::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:17, February 14, 2020 (EST)

::::::It's really good to read that feedback : [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] -- thank you. I think the "is MCS real?" conversation has really eclipsed conversations about what the condition actually is. And that hasn't helped sufferers. Hopefully this page is of use to other people with chemical sensitivities or MCS.

::::::Also, thank you also for your patience with me as I've been learning how things work on here.````Aletheia2020

<div style="background:#FFFFE0;border:1px dotted black">
== MCS in ME and ME/CFS ==
MCS has been described as a comorbidity of [[ME/CFS|myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]] (ME/CFS) and [[fibromyalgia]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ammes.org/overlapping-conditions/|title=Overlapping Conditions – American ME and CFS Society|website=ammes.org|language=en-US|access-date=2018-08-12}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.verywellhealth.com/fibromyalgia-comorbid-overlapping-conditions-716184|title=Illness That Come Along with Fibromyalgia & Chronic Fatigue Syndrome|last=Dellwo|first=Adrienne|authorlink=Adrienne Dellwo|date=Feb 26, 2018|work=Verywell Health|access-date=2018-08-23|archive-url=|archive-date=|url-status=}}</ref> The [[Canadian Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing ME/CFS lists "new sensitivities to food, medications and/or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)" as a comorbidity. The [[International Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) lists "sensitivities to food, medications, odours or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "multiple chemical sensitivities" as a comorbidity. A 2019 publication of the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition lists "chemical sensitivity" as a symptom of ME/CFS and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities" as a commonly comorbid condition.<ref>“Diagnosing and Treating ME/CFS” by the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition, August 2019. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SG7hlJTCSDrDHqvioPMq-cX-rgRKXjfk/view</ref>

However, it is important to note that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria which do ''not'' include medication, food or odor sensitivities.<ref name="pmid10444033" /> Furthermore, some studies have differentiated odor sensitivity and chemical sensitivity as two separate phenomena.{{citation needed}}
</div>

== On This is a Potential comorbidities page ==
I wondered how we can resolve whether it is or isn't a comorbidity. I know the US Coalition on ME/CFS consensus from last year said it was, but I'm really not up on other ME/CFS stuff.

I think removing the banner would look better if it can be agreed either way.

Thanks <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:A page is expected to objectively weigh the evidence for and against considering a condition as a comorbidity. As much as possible, we leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Because of this, we recently renamed our "Comorbidities" category to "Potential comorbidities", in order to let the page itself weigh the evidence, and in order to let the reader come to their own conclusion.

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, got it. Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:These sorts of debates just don't belong in category-naming decisions. Categories are simply a convenient way to group articles, nothing more, and we don't want to complicate things by politicizing category names. We did the same thing with the "Treatments" category, which is now called "Potential treatments". With that said, the banner is indeed ugly and distracting. We have developed a better banner and are (still) waiting for our technical people to finally implement the better banner. For the time being, we just have to put up with the current ugly and distracting banner...

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK. That's good to know. Yes, it's very dominating as it is atm. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:07, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Oops, [[User:Aletheia2020]], I forgot to mention that the word "comorbidity" on MEpedia has a specific meaning: it means a condition that is statistically more likely to be found in the original condition, than it is to be found in the general population. I only mention that since there are other definitions out there...
::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:28, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, noted. I'll stick with your definition. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== English or American spelling? ==

[[User:Pyrrhus]] I noticed that you changed some ss to zs in words but changed centers to centres. So I was unsure if you went with American or English spelling on this page? Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:44, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:The [[MEpedia:Manual of style]] specifies American spelling and dates, which I why I changed some spelling, including changing "centres" to "centers". Then I realized that the word "centres" was part of a quote from a Canadian, so I changed "centers" back to "centres". I hope this clarifies things. Good catch!
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:48, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::Ah, I got it [[User:pyrrhus|pyrrhus]]. No worries.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== Questionable comparison that could be interpreted as bias ==

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], I notice that you make a comparison between "merchants of doubt", who are paid to disseminate disinformation that they don't themselves believe, and intolerant skeptics, who may use similar tactics but are unpaid and actually believe what they are claiming. Some may say that this is an unfair comparison that displays bias on our part. Perhaps rephrase?
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 14:34, February 12, 2020 (EST)

===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.

: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.

: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).

: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

==References==
{{reftalk}}

== Headings and SEO -- ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT) ==

Please avoid using questions as headings, and avoid using the page name within headings. The MediaWiki software is built by Wikipedia so should already be able to work out that a subheading is linked to the topic page, and phrasing the first line under the heading carefully should be enough, e.g. The symptoms of MCS include...". Headings should be worded as per the examples on [[MEpedia:Article outlines]].

SEO rankings increase when small pages cover the exact topic, e.g. you could create a few small page in the format of a '''list''', [[Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms]] then use <code><nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity}}</nowiki></code> to point back to the original page. The original page would a less detailed description of symptoms, and could use <nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms}}</nowiki></code> to take users back to it. The new page would go in the [[Category:Lists]] and [[Category:Signs and symptoms]]. I am thinking of creating a list page for [[Deaths from myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]], so will be interested to see how this ranks compared to the [[causes of death]], [[Sophia Mirza]], and [[severe and very severe ME]] pages. (Sophia's is one of the top pages on MEpedia). ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

==Images==
I believe images would help SEO. If you would like a simple image creating eg for the symptoms, can you let me know what design and colors (green? primary colors?) you would like or links to any images with the layout you want. Images are highlighted by search engine results and encourage views and also get saved to pinterest which results in more views. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

== Additions to history -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:54, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

It could aid patient advocacy to put some precedent setting decisions in here. One court case example that comes to mind is the Canada Revenue Association vs a woman (a large MCS advocate in Canada, forget the name) who had claimed tax deductible renovations on her home to accommodate MCS. Would this be helpful here, or would a section on MCS in the court system be more suitable?

== MCS as a symptom of a disease, not a disease. -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 06:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

This is a controversial idea, I know, and I am not aiming to make any additions or changes. However, given the rapidly advancing state of knowledge on the underlying mechanisms of MCS, I think it will be helpful to have a discussion about this idea.

The more I learn about MCS and talk to people with it, the more it becomes apparent that the sensitivity is a symptom of underlying problems which are diverse, complex, and different for every individual. And yes, the underlying problems are almost universally caused or initiated by toxic exposure. One example is Mast Cell Activation Syndrome. Another is Oxidative Stress. You get the idea. Thoughts?

== Additions to recognition section -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 16:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 16:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

It would be helpful for patients to add some more detail on legal recognition. For example, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has taken a rather firm stance on environmental sensitivities: https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/policy_sensitivity_0.pdf

"Individuals with environmental sensitivities experience a variety of adverse reactions to environmental
agents at concentrations well below those that might affect the “average person”. This medical condition is a
disability and those living with environmental sensitivities are entitled to the protection of the Canadian
Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability."

== New references for notable studies section -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 16:38, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

A recent review paper, published in reviews on environmental health about a week ago, would be useful to have in this section:

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2021-0043/html

== What's in a name? Adding synonyms to the introductory sentence and stub pages -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 22:53, October 1, 2021 (UTC) ==

MCS is known by many names, depending on the legal context and jurisdiction. For example, The Canadian Human rights commission likes to call it "environmental sensitivity" although this is a more broad umbrella term. Another term being used in pathophysiological literature is TILT. Some more examples:

Environmental illness
Chemical intolerance
Gulf War syndrome
Sick building syndrome

Or perhaps we should remove IEI from the first sentence altogether and have a section dedicated specifically to alternate names?

Thoughts?

Talk:Bruce Hoffman

2021-09-26T19:31:03Z

Silliestchris:/* Reason for this page -- ~~~~ */ new section

== Reason for this page -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 19:31, September 26, 2021 (UTC) ==

I made this page because Bruce Hoffman is one of the few licensed physicians who deviates from the medical dogma around MCS and other poorly understood diseases and approaches it from a patient focused perspective. In particular, he is an expert on MCAS which is starting to be considered by researchers a key piece of the puzzle in understanding MCS.

Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity

2021-09-26T00:07:31Z

Silliestchris:/* Re: Popular culture -- Aletheia2020 (talk) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT) */

== Formatting problem with references -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:04, June 4, 2020 (EDT) ==

There seems to be a problem with some references disappearing. They remain as numbers without the reference. This seemed to start after the insertion of "see also"s, although I don't know if it's related.

Does anyone know how to fix? Thanks [User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:I have only just seen this. Which references are affected? If the text looks OK but the references list has entries like: <nowiki > 20. ^ </nowiki > then click on the up arrow symbol and it should show you whwre it comes from. The source editor view can then be used to see what the issue is. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:57, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

== Images -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT) ==

Could anyone please direct me to where I can read about policies relating to image use.

Also, I uploaded three images and they didn't seem to be well formatted on the mobile app, with the image apearing in the middle of sentences. I tried to fix, but unless my mobile is showing the old version, I'm not sure how to fix it, if anyone can help. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

==Electrohypersensitivity==
Does this belong as part of the page, or is it better on a separate page? Are there specific types or subtypes of MCS to cover?
If EHS goes on this page this this image
and reference look worth adding. Skin lesions on a patient with [[electrohypersensitivity]] (EHS).
[[File:Electrohypersensitivity_MCS_skin_lesions.png|thumb|center|200px|[https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 Skin lesson caused by electrohypersensitivity. Source: 2020, Belpomme and & Irigaray. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.]]]
*2020, Belpomme, Dominique; and Irigaray, Philippe. Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.<ref name="Belpomme2020">https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915</ref> - [https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 (Full text)]
Could MCS be broken down into Electrohypersensitivity, Food/drink allergies and intolerances, and chemical/environmental allergies and sensitivities? The MCSAware website (for instance) seemed to concentrate on those areas. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 20:43, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:56, June 4, 2020 (EDT)===

:Thanks for raising this. It's important. EHS is included under the umbrella term Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances, but most of the researchers into MCS don't like this term, since it has certain political associations. I think the consensus would say that EHS is a commonly comorbid condition to MCS and ME/CFS. I think it needs its own page.

:Likewise, food/drink allergies and intolerances are not MCS, which has a specific diagnostic criteria. Even though, many people with MCS do have food intolerances as well.[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:29, September 23, 2021 (UTC)===

: Hi, anectodally I have observed that EHS and MCS seem to be comorbid for some people. The Belpomme article really drives this home, as well. I think a statement should be made on the possible relationship, but EHS should have its own distinct page.

==Scientific sources==
Some sources don't meet the [[MEpedia:Science guidelines]], which have been updated quite recently. Sources that are blogs, websites belonging to an individual or a small group, or patients have been used as sources (or in Learn more) in some places without making it clear whose view these are. Verywellhealth for instance is simply a patient/health website without medical oversight. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Scientific sources -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:24, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: Surprisingly, not a lot of scholarly articles on the controvery itself except in miniature: like, controversy of mast cells' role in neuroendocrinology.

:: I'm looking into this now. Will add a list here. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:51, May 15, 2020 (EDT)

==Popular culture==
This isn't a section we normally cover (see [[MEpedia:Article_outlines]] and I would like it remove it. This page is already very long. The popular culture pages here are only for NE/CFS, so if there is something notable covering ME/CFS and MCS it could have a separate page in the culture category. [[User:Aletheia2020]] [[User:Kmdenmark]] [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]
I think the should also be less weight given to skeptics, Wikipedia and blogs in the controversy section. Wikipedia often includes excessive skeptical sources and excessive weight is given to them, but here we are mostly concerned with MCS as it relates to ME/CFS and possibly fibromyalgia or other comorbidities. Surely there should be some peer-reviewed research relating to the controversy? Articles on myths or misconceptions could be useful here, and in the Learn more section. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)===

: Hey [[User:Notjusttired]] Thanks very much for taking the time to review the page and for your thoughts. I'm new to MEpedia so will rely on the adivce of more established users but this was my rationale.

I'll go through your points one by one.

CC: [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]

'''Long, dense page''': I kept it all on one page primarily for SEO purposes, and following the Wikipedia model.

'''Popular culture:''' (taken from Wikipedia format) In the review of Safe, I tried to give a psychosocial perspective on how MCS is widely perceived and how this impacts the lives of sufferers. From my perspective, as an MCS sufferer, this is the more important section on the page because the scientific studies I don't think really describe how profound the social disslocation is that many people with MCS experience as a result of stigma.

'''Weight to skeptic argument:''' First, I do hear you on questioning my inclusion of this. I chose to cover it (what I see as the elephant in the room) because skeptics have dominated the Wikipedia page on MCS for many years. They delete anything there that contradicts their view and delete their accounts.

I hoped the summary of the controversy would give readers an intellectual and political context for Wikipedia's content--after all, Wikipedia has a big influence.

Also, because I'd read that Quackwatch and SBM invest a lot in their SEO, I thought that referring to many of their articles and using the language that they use to denigrate people with MCS may help the page's SEO. That hypothesis might have worked since the page has moved from page 30 to page 1 on a range of MCS search terms.

Re peer-reviewed research relating to this controversy, other than the consensus of last year (which said that the scientists arguing that MCS was psychologically-caused had conflicts of interest), I'm not aware of anything. It may be out there, but I've not seen it. Unfortunately, research into MCS has been limited.

'''General direction'''
I wrote this page for MEpedia on the understanding that this would just be a page about MCS--one that wasn't subject to the censorship restrictions of Wikipedia.

While there is a section on how it relates to ME, that certainly wasn't my goal in investing my time in this. My goal was to create
a reputable source that people with MCS could go to for resources and that they could direct others to (ie. loved ones, new friends, doctors, hospitals).

If MEpedia would prefer for the focus to be on how MCS relates to ME, I don't think I'd want to be involved with that. One, because I'm not an expert on that subject (I'm also not sure if much research has been done on that subject); and two, because I don't think it's what people with MCS need.

Sensitivities can be a symptom of ME, but MCS is a standalone condition, and I'd like it to get the space and spotlight it needs as a very serious standalone condition.

If MEpedia isn't the place for that, I understand. I also wish I'd known that before I'd given my content to MEpedia and invested a lot of time on the page. In light of that, I'd like to be able to take my content with me, if you decide to change the direction of the page significantly. I wrote all of it except for the section ME and MCS. It's the culmination of several years work for me, and I'd like to see it published somewhere.

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

:::Thanks for your reply [[User:Aletheia2020]]. I perhaps was a bit unclear about how it impacts ME - I think a stand alone page is incredibly useful, but any extra sources that cover it as a comorbidity of ME/CFS and/or fibromyalgia would be really useful. MCS is a huge complication for many with ME so the page is extremely useful. Similarly, the Fibromyalgia has ended up very long, there's a separate [[Fibromyalgia drugs]] page - would a [[Fibromyalgia treatments]] summary page be helpful? Anything that could be added to individual treatment pages about MCS would be helpful, just add a subheading for it (not sure what potions there are in terms of management / treatments).
I think if you have time, some of what is here would be useful on pages like [[Medically unexplained symptoms]], and [[psychologization]]. As regards SEO, the MediaWiki software controls so much of that. Things I've noticed that are very useful are adding some images (quotes or other pictures), careful wording of the first 2 lines of the article, increasing the number of subheadings and having subheadings related to things that are commonly searched for since these then appear as short links in the search results.
Perhaps the "popular culture" heading could be changed to something about what it's like to live with MCS?
Regarding the "learn more" section - are there some leaflets for patients or Consensus guidelines and criteria that could go there?
I've noticed the huge amount of work you are putting into the page, I can't think you enough for that. :-) I see so many online struggling with MCS and with few reliable places to go, and difficulties explaining things to others. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 06:58, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for your note and suggestions[[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] and [[User:JaimeS]].

I took from your further comments that you're OK with leaving the page generally as is but that you wanted the popular culture section changed and more on how MCS impacts ME. Is that right? Or do you still think further sections should be cut, reduced or separated out onto other pages?

As for how MCS impacts ME, I agree it's an important subject, and it's actually not one I had thought much about until this conversation.

Myself I have both conditions, and I would say that out of the people I know with severe and longstanding MCS, the majority seem to also have ME.

From my perspective, the biggest complication MCS creates for a person who also has ME is access/disability issues, which can greatly compromise getting accommodation, support and medical care. Of course, these disability aspects of MCS create these complexities for the sufferer in relation to any comorbid medical condition, not just ME. It complicates them getting medical care for MCS symptoms.

Access issues is a section I've been meaning to write (and it's alluded to in hospital care). I've been procrastinating on it cos it's literally such a big subject, I'm still figuring out how to summarise it into a small section.

So, im summary, I agree that this subject is important. It's just not what I had in mind when I wrote this page page. And to me it seems a bit specific for this page.

I wrote this page with a general, unninformed target audience in mind, hence talking a little about a wide range of subjects, with the idea that the reader could come to the page with literally no idea what MCS is.

In contrast, how MCS impacts ME would be for an informed audience (ie. mostly likely people with both conditions or their loved ones or carers).

As for SEO, the reason I started paying more attention to that, is that when the page was first up (for the first month or so), it was coming up around page 30 on Google--really too deeply buried to make a difference for random searches. I consulted an SEO expert and he suggested incorporating certain words and questions into the content, where possible. Two weeks after I started doing that, I noticed the page coming up much higher in Google for certain subjects. And it seemed to come up higher still the more I did it. It wasn't the only SEO tactic I used, so I don't know for sure whether it was responsible for it coming up higher, but I think it might have been.

Like you [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] the SEO consultant said that incorporating common googled phrases and questions in headings is the best, although I thought your page followed a similar template to Wikipedia in relation to headings, so didn't want to mess with them. It sounds like there is some flexibility there, though?

On images [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]], thanks, that's good to know. They would be good to incorporate. Is there a place that MEpedia contributors commonly get stock images?

And [[User:JaimeS]] with the Safe review having non-scientific resources quoted, I assumed this was OK because a movie review is a movie review--ie. it's not making any controversial scientific claims (and obviously there are no scientific sources about movies). I still thought there was value in quoting media and academic sources about the film because it gives a glimpse into the director's intent and how it was widely interpreted.

I see that Safe has been shortened and some of that content moved to the Safe page. Wasn't sure if that related to the sources I'd used to you just wanting to shorten it.

But I wonder if you'd consider leaving it as is. I ask because the review was carefully written, dense with terms and phrases that I thought could potentially help SEO. It was easier to do that in this section because it had freer form that the scientific sections.

As well, I think the detail about Safe is important because it's not a straight-out narrative about someone having MCS.

The film is actually very vague about what's happening to Carol and why (even though it's a perfectly realistic depiction of what MCS looks like). This vagueness is probably why the film was interpreted in many diverse ways (eg. as a horror film, as a feminist film).

The summary as brief as it is now I don't think really conveys the nuance of how nuance of how the condition is presented. For example, I think it's an important detail to include that nowhere in the film does it mention MCS. It's just that Haynes has confirmed that this was the condition he wrote the film about. Haynes actually wrote the film as a metaphor for how patients with AIDS were treated. I didn't go into that cos it did seem like unnecessary detail for the MCS page, but, basically, Safe isn't a clear cut film about MCS.

Also, I thought because it is at the bottom of the page, I didn't think it would distract from other content by being a little detailed.

Finally re Mepedia policies, apologies if I haven't adhered to all of them and for the time it takes other editors to fix my mistakes [[User:JaimeS]] [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]. I did read through them at the start, and probably didn't retain all I read. I'll go over them again. But my memory isn't great, so thanks for nudges about times that I've deviated from them. [[User:Aletheia2020]]

Hello all, I am just coming up to speed on the discussion and I am very impressed with what, mainly, [[User:Aletheia2020]] has put together here. The MCS page has taken on a life of its own, and I think that Mepedia in general has grown into something far beyond what the founders originally envisioned. I actually found this page because I was appalled at the bias on wikipedia's MCS page. I used to donate to Wikipedia, but my donations will be going to Mepedia instead, now.

====Re: Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 19:29, May 16, 2020 (EDT)====

:: Replace this text with your reply

====Re: Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 00:07, September 26, 2021 (UTC)====

:: Replace this text with your reply

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:13, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: I agree that the section that exists now is a little over-sourced and could be edited down. Re: censorship, I know that Wikipedia has a really frustrating and demeaning history of falling on the side of reactionary skepticism/mockery of people with chronic conditions. MEpedia is moderated by a patient advocacy organization, not would not seek stifle the voice of people with chronic conditions.

I think you and I have had conversations on this, Aletheia2020! You know I agree with you that good information should be available for those who seek it. As I mentioned when we spoke about this, we do have particular requirements for which sources are considered scholarly, and some general editing rules of thumb (like how many sources are cited per fact). You can find most of these in the science guidelines (http://me-pedia.org/wiki/Science_Guidelines).

Since this is a Wiki, the page would be open to improvement by anyone at any time. In the case of vandalism or unhelpful edits, we have the ability to revert to the previous edits, but locking a page indefinitely after one set of edits would be something we would only do if we were seeing (or suspected we would see) repeated vandalism on the page.

[Edit -- reading quickly through, let me know if there's anything I've missed.]

== Missing reference #19 -- [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST) ==

[[User:Aletheia2020]] Thanks for your great work on this page! There is one reference missing though, currently numbered #19. Please double-check. Thanks again.
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST)

:[[User:Pyrrhus]] Thank you, and sorry about that reference. For some reason, a few disappeared. It will take me a bit of time to work out which ones went missing when I cut and pasted. I'll try to fix it in the coming days <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

== First section on chemical sensitivities in ME/CFS ==

Hey, I wasn't sure who edited this section, but I envisaged this page as one about MCS as a standalone condition--a condition which is commonly comorbid with ME/CFS. I didn't want it to be chemical sensitivities or MCS in ME/CFS, since the content that follows that section isn't that.

I was going to change it back, but if you don't agree, happy to chat about it.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:I'm afraid I don't understand what exactly you are referring to. Could you clarify? Generally speaking, pages on MEpedia should state at the outset what the relevance to ME/CFS is. This section is usually titled "Such-and-such in ME/CFS". The point of the section is to explain why this topic is RELEVANT to ME, to avoid having the page deleted for falling outside the scope of MEpedia. The merits of considering a particular condition as a COMORBIDITY are typically covered in a separate section. I hope this helps.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:51, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Hey [[User:Pyrrhus]] thank you for the extra details. I understand.

::My concerns is that medication, food and odour sensitivities are not MCS and the way that the paragraph is now phrased makes it a little confusing on a page about MCS--especially when it's the first section after the intro.

::MCS has specific diagnostic criteria, and, yes, it often is accompanied by medication, food and odour sensitivities, but not always. And the MCS community has some good reasons to distinguish between odour and chemical sensitivities because different studies and conclusions apply to these two phenomenon.

::If you'd rather leave the title like that because its your convention, no worries. I think that works OK.

::But I think that taking the paragraph back to what I had would make it clearer about what MCS is. Food sensitivities etc are really for a whole nother page.

::Also, I spelled out ME/CFS here since it's the first time it's mentioned on the page and people may come to this page from Googling MCS and not know what ME/CFS is. I also thought it important to specify that the consensus documents were about ME/CFS since it's not clear otherwise what they are consenses about.

::What do you think?[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::You make some very good points [[User:Aletheia2020]]. Give me a little time to incorporate your points into a draft section, which I will post here on the discussion page for you to review and edit. Thanks.
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:41, February 12, 2020 (EST)

:::Okay, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], how does the following section look?
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:59, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::::Thanks for doing that [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]]. Looks good. I think that that is very clear. Whether that level of detail is required above what was there before, I don't know. But I found it interesting to read the details.

::::The only thing I didn't agree with was the last bit, saying some studies differentiate odour and chemical sensitivities. I think it's a very important to make clear that MCS is not odour sensitivity. I think this is a common misconception.

::::If you look at the 1999 criteria for MCS (and proposed changes to that in the 2019 consensus) there is nothing about sensitivities to odours mentioned in the diagnostic criteria.

::::Some triggering chemicals have odours and some people with MCS have exaggerated senses of smell, but many triggering chemicals (eg. many pesticides) don't have a perceptible smell and many people with MCS have normal senses of smell, and some have no sense of smell at all (which makes avoiding triggers pretty tricky).

::::In my experience, studies into odour sensitivity are often more focused on a perceived nocebo/psychosomatic angle, and in relation to MCS, these have been used in attempts to discredit MCS as a physical disorder. So I'd rather keep my distance from them.

::::From what I can tell, the Quackwatch/SBM mob like to characterise MCS as something like: a bunch of hysterical women getting anxious, angry and upset when they smell perfume or petrol, in some kind of paranoid fit of chemophobia.

::::But this characterisation doesn't explain MCS when the triggering chemical has no smell or when the reaction is from topical contact, ingestion or injection (eg. in the case of anaesthetics, which are notorious for making people with MCS ill).

::::Anyway, in summary, I'd just cut the final sentence. I think the rest of the contact makes it clear MCS is not sensitivity to odours. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::::Thanks for all the background, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]]. I have learned a lot about MCS in this conversation. I think many people in the ME community, including those with MCS, are unaware that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria. So your work on this page helps a lot. I'll go ahead and cut the final sentence and then copy it over. Thanks again.
:::::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:17, February 14, 2020 (EST)

::::::It's really good to read that feedback : [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] -- thank you. I think the "is MCS real?" conversation has really eclipsed conversations about what the condition actually is. And that hasn't helped sufferers. Hopefully this page is of use to other people with chemical sensitivities or MCS.

::::::Also, thank you also for your patience with me as I've been learning how things work on here.````Aletheia2020

<div style="background:#FFFFE0;border:1px dotted black">
== MCS in ME and ME/CFS ==
MCS has been described as a comorbidity of [[ME/CFS|myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]] (ME/CFS) and [[fibromyalgia]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ammes.org/overlapping-conditions/|title=Overlapping Conditions – American ME and CFS Society|website=ammes.org|language=en-US|access-date=2018-08-12}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.verywellhealth.com/fibromyalgia-comorbid-overlapping-conditions-716184|title=Illness That Come Along with Fibromyalgia & Chronic Fatigue Syndrome|last=Dellwo|first=Adrienne|authorlink=Adrienne Dellwo|date=Feb 26, 2018|work=Verywell Health|access-date=2018-08-23|archive-url=|archive-date=|url-status=}}</ref> The [[Canadian Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing ME/CFS lists "new sensitivities to food, medications and/or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)" as a comorbidity. The [[International Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) lists "sensitivities to food, medications, odours or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "multiple chemical sensitivities" as a comorbidity. A 2019 publication of the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition lists "chemical sensitivity" as a symptom of ME/CFS and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities" as a commonly comorbid condition.<ref>“Diagnosing and Treating ME/CFS” by the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition, August 2019. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SG7hlJTCSDrDHqvioPMq-cX-rgRKXjfk/view</ref>

However, it is important to note that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria which do ''not'' include medication, food or odor sensitivities.<ref name="pmid10444033" /> Furthermore, some studies have differentiated odor sensitivity and chemical sensitivity as two separate phenomena.{{citation needed}}
</div>

== On This is a Potential comorbidities page ==
I wondered how we can resolve whether it is or isn't a comorbidity. I know the US Coalition on ME/CFS consensus from last year said it was, but I'm really not up on other ME/CFS stuff.

I think removing the banner would look better if it can be agreed either way.

Thanks <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:A page is expected to objectively weigh the evidence for and against considering a condition as a comorbidity. As much as possible, we leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Because of this, we recently renamed our "Comorbidities" category to "Potential comorbidities", in order to let the page itself weigh the evidence, and in order to let the reader come to their own conclusion.

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, got it. Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:These sorts of debates just don't belong in category-naming decisions. Categories are simply a convenient way to group articles, nothing more, and we don't want to complicate things by politicizing category names. We did the same thing with the "Treatments" category, which is now called "Potential treatments". With that said, the banner is indeed ugly and distracting. We have developed a better banner and are (still) waiting for our technical people to finally implement the better banner. For the time being, we just have to put up with the current ugly and distracting banner...

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK. That's good to know. Yes, it's very dominating as it is atm. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:07, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Oops, [[User:Aletheia2020]], I forgot to mention that the word "comorbidity" on MEpedia has a specific meaning: it means a condition that is statistically more likely to be found in the original condition, than it is to be found in the general population. I only mention that since there are other definitions out there...
::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:28, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, noted. I'll stick with your definition. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== English or American spelling? ==

[[User:Pyrrhus]] I noticed that you changed some ss to zs in words but changed centers to centres. So I was unsure if you went with American or English spelling on this page? Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:44, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:The [[MEpedia:Manual of style]] specifies American spelling and dates, which I why I changed some spelling, including changing "centres" to "centers". Then I realized that the word "centres" was part of a quote from a Canadian, so I changed "centers" back to "centres". I hope this clarifies things. Good catch!
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:48, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::Ah, I got it [[User:pyrrhus|pyrrhus]]. No worries.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== Questionable comparison that could be interpreted as bias ==

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], I notice that you make a comparison between "merchants of doubt", who are paid to disseminate disinformation that they don't themselves believe, and intolerant skeptics, who may use similar tactics but are unpaid and actually believe what they are claiming. Some may say that this is an unfair comparison that displays bias on our part. Perhaps rephrase?
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 14:34, February 12, 2020 (EST)

===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.

: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.

: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).

: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

==References==
{{reftalk}}

== Headings and SEO -- ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT) ==

Please avoid using questions as headings, and avoid using the page name within headings. The MediaWiki software is built by Wikipedia so should already be able to work out that a subheading is linked to the topic page, and phrasing the first line under the heading carefully should be enough, e.g. The symptoms of MCS include...". Headings should be worded as per the examples on [[MEpedia:Article outlines]].

SEO rankings increase when small pages cover the exact topic, e.g. you could create a few small page in the format of a '''list''', [[Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms]] then use <code><nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity}}</nowiki></code> to point back to the original page. The original page would a less detailed description of symptoms, and could use <nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms}}</nowiki></code> to take users back to it. The new page would go in the [[Category:Lists]] and [[Category:Signs and symptoms]]. I am thinking of creating a list page for [[Deaths from myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]], so will be interested to see how this ranks compared to the [[causes of death]], [[Sophia Mirza]], and [[severe and very severe ME]] pages. (Sophia's is one of the top pages on MEpedia). ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

==Images==
I believe images would help SEO. If you would like a simple image creating eg for the symptoms, can you let me know what design and colors (green? primary colors?) you would like or links to any images with the layout you want. Images are highlighted by search engine results and encourage views and also get saved to pinterest which results in more views. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

== Additions to history -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:54, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

It could aid patient advocacy to put some precedent setting decisions in here. One court case example that comes to mind is the Canada Revenue Association vs a woman (a large MCS advocate in Canada, forget the name) who had claimed tax deductible renovations on her home to accommodate MCS. Would this be helpful here, or would a section on MCS in the court system be more suitable?

== MCS as a symptom of a disease, not a disease. -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 06:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

This is a controversial idea, I know, and I am not aiming to make any additions or changes. However, given the rapidly advancing state of knowledge on the underlying mechanisms of MCS, I think it will be helpful to have a discussion about this idea.

The more I learn about MCS and talk to people with it, the more it becomes apparent that the sensitivity is a symptom of underlying problems which are diverse, complex, and different for every individual. And yes, the underlying problems are almost universally caused or initiated by toxic exposure. One example is Mast Cell Activation Syndrome. Another is Oxidative Stress. You get the idea. Thoughts?

== Additions to recognition section -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 16:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 16:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

It would be helpful for patients to add some more detail on legal recognition. For example, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has taken a rather firm stance on environmental sensitivities: https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/policy_sensitivity_0.pdf

"Individuals with environmental sensitivities experience a variety of adverse reactions to environmental
agents at concentrations well below those that might affect the “average person”. This medical condition is a
disability and those living with environmental sensitivities are entitled to the protection of the Canadian
Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability."

== New references for notable studies section -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 16:38, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

A recent review paper, published in reviews on environmental health about a week ago, would be useful to have in this section:

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2021-0043/html

Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity

2021-09-25T23:59:08Z

Silliestchris:Got excited and didn't read the article carefully enough. Removed my redundant suggestions from the discussion for clarity.

== Formatting problem with references -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:04, June 4, 2020 (EDT) ==

There seems to be a problem with some references disappearing. They remain as numbers without the reference. This seemed to start after the insertion of "see also"s, although I don't know if it's related.

Does anyone know how to fix? Thanks [User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:I have only just seen this. Which references are affected? If the text looks OK but the references list has entries like: <nowiki > 20. ^ </nowiki > then click on the up arrow symbol and it should show you whwre it comes from. The source editor view can then be used to see what the issue is. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:57, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

== Images -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT) ==

Could anyone please direct me to where I can read about policies relating to image use.

Also, I uploaded three images and they didn't seem to be well formatted on the mobile app, with the image apearing in the middle of sentences. I tried to fix, but unless my mobile is showing the old version, I'm not sure how to fix it, if anyone can help. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

==Electrohypersensitivity==
Does this belong as part of the page, or is it better on a separate page? Are there specific types or subtypes of MCS to cover?
If EHS goes on this page this this image
and reference look worth adding. Skin lesions on a patient with [[electrohypersensitivity]] (EHS).
[[File:Electrohypersensitivity_MCS_skin_lesions.png|thumb|center|200px|[https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 Skin lesson caused by electrohypersensitivity. Source: 2020, Belpomme and & Irigaray. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.]]]
*2020, Belpomme, Dominique; and Irigaray, Philippe. Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.<ref name="Belpomme2020">https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915</ref> - [https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 (Full text)]
Could MCS be broken down into Electrohypersensitivity, Food/drink allergies and intolerances, and chemical/environmental allergies and sensitivities? The MCSAware website (for instance) seemed to concentrate on those areas. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 20:43, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:56, June 4, 2020 (EDT)===

:Thanks for raising this. It's important. EHS is included under the umbrella term Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances, but most of the researchers into MCS don't like this term, since it has certain political associations. I think the consensus would say that EHS is a commonly comorbid condition to MCS and ME/CFS. I think it needs its own page.

:Likewise, food/drink allergies and intolerances are not MCS, which has a specific diagnostic criteria. Even though, many people with MCS do have food intolerances as well.[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:29, September 23, 2021 (UTC)===

: Hi, anectodally I have observed that EHS and MCS seem to be comorbid for some people. The Belpomme article really drives this home, as well. I think a statement should be made on the possible relationship, but EHS should have its own distinct page.

==Scientific sources==
Some sources don't meet the [[MEpedia:Science guidelines]], which have been updated quite recently. Sources that are blogs, websites belonging to an individual or a small group, or patients have been used as sources (or in Learn more) in some places without making it clear whose view these are. Verywellhealth for instance is simply a patient/health website without medical oversight. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Scientific sources -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:24, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: Surprisingly, not a lot of scholarly articles on the controvery itself except in miniature: like, controversy of mast cells' role in neuroendocrinology.

:: I'm looking into this now. Will add a list here. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:51, May 15, 2020 (EDT)

==Popular culture==
This isn't a section we normally cover (see [[MEpedia:Article_outlines]] and I would like it remove it. This page is already very long. The popular culture pages here are only for NE/CFS, so if there is something notable covering ME/CFS and MCS it could have a separate page in the culture category. [[User:Aletheia2020]] [[User:Kmdenmark]] [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]
I think the should also be less weight given to skeptics, Wikipedia and blogs in the controversy section. Wikipedia often includes excessive skeptical sources and excessive weight is given to them, but here we are mostly concerned with MCS as it relates to ME/CFS and possibly fibromyalgia or other comorbidities. Surely there should be some peer-reviewed research relating to the controversy? Articles on myths or misconceptions could be useful here, and in the Learn more section. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)===

: Hey [[User:Notjusttired]] Thanks very much for taking the time to review the page and for your thoughts. I'm new to MEpedia so will rely on the adivce of more established users but this was my rationale.

I'll go through your points one by one.

CC: [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]

'''Long, dense page''': I kept it all on one page primarily for SEO purposes, and following the Wikipedia model.

'''Popular culture:''' (taken from Wikipedia format) In the review of Safe, I tried to give a psychosocial perspective on how MCS is widely perceived and how this impacts the lives of sufferers. From my perspective, as an MCS sufferer, this is the more important section on the page because the scientific studies I don't think really describe how profound the social disslocation is that many people with MCS experience as a result of stigma.

'''Weight to skeptic argument:''' First, I do hear you on questioning my inclusion of this. I chose to cover it (what I see as the elephant in the room) because skeptics have dominated the Wikipedia page on MCS for many years. They delete anything there that contradicts their view and delete their accounts.

I hoped the summary of the controversy would give readers an intellectual and political context for Wikipedia's content--after all, Wikipedia has a big influence.

Also, because I'd read that Quackwatch and SBM invest a lot in their SEO, I thought that referring to many of their articles and using the language that they use to denigrate people with MCS may help the page's SEO. That hypothesis might have worked since the page has moved from page 30 to page 1 on a range of MCS search terms.

Re peer-reviewed research relating to this controversy, other than the consensus of last year (which said that the scientists arguing that MCS was psychologically-caused had conflicts of interest), I'm not aware of anything. It may be out there, but I've not seen it. Unfortunately, research into MCS has been limited.

'''General direction'''
I wrote this page for MEpedia on the understanding that this would just be a page about MCS--one that wasn't subject to the censorship restrictions of Wikipedia.

While there is a section on how it relates to ME, that certainly wasn't my goal in investing my time in this. My goal was to create
a reputable source that people with MCS could go to for resources and that they could direct others to (ie. loved ones, new friends, doctors, hospitals).

If MEpedia would prefer for the focus to be on how MCS relates to ME, I don't think I'd want to be involved with that. One, because I'm not an expert on that subject (I'm also not sure if much research has been done on that subject); and two, because I don't think it's what people with MCS need.

Sensitivities can be a symptom of ME, but MCS is a standalone condition, and I'd like it to get the space and spotlight it needs as a very serious standalone condition.

If MEpedia isn't the place for that, I understand. I also wish I'd known that before I'd given my content to MEpedia and invested a lot of time on the page. In light of that, I'd like to be able to take my content with me, if you decide to change the direction of the page significantly. I wrote all of it except for the section ME and MCS. It's the culmination of several years work for me, and I'd like to see it published somewhere.

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

:::Thanks for your reply [[User:Aletheia2020]]. I perhaps was a bit unclear about how it impacts ME - I think a stand alone page is incredibly useful, but any extra sources that cover it as a comorbidity of ME/CFS and/or fibromyalgia would be really useful. MCS is a huge complication for many with ME so the page is extremely useful. Similarly, the Fibromyalgia has ended up very long, there's a separate [[Fibromyalgia drugs]] page - would a [[Fibromyalgia treatments]] summary page be helpful? Anything that could be added to individual treatment pages about MCS would be helpful, just add a subheading for it (not sure what potions there are in terms of management / treatments).
I think if you have time, some of what is here would be useful on pages like [[Medically unexplained symptoms]], and [[psychologization]]. As regards SEO, the MediaWiki software controls so much of that. Things I've noticed that are very useful are adding some images (quotes or other pictures), careful wording of the first 2 lines of the article, increasing the number of subheadings and having subheadings related to things that are commonly searched for since these then appear as short links in the search results.
Perhaps the "popular culture" heading could be changed to something about what it's like to live with MCS?
Regarding the "learn more" section - are there some leaflets for patients or Consensus guidelines and criteria that could go there?
I've noticed the huge amount of work you are putting into the page, I can't think you enough for that. :-) I see so many online struggling with MCS and with few reliable places to go, and difficulties explaining things to others. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 06:58, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for your note and suggestions[[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] and [[User:JaimeS]].

I took from your further comments that you're OK with leaving the page generally as is but that you wanted the popular culture section changed and more on how MCS impacts ME. Is that right? Or do you still think further sections should be cut, reduced or separated out onto other pages?

As for how MCS impacts ME, I agree it's an important subject, and it's actually not one I had thought much about until this conversation.

Myself I have both conditions, and I would say that out of the people I know with severe and longstanding MCS, the majority seem to also have ME.

From my perspective, the biggest complication MCS creates for a person who also has ME is access/disability issues, which can greatly compromise getting accommodation, support and medical care. Of course, these disability aspects of MCS create these complexities for the sufferer in relation to any comorbid medical condition, not just ME. It complicates them getting medical care for MCS symptoms.

Access issues is a section I've been meaning to write (and it's alluded to in hospital care). I've been procrastinating on it cos it's literally such a big subject, I'm still figuring out how to summarise it into a small section.

So, im summary, I agree that this subject is important. It's just not what I had in mind when I wrote this page page. And to me it seems a bit specific for this page.

I wrote this page with a general, unninformed target audience in mind, hence talking a little about a wide range of subjects, with the idea that the reader could come to the page with literally no idea what MCS is.

In contrast, how MCS impacts ME would be for an informed audience (ie. mostly likely people with both conditions or their loved ones or carers).

As for SEO, the reason I started paying more attention to that, is that when the page was first up (for the first month or so), it was coming up around page 30 on Google--really too deeply buried to make a difference for random searches. I consulted an SEO expert and he suggested incorporating certain words and questions into the content, where possible. Two weeks after I started doing that, I noticed the page coming up much higher in Google for certain subjects. And it seemed to come up higher still the more I did it. It wasn't the only SEO tactic I used, so I don't know for sure whether it was responsible for it coming up higher, but I think it might have been.

Like you [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] the SEO consultant said that incorporating common googled phrases and questions in headings is the best, although I thought your page followed a similar template to Wikipedia in relation to headings, so didn't want to mess with them. It sounds like there is some flexibility there, though?

On images [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]], thanks, that's good to know. They would be good to incorporate. Is there a place that MEpedia contributors commonly get stock images?

And [[User:JaimeS]] with the Safe review having non-scientific resources quoted, I assumed this was OK because a movie review is a movie review--ie. it's not making any controversial scientific claims (and obviously there are no scientific sources about movies). I still thought there was value in quoting media and academic sources about the film because it gives a glimpse into the director's intent and how it was widely interpreted.

I see that Safe has been shortened and some of that content moved to the Safe page. Wasn't sure if that related to the sources I'd used to you just wanting to shorten it.

But I wonder if you'd consider leaving it as is. I ask because the review was carefully written, dense with terms and phrases that I thought could potentially help SEO. It was easier to do that in this section because it had freer form that the scientific sections.

As well, I think the detail about Safe is important because it's not a straight-out narrative about someone having MCS.

The film is actually very vague about what's happening to Carol and why (even though it's a perfectly realistic depiction of what MCS looks like). This vagueness is probably why the film was interpreted in many diverse ways (eg. as a horror film, as a feminist film).

The summary as brief as it is now I don't think really conveys the nuance of how nuance of how the condition is presented. For example, I think it's an important detail to include that nowhere in the film does it mention MCS. It's just that Haynes has confirmed that this was the condition he wrote the film about. Haynes actually wrote the film as a metaphor for how patients with AIDS were treated. I didn't go into that cos it did seem like unnecessary detail for the MCS page, but, basically, Safe isn't a clear cut film about MCS.

Also, I thought because it is at the bottom of the page, I didn't think it would distract from other content by being a little detailed.

Finally re Mepedia policies, apologies if I haven't adhered to all of them and for the time it takes other editors to fix my mistakes [[User:JaimeS]] [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]. I did read through them at the start, and probably didn't retain all I read. I'll go over them again. But my memory isn't great, so thanks for nudges about times that I've deviated from them. [[User:Aletheia2020]]

====Re: Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 19:29, May 16, 2020 (EDT)====

:: Replace this text with your reply

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:13, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: I agree that the section that exists now is a little over-sourced and could be edited down. Re: censorship, I know that Wikipedia has a really frustrating and demeaning history of falling on the side of reactionary skepticism/mockery of people with chronic conditions. MEpedia is moderated by a patient advocacy organization, not would not seek stifle the voice of people with chronic conditions.

I think you and I have had conversations on this, Aletheia2020! You know I agree with you that good information should be available for those who seek it. As I mentioned when we spoke about this, we do have particular requirements for which sources are considered scholarly, and some general editing rules of thumb (like how many sources are cited per fact). You can find most of these in the science guidelines (http://me-pedia.org/wiki/Science_Guidelines).

Since this is a Wiki, the page would be open to improvement by anyone at any time. In the case of vandalism or unhelpful edits, we have the ability to revert to the previous edits, but locking a page indefinitely after one set of edits would be something we would only do if we were seeing (or suspected we would see) repeated vandalism on the page.

[Edit -- reading quickly through, let me know if there's anything I've missed.]

== Missing reference #19 -- [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST) ==

[[User:Aletheia2020]] Thanks for your great work on this page! There is one reference missing though, currently numbered #19. Please double-check. Thanks again.
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST)

:[[User:Pyrrhus]] Thank you, and sorry about that reference. For some reason, a few disappeared. It will take me a bit of time to work out which ones went missing when I cut and pasted. I'll try to fix it in the coming days <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

== First section on chemical sensitivities in ME/CFS ==

Hey, I wasn't sure who edited this section, but I envisaged this page as one about MCS as a standalone condition--a condition which is commonly comorbid with ME/CFS. I didn't want it to be chemical sensitivities or MCS in ME/CFS, since the content that follows that section isn't that.

I was going to change it back, but if you don't agree, happy to chat about it.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:I'm afraid I don't understand what exactly you are referring to. Could you clarify? Generally speaking, pages on MEpedia should state at the outset what the relevance to ME/CFS is. This section is usually titled "Such-and-such in ME/CFS". The point of the section is to explain why this topic is RELEVANT to ME, to avoid having the page deleted for falling outside the scope of MEpedia. The merits of considering a particular condition as a COMORBIDITY are typically covered in a separate section. I hope this helps.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:51, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Hey [[User:Pyrrhus]] thank you for the extra details. I understand.

::My concerns is that medication, food and odour sensitivities are not MCS and the way that the paragraph is now phrased makes it a little confusing on a page about MCS--especially when it's the first section after the intro.

::MCS has specific diagnostic criteria, and, yes, it often is accompanied by medication, food and odour sensitivities, but not always. And the MCS community has some good reasons to distinguish between odour and chemical sensitivities because different studies and conclusions apply to these two phenomenon.

::If you'd rather leave the title like that because its your convention, no worries. I think that works OK.

::But I think that taking the paragraph back to what I had would make it clearer about what MCS is. Food sensitivities etc are really for a whole nother page.

::Also, I spelled out ME/CFS here since it's the first time it's mentioned on the page and people may come to this page from Googling MCS and not know what ME/CFS is. I also thought it important to specify that the consensus documents were about ME/CFS since it's not clear otherwise what they are consenses about.

::What do you think?[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::You make some very good points [[User:Aletheia2020]]. Give me a little time to incorporate your points into a draft section, which I will post here on the discussion page for you to review and edit. Thanks.
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:41, February 12, 2020 (EST)

:::Okay, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], how does the following section look?
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:59, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::::Thanks for doing that [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]]. Looks good. I think that that is very clear. Whether that level of detail is required above what was there before, I don't know. But I found it interesting to read the details.

::::The only thing I didn't agree with was the last bit, saying some studies differentiate odour and chemical sensitivities. I think it's a very important to make clear that MCS is not odour sensitivity. I think this is a common misconception.

::::If you look at the 1999 criteria for MCS (and proposed changes to that in the 2019 consensus) there is nothing about sensitivities to odours mentioned in the diagnostic criteria.

::::Some triggering chemicals have odours and some people with MCS have exaggerated senses of smell, but many triggering chemicals (eg. many pesticides) don't have a perceptible smell and many people with MCS have normal senses of smell, and some have no sense of smell at all (which makes avoiding triggers pretty tricky).

::::In my experience, studies into odour sensitivity are often more focused on a perceived nocebo/psychosomatic angle, and in relation to MCS, these have been used in attempts to discredit MCS as a physical disorder. So I'd rather keep my distance from them.

::::From what I can tell, the Quackwatch/SBM mob like to characterise MCS as something like: a bunch of hysterical women getting anxious, angry and upset when they smell perfume or petrol, in some kind of paranoid fit of chemophobia.

::::But this characterisation doesn't explain MCS when the triggering chemical has no smell or when the reaction is from topical contact, ingestion or injection (eg. in the case of anaesthetics, which are notorious for making people with MCS ill).

::::Anyway, in summary, I'd just cut the final sentence. I think the rest of the contact makes it clear MCS is not sensitivity to odours. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::::Thanks for all the background, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]]. I have learned a lot about MCS in this conversation. I think many people in the ME community, including those with MCS, are unaware that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria. So your work on this page helps a lot. I'll go ahead and cut the final sentence and then copy it over. Thanks again.
:::::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:17, February 14, 2020 (EST)

::::::It's really good to read that feedback : [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] -- thank you. I think the "is MCS real?" conversation has really eclipsed conversations about what the condition actually is. And that hasn't helped sufferers. Hopefully this page is of use to other people with chemical sensitivities or MCS.

::::::Also, thank you also for your patience with me as I've been learning how things work on here.````Aletheia2020

<div style="background:#FFFFE0;border:1px dotted black">
== MCS in ME and ME/CFS ==
MCS has been described as a comorbidity of [[ME/CFS|myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]] (ME/CFS) and [[fibromyalgia]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ammes.org/overlapping-conditions/|title=Overlapping Conditions – American ME and CFS Society|website=ammes.org|language=en-US|access-date=2018-08-12}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.verywellhealth.com/fibromyalgia-comorbid-overlapping-conditions-716184|title=Illness That Come Along with Fibromyalgia & Chronic Fatigue Syndrome|last=Dellwo|first=Adrienne|authorlink=Adrienne Dellwo|date=Feb 26, 2018|work=Verywell Health|access-date=2018-08-23|archive-url=|archive-date=|url-status=}}</ref> The [[Canadian Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing ME/CFS lists "new sensitivities to food, medications and/or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)" as a comorbidity. The [[International Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) lists "sensitivities to food, medications, odours or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "multiple chemical sensitivities" as a comorbidity. A 2019 publication of the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition lists "chemical sensitivity" as a symptom of ME/CFS and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities" as a commonly comorbid condition.<ref>“Diagnosing and Treating ME/CFS” by the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition, August 2019. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SG7hlJTCSDrDHqvioPMq-cX-rgRKXjfk/view</ref>

However, it is important to note that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria which do ''not'' include medication, food or odor sensitivities.<ref name="pmid10444033" /> Furthermore, some studies have differentiated odor sensitivity and chemical sensitivity as two separate phenomena.{{citation needed}}
</div>

== On This is a Potential comorbidities page ==
I wondered how we can resolve whether it is or isn't a comorbidity. I know the US Coalition on ME/CFS consensus from last year said it was, but I'm really not up on other ME/CFS stuff.

I think removing the banner would look better if it can be agreed either way.

Thanks <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:A page is expected to objectively weigh the evidence for and against considering a condition as a comorbidity. As much as possible, we leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Because of this, we recently renamed our "Comorbidities" category to "Potential comorbidities", in order to let the page itself weigh the evidence, and in order to let the reader come to their own conclusion.

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, got it. Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:These sorts of debates just don't belong in category-naming decisions. Categories are simply a convenient way to group articles, nothing more, and we don't want to complicate things by politicizing category names. We did the same thing with the "Treatments" category, which is now called "Potential treatments". With that said, the banner is indeed ugly and distracting. We have developed a better banner and are (still) waiting for our technical people to finally implement the better banner. For the time being, we just have to put up with the current ugly and distracting banner...

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK. That's good to know. Yes, it's very dominating as it is atm. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:07, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Oops, [[User:Aletheia2020]], I forgot to mention that the word "comorbidity" on MEpedia has a specific meaning: it means a condition that is statistically more likely to be found in the original condition, than it is to be found in the general population. I only mention that since there are other definitions out there...
::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:28, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, noted. I'll stick with your definition. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== English or American spelling? ==

[[User:Pyrrhus]] I noticed that you changed some ss to zs in words but changed centers to centres. So I was unsure if you went with American or English spelling on this page? Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:44, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:The [[MEpedia:Manual of style]] specifies American spelling and dates, which I why I changed some spelling, including changing "centres" to "centers". Then I realized that the word "centres" was part of a quote from a Canadian, so I changed "centers" back to "centres". I hope this clarifies things. Good catch!
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:48, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::Ah, I got it [[User:pyrrhus|pyrrhus]]. No worries.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== Questionable comparison that could be interpreted as bias ==

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], I notice that you make a comparison between "merchants of doubt", who are paid to disseminate disinformation that they don't themselves believe, and intolerant skeptics, who may use similar tactics but are unpaid and actually believe what they are claiming. Some may say that this is an unfair comparison that displays bias on our part. Perhaps rephrase?
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 14:34, February 12, 2020 (EST)

===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.

: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.

: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).

: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

==References==
{{reftalk}}

== Headings and SEO -- ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT) ==

Please avoid using questions as headings, and avoid using the page name within headings. The MediaWiki software is built by Wikipedia so should already be able to work out that a subheading is linked to the topic page, and phrasing the first line under the heading carefully should be enough, e.g. The symptoms of MCS include...". Headings should be worded as per the examples on [[MEpedia:Article outlines]].

SEO rankings increase when small pages cover the exact topic, e.g. you could create a few small page in the format of a '''list''', [[Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms]] then use <code><nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity}}</nowiki></code> to point back to the original page. The original page would a less detailed description of symptoms, and could use <nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms}}</nowiki></code> to take users back to it. The new page would go in the [[Category:Lists]] and [[Category:Signs and symptoms]]. I am thinking of creating a list page for [[Deaths from myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]], so will be interested to see how this ranks compared to the [[causes of death]], [[Sophia Mirza]], and [[severe and very severe ME]] pages. (Sophia's is one of the top pages on MEpedia). ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

==Images==
I believe images would help SEO. If you would like a simple image creating eg for the symptoms, can you let me know what design and colors (green? primary colors?) you would like or links to any images with the layout you want. Images are highlighted by search engine results and encourage views and also get saved to pinterest which results in more views. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

== Additions to history -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:54, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

It could aid patient advocacy to put some precedent setting decisions in here. One court case example that comes to mind is the Canada Revenue Association vs a woman (a large MCS advocate in Canada, forget the name) who had claimed tax deductible renovations on her home to accommodate MCS. Would this be helpful here, or would a section on MCS in the court system be more suitable?

== MCS as a symptom of a disease, not a disease. -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 06:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

This is a controversial idea, I know, and I am not aiming to make any additions or changes. However, given the rapidly advancing state of knowledge on the underlying mechanisms of MCS, I think it will be helpful to have a discussion about this idea.

The more I learn about MCS and talk to people with it, the more it becomes apparent that the sensitivity is a symptom of underlying problems which are diverse, complex, and different for every individual. And yes, the underlying problems are almost universally caused or initiated by toxic exposure. One example is Mast Cell Activation Syndrome. Another is Oxidative Stress. You get the idea. Thoughts?

== Additions to recognition section -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 16:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 16:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

It would be helpful for patients to add some more detail on legal recognition. For example, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has taken a rather firm stance on environmental sensitivities: https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/policy_sensitivity_0.pdf

"Individuals with environmental sensitivities experience a variety of adverse reactions to environmental
agents at concentrations well below those that might affect the “average person”. This medical condition is a
disability and those living with environmental sensitivities are entitled to the protection of the Canadian
Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability."

== New references for notable studies section -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 16:38, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

A recent review paper, published in reviews on environmental health about a week ago, would be useful to have in this section:

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2021-0043/html

Bruce Hoffman

2021-09-25T23:48:16Z

Silliestchris:Created stub page for Dr Bruce Hoffman. A very accomplished man who specializes in treating chronic conditions from an integrative perspective. Will add more.

Bruce Hoffman, MD, is a licensed physician operating a private practice in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. He is the founder of the Hoffman Centre for Integrative Care.

User talk:Notjusttired

2021-09-25T17:30:55Z

Silliestchris:/* A new Ally -- ~~~~ */ new section

== Tagging myself ==
just a test [[User:Notjusttired]]

==subpages==
[[User_talk:Notjusttired/cleanup]]

==Leave me a message ==

Could you explain what you are doing to the [[fatty acid]] and the [[antibody]] pages? You are removing important links that are there to remind us that we need to create these pages. Red links help us to figure out which important pages need to be created, such as the [[fatty acid]] and the [[antibody]] pages. By removing important red links, we lose track of which pages need to be created. All your changes will need to be reverted when the pages are created. If you are looking to simplify things, then we can get rid of the categories, rather than the main pages for the categories. In this case, we would combine all pages in the category into the main page for the category, so that we have one page, rather than a whole category. Please explain.
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 00:29, October 11, 2019 (EDT)
:I already discussed this with [[User:Kmdenmark]] as I think you've already seen [[Talk:Single_nucleotide_polymorphism here]] - others you tagged earlier did not respond. Those pages won't have enough content to be worthwhile do terms are now added to the glossary. They have been stub pages for many years rather than wanted pages - I have looked for content and there is simply too little to justify a page. Fatty acids is a category that does not need a summary article in my view, plus there are articles for very long chain fatty acids, short chain fatty acids, etc. Please think carefully about making mass reverts without checking. [[User:Pyrrhus]] ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 09:26, October 11, 2019 (EDT)

Messages I've seen:

{{collapse top}}
Hi Njt! I just wanted to briefly clarify what I said on Kmdenmark's talk page. I'll use bullet points because I find it easier to organize my thoughts:
* There are three different language settings in MediaWiki:
** The wiki's default language setting (specified in LocalSettings.php)
** The page's content language setting (reflected by the language code suffix such as "/de")
** The reader's preferred language setting (specified in preferences, for now)

* The visible screen in MediaWiki is divided into user interface and content.
** The user interface should always match the reader's preferred language setting.
** The content should always match the page's content language setting.

*Now, template messages mostly count as user interface, not as content, so templates mostly follow the reader's preferred language, not the page's content language. This is why templates use <nowiki>{{int:}} or {{int:lang}}</nowiki>, since these parser functions follow the reader's preferred language, not the page's content language.
*However, when you're editing content inside a regular page, your content should follow the page's content language. In this case, you should use <nowiki>{{PAGELANGUAGE}}, not {{int:}}</nowiki>. Of course, since each language gets their own page via a suffix like "/de", you probably won't need to use either.

*Example: [[Template:Cleanup]] displays a message about the page at the top of the page. This is best considered part of the user interface, not part of the page itself. Therefore, this template will follow the reader's preferred language and use <nowiki>{{int:}}, not {{PAGELANGUAGE}}</nowiki>.
*Example: [[Glossary/de]] is a content page. Therefore anything added to this page should follow the page's content language, not the reader's preferred language. To put it another way, the content of a page ending in "/de" should be in German, no matter what the reader's preferred language is.
*More complicated example: [[Template:Citation needed]] displays a message embedded inside the content of a page. Does this make it part of the user interface or part of the page content itself? If we consider it part of the user interface, then it should use <nowiki>{{int:lang}}</nowiki>. However, if we consider it part of the page content then it should use <nowiki>{{PAGELANGUAGE}} instead of {{int:lang}}</nowiki>. This is kind of a grey area, but the more I think about it, it should probably be considered part of the content, not part of the user interface. Therefore, we should consider switching it from <nowiki>{{int:lang}} to {{PAGELANGUAGE}}</nowiki>.

*NOTE: <nowiki>{{PAGELANGUAGE}}</nowiki> does not yet work, as it needs a developer change in order to make sure that it returns the same language as the "/de" suffix.

Hope this is clear!
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 00:04, September 7, 2019 (EDT)
:Thanks for the great explanation. Does PAGELANGUAGE use system messages? I guess having a main page in different languages would probably be too much to maintain? Although if it was possible to create them using system messages it might be simple since the page doesn't change often. Do you know if the word Portal is translated in the user interface? I think it might not be. A more recent developer tasks list would be appreciated on Slack since I am not sure if we have requested certain things or not. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 09:23, September 7, 2019 (EDT)
::PAGELANGUAGE is just a global system variable that returns the page content language of the current page. I don’t think having the main page in different languages will be such a big deal, it’s short and it doesn’t change much. Plus, you don’t need admin privileges to create [[Welcome to MEpedia/de]], like you would need in order to create a system message. But more importantly, if someone chooses to view the German version of the main page using the interlanguage links in the sidebar, then they should expect to see the page in German, not in whatever their reader preferred language setting might be at the time, which is why system messages are to be avoided in a content page. This will all probably become much clearer when the developer changes are made and we can test things out for ourselves. I’ll send you a link on Slack to the “DRAFT Developer Suggestions” as it currently stands. Hope this helps.
::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:41, September 7, 2019 (EDT)
:::Great! My thinking with system messages was to use without '''int:''', eg <nowiki >MediaWiki:mymessage/{{PAGELANGUAGE}}</nowiki > [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 15:51, September 8, 2019 (EDT)
{{collapse bottom}}

==Category banners: Medical hypotheses and Potential treatments ==
{{collapse top}}
'''Compatibility with all skins'''

Both the pivot and Timeless (dark) skins rely on classes being used - without that no banner appears on the Pivot skin and the colors are messed up on Timeless skin (it adds a dark shadow to text to improve contrast: it's also a "low vision" skin). Current banners are created by [[MediaWiki:Common.js]] Javascript using the following classes and css (note: banner position can be moved below heading if "append" is used instead of "prepend").
<pre>
//$(".mw-body-content").css ("background-color","#f8d6c2");
//$(".toc").css ("background-color","#f8d6c2");
$(".firstHeading").prepend ('<div style = "margin:auto;padding:20px;width:100%;text-align:center;background-color:#00ee54;">This is a <a href = "/wiki/Category:Potential_treatments">Potential treatments</a> page</div>');

// pivot fix
$("h1.title"...
</pre>
So any h1 headings should apply <code><nowiki>class="title"</nowiki></code> and text not using the "h1" style should include <code><nowiki>class="firstHeading"</nowiki></code>.
We should probably move these colors to [[MediaWiki:Common.css]], perhaps creating a class for each banner style with the relevant background and font colors.

Suggested new formatting: using low vision sky blue to slightly improve contrast, fixing text color rather than changing depending on if the link has been visited or not, and a text shadow to improve visibly.

Add to [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]
<pre>
.title {
background-color: #56b4e9;
color: white;
margin:auto;
padding:20px;
width:100%;
text-align: center;
font-size: 1.8em;
text-shadow: 1px 1px black;
}
.title a.link:active, .title a.link:hover,
.title a.link:visited, .title a.link,
.title a {
color: white !important;
font-weight: bold;
}
</pre>
Change code on [[MediaWiki:Top-notice-Biopsychosocial model]] to:
<pre>
<div class="title" style="background: #56b4e9">This is a [[:Category:Medical_hypotheses|Medical hypothesis]] page.</div>
</pre>
~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 16:55, October 25, 2019 (EDT)[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 16:40, October 25, 2019 (EDT)[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 16:08, October 25, 2019 (EDT)

Code now above. I think I over-complicated explanation - won't add new features, just better color contrast and text shadow which works on all skins (light and dark). Once confirmed working small updates needed to [[MediaWiki:Common.js]] for both Potential treatments and Medical hypothesis banners. Pretty much looks like this (but with a link):

<div style="margin:auto; padding:20px; width:100%; text-align:center; background-color:#56b4e9!important; font-size: 1.8em!important; color: #fff!important; text-shadow: 1px 1px black;">This is a <span style="font-weight:bold">Medical hypothesis</span> page.</div>

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 16:55, October 25, 2019 (EDT)

:This sounds like a new feature request. You can start a new section for this request at [[MediaWiki talk:Common.js]]. This talk page will be deleted once I am done testing the new banner.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 16:31, October 25, 2019 (EDT)

::I think I understand now. One question: Is "title" a new CSS class or an existing class? If it's a new class, maybe we should choose a more unique name such as "custom-header" or something that won't conflict with other classes? [[User:Notjusttired]]
::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 18:25, October 25, 2019 (EDT)
{{collapse bottom}}

==Bulk Import==
{{Done}} {{Thanks}} [[User:Kmdenmark]]
{{collapse top}}
<pre >
<mediawiki xmlns="http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.10/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.10/ http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.10.xsd" version="0.10" xml:lang="en">
<siteinfo>
<sitename>MEpedia</sitename>
<dbname>me_pedia_org_3</dbname>
<base>https://www.me-pedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_MEpedia</base>
<generator>MediaWiki 1.30.0</generator>
<case>first-letter</case>
<namespaces>
<namespace key="-2" case="first-letter">Media</namespace>
<namespace key="-1" case="first-letter">Special</namespace>
<namespace key="0" case="first-letter" />
<namespace key="1" case="first-letter">Talk</namespace>
<namespace key="2" case="first-letter">User</namespace>
<namespace key="3" case="first-letter">User talk</namespace>
<namespace key="4" case="first-letter">MEpedia</namespace>
<namespace key="5" case="first-letter">MEpedia talk</namespace>
<namespace key="6" case="first-letter">File</namespace>
<namespace key="7" case="first-letter">File talk</namespace>
<namespace key="8" case="first-letter">MediaWiki</namespace>
<namespace key="9" case="first-letter">MediaWiki talk</namespace>
<namespace key="10" case="first-letter">Template</namespace>
<namespace key="11" case="first-letter">Template talk</namespace>
<namespace key="12" case="first-letter">Help</namespace>
<namespace key="13" case="first-letter">Help talk</namespace>
<namespace key="14" case="first-letter">Category</namespace>
<namespace key="15" case="first-letter">Category talk</namespace>
<namespace key="828" case="first-letter">Module</namespace>
<namespace key="829" case="first-letter">Module talk</namespace>
<namespace key="2300" case="first-letter">Gadget</namespace>
<namespace key="2301" case="first-letter">Gadget talk</namespace>
<namespace key="2302" case="case-sensitive">Gadget definition</namespace>
<namespace key="2303" case="case-sensitive">Gadget definition talk</namespace>
<namespace key="3006" case="first-letter">Portal</namespace>
<namespace key="3007" case="first-letter">Portal talk</namespace>
</namespaces>
</siteinfo>
<page>
<title>MediaWiki:Pagetriage-tags-cleanup-desc</title>
<ns>8</ns>
<revision>
<model>wikitext</model>
<format>text/x-wiki</format>
<text xml:space="preserve">This article needs cleanup to meet [[MEpedia:Guidelines|MEpedia's guidelines]].</text>
</revision>
</page>
<page>
<title>MediaWiki:Pagetriage-tags-cleanup-desc/de</title>
<ns>8</ns>
<revision>
<model>wikitext</model>
<format>text/x-wiki</format>
<text xml:space="preserve">Dieser Artikel muss möglicherweise Überarbeitet werden, um die [[MEpedia:Guidelines|Richtlinien von MEpedia]] zu erfüllen.</text>
</revision>
</page>
</mediawiki></pre>
{{collapse bottom}}

==Translations to do ==
Pyrrhus may change footer text or links eg [[MediaWiki:Wikimedia-developers]] and it's URL

{{collapse top}}
Cleanup Reason given is
[[User:Pyrrhus]] can you also do these 3 imports. [[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 06:54, September 28, 2019 (EDT)
:{{done}} 181 pages imported. Please check to make sure that all pages were correctly imported.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 19:00, September 30, 2019 (EDT)

::Great, thanks. There's just the German one that I must have got the wrong message in. I've tagged you in the talk page with the right translation. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]])|
:::Cleanup-reason-is all done so code deleted ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 20:31, October 6, 2019 (EDT)
{{collapse bottom}}

===No-reason custom message (done)===
Basically an export of Lqt_noreason messages, but with the message name changed. Ready to import [[User:Pyrrhus]]. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 23:45, October 6, 2019 (EDT)
::All done.{{collapse top}}
<pre>

<mediawiki xmlns="http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.10/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.10/ http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.10.xsd" version="0.10" xml:lang="en">
<siteinfo>
<sitename>translatewiki.net</sitename>
<dbname>translatewiki_net</dbname>
<base>https://translatewiki.net/</base>
<generator>MediaWiki 1.34.0-alpha</generator>
<case>first-letter</case>
<namespaces>
<namespace key="0" case="first-letter" />
<namespace key="14" case="first-letter">Category</namespace>
<namespace key="15" case="first-letter">Category talk</namespace>
<namespace key="208" case="first-letter">Concept</namespace>
<namespace key="209" case="first-letter">Concept talk</namespace>
<namespace key="6" case="first-letter">File</namespace>
<namespace key="7" case="first-letter">File talk</namespace>
<namespace key="106" case="first-letter">Form</namespace>
<namespace key="107" case="first-letter">Form talk</namespace>
<namespace key="2300" case="first-letter">Gadget</namespace>
<namespace key="2302" case="case-sensitive">Gadget definition</namespace>
<namespace key="2303" case="case-sensitive">Gadget definition talk</namespace>
<namespace key="2301" case="first-letter">Gadget talk</namespace>
<namespace key="12" case="first-letter">Help</namespace>
<namespace key="13" case="first-letter">Help talk</namespace>
<namespace key="-2" case="first-letter">Media</namespace>
<namespace key="100" case="first-letter">Portal</namespace>
<namespace key="101" case="first-letter">Portal talk</namespace>
<namespace key="4" case="first-letter">Project</namespace>
<namespace key="5" case="first-letter">Project talk</namespace>
<namespace key="202" case="first-letter">Property</namespace>
<namespace key="203" case="first-letter">Property talk</namespace>
<namespace key="214" case="first-letter">Rule</namespace>
<namespace key="215" case="first-letter">Rule talk</namespace>
<namespace key="212" case="first-letter">smw/schema</namespace>
<namespace key="213" case="first-letter">smw/schema talk</namespace>
<namespace key="-1" case="first-letter">Special</namespace>
<namespace key="92" case="first-letter">Summary</namespace>
<namespace key="93" case="first-letter">Summary talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1" case="first-letter">Talk</namespace>
<namespace key="10" case="first-letter">Template</namespace>
<namespace key="11" case="first-letter">Template talk</namespace>
<namespace key="90" case="first-letter">Thread</namespace>
<namespace key="91" case="first-letter">Thread talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1102" case="first-letter">Translating</namespace>
<namespace key="1103" case="first-letter">Translating talk</namespace>
<namespace key="2" case="first-letter">User</namespace>
<namespace key="3" case="first-letter">User talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1276" case="case-sensitive">Ajapaik</namespace>
<namespace key="1277" case="case-sensitive">Ajapaik talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1256" case="first-letter">Blockly</namespace>
<namespace key="1257" case="first-letter">Blockly talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1214" case="first-letter">Commonist</namespace>
<namespace key="1215" case="first-letter">Commonist talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1272" case="case-sensitive">Dissemin</namespace>
<namespace key="1273" case="case-sensitive">Dissemin talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1264" case="case-sensitive">EntryScape</namespace>
<namespace key="1265" case="case-sensitive">EntryScape talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1242" case="first-letter">EOL</namespace>
<namespace key="1243" case="first-letter">EOL talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1250" case="first-letter">EtherpadLite</namespace>
<namespace key="1251" case="first-letter">EtherpadLite talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1236" case="first-letter">Europeana</namespace>
<namespace key="1237" case="first-letter">Europeana talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1202" case="first-letter">FreeCol</namespace>
<namespace key="1203" case="first-letter">FreeCol talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1218" case="first-letter">FUDforum</namespace>
<namespace key="1219" case="first-letter">FUDforum talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1254" case="first-letter">FUEL</namespace>
<namespace key="1255" case="first-letter">FUEL talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1266" case="case-sensitive">Hivejs</namespace>
<namespace key="1267" case="case-sensitive">Hivejs talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1248" case="first-letter">Huggle</namespace>
<namespace key="1249" case="first-letter">Huggle talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1228" case="first-letter">iHRIS</namespace>
<namespace key="1229" case="first-letter">iHRIS talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1262" case="first-letter">iNaturalist</namespace>
<namespace key="1263" case="first-letter">iNaturalist talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1240" case="first-letter">Intuition</namespace>
<namespace key="1241" case="first-letter">Intuition talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1244" case="first-letter">Kiwix</namespace>
<namespace key="1245" case="first-letter">Kiwix talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1268" case="case-sensitive">lib.reviews</namespace>
<namespace key="1269" case="case-sensitive">lib.reviews talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1278" case="case-sensitive">LibreMesh</namespace>
<namespace key="1279" case="case-sensitive">LibreMesh talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1210" case="first-letter">Mantis</namespace>
<namespace key="1211" case="first-letter">Mantis talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1258" case="first-letter">MathJax</namespace>
<namespace key="1259" case="first-letter">MathJax talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1280" case="case-sensitive">MAZI</namespace>
<namespace key="1281" case="case-sensitive">MAZI talk</namespace>
<namespace key="8" case="first-letter">MediaWiki</namespace>
<namespace key="9" case="first-letter">MediaWiki talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1230" case="first-letter">Mifos</namespace>
<namespace key="1231" case="first-letter">Mifos talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1246" case="first-letter">Mozilla</namespace>
<namespace key="1247" case="first-letter">Mozilla talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1212" case="first-letter">Mwlib</namespace>
<namespace key="1213" case="first-letter">Mwlib talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1260" case="first-letter">NFCRingControl</namespace>
<namespace key="1261" case="first-letter">NFCRingControl talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1204" case="first-letter">Nocc</namespace>
<namespace key="1205" case="first-letter">Nocc talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1220" case="first-letter">Okawix</namespace>
<namespace key="1221" case="first-letter">Okawix talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1234" case="first-letter">OpenImages</namespace>
<namespace key="1235" case="first-letter">OpenImages talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1216" case="first-letter">OpenLayers</namespace>
<namespace key="1217" case="first-letter">OpenLayers talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1270" case="case-sensitive">Oppia</namespace>
<namespace key="1271" case="case-sensitive">Oppia talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1222" case="first-letter">Osm</namespace>
<namespace key="1223" case="first-letter">Osm talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1274" case="case-sensitive">Phabricator</namespace>
<namespace key="1275" case="case-sensitive">Phabricator talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1238" case="first-letter">Pywikibot</namespace>
<namespace key="1239" case="first-letter">Pywikibot talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1226" case="first-letter">Shapado</namespace>
<namespace key="1227" case="first-letter">Shapado talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1208" case="first-letter">StatusNet</namespace>
<namespace key="1209" case="first-letter">StatusNet talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1198" case="first-letter">Translations</namespace>
<namespace key="1199" case="first-letter">Translations talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1252" case="first-letter">Vicuna</namespace>
<namespace key="1253" case="first-letter">Vicuna talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1200" case="first-letter">Voctrain</namespace>
<namespace key="1201" case="first-letter">Voctrain talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1232" case="first-letter">Wikia</namespace>
<namespace key="1233" case="first-letter">Wikia talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1282" case="case-sensitive">Wikidocumentaries</namespace>
<namespace key="1283" case="case-sensitive">Wikidocumentaries talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1206" case="first-letter">Wikimedia</namespace>
<namespace key="1207" case="first-letter">Wikimedia talk</namespace>
<namespace key="1224" case="first-letter">WikiReader</namespace>
<namespace key="1225" case="first-letter">WikiReader talk</namespace>
</namespaces>
</siteinfo>
<page>
<title>MediaWiki:No-reason/ar</title>
<ns>8</ns>
<id>114330</id>
<revision>
<id>161369</id>
<timestamp>2007-11-23T07:44:38Z</timestamp>
<contributor>
<username>Meno25</username>
<id>315</id>
</contributor>
<model>wikitext</model>
<format>text/x-wiki</format>
<text xml:space="preserve" bytes="21">لا سبب معطى.</text>
<sha1>trbxdtbjsbqc6n7do97xtdlikuiljet</sha1>
</revision>
</page>
<page>
<title>MediaWiki:No-reason/da</title>
<ns>8</ns>
<id>2057108</id>
<revision>
<id>2951594</id>
<timestamp>2011-04-25T05:34:11Z</timestamp>
<contributor>
<username>Peter Alberti</username>
<id>3782</id>
</contributor>
<model>wikitext</model>
<format>text/x-wiki</format>
<text xml:space="preserve" bytes="26">Ingen begrundelse angivet.</text>
<sha1>ic5gwik8pqulwwq8x9ubgdkkqt7e68k</sha1>
</revision>
</page>
<page>
<title>MediaWiki:No-reason/fi</title>
<ns>8</ns>
<id>909955</id>
<revision>
<id>1289062</id>
<timestamp>2009-07-02T10:52:16Z</timestamp>
<contributor>
<username>Cimon Avaro</username>
<id>283</id>
</contributor>
<comment>suomeksi</comment>
<model>wikitext</model>
<format>text/x-wiki</format>
<text xml:space="preserve" bytes="19">Ei annettua syytä.</text>
<sha1>0rcsgy11ym0psz051cyj70nan4gwyl7</sha1>
</revision>
</page>
<page>
<title>MediaWiki:No-reason/it</title>
<ns>8</ns>
<id>1033853</id>
<revision>
<id>1460274</id>
<timestamp>2009-08-29T17:10:40Z</timestamp>
<contributor>
<username>Marco 27</username>
<id>2110</id>
</contributor>
<comment>Translate</comment>
<model>wikitext</model>
<format>text/x-wiki</format>
<text xml:space="preserve" bytes="29">Nessuna motivazione indicata.</text>
<sha1>b0nip64qeghwffvyr0463rpzvupwdns</sha1>
</revision>
</page>
<page>
<title>MediaWiki:No-reason/ja</title>
<ns>8</ns>
<id>191005</id>
<revision>
<id>261562</id>
<timestamp>2008-02-17T16:20:46Z</timestamp>
<contributor>
<username>JtFuruhata</username>
<id>791</id>
</contributor>
<comment>translate</comment>
<model>wikitext</model>
<format>text/x-wiki</format>
<text xml:space="preserve" bytes="39">理由は付記されていません。</text>
<sha1>1d2qt9uhieh8c9hoptqqfth6x1waa8f</sha1>
</revision>
</page>
<page>
<title>MediaWiki:No-reason/pl</title>
<ns>8</ns>
<id>215941</id>
<revision>
<id>1491831</id>
<parentid>294155</parentid>
<timestamp>2009-09-15T16:34:01Z</timestamp>
<contributor>
<username>Leinad</username>
<id>921</id>
</contributor>
<model>wikitext</model>
<format>text/x-wiki</format>
<text xml:space="preserve" bytes="18">Nie podano powodu.</text>
<sha1>m5y060qmskof0mqy0j2e61ewfdrtr5i</sha1>
</revision>
</page>
<page>
<title>MediaWiki:No-reason/pt</title>
<ns>8</ns>
<id>178383</id>
<revision>
<id>1727893</id>
<parentid>243351</parentid>
<timestamp>2009-12-05T02:00:11Z</timestamp>
<contributor>
<username>Hamilton Abreu</username>
<id>2715</id>
</contributor>
<model>wikitext</model>
<format>text/x-wiki</format>
<text xml:space="preserve" bytes="36">Não foi especificado nenhum motivo.</text>
<sha1>avtjeyv5wb49krj6tbgx32c1bhdhnhn</sha1>
</revision>
</page>
<page>
<title>MediaWiki:No-reason/ru</title>
<ns>8</ns>
<id>132336</id>
<revision>
<id>1446038</id>
<parentid>183803</parentid>
<timestamp>2009-08-22T07:30:26Z</timestamp>
<contributor>
<username>Kv75</username>
<id>2463</id>
</contributor>
<comment>correction</comment>
<model>wikitext</model>
<format>text/x-wiki</format>
<text xml:space="preserve" bytes="35">Не указана причина.</text>
<sha1>j6tvgosjjberi6m3gqq61eqa0kncte0</sha1>
</revision>
</page>
<page>
<title>MediaWiki:No-reason/sv</title>
<ns>8</ns>
<id>191517</id>
<revision>
<id>262234</id>
<timestamp>2008-02-18T08:13:15Z</timestamp>
<contributor>
<username>M.M.S.</username>
<id>802</id>
</contributor>
<model>wikitext</model>
<format>text/x-wiki</format>
<text xml:space="preserve" bytes="22">Ingen anledning given.</text>
<sha1>cycjvls08gyso44n0t7c0p3os4p3oo6</sha1>
</revision>
</page>
<page>
<title>MediaWiki:No-reason/vi</title>
<ns>8</ns>
<id>254886</id>
<revision>
<id>350621</id>
<timestamp>2008-04-11T03:42:28Z</timestamp>
<contributor>
<username>Vinhtantran</username>
<id>709</id>
</contributor>
<model>wikitext</model>
<format>text/x-wiki</format>
<text xml:space="preserve" bytes="23">Không đưa ra lý do.</text>
<sha1>242zviqquhnat6dle2aurg8pbgs6kin</sha1>
</revision>
</page>
<page>
<title>MediaWiki:No-reason/zh-hans</title>
<ns>8</ns>
<id>512160</id>
<revision>
<id>1445831</id>
<parentid>698700</parentid>
<timestamp>2009-08-22T07:06:14Z</timestamp>
<contributor>
<username>FuzzyBot</username>
<id>646</id>
</contributor>
<comment>Updating translation from external source</comment>
<model>wikitext</model>
<format>text/x-wiki</format>
<text xml:space="preserve" bytes="18">未给出原因。</text>
<sha1>mo3jtv9i5zrlb79gd6tbqc0zu2nh5sa</sha1>
</revision>
</page>
<page>
<title>MediaWiki:No-reason/zh-hant</title>
<ns>8</ns>
<id>125571</id>
<revision>
<id>5561381</id>
<parentid>175199</parentid>
<timestamp>2014-05-26T17:35:19Z</timestamp>
<contributor>
<username>Cwlin0416</username>
<id>4987</id>
</contributor>
<model>wikitext</model>
<format>text/x-wiki</format>
<text xml:space="preserve" bytes="18">未說明原因。</text>
<sha1>fgjh29koetf7sxb79nfbcjfya4p84a0</sha1>
</revision>
</page>
</mediawiki>

</pre>
{{collapse bottom}}

==Stub==

{{System message translations|Pagetriage-tags-stub-label}}
(not ready)

custom messages
*[[MediaWiki:Pagetriage-tags-stub-label/ast]] Entamu
*[[MediaWiki:Pagetriage-tags-stub-label/bg]] Мъниче
*[[MediaWiki:Pagetriage-tags-stub-label/cs]] Pahýl
*[[MediaWiki:Pagetriage-tags-stub-label/el]] Λήμμα προς επέκταση
*[[MediaWiki:Pagetriage-tags-stub-label/hr]] Mrva
*[[MediaWiki:Pagetriage-tags-stub-label/ml]] അപൂർണ്ണം
*[[MediaWiki:Pagetriage-tags-stub-label/mni]] ꯑꯇꯦꯟꯕ
*[[MediaWiki:Pagetriage-tags-stub-label/my]] ဆောင်းပါးတို
*[[MediaWiki:Pagetriage-tags-stub-label/nb]] Stubbe
*[[MediaWiki:Pagetriage-tags-stub-label/no]] Stubbe
*[[MediaWiki:Pagetriage-tags-stub-label/pt]] Esboço
* (change value) [[MediaWiki:Pagetriage-tags-stub-label/pt-br]] Provisória
*[[MediaWiki:Pagetriage-tags-stub-label/qqq]] Translation of the word Stub.
*[[MediaWiki:Pagetriage-tags-stub-label/ro]] Ciot
*[[MediaWiki:Pagetriage-tags-stub-label/sr-ec]] Клица
*[[MediaWiki:Pagetriage-tags-stub-label/uk]] Заготовка

==[[MediaWiki:Moodbar-action-reason-required]] ==
{{collapse top}}
[[User:Kmdenmark]] can you please create these? ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 20:27, October 11, 2019 (EDT)
:{{done}} [[User:Kmdenmark|Kmdenmark]] ([[User talk:Kmdenmark|talk]]) 14:52, October 15, 2019 (EDT)

*[[mediawiki:Moodbar-action-reason-required/es]]<pre>
Proporciona una razón.</pre>
*[[MediaWiki:pagetriage-tags-cleanupreorganise-desc/es]]<pre>
Esta página necesita una reorganización para cumplir con las recomendaciones de diseño.</pre>

*[[MediaWiki:pagetriage-tags-cleanupreorganise-desc/fr]]<pre>
Le contenu de cette page a besoin d’être réorganisé pour respecter les recommandations.</pre>

*[[MediaWiki:pagetriage-tags-cleanupreorganise-desc/nl]]<pre>
Deze pagina heeft extra referenties of bronnen nodig voor controleerbaarheid.</pre>
:Great, {{Thank}} ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 16:57, October 15, 2019 (EDT)
{{collapse bottom}}
===Navigation translations ===
Done
*[[MediaWiki_talk:Pagetriage-tags-cleanup-desc]] for template:Cleanup
*[[mediawiki:Gettingstarted-lightbulb-heading]] Pages to improve
*[[MediaWiki:Qbbrowse]] Browse
*[[MediaWiki:Externalguidance-specialpage-contribute-title]] Ways to contribute

==Translations: Licenses ==
{{collapse top}}
If anyone of you could help with the translations below I would really appreciate it. It's to help Non-English speakers upload files. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 06:45, August 16, 2019 (EDT)
[[User:Hannosch]] [[User:sigridjones]] [[User:Sisyphus]] [[User:Guido den Broeder]] [[User:DaviSpain]]

If you want to add languages you speak to your user page you can find user boxes on [[Template:Userbox]] Thank you [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 06:45, August 16, 2019 (EDT)

===License system message test===
* Unknown_copyright|{{int:copyright-i-dont-know}}
* CC-by-sa-3.0|{{int:copyright-own-sa-simple}}
* CC-by-nd-4.0|{{int:copyright-own-nd-simple}}
* CC-zero|{{int:copyright-own-pd-simple}}

* {{int:wm-license-cc-conditions-attribution-header}}{{colon}}
** PD|{{int:copyright-pd}}
** PD-USGov|{{int:Copyright-pd-usgov}}
** GFDL|GFDL{{colon}} GNU Free Documentation License
** LGPL|LGPL{{colon}} GNU Lesser General Public License
** FAL|{{int:wm-license-fal}} (artlibre.org)
** CC-zero|Creative Commons Zero - {{int:copyright-pd}}

* CC Share-Alike:
** CC-by-sa-4.0|Creative Commons ShareAlike 4.0
** CC-by-sa-3.0|Creative Commons ShareAlike 3.0
** CC-by-sa-2.5|Creative Commons ShareAlike 2.5
** CC-by-sa-2.0|Creative Commons ShareAlike 2.0

* CC Attribution only:
** CC-by-4.0|Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
** CC-by-3.0|Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
** CC-by-2.5|Creative Commons Attribution 2.5
** CC-by-2.0|Creative Commons Attribution 2.0

* CC other:
** CC-by-nc-4.0|CC NonCommercial 4.0
** CC-by-nc-3.0|CC NonCommercial 3.0
** CC-by-nc-2.5|CC NonCommercial 2.5
** CC-by-nc-2.0|CC NonCommercial 2.0
** CC-by-nc-nd-4.0|CC NonCommercial No-Derivs 4.0
** CC-by-nd-4.0|CC No-Derivs 4.0

* {{int:Other}}{{Colon}}
** Fair_Use_License|{{int:Copyright-fair-usage}}{{Colon}} {{int:Copyright-explain-exception}}
** Other_license|{{int:Other}}{{Colon}} {{int:Copyright-leave-explanation}}

==English ==
* Unknown copyright
**I don't know exactly
* I created this and anyone can copy it but don't alter it, and credit me as the author
* I created this and anyone can alter or copy it, but credit me as the author
*I created this and I don’t care what anyone does to it, no one has to credit me as the author

* Free licenses:
** Public domain
** Public domain US Government
** Free Art License

* Other:
** Fair Use: Please explain the copyright exception (e.g. scholarship/research)
** Other: Please leave detailed explanation

#[[Template:Used with permission]]
#[[Template:Fair Use License]]
#[[Template:Unknown copyright]]
#[[Template:Copyright violation]]

==Français==
*GFDL: Licence de documentation libre GNU
*LGPL : licence publique générale limitée GNU
* Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

* Unknown copyright
**I don't know exactly
* I created this and anyone can copy it but don't alter it, and credit me as the author
* I created this and anyone can alter or copy it, but credit me as the author
*I created this and I don’t care what anyone does to it, no one has to credit me as the author

* Free licenses:
** Public domain
** Public domain US Government
** Free Art License

* Other:
** Fair Use: Please explain the copyright exception (e.g. scholarship/research)
** Other: Please leave detailed explanation

#[[Template:Used with permission/fr]]
#[[Template:Fair Use License/fr]]
#[[Template:Unknown copyright/fr]]
#[[Template:Copyright violation/fr]]

==Deutsch==
Done

*Nicht kommerziell - Keine Bearbeitungen 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
*Nicht kommerziell 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)
*Keine Bearbeitungen 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0)
*Namensnennung - Attribution
*GFDL - GNU-Lizenz für freie Dokumentation
* wm-license-gfdl-1.3-only plus wm-license-gfdl-1.2-and-later - GFDL text
* wm-license-gpl-text - GFDL explanation
* wm-license-gfdl-wiki-link - GFDL link

{{collapse top}}
* Unbekanntes Copyright
**Ich weiß es nicht sicher
* Ich habe dies erstellt und es darf von jedem genutzt werden, aber bitte verändere es nicht und nenne mich als Autor
* Ich habe dies erstellt und jeder darf es verändern und kopieren, aber bitte nenne mich als Autor
* Ich habe dies erstellt und es ist mir egal, wie es genutzt wird, niemand braucht mich als Autor zu nennen

* Freie Lizenzen:
** Öffentliche Domain
** Öffentliche Domain US-Regierung
** Lizenz für freie Kunst

* Weitere:
** Fairer Gebrauch: Bitte erläutere die Ausnahmen vom Copyright (z.B. Stipendium/Forschung)
** Andere: Bitte detailliert erläutern

#[[Template:Gebrauch mit Erlaubnis]]/de
#[[Template:Lizenz zum fairen Gebrauch]]/de
#[[Template:Unbekanntes Copyright]]/de
#[[Template:Verstoß gegen das Copyright]]/de
{{collapse bottom}}

==Español ==
* Unknown copyright
**I don't know exactly
* I created this and anyone can copy it but don't alter it, and credit me as the author
* I created this and anyone can alter or copy it, but credit me as the author
*I created this and I don’t care what anyone does to it, no one has to credit me as the author

* Free licenses:
** Public domain
** Public domain US Government
** Free Art License

* Other:
** Fair Use: Please explain the copyright exception (e.g. scholarship/research)
** Other: Please leave detailed explanation

#[[Template:Used with permission/es]]
#[[Template:Fair Use License/es]]
#[[Template:Unknown copyright/es]]
#[[Template:Copyright violation/es]]
==Nederland ==
* Unknown copyright
**I don't know exactly
* I created this and anyone can copy it but don't alter it, and credit me as the author
* I created this and anyone can alter or copy it, but credit me as the author
*I created this and I don’t care what anyone does to it, no one has to credit me as the author

* Free licenses:
** Public domain
** Public domain US Government
** Free Art License

* Other:
** Fair Use: Please explain the copyright exception (e.g. scholarship/research)
** Other: Please leave detailed explanation

#[[Template:Used with permission/nl]]
#[[Template:Fair Use License/nl]]
#[[Template:Unknown copyright/nl]]
#[[Template:Copyright violation/nl]]

==Other==
* Unknown copyright
**I don't know exactly
* I created this and anyone can copy it but don't alter it, and credit me as the author
* I created this and anyone can alter or copy it, but credit me as the author
*I created this and I don’t care what anyone does to it, no one has to credit me as the author

* Free licenses:
** Public domain
** Public domain US Government
** Free Art License

* Other:
** Fair Use: Please explain the copyright exception (e.g. scholarship/research)
** Other: Please leave detailed explanation

#[[Template:Used with permission]]
#[[Template:Fair Use License]]
#[[Template:Unknown copyright]]
#[[Template:Copyright violation]]

I've tried to translate it into Dutch an French but it isn't that easy. These Copyright terms are quite specific and ifrequently used in ordinary language. So perhaps you could let other Dutch/French speakers check if it sounds ok. - Sisyphus
:Thanks for your help [[User:Sisyphus]], I will do that with the copyright specific ones. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 17:50, August 17, 2019 (EDT)

* English
* Dutch
* French

* Unknown copyright
* Auteursrecht ongekend
* Copyright inconnu

* I don't know exactly
* Ik weet het niet precies
* Je ne sais pas exactement

* I created this and anyone can copy it but don't alter it, and credit me as the author
* Ik heb dit gemaakt en iedereen mag het kopiëren, maar wijzig het niet en vermeldt me als auteur
* J'ai créé ceci et tout le monde peut le copier mais ne le modifie pas, et créditez-moi comme auteur

* I created this and anyone can alter or copy it, but credit me as the author
* Ik heb dit gemaakt en iedereen mag het kopiëren en wijzigen, maar vermeldt me als auteur
* J'ai créé ceci et tout le monde peut le copier ou le modifier mais créditez-moi comme auteur

* I created this and I don’t care what anyone does to it, no one has to credit me as the author
* Ik heb dit gemaakt en iedereen mag het gebruiken naar goeddunken; je hoeft me niet als auteur te vermelden
* J'ai créé ceci et tout le monde peut l’utiliser comme il veut ; one ne doit pas me créditer comme auteur.

* Free licences
* Vrije licentie
* Licence libre

* Public domain
* Publiek domein
* Domaine public

* Public domain US Government
* Publiek domein, overheid van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika
* Domaine public, gouvernement des États-Unis

* Free Art License
* Vrijekunstlicentie
* Licence Art Libre

* Fair Use: Please explain the copyright exception (e.g. scholarship/research)
* Faire Use: verduidelijk alstublieft de uitzonderingen op auteursrecht (bijv. voor studiebeurzen/ onderzoek)
* Faire Use: explique les exceptions au droit d’auteur (p. ex. bourse/recherche scientifique)

* Please leave detailed explanation
* Geef alstublieft een gedetailleerde verklaring
* Laissez des explications détaillées

* Template: Used with permission
* Sjabloon: gebruikt met toestemming
* Modèle: utilisé avec permission

* Template:Fair Use License
* Sjabloon: Fair Use licentie
* Modèle: Licence Faire Use

* Template: Unknown copyright
* Sjabloon: ongekend auteursrecht
* Modèle: Copyright inconnu

* Template: Copyright violation
* Sjabloon: Inbreuk tegen het auteursrecht
* Modèle: Atteinte au droit d'auteur

{{collapse bottom}}

{{collapse bottom}}
==Archived messages ==

{{collapse top}}
===Tweet ===
Hey Njt! I noticed a weird error message regarding the Tweet/doc page at [[:category:Pages_with_incorrect_formatting_templates_use]]. I really don’t know what to make of it, maybe it makes more sense to you... Cheers!
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:07, July 6, 2019 (EDT)
:Do you mean the date script error? I think the Math extension might be needed for that template (which isn't in use yet). It fails because the Extract template it uses doesn't work. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 15:13, July 7, 2019 (EDT)
:Now fixed [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 06:29, August 6, 2019 (EDT)

===Re: Leave me a message -- [[User:Sigridjones|sigrid.jones]] ([[User talk:Sigridjones|talk]]) 04:20, August 6, 2019 (EDT)===

Thank you! I just added some user boxes. Happy to be here. Best regards, Sigrid --sigrid.jones (talk) 04:05, August 6, 2019 (EDT)

===Deleting pages problem ===
Hi [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]]! I started deleting some of the pages you cited for deletion, however, without them the references no longer populate, so I restored several. Please advise. Thanks, [[User:Kmdenmark|Kmdenmark]] ([[User talk:Kmdenmark|talk]]) 16:44, June 26, 2019 (EDT)
:Hi [[User:Kmdenmark|Kmdenmark]]! I see that the "Articles for deletion" category is broken, and it is showing a number of template pages that were never marked for deletion. I will look into the problem later on today or tomorrow and then I will get back to you. In the meantime, please restore the following templates that still need to be restored: [[Template:Chem2]], [[Template:Chem2/doc]], [[Template:Citation needed/doc]], [[Template:Composition bar]], [[Template:Composition bar/doc]], [[Template:Coord/doc]]. Thanks!
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 17:16, June 26, 2019 (EDT)
::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] Thanks! Take your time with it. I'll restore the ones deleted and will ignore the list until further notice. [[User:Kmdenmark|Kmdenmark]] ([[User talk:Kmdenmark|talk]]) 17:40, June 26, 2019 (EDT)
:::Yikes! [[User:Kmdenmark]] All the ones I marked for deletion today start with "Template:Template:" so those should be fine to delete, and all should have a similarly named page with "Template:" just mentioned once. I can't imagine what happened here. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 18:05, June 26, 2019 (EDT)
::::Please hold off on deleting anything. There maybe some weird unanticipated link between the templates we want deleted and those we don’t want deleted...
::::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 18:26, June 26, 2019 (EDT)
:::::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] and [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]], I'll hold off from deleting anything for now. I'm assuming that keeping the pages for now will not interfere with other operations. [[User:Kmdenmark|Kmdenmark]] ([[User talk:Kmdenmark|talk]]) 11:51, June 27, 2019 (EDT)
::::::[[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:Kmdenmark]] I believe it's fixed now. I accidentally marked 2 templates that are needed for deletion, and they must be transclusions, so they added the deletion category to every template that used them. Can you please add protection to these 2 pages to prevent this happening again - the pages are [[Template:Template_other]] and [[Template:Template_error_report]]. The pages I had intended for deletion all had "Template:" in the name not just "Template", and all should be blank except for the deletion category. Perhaps you can both check if [[:Category:Articles for deletion]] looks right now. I'm really sorry for the problems caused by my mistake. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 14:16, June 27, 2019 (EDT)
:::::::looks good to me, thanks njt!
:::::::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 14:48, June 27, 2019 (EDT)

===Pivot===
Hi Njt! Hope you’re enjoying your weekend. In case you missed it, the Pivot skin comes with some configuration variables. For more info, see https://pivot.wikiproject.net/wiki/Pivot_features
<br>Here is some example code you may be interested in:
<pre>
$wgPivotFeatures = [
'navbarIcon' => true,
'addThisPUBID' => 'ra-5cdfe8dacb9028fa'
];
$wgAddThisSidebar = true;
$wgAddThispubid = 'ra-5cdfe8dacb9028fa';
</pre>
(Code obviously comes after <nowiki>wfLoadSkin( 'pivot' );</nowiki>.) Hope this helps.
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 17:40, May 25, 2019 (EDT)
::I've seen that, thanks. The publisher ID I requested and should sort the sidebar issue. Oddly the side bar setting does not work as you'd expect given the name! The logo setting might be withwhile but only applies to the smallest mobiles and puts the logo in the centre of the top bar! I've swapped the font and style of the title bar for the moment, and got it displayed #MEpedia. See code on [[MediaWiki_talk:Pivot.css]] for .p-logo-text. When the weekend is over In going to put in a request to add the MEAction fonts for ALL skins, which will mean we can use the logo text style anywhere. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 17:51, May 25, 2019 (EDT)

Hi! Just checking if you need me to make any other changes. Hope all is well [[User:Kmdenmark|Kmdenmark]] ([[User talk:Kmdenmark|talk]]) 17:31, 16 May 2019 (EDT)
:Thank you for the offer of help. I'm making a lot of changes to the 2 new skins so that would be great. Can you do the new code for Timeless, like you did for the Pivot one? It's on here [[MediaWiki_talk:Timeless.css]] and needs to overwrite [[MediaWiki:Timeless.css]] totally, which will be easier than deleting the sections causing layout issues. Thanks again [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 15:41, 17 May 2019 (EDT)

===Archived ===
"Hi Njt! I noticed the following suggestion of yours in the Dev queue of [[MEpedia:Suggested_tasks]]:
<br>"Create custom Special page for tracking pages using NeedsImage template requested by User:Notjusttired"
<br>I was under the impression that this page accomplishes this: [[:Category:Articles_that_need_an_image_or_photo]]
<br>Am I wrong or missing something? Thanks.
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 19:22, 28 March 2019 (EDT)
::Have done that now. I originally hoped to add or as a Tracking category in special pages so it's easy to find, but there's no simple way to do this. Would rather focus on other dev tasks.
::Have you got any thoughts on different skins? I added some to the Dev queue including a dark one. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 17:18, 30 March 2019 (EDT)
:::BTW, I recently created a page to collate all those weird special pages together: [[MEpedia:Pages in need]]
:::The idea is that there would be a link in the lefthand sidebar to this "Pages in need" page so that contributors would have quick access to all these weird special pages. I'm pretty clueless on skins, so no opinion here, but I'll try to take a look. Thanks for all your help, Njt!
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 18:47, 30 March 2019 (EDT)
:::okay, I’ve finally taken a look at skins. It looks like you are recommending TimelessDarkCSS as a light-sensitive option and Pivot as the Mobile option. Is this correct?
:::Also, i note that your user page mentions “collapsible lists”. Do you know of any way to do that? That would be ideal for the Contents page...
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 18:59, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

::::Hi Pyrrhus. Yes to the Timeless-DarkCSS for those with photophobia or preferring a dark background.
::::The '''Pivot''' skin is brilliant for mobile devices and tablets but actually looks excellent on a Desktop (in my view) - Timeless without the dark CSS is a serif font I seem to remember and also looks good on mobiles, tablets and desktops. The norm is to default to Vector for wikis but Vector is really hard work on small screens because you can't hide the side menu - either you zoom and scroll a lot or need the most amazing vision.
::::Assuming these get installed and work as well as expected it should be nice to have a button to flip to the dark skin for those '''not logged in '''. I haven't seen the code to do this yet though. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 16:44, 11 April 2019 (EDT)
:::::okay, here’s what it looks like we should do:
:::::#Install Timeless-DarkCSS and Pivot skins
:::::#Put two links in the lefthand/top sidebar: “Light-sensitive interface” and “Mobile-friendly interface”. These links will bring up instructions for how to switch skins in the user’s Preferences. When we find the code for a not-logged-in-user button, we’ll replace the links with buttons.
:::::#If the Pivot interface turns out to be as good as you say, we should talk about making Pivot the default interface for all devices.
:::::Does that look right?
:::::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 17:25, 11 April 2019 (EDT)

::::::Yes, that's right, although I think calling it "dark view" or "dark version" would be better. Dark timeless is simply a skin called Timeless with extra CSS, Timeless has almost the same features as Pivot so it might be a case of seeing whether Timeless in white is more popular than Pivot - I prefer Pivot myself. There's 2 different ways to automatically switch skins for mobile users [https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Simple_mobile_skin_auto_change/en&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop Method 1] and [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:MobileFrontend Mobile Frontend method] which would allow desktop users to stay on Vector automatically. If you want to checkout hope they look on different screen sizes then [https://quirktools.com/screenfly/ Screenfly] is pretty good [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 18:50, 11 April 2019 (EDT)
"

==Renaming?==

I renamed this page to use the US spelling, as per the Manual of Style. [[User:kmdenmark]]
But should the category be renamed to '''British Organizations'''?
This would be easier to browse from [[:Category:Organizations]] because the country make would be first and the name is shorter. The same issue is there for Universities.
This would also fit with the Standard MEpedia country categories eg [[:Category:British research initiatives]].
I've created a temporary [[MEpedia Page Outlines]] for both Universities and Organizations but would welcome input / Ch changes from others. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 18:14, 20 February 2019 (EST)

::The changes are fine with me. I have no attachment to either way. I think "Organizations based in the United Kingdom" is a bit long and awkward but it's the category title that Wikipedia uses. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Category%3AOrganizations+based+in+the+United+Kingdom&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%22namespaces%22%3A%5B0%5D%7D&ns0=1 Wikipedia page for "Organizations based in the United Kingdom"]) [[User:Kmdenmark|Kmdenmark]] ([[User talk:Kmdenmark|talk]]) 19:03, 21 February 2019 (EST)
{{collapse bottom}}

{{collapse bottom}}
==Categories for UK politicians==
{{Read more|
Hi. Can you avoid removing politicians from the categories for political parties? This is crucial information for advocacy and not held elsewhere. Labour/Co-op members are considered members of both parties so need to be in more than one category. Keeping them as categories allows someone to look for UK adbocates, then use the subcategories to find just politicians for political parties or fod which committee they are on - one committee is investigating the PACE trial Parties cover both MPs and the unelected House of Lords.

::Thank you for explaining the need for categories for politicians. I see your point and will not delete them anymore. [[User:Kmdenmark|Kmdenmark]] ([[User talk:Kmdenmark|talk]]) 14:29, 11 February 2019 (EST)

::::Thanks [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 19:01, 11 February 2019 (EST)

Also please don't mark redirects for deletion - they are there to help from the correctly spelled page - searching the incorrect name means MEpedia then find the correct page name too. notjusttired (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2019 (EST)

::Re: misspellings - I don't think misspellings should be honored with redirects. It is impossible to conceive of every misspelling that someone could use. I think the misspellings clutter the drop down menu in our search engine and make articles harder to find rather than easier. I support using redirects for alternative spellings, but not misspellings. If you can give me an example of one of the redirects you want to stay, it would help me understand your reasoning. I, also, eliminated some redirects where pages were not medically the same and to keep them as such would be inaccurate. A better way to link similar but different pages would be with links in the 'See also' section. (I don't know if you were the author of those redirects, but I wanted to explain why I eliminated those redirects, also.) My best, [[User:Kmdenmark|Kmdenmark]] ([[User talk:Kmdenmark|talk]]) 14:29, 11 February 2019 (EST)

::::It depends on the reason for the mispelling and how common it is. Eg if you delete the redirect for [[Intestinal permiability]] and type of into a search the correct page name won't come up - there's no results. Delete redirects for different spacing in page names and that search phrase may not work any more (eg The M.E. Society vs The ME Society). There's also a few unexpected UK vs US spellings (diarrhoea), and a few researchers with names that are commonly mispelled or have very similar spellings, which sometimes means their research is under several different names (AT Anbu vs Theo Anbu). When it comes to linking redirects have a link icon next to the page name, so it's easy to pick the right one - although perhaps there is a hidden property that can be used.

::I'm fine with trying it your way. Let's watch how the redirects work and see if we get other feedback from users.
:::A couple specific points: Sometimes the search engine is extra slow or temporary not working; that may explain why the correct spelling for [[Intestinal permeability]] didn't come up when you originally searched. I tested it and it came up every time I searched this morning.
:::Re: British spelling. I wholeheartedly agree that redirects for British spellings should have redirects. The main title is to be in American spelling as per MEpedia manual of style. My best, [[User:Kmdenmark|Kmdenmark]] ([[User talk:Kmdenmark|talk]]) 12:01, 12 February 2019 (EST)

:::::::: Thanks [[User:Kmdenmark]] - I've noticed performance problems but that has been loading pages rather than on searches. Maybe there's something else going on.

::::With making redirects for deletion, they need any pages using them to be updated first. The Contents page (which I can't edit) has a non-standard [[List of Quotes]] link, so deleting to use the correct capitalization breaks the link on the Contents page.
}}

==Messages I've seen ==
{{Read more|RE: Csn the Mike Beadsworth page be the main one, with Michael Beadsworth the redirect? Professionally he uses the name Mike far more.
Njt
[[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:58, 23 January 2019 (EST)

Sure, sounds good. [[User:Kmdenmark|Kmdenmark]] ([[User talk:Kmdenmark|talk]]) 17:19, 23 January 2019 (EST)

----
Just FYI: On the Pathogen page, you have left the following typo: "_Chia_201dorferi_paper.png"

I can't fix the typo since I'm not sure what it was meant to say...

Best, Pyrrhus

[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:36, 10 February 2019 (EST)

Thank you [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] - I'm not sure what image it was supposed to be so I added an alternative and fixed the problem. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 09:07, 11 February 2019 (EST)
}}
{{collapse bottom}}

== Priorities ==
* Image copyrights to organize
* Check copyrights on ICC and other files
* Better symptom photos e.g. malaise, levels of fatigue and disability, symptoms
* Infographics template - XMP CC info, large size, site name only in corner (font as wiki?)
* Infographic & poster creation

== Brain fog tasks ==
* [[Articles that need an image or photo]]
* [[:Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]
* [[Add source and copyright to existing images]]

== Tips ==
* [[Science Guidelines]]
* [[Using the source_code editor]]
* [[Power user/editor tips]]

==Welcome to MEpedia!==
* [[How_to_contribute|How to contribute]]
* If you need ideas of improvements to make to MEpedia, See [[MEpedia_suggestions|suggestions]]
* [[Contents|MEpedia Contents]]

* To create new page, use one an outline: [MEpedia_article_outlines]

To see your contributions history, click Contributions in the top-right corner. To see recent contributions by others, click Recent Changes on the left. Not ready to edit pages, but want to suggest a change? On the page, just click Discussion, and write your suggestion there for others to see.|realName=Anonymous|name=Notjusttired}}

== Random code==
{{bar box
|title=Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Common Symptoms
|titlebar=#DDD
|left1='''Symptom'''
|right2=%
|width=400px
|bars=
{{bar pixel|Fatigue: persistent or relapsing|#0CBCBC|100}}
{{bar pixel|Symptoms last over 6 months|#0CBCBC|100}}
{{bar pixel|Significant reduction in activities|#0CBCBC|100}}
{{bar pixel|Post-exertional malaise|#0CBCBC|96}}
{{bar pixel|Memory & concentration probs|#0CBCBC|98}}
{{bar pixel|Unrefreshing sleep|#0CBCBC|99}}
{{bar pixel|Headaches - new or different|#0CBCBC|100}}
{{bar pixel|Muscle pain (myalgia)|#0CBCBC|96}}
{{bar pixel|Sore throat|#0CBCBC|81}}
{{bar pixel|Joint pain (arthalgia)|#0CBCBC|86}}
{{bar pixel|Lymph node pain|#0CBCBC|81}}
|caption=Source: Jason et al.
}}‎

{{Bar chart
| title = <div style="font-size:1.4em; margin-bottom: 0.4em;">Common Symptoms in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome</div>
| bar_width = 15
| width = 30
| width_units = em
| label_type = Symptom
| label1 = Fatigue - persist or relapsing*
| label2 = Significant reduction in activities*
| label3 = Symptoms last over 6 months*
| label4 = Post-exertional malaise
| label5 = Memory & concentration probs
| label6 = Unrefreshing sleep
| label7 = Headaches - new or different
| label8 = Muscle pain (myalgia)
| label9 = Sore throat
| color = #0CBCBC
| data_type = Mild to Severe<br> Symptom %
| data_max = 101
| data1 = 100
| data2 = 100
| data3 = 100
| data4 = 96
| data5 = 98
| data6 = 99
| data7 = 90
| data8 = 96
| data9 = 81
| col2_data_type = Moderate to Severe<br> Symptom %
| col2_data_max = 101
| col2_data1 = 95
| col2_data2 = 100
| col2_data3 = 100
| col2_data4 = 86
| col2_data5 = 80
| col2_data6 = 92
| col2_data7 = 50
| col2_data8 = 73
| col2_data9 = 31
|caption= '''Source: Jason et al.'''
}}

===Messages ===
Notjustired: [[Severe and very severe ME]] Chronological order goes from earliest to latest. Citations are not placed under the study and instead, they are cited. If details like pages are necessary, they can be entered into the citation. --[[User:MEcfsFMS|MEcfsFMS]] ([[User talk:MEcfsFMS|talk]]) 09:51, 20 October 2018 (EDT)

Hi. Is that somewhere in the editorial standards? I don't remember reading it. I think it's important to add doi to citations of they aren't already in there. I will look at adding author links to the citations too. I created a talk page for the Severe ME image to discuss ideas.
[[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 10:15, 20 October 2018 (EDT)

:I put doi in and the PMID? But PMC causes an error and I don't think they have figured out why yet. Authors links don't get created and I thought they were in the "Reference" area.--[[User:MEcfsFMS|MEcfsFMS]] ([[User talk:MEcfsFMS|talk]]) 10:39, 20 October 2018 (EDT)

:I see, if the citation automatically creates the citation, authors internal links are created. If they have to be manually input then it does not seem to create them.

:That makes sense. I thought people had been spending ages manually adding them or copying and pasting the code for the most common ones. I normally automatically generate a citation, if it doesn't work I use another link or the doi, then replace the finished link with a full text link if necessary. Links from investinme and researchgate normally don't generate automatically so I use a PubMed link and overwrite the link only after the citation is generated.
Could you update the [[Manual of style]] with anything else that isn't in there?
I'll go back sort the citations I changed. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 10:53, 20 October 2018 (EDT)

== MOS - Dates ==

Hi Notjusttired:

Somewhere at some point early on, I remember the date format was to be US, Jun 10, 2016, and not 10 Jun 2016. I can't remember where or when I read this but a few of us started changing dates in UK format and going forward we used US format. I think Jen had posted about it but I'm not sure. Also, we were to change any UK spellings to the US spelling unless it was a quote.--[[User:MEcfsFMS|MEcfsFMS]] ([[User talk:MEcfsFMS|talk]]) 14:26, 31 October 2018 (EDT)

ty for letting me know, can you fix what I wrote on [[MOS]] - does the same apply to date in citations? Sometimes they cause an error so I presume I put them in as Jun, 28 2018 now?

:Yes, that is how I write in the citations, but move the comma so it is Jun 28, 2018 or Jun 2018. I will change MOS.--[[User:MEcfsFMS|MEcfsFMS]] ([[User talk:MEcfsFMS|talk]]) 14:43, 31 October 2018 (EDT)
- Will do, do you know about fixing the citation template error at all? Dates generated in the form 2018-06 always give an error when you generate a citation from a link - I presume it's possible to fix this? [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 14:49, 31 October 2018 (EDT)

== Fibromyaliga Page ==

Please be careful where information is added on the [[Fibromyalgia]] page. The blood test information you added should go on the [[Fibromyalgia notable studies]] page as it is not an accepted blood test yet. I moved the EpicGenetics blood test under the subheading "Blood tests" under "United States" and put the study you had added on the ''Fibromyalgia'' discussion page. You can post this research on the ''Fibromyalgia notable studies'' page.

I created and edited most of these pages starting with the username DxCFS. I lost my PW when FF crashed and could not get it back using the PW retrieval as there is something wrong with MEpedia carrying out this task. I have had many usernames because I am really bad with remembering my usernames and usually just use a VPN now.--[[Special:Contributions/77.111.245.10|77.111.245.10]] 12:07, 25 March 2019 (EDT)

:Also, the ''Fibromyalgia'' page became too long to use the "Edit" tab and the "Edit source" tab is not an option due to citations and that is why I broke ''Notable studies'' off. There is an area at the bottom of the ''Fibromyalgia'' page to post news articles about research as people usually want to read about research by media and bloggers and not the hard research.--[[Special:Contributions/77.111.245.10|77.111.245.10]] 12:13, 25 March 2019 (EDT)

:Thanks for the input - I've never edited that page before. I will update the redirects for blood test info - when I searched before adding it the Fibro Notable studies page wasn't near the top of the results (I don't recall seeing it at all). [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 16:49, 25 March 2019 (EDT)

== Simon Wessely Page ==
{{collapse top}}
Wessely Page - Hi Notjusttired. I'm currently editing the page on Simon Wessely by inserting many references. Please leave the page for a moment otherwise we crosspost and I loose all the changes which is many hours of work. Kind regards, Sisyphus.
:I've just seen your notice. I will leave alone. I am going to put some improved citations on the talk page and leave it at that. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 08:08, July 16, 2019 (EDT)

Thanks. It's ok now. The references have been inserted (It took a while). Could you delete the warning "This article may require cleanup to meet MEpedia's quality standards"? If not, could you explain which sections or claims you disagree with (for example in the discussion section of the page). Kind regards, Sisyphus.
::I will take a look. Did you see the citations I suggested on the talk page, including the Camelford ones? [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 10:45, July 16, 2019 (EDT)

I used some of them. I only briefly mention Camelford as an example where Wessely controversially pointed towards psychosocial factors in a case that isn't clear. More information about this could be posted on a seperate MEpedia page. I unfortunately do not know the details of this case, so I'll leave it to you and others. - Sisypus.
:[[User:Sisyphus]] Can you explain why so many sections have been removed or pretty much reverted? It was only recently changed about 3 weeks ago. It now reads as if everything Wessely claims via journalists or is in his research is a fact - even though at times he contradicts his previous statements so making it hard to know what he thinks. Eg the fact that Wessely claims CFS is part of MUS is his opinion, not a generally accept fact and that needs to be clear. In fact, one of the controversies around Wessely is him repeatedly making the claim that it can be classed as a psychological condition in the ICD-10 manual - despite confirmation from the World Health Organization that it is explicitly excluded and only classified as neurological. Including the death threats. The carefully phrased sections I added about those contesting his many claims are gone. He is known for saying one thing to one audience and something totally different to another. The links to the 3 pages of quotes complied from him are gone. I haven't seen a reason in the history or a mention of the removals or changes to the headings. Even his retirement claim is not a fact - he carried on publishing CFS research for years after "retiring". Eg police freedom of information act requests contradict that. As far as Wessely's claims of victimization go, we should be reporting "In a 2017 interview, Wessely stated that" but not in a way that suggests that it is factual. Wessely refused to appear before the UK's Gibson Enquiry which was pressing him for answers on his views. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 11:59, July 17, 2019 (EDT)

I tried to rewrite the page in full text and provide more context to his work and the controversies. I’m sorry if have deleted things without providing a reason why.
Regarding the ICD, I personally think he was trying to say that patients with the symptoms of CFS can be diagnosed as having CFS (G93.3) or neurasthenia/fatigue syndrome (F48.8) and don’t see this as a big issue. If you disagree, perhaps we can make a section on this under controversies. Regarding the quotes: I am not a fan of quotes without context, certainly if it is used to criticize someone or cast someone in a certain light. That’s certainly the case of the links you mention. If you want them restored perhaps we could use them as example of criticism of Wessely rather than as an resource of quotes from him? Regarding the death threats I’m ok with restoring the info for example regarding the freedom of information request. I didn’t think this was vital because the information doesn’t permit us to make conclusions about what happened. And regarding the Gibson Enquiry if Wessely did actually get serious death threats, than I could understand why he prefers not to be questioned about the details on this. So I don't think this means much. If you insist on including more info about this, perhaps there is enough to make a separate page on this (there’s also some relevant info about this from Valerie Eliot Smith’s blog). Kind regards, Sispyhus.
::I'm happy to have the quotes back under a heading "Quotes critical of Wessely" or similar. The classification of ME/CFS is a huge issue because it is part of his claims that it is not a disease / has no disease process and that it is psychological or mostly psychological which justifies the CBT and even GET. He refuses to acknowledge any science he does not like such as mitochondria or immune days. It's quite likely he quit research rather than having his work proved wrong. Same with Michael Sharpe, also from the PACE trial. Peter White of the PACE trial allegedly retired early from clinical practice to avoid GMC complaints that could have removed his license to practice (he was under investigation). Wessely also helped design the PACE trial - a crucial fact now missing from the top of his page. Wessely and his policies largely in control of UK treatment and has been for over a decade. Regular political questions on him and his [[Wessely school]]. Thanks to his attempts to re-classify the illness all UK ME/CFS treatment comes from a mental health health budget, he controls the media via the Science Media Centre, and gives numerous interviews making nasty persons attacks on patients. Wessely and Deale provided the key randomized controlled trial in the 1990s still used as "evidence" for CBT. The Gibson Enquiry was a scientific one, many years before he stated his death threat claims - which some have suggested are simply a way to detect from PACE trial criticism, since that's when they appeared. Absolutely nothing to fear from that except scientific scrutiny. Several Freedom of Information Act requests have shown that PACE trial critics are not harassing let alone threatening anyone. Although they tried to use this argument to prevent the release of the data. <br >
I feel that the page re-write portrays Wessely incorrectly as mostly not controversial, and portrays his science as student accepted, and endorses his views given in newspaper interviews as accurate and unbiased. He will make claims like Gulf War Illness doesn't exist, then later claim to have originally discovered it! He's also a social security advisor and does not believe patients should be entitled to disability benefits.As regards the quotes - they come from several charities and are certainly not taken out of context. It's very hard to see how many of the statements could be out of context given how rude and nasty they often are about patients, who he calls "disgusting" and "not wanting to get better".<br>
What do you think about adding back in the references that were removed, and then working together to tackle a section at once? I think it important to be very careful not to claim Wessely has reported the truth about himself since this is often untrue or contradicted (either by himself or by independent sources). [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:35, July 17, 2019 (EDT)

I have thought about your comments but I think we have to be neutral and objective on this. I don’t think the texts of Margaret Williams and Malcolm Hooper should be used as a basis for the MEpedia page for exactly this reason. The page already contains much criticism of Wessely. It says in the introduction that his work is controversial and has been repeatedly criticized and it already contains numerous controversial quotes of him (including the “not wanting to get better” one).
Regarding the quotes out of context: I do think this is a big problem. The one about ME merely being a belief for example has been circulating within the ME community as it were to mean that ME patients are malingering, which isn’t what Wessely was saying. These kinds of misunderstandings are very unfortunate and distract from the real issues with his work.
I also think the MEpedia page should not only be directed towards patients but also to outsiders such as journalists or researchers who want objective information about Wessely. So a link to a list of controversial quotes with comments mocking what he said seems inappropriate. There are plenty of blogs and articles that criticize his work or scrutinize every word he said during his career, looking for inconsistencies or poorly nuanced statements. I don’t think the MEpedia page should be another of these and instead should offer an overview of his work and career like we do with other pages on researchers. If you see further problems with the page, I don’t mind discussing it further. But I think the current version is well balanced. - Sisyphus.
:I think the issue we are disagreeing on here is mostly neutrality. While parts of the previous page were not put across in a way that was fully neutrally totally excluding critical sources has in fact done the opposite. We can look at phrasing at the amount of text given to criticism but removing it is entirely inappropriate. I have an issue with passing off Wessely's views as facts when they are not - such as claiming CFS is part of MUS. We should not be doing that on any researcher's page. There is no doubt that Wessely is controversial - in fact he has given a number of interviews knowing that they would be controversial. "Controversial" is not a negative judgement - the Enterovirus theory is also controversial. ME itself and much of the research is controversial. The fact is his research is controversial too - after all the CDC, NHS and others followed it and the CDC and others then dumped it, plus there was the Stop GET petition too. The Institute of Medicine report disputes it. On neurality, we also can't claim Wessely invented CBT for CFS when he actually was one of 3 - Trudie Chalder has separately claimed to be the inventer. I am going to make some edits today, keeping in mind what you have said, to add in more neutral phrasing on his research "Wessely stated", in "Sir Wessely's view" etc. And add back in some references critical. While Margaret Williams and Malcolm Hooper are very critical, that does not mean they should be totally left off the page - that's not neutrality - but neither should they be emphasized. Patient groups critical of Wessely should certainly be referenced, along with Freedom of Information Act requests since they are neutral and accurate. This might mean overall that less text is critical of Wessely than before, but that there are a large number of sources supporting certain points. Part of the guidelines we are writing for is to allow others to find out more information, so we do need to either reference or link to quotes or Hooper's Mental health movement, but also any articles praising him and summarizing his contribution. If Quotes aren't used as a heading then they could go in Learn more for example. Clearly given the significant time taken to collect all these, they do have significance and may bring people to do the page who are looking for "Weasel words" - in which case they would then see an article more balanced than just those quotes. Perhaps you would like to look for those, or have some in mind. Re: Malingering: Wessely has said exactly that, in fact using the phrase "malinger's charter". Part of the basis of his scientific arguments is that around the "secondary gain" - his work and especially interviews repeatedly make this claim. That doesn't necessarily mean that particular quote needs including, but it is representative of his views. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 07:12, July 18, 2019 (EDT)

With all the respect notjusttired but I disagree with some of your changes and would prefer the original to be reinstated. I don’t want to use an argument of authority here, but my text does include 135 references, mostly scientific publications. I have worked many months on this and I know what I’m talking about.
For example regarding the Gulf War syndrome: there’s not really a contradiction: his 1999 epidemiological study demonstrated that there was an adverse effect of going to the Gulf war that goes beyond deployed to war or being a soldier at that time period. So his study was one of the most important ones in demonstrating that the health of soldiers who went to the Gulf War was affected by something. But he doesn’t want to say there is a Gulf War Syndrome because there was no evidence for a unique constellation of signs or symptoms – the Gulf war veterans reported more of all the 50 symptoms assessed in the study. That’s his view and it’s unambiguously presented in his publications. It’s only by relying on fragmented quotes or misrepresentations by Hooper and Williams that things get obscure and that’s what I’m trying to avoid on the page.
Malingering is another example. There is no evidence that Wessely thinks CFS patients are malingering. In fact he has repeatedly warned against this idea, saying “there is little evidence to suggest that the fatigue results from impaired motivation, and the use of terms such as ‘malingering’ or ‘hysteria’ is to be deplored.” (Source: https://studylib.net/doc/7895242/chronic-fatigue-syndrome). He made similar arguments about Gulf War Syndrme (see minute 50 of this lecture: https://vimeo.com/52995882).
I can also attest that Wessely developed CBT for CFS: he was to first to publish about this in 1988 and to first to publish a trial on this in 1991. Chalder worked for him at the time so when she says she first developed CBT, she probably meant she was part of the team that did and that team was lead by Wessely. I highly doubt that she would contest that. She has no problem with crediting him, even about the scale that now bears her name: “I think its more Simons research than mine that we developed a fatigue scale, which is now called The Chalder fatigue scale.” (source: https://www.s4me.info/threads/13-march-2019-chalder-%E2%80%98medically-unexplained-symptoms%E2%80%99-my-clinical-and-research-journey-over-30-years.5576/page-3#post-152193)
I have reread the page and don’t understand what you mean by presenting Wesselys' view that CFS is part of MUS as a fact. I constantly use the phrase “they argued…” Williams and Hooper are allready on the page, they are references as examples of criticism of Wessely’s work. And I don’t quite understand why you made a separate heading for the PACE trial: Wessely wasn’t an author of the PACE trial. It seems weird to focus on this. He has published approximately 600 papers, several books and numerous newspaper articles – most which don’t get a mention because of a lack of space.
I’ve waited on editing the Wessely page until I’ve read most of his work and got an overview. By working this way I hoped to achieve a balance in attention each items receives without making the page too long. So please be mindful of that if you change things. Kind regards - Sisyphus.

"CBT is is based on a psychological and fatigue-based approach, with an expectation that exercise would normally be part of the treatment." is also not correct. In contrast to the CBT developed by Bleijenberg and Vercoulen, the CBT model developed at Kings' College does not necessarily include exercise. Instead it is focussed on graded actvity which can be increases in social activities, reading etc. Furthermore it is strange to describe it as a fatigue-based approach as it was inspired by the treatment of chronic pain. Wessely and other CBT-authors acknowledge this repeatedly.
::Do you mind if I move this conversion to the Talk page for Wessely? We are getting into what feels like a stalemate, I think input and suggestions from others would help. There shouldn't be a question on authority here, I would like to achieve a consensus and that should be possible. One of the very difficult issues with Wessely is that he contradicts himself, and these are worth pointing out. He will claim one thing in one place and another to a different audience - "malinger's charter" is a direct quote from him which he later contradicted (just as an example). So we should be careful in claiming his view or one thing or another when he himself has contradicted it elsewhere. The new section I will respond on in a moment, with a paste from the research to clarify.
::I recognize you have worked hard on this, but I think to make huge changes at all once causes issues for other editors. I also have worked extensively in this page, in Nov/Dec, and in March and then in June, plus on related topics recently - eg CBM model, and CBT. I too would prefer a revert to before you made the changes (!) but I think a looking towards a consensus would be a better approach. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 09:20, July 18, 2019 (EDT)

Yes perhaps it's best to move the conversion to the talk page for Wessely. Perhaps we can just copy paste what we wrote here so that others can follow our conversation?
I also agree in working towards a consensus. But changes need to be carefully argued with good references (not just something someone else has claimed on a blog or tweet). I haven't seen any evidence that Wessely often contradicts himself, excepts perhaps for his statements on not seeing Ean P. Of course if one dissects everything a researcher has said or published in the last 30 years, you'll always find something. But haven't noticed clear contradictions. I'm not aware however where the 'malinger's charter' quote comes from - was this during a lecture?
One option would be to add more detailed criticism and information about Wessely on a seperate page - for example 'Wessely school' and to add a prominent link on the Simon Wessely page to this one for further details on the criticism of his work, including what Hooper and Williams have written.
I apologize if I deleted information you saw as important. I tried to incorporate most in the text I've wrote. I appreciate the hard work you put into MEpedia.
{{collapse bottom}}

== Tagging -- [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9]] ([[User talk:Brettz9|talk]]) 16:06, July 23, 2019 (EDT) ==

Hi there... I'm really too drained and preoccupied to do much these days with the wiki, so if you wouldn't mind only tagging me in cases where I had added the content myself, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9]] ([[User talk:Brettz9|talk]]) 16:06, July 23, 2019 (EDT)
:Sure [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 16:41, July 23, 2019 (EDT)

== Slow down ==

Please slow down with your edits on Dutch topics. You're making lots of mistakes. As I suffer from ME, I can't possibly keep up. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|talk]]) 21:24, September 12, 2019 (EDT)
:I can slow down editing, although I have no yet seen evidence that I had said anything not supported by references [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:18, September 13, 2019 (EDT)
I am now asking you to stay away from the Dutch pages that I'm editing. If you don't do that voluntarily, I will ask for you to be topic-banned. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|talk]]) 17:25, September 14, 2019 (EDT)
::Explain your reason please. There are several editors reversing your edits, you are not following editorial or science guidelines, and even reversing some manual of style changes at the same time (eg date format). And you have a clear conflict of interest with this topic because you are founder one Dutch charity and wrote here - on MEpedia - that you previously lead a revolt against changes in another. So I find this request of yours quite unexpected. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 20:03, September 14, 2019 (EDT)
:::This is not Wikipedia. Conflict of interest is not even defined here. If we were to apply the Wikipedia policy I would have a conflict of interest with every topic on this wiki, and so would all knowledgable editors, and the wiki would remain empty. So instead we just do the best we can, because it's important and there are only a few of us. All that you contribute on these pages is a lot of mistakes. That costs too much of my time and energy, so it needs to stop. There is plenty of technical work to do, so why don't you do that and leave the content to others. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|talk]]) 20:27, September 14, 2019 (EDT)
:::With regard to dates: when I'm creating an article, I avoid using citation templates, because those clutter up the source text so badly that my ME brain can't cope very well. So the date format is irrelevant and I use the same format that I apply everywhere else, again saving time and energy. Content is important, minor differences in style are not. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|talk]]) 20:51, September 14, 2019 (EDT)
::::So basically, you don't have a reason other than "mistakes". Please see the [[MEpedia:Manual of style]] including the talk page for it on dates. Everything here is US format, with short month names. It is up to you whether you use the Visual editor or not, but it would create ask the citations for you very quickly. Alternatively, just paste in the link as you do now, without the <nowiki >[ ]</nowiki >square brackets , then when you next use the Visual editor click it, and you will get a "Convert" option which will do so the citation for you. The citation template is not optional - but we are always keen to find ways to reduce the concentration needed to edit or read. I am somewhat surprised that you have not edited your own charity page now (I was on the website earlier but can't find some of the standard info we normally add). Brain fog I can never get used to. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 21:31, September 14, 2019 (EDT)

== Signature in section headers ==

Section headers should not auto-generate a signature in them. Not only does that makes things messy, it affects Google searches. Can you please change that back to default? [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|talk]]) 16:34, September 15, 2019 (EDT)
:This is an automatic feature on MEpedia for editors using the toolbar button. There is no option not to include the name and signature. If you want this to change you need find out how it works and request the change, although it may have been added because inexperienced editors were forgetting to sign their posts. MEpedia talk pages are not indexed. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 17:45, September 15, 2019 (EDT)
::Not so much inexperienced editors, but you do forget to sign your posts. Apparently, despite offering technical help, you don't have access to the backside of this wiki. That's OK, I will ask elsewhere. Could you explain what your offer of technical assistance means instead? [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|talk]]) 17:55, September 15, 2019 (EDT)

== Manual of style ==

The [[Manual of style]] was in part created by editors that are no longer around, with random edits by you in between. I intend to change it to make it easier for ME patients to contribute, before inviting other ME patients to join this project. For now, just remember that the MoS is not mandatory, especially not on pages that are still work in progress. They are guidance, not policy. Allowing users to contribute in a style that they feel comfortable with has priority. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|talk]]) 17:36, September 15, 2019 (EDT)
:That is a ridiculous statement. I hope that you did not mean to suggest that the ill health of editors should be used to disregard their views and contributions entirely. It would appear that you have total disdain for the current MOS, editorial guidelines and science guidelines, and the fact that we have over 2,000 pages following these. Repeated uncivil behavior toward several users is also apparent. As I understand from your message here and your repeated failure to follow what has been agreed, you appear to have chosen not to engage with the process and feel that you will just change them as how you choose and without discussion. This is a collaborate project rather than a website you can simply hijack. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 17:57, September 15, 2019 (EDT)

==Guido den Broeder ==
I refuse to accept further messages from you on my talk page.
You are repeatedly harassing me and edit warring, and at times insulting me. This is not civil behavior.

In future, if you have something to say to me use the relevant article talk page instead. [[User:Guido den Broeder]] [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 17:57, September 15, 2019 (EDT)

== Dorsal root ganglion or Dorsal root ganglia -- [[User:Loopy|Loopy]] ([[User talk:Loopy|talk]]) 08:51, November 18, 2019 (EST) ==

Hi, Notjusttired.

I wanted to ask if you felt that the Dorsal root ganglia page should really be Dorsal root ganglion. I see it both ways but usually Dorsal root ganglion. Wikipedia has a page that uses "ganglion". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorsal_root_ganglion

--[[User:Loopy|Loopy]] ([[User talk:Loopy|talk]]) 08:51, November 18, 2019 (EST)
::I'm not really sure to be honest. If you want to rename it, leave the old redirect in place in case anyone searches for the old name. The wiki reference (ref 1) should be replaced with an encyclopedia or similar to meet the Science guidelines. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:19, November 18, 2019 (EST)

== Edit Issues? -- [[User:Loopy|Loopy]] ([[User talk:Loopy|talk]]) 05:14, April 17, 2020 (PDT) ==

I am having problems with editing. Only "Edit source" will let me edit, and even this option does not seem to be working well. And suddenly my FF browser will not let me edit here due to it not being an HTTPS site? Are you having problems? Trying to use the "Edit" tab, but keep getting the error "Error loading data from server: apierror-visualeditor-docserver-http-error: (curl error: 7) Couldn't connect to server. Would you like to retry?"
:Hi there. I think we are all getting the same - it's been raised with the developers since it only started after they did a migration. I found that using https allowed editing in the source code, eg https://www.me-pedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus_disease_19 - but it keeps flipping back to http and thinking I am not logged out, so I end up typing https over the top of the address again. This also means we can't get the visual editor to convert links into full references like normal. I am also having issues with editing categories at the bottom of pages - it seems to work but when you go to the category directly, it isn't getting updated (I have moved several pages from the Infectious agents to Infectious diseases categories). I am not sure if others are getting this too. Ben from MEAction is talking with the developers on this. Btw: it should let you edit most pages with http but still show up as an anonymous edit, pages with some protection eg the primers or CFS page soupy need you to log in (and use https). It's very frustrating. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:09, April 17, 2020 (PDT)

== Slack -- [[User:Fireballsky|Fireballsky]] ([[User talk:Fireballsky|talk]]) 20:21, October 30, 2020 (UTC) ==

I could check out the Slack for the devs. I don't always get notified when you reply to my messages. So I just now saw your message regarding this.

Thanks

Hi [[User:Fireballsky]]. I think it might be Ben H. who adds people to the Slack channel, there should be contact details on the MEAction website. Some of the things at the top of the list on [[MEpedia:Suggested tasks]] are for the for to upgrade MediaWiki and looking at adding some extra extensions. There's an option in your user preferences to get emailed when someone tags you on a page or for edits to pages you are watching. I usually just check the Talk are on Recent Pages on the left menu myself. There's also a "pages in need" option that suggests small tasks. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 00:18, November 3, 2020 (UTC)

===Re: Slack -- [[User:Fireballsky|Fireballsky]] ([[User talk:Fireballsky|talk]]) 18:08, November 10, 2020 (UTC)===

Ok, sounds good, thx!

== Change to admin -- [[User:Kmdenmark|Kmdenmark]] ([[User talk:Kmdenmark|talk]]) 18:04, March 18, 2021 (UTC) ==

Per request, you are now an admin. It expires on Apr 18. Let me know if you need more time or want to make it permanent. [[User:Kmdenmark|Kmdenmark]] ([[User talk:Kmdenmark|talk]]) 18:04, March 18, 2021 (UTC)

== Indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase 1 -- [[User:Loopy|Loopy]] ([[User talk:Loopy|talk]]) 13:20, April 24, 2021 (UTC) ==

The page [[Indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase]] seems to be spelled incorrectly. It should be indolamine-2,3-dioxygenase.

There is an extra "e" for the page name on MEpedia.

See the Abstract info on this study. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/9/3/82/htm

--[[User:Loopy|Loopy]] ([[User talk:Loopy|talk]]) 13:20, April 24, 2021 (UTC)
:Thanks for pointing this out [[User:Loopy]]. I checked with the source cited in that page, and it appears that both spellings are used. I've added the additional spelling to the page and cited the article you mentioned. Sorry for the slow response. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 19:42, June 1, 2021 (UTC)

== A new Ally -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 17:30, September 25, 2021 (UTC) ==

Hello [[User:Notjusttired]], I would like to introduce myself. I see you are a contributor to the MCS page. This is also the primary reason I joined MEpedia. I see the MCS page is protected... very wise move as the other side of the argument would certainly target it for disinformation.

After developing full blast MCS 4 years ago, I have become extremely familiar with the topic from a scientific and Canadian perspective in particular.

Anyway, I've made a couple of suggestions for additions on the discussion page and opened up some new discussions that I anticipate will become more relevant as research progresses.

Talk:Quick Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory

2021-09-23T18:41:53Z

Silliestchris:/* Key references for this page -- ~~~~ */ new section

== Key references for this page -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 18:41, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

I think that an individual page on this topic would be appropriate, as a more complete description of QEESI would bog down the MCS page.

I start with the following as a springboard, I will try to learn more in the following weeks (Academic life is busy!)

https://tiltresearch.org/qeesi-2/

Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity

2021-09-23T18:32:22Z

Silliestchris:/* New Section on Symptoms -- Silliestchris (talk) 05:39, September 23, 2021 (UTC) */

== Formatting problem with references -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:04, June 4, 2020 (EDT) ==

There seems to be a problem with some references disappearing. They remain as numbers without the reference. This seemed to start after the insertion of "see also"s, although I don't know if it's related.

Does anyone know how to fix? Thanks [User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:I have only just seen this. Which references are affected? If the text looks OK but the references list has entries like: <nowiki > 20. ^ </nowiki > then click on the up arrow symbol and it should show you whwre it comes from. The source editor view can then be used to see what the issue is. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:57, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

== Images -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT) ==

Could anyone please direct me to where I can read about policies relating to image use.

Also, I uploaded three images and they didn't seem to be well formatted on the mobile app, with the image apearing in the middle of sentences. I tried to fix, but unless my mobile is showing the old version, I'm not sure how to fix it, if anyone can help. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

==Electrohypersensitivity==
Does this belong as part of the page, or is it better on a separate page? Are there specific types or subtypes of MCS to cover?
If EHS goes on this page this this image
and reference look worth adding. Skin lesions on a patient with [[electrohypersensitivity]] (EHS).
[[File:Electrohypersensitivity_MCS_skin_lesions.png|thumb|center|200px|[https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 Skin lesson caused by electrohypersensitivity. Source: 2020, Belpomme and & Irigaray. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.]]]
*2020, Belpomme, Dominique; and Irigaray, Philippe. Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.<ref name="Belpomme2020">https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915</ref> - [https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 (Full text)]
Could MCS be broken down into Electrohypersensitivity, Food/drink allergies and intolerances, and chemical/environmental allergies and sensitivities? The MCSAware website (for instance) seemed to concentrate on those areas. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 20:43, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:56, June 4, 2020 (EDT)===

:Thanks for raising this. It's important. EHS is included under the umbrella term Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances, but most of the researchers into MCS don't like this term, since it has certain political associations. I think the consensus would say that EHS is a commonly comorbid condition to MCS and ME/CFS. I think it needs its own page.

:Likewise, food/drink allergies and intolerances are not MCS, which has a specific diagnostic criteria. Even though, many people with MCS do have food intolerances as well.[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:29, September 23, 2021 (UTC)===

: Hi, anectodally I have observed that EHS and MCS seem to be comorbid for some people. The Belpomme article really drives this home, as well. I think a statement should be made on the possible relationship, but EHS should have its own distinct page.

==Scientific sources==
Some sources don't meet the [[MEpedia:Science guidelines]], which have been updated quite recently. Sources that are blogs, websites belonging to an individual or a small group, or patients have been used as sources (or in Learn more) in some places without making it clear whose view these are. Verywellhealth for instance is simply a patient/health website without medical oversight. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Scientific sources -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:24, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: Surprisingly, not a lot of scholarly articles on the controvery itself except in miniature: like, controversy of mast cells' role in neuroendocrinology.

:: I'm looking into this now. Will add a list here. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:51, May 15, 2020 (EDT)

==Popular culture==
This isn't a section we normally cover (see [[MEpedia:Article_outlines]] and I would like it remove it. This page is already very long. The popular culture pages here are only for NE/CFS, so if there is something notable covering ME/CFS and MCS it could have a separate page in the culture category. [[User:Aletheia2020]] [[User:Kmdenmark]] [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]
I think the should also be less weight given to skeptics, Wikipedia and blogs in the controversy section. Wikipedia often includes excessive skeptical sources and excessive weight is given to them, but here we are mostly concerned with MCS as it relates to ME/CFS and possibly fibromyalgia or other comorbidities. Surely there should be some peer-reviewed research relating to the controversy? Articles on myths or misconceptions could be useful here, and in the Learn more section. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)===

: Hey [[User:Notjusttired]] Thanks very much for taking the time to review the page and for your thoughts. I'm new to MEpedia so will rely on the adivce of more established users but this was my rationale.

I'll go through your points one by one.

CC: [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]

'''Long, dense page''': I kept it all on one page primarily for SEO purposes, and following the Wikipedia model.

'''Popular culture:''' (taken from Wikipedia format) In the review of Safe, I tried to give a psychosocial perspective on how MCS is widely perceived and how this impacts the lives of sufferers. From my perspective, as an MCS sufferer, this is the more important section on the page because the scientific studies I don't think really describe how profound the social disslocation is that many people with MCS experience as a result of stigma.

'''Weight to skeptic argument:''' First, I do hear you on questioning my inclusion of this. I chose to cover it (what I see as the elephant in the room) because skeptics have dominated the Wikipedia page on MCS for many years. They delete anything there that contradicts their view and delete their accounts.

I hoped the summary of the controversy would give readers an intellectual and political context for Wikipedia's content--after all, Wikipedia has a big influence.

Also, because I'd read that Quackwatch and SBM invest a lot in their SEO, I thought that referring to many of their articles and using the language that they use to denigrate people with MCS may help the page's SEO. That hypothesis might have worked since the page has moved from page 30 to page 1 on a range of MCS search terms.

Re peer-reviewed research relating to this controversy, other than the consensus of last year (which said that the scientists arguing that MCS was psychologically-caused had conflicts of interest), I'm not aware of anything. It may be out there, but I've not seen it. Unfortunately, research into MCS has been limited.

'''General direction'''
I wrote this page for MEpedia on the understanding that this would just be a page about MCS--one that wasn't subject to the censorship restrictions of Wikipedia.

While there is a section on how it relates to ME, that certainly wasn't my goal in investing my time in this. My goal was to create
a reputable source that people with MCS could go to for resources and that they could direct others to (ie. loved ones, new friends, doctors, hospitals).

If MEpedia would prefer for the focus to be on how MCS relates to ME, I don't think I'd want to be involved with that. One, because I'm not an expert on that subject (I'm also not sure if much research has been done on that subject); and two, because I don't think it's what people with MCS need.

Sensitivities can be a symptom of ME, but MCS is a standalone condition, and I'd like it to get the space and spotlight it needs as a very serious standalone condition.

If MEpedia isn't the place for that, I understand. I also wish I'd known that before I'd given my content to MEpedia and invested a lot of time on the page. In light of that, I'd like to be able to take my content with me, if you decide to change the direction of the page significantly. I wrote all of it except for the section ME and MCS. It's the culmination of several years work for me, and I'd like to see it published somewhere.

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

:::Thanks for your reply [[User:Aletheia2020]]. I perhaps was a bit unclear about how it impacts ME - I think a stand alone page is incredibly useful, but any extra sources that cover it as a comorbidity of ME/CFS and/or fibromyalgia would be really useful. MCS is a huge complication for many with ME so the page is extremely useful. Similarly, the Fibromyalgia has ended up very long, there's a separate [[Fibromyalgia drugs]] page - would a [[Fibromyalgia treatments]] summary page be helpful? Anything that could be added to individual treatment pages about MCS would be helpful, just add a subheading for it (not sure what potions there are in terms of management / treatments).
I think if you have time, some of what is here would be useful on pages like [[Medically unexplained symptoms]], and [[psychologization]]. As regards SEO, the MediaWiki software controls so much of that. Things I've noticed that are very useful are adding some images (quotes or other pictures), careful wording of the first 2 lines of the article, increasing the number of subheadings and having subheadings related to things that are commonly searched for since these then appear as short links in the search results.
Perhaps the "popular culture" heading could be changed to something about what it's like to live with MCS?
Regarding the "learn more" section - are there some leaflets for patients or Consensus guidelines and criteria that could go there?
I've noticed the huge amount of work you are putting into the page, I can't think you enough for that. :-) I see so many online struggling with MCS and with few reliable places to go, and difficulties explaining things to others. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 06:58, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for your note and suggestions[[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] and [[User:JaimeS]].

I took from your further comments that you're OK with leaving the page generally as is but that you wanted the popular culture section changed and more on how MCS impacts ME. Is that right? Or do you still think further sections should be cut, reduced or separated out onto other pages?

As for how MCS impacts ME, I agree it's an important subject, and it's actually not one I had thought much about until this conversation.

Myself I have both conditions, and I would say that out of the people I know with severe and longstanding MCS, the majority seem to also have ME.

From my perspective, the biggest complication MCS creates for a person who also has ME is access/disability issues, which can greatly compromise getting accommodation, support and medical care. Of course, these disability aspects of MCS create these complexities for the sufferer in relation to any comorbid medical condition, not just ME. It complicates them getting medical care for MCS symptoms.

Access issues is a section I've been meaning to write (and it's alluded to in hospital care). I've been procrastinating on it cos it's literally such a big subject, I'm still figuring out how to summarise it into a small section.

So, im summary, I agree that this subject is important. It's just not what I had in mind when I wrote this page page. And to me it seems a bit specific for this page.

I wrote this page with a general, unninformed target audience in mind, hence talking a little about a wide range of subjects, with the idea that the reader could come to the page with literally no idea what MCS is.

In contrast, how MCS impacts ME would be for an informed audience (ie. mostly likely people with both conditions or their loved ones or carers).

As for SEO, the reason I started paying more attention to that, is that when the page was first up (for the first month or so), it was coming up around page 30 on Google--really too deeply buried to make a difference for random searches. I consulted an SEO expert and he suggested incorporating certain words and questions into the content, where possible. Two weeks after I started doing that, I noticed the page coming up much higher in Google for certain subjects. And it seemed to come up higher still the more I did it. It wasn't the only SEO tactic I used, so I don't know for sure whether it was responsible for it coming up higher, but I think it might have been.

Like you [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] the SEO consultant said that incorporating common googled phrases and questions in headings is the best, although I thought your page followed a similar template to Wikipedia in relation to headings, so didn't want to mess with them. It sounds like there is some flexibility there, though?

On images [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]], thanks, that's good to know. They would be good to incorporate. Is there a place that MEpedia contributors commonly get stock images?

And [[User:JaimeS]] with the Safe review having non-scientific resources quoted, I assumed this was OK because a movie review is a movie review--ie. it's not making any controversial scientific claims (and obviously there are no scientific sources about movies). I still thought there was value in quoting media and academic sources about the film because it gives a glimpse into the director's intent and how it was widely interpreted.

I see that Safe has been shortened and some of that content moved to the Safe page. Wasn't sure if that related to the sources I'd used to you just wanting to shorten it.

But I wonder if you'd consider leaving it as is. I ask because the review was carefully written, dense with terms and phrases that I thought could potentially help SEO. It was easier to do that in this section because it had freer form that the scientific sections.

As well, I think the detail about Safe is important because it's not a straight-out narrative about someone having MCS.

The film is actually very vague about what's happening to Carol and why (even though it's a perfectly realistic depiction of what MCS looks like). This vagueness is probably why the film was interpreted in many diverse ways (eg. as a horror film, as a feminist film).

The summary as brief as it is now I don't think really conveys the nuance of how nuance of how the condition is presented. For example, I think it's an important detail to include that nowhere in the film does it mention MCS. It's just that Haynes has confirmed that this was the condition he wrote the film about. Haynes actually wrote the film as a metaphor for how patients with AIDS were treated. I didn't go into that cos it did seem like unnecessary detail for the MCS page, but, basically, Safe isn't a clear cut film about MCS.

Also, I thought because it is at the bottom of the page, I didn't think it would distract from other content by being a little detailed.

Finally re Mepedia policies, apologies if I haven't adhered to all of them and for the time it takes other editors to fix my mistakes [[User:JaimeS]] [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]. I did read through them at the start, and probably didn't retain all I read. I'll go over them again. But my memory isn't great, so thanks for nudges about times that I've deviated from them. [[User:Aletheia2020]]

====Re: Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 19:29, May 16, 2020 (EDT)====

:: Replace this text with your reply

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:13, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: I agree that the section that exists now is a little over-sourced and could be edited down. Re: censorship, I know that Wikipedia has a really frustrating and demeaning history of falling on the side of reactionary skepticism/mockery of people with chronic conditions. MEpedia is moderated by a patient advocacy organization, not would not seek stifle the voice of people with chronic conditions.

I think you and I have had conversations on this, Aletheia2020! You know I agree with you that good information should be available for those who seek it. As I mentioned when we spoke about this, we do have particular requirements for which sources are considered scholarly, and some general editing rules of thumb (like how many sources are cited per fact). You can find most of these in the science guidelines (http://me-pedia.org/wiki/Science_Guidelines).

Since this is a Wiki, the page would be open to improvement by anyone at any time. In the case of vandalism or unhelpful edits, we have the ability to revert to the previous edits, but locking a page indefinitely after one set of edits would be something we would only do if we were seeing (or suspected we would see) repeated vandalism on the page.

[Edit -- reading quickly through, let me know if there's anything I've missed.]

== Missing reference #19 -- [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST) ==

[[User:Aletheia2020]] Thanks for your great work on this page! There is one reference missing though, currently numbered #19. Please double-check. Thanks again.
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST)

:[[User:Pyrrhus]] Thank you, and sorry about that reference. For some reason, a few disappeared. It will take me a bit of time to work out which ones went missing when I cut and pasted. I'll try to fix it in the coming days <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

== First section on chemical sensitivities in ME/CFS ==

Hey, I wasn't sure who edited this section, but I envisaged this page as one about MCS as a standalone condition--a condition which is commonly comorbid with ME/CFS. I didn't want it to be chemical sensitivities or MCS in ME/CFS, since the content that follows that section isn't that.

I was going to change it back, but if you don't agree, happy to chat about it.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:I'm afraid I don't understand what exactly you are referring to. Could you clarify? Generally speaking, pages on MEpedia should state at the outset what the relevance to ME/CFS is. This section is usually titled "Such-and-such in ME/CFS". The point of the section is to explain why this topic is RELEVANT to ME, to avoid having the page deleted for falling outside the scope of MEpedia. The merits of considering a particular condition as a COMORBIDITY are typically covered in a separate section. I hope this helps.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:51, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Hey [[User:Pyrrhus]] thank you for the extra details. I understand.

::My concerns is that medication, food and odour sensitivities are not MCS and the way that the paragraph is now phrased makes it a little confusing on a page about MCS--especially when it's the first section after the intro.

::MCS has specific diagnostic criteria, and, yes, it often is accompanied by medication, food and odour sensitivities, but not always. And the MCS community has some good reasons to distinguish between odour and chemical sensitivities because different studies and conclusions apply to these two phenomenon.

::If you'd rather leave the title like that because its your convention, no worries. I think that works OK.

::But I think that taking the paragraph back to what I had would make it clearer about what MCS is. Food sensitivities etc are really for a whole nother page.

::Also, I spelled out ME/CFS here since it's the first time it's mentioned on the page and people may come to this page from Googling MCS and not know what ME/CFS is. I also thought it important to specify that the consensus documents were about ME/CFS since it's not clear otherwise what they are consenses about.

::What do you think?[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::You make some very good points [[User:Aletheia2020]]. Give me a little time to incorporate your points into a draft section, which I will post here on the discussion page for you to review and edit. Thanks.
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:41, February 12, 2020 (EST)

:::Okay, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], how does the following section look?
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:59, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::::Thanks for doing that [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]]. Looks good. I think that that is very clear. Whether that level of detail is required above what was there before, I don't know. But I found it interesting to read the details.

::::The only thing I didn't agree with was the last bit, saying some studies differentiate odour and chemical sensitivities. I think it's a very important to make clear that MCS is not odour sensitivity. I think this is a common misconception.

::::If you look at the 1999 criteria for MCS (and proposed changes to that in the 2019 consensus) there is nothing about sensitivities to odours mentioned in the diagnostic criteria.

::::Some triggering chemicals have odours and some people with MCS have exaggerated senses of smell, but many triggering chemicals (eg. many pesticides) don't have a perceptible smell and many people with MCS have normal senses of smell, and some have no sense of smell at all (which makes avoiding triggers pretty tricky).

::::In my experience, studies into odour sensitivity are often more focused on a perceived nocebo/psychosomatic angle, and in relation to MCS, these have been used in attempts to discredit MCS as a physical disorder. So I'd rather keep my distance from them.

::::From what I can tell, the Quackwatch/SBM mob like to characterise MCS as something like: a bunch of hysterical women getting anxious, angry and upset when they smell perfume or petrol, in some kind of paranoid fit of chemophobia.

::::But this characterisation doesn't explain MCS when the triggering chemical has no smell or when the reaction is from topical contact, ingestion or injection (eg. in the case of anaesthetics, which are notorious for making people with MCS ill).

::::Anyway, in summary, I'd just cut the final sentence. I think the rest of the contact makes it clear MCS is not sensitivity to odours. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::::Thanks for all the background, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]]. I have learned a lot about MCS in this conversation. I think many people in the ME community, including those with MCS, are unaware that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria. So your work on this page helps a lot. I'll go ahead and cut the final sentence and then copy it over. Thanks again.
:::::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:17, February 14, 2020 (EST)

::::::It's really good to read that feedback : [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] -- thank you. I think the "is MCS real?" conversation has really eclipsed conversations about what the condition actually is. And that hasn't helped sufferers. Hopefully this page is of use to other people with chemical sensitivities or MCS.

::::::Also, thank you also for your patience with me as I've been learning how things work on here.````Aletheia2020

<div style="background:#FFFFE0;border:1px dotted black">
== MCS in ME and ME/CFS ==
MCS has been described as a comorbidity of [[ME/CFS|myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]] (ME/CFS) and [[fibromyalgia]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ammes.org/overlapping-conditions/|title=Overlapping Conditions – American ME and CFS Society|website=ammes.org|language=en-US|access-date=2018-08-12}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.verywellhealth.com/fibromyalgia-comorbid-overlapping-conditions-716184|title=Illness That Come Along with Fibromyalgia & Chronic Fatigue Syndrome|last=Dellwo|first=Adrienne|authorlink=Adrienne Dellwo|date=Feb 26, 2018|work=Verywell Health|access-date=2018-08-23|archive-url=|archive-date=|url-status=}}</ref> The [[Canadian Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing ME/CFS lists "new sensitivities to food, medications and/or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)" as a comorbidity. The [[International Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) lists "sensitivities to food, medications, odours or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "multiple chemical sensitivities" as a comorbidity. A 2019 publication of the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition lists "chemical sensitivity" as a symptom of ME/CFS and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities" as a commonly comorbid condition.<ref>“Diagnosing and Treating ME/CFS” by the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition, August 2019. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SG7hlJTCSDrDHqvioPMq-cX-rgRKXjfk/view</ref>

However, it is important to note that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria which do ''not'' include medication, food or odor sensitivities.<ref name="pmid10444033" /> Furthermore, some studies have differentiated odor sensitivity and chemical sensitivity as two separate phenomena.{{citation needed}}
</div>

== On This is a Potential comorbidities page ==
I wondered how we can resolve whether it is or isn't a comorbidity. I know the US Coalition on ME/CFS consensus from last year said it was, but I'm really not up on other ME/CFS stuff.

I think removing the banner would look better if it can be agreed either way.

Thanks <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:A page is expected to objectively weigh the evidence for and against considering a condition as a comorbidity. As much as possible, we leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Because of this, we recently renamed our "Comorbidities" category to "Potential comorbidities", in order to let the page itself weigh the evidence, and in order to let the reader come to their own conclusion.

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, got it. Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:These sorts of debates just don't belong in category-naming decisions. Categories are simply a convenient way to group articles, nothing more, and we don't want to complicate things by politicizing category names. We did the same thing with the "Treatments" category, which is now called "Potential treatments". With that said, the banner is indeed ugly and distracting. We have developed a better banner and are (still) waiting for our technical people to finally implement the better banner. For the time being, we just have to put up with the current ugly and distracting banner...

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK. That's good to know. Yes, it's very dominating as it is atm. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:07, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Oops, [[User:Aletheia2020]], I forgot to mention that the word "comorbidity" on MEpedia has a specific meaning: it means a condition that is statistically more likely to be found in the original condition, than it is to be found in the general population. I only mention that since there are other definitions out there...
::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:28, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, noted. I'll stick with your definition. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== English or American spelling? ==

[[User:Pyrrhus]] I noticed that you changed some ss to zs in words but changed centers to centres. So I was unsure if you went with American or English spelling on this page? Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:44, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:The [[MEpedia:Manual of style]] specifies American spelling and dates, which I why I changed some spelling, including changing "centres" to "centers". Then I realized that the word "centres" was part of a quote from a Canadian, so I changed "centers" back to "centres". I hope this clarifies things. Good catch!
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:48, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::Ah, I got it [[User:pyrrhus|pyrrhus]]. No worries.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== Questionable comparison that could be interpreted as bias ==

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], I notice that you make a comparison between "merchants of doubt", who are paid to disseminate disinformation that they don't themselves believe, and intolerant skeptics, who may use similar tactics but are unpaid and actually believe what they are claiming. Some may say that this is an unfair comparison that displays bias on our part. Perhaps rephrase?
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 14:34, February 12, 2020 (EST)

===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.

: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.

: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).

: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

==References==
{{reftalk}}

== Headings and SEO -- ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT) ==

Please avoid using questions as headings, and avoid using the page name within headings. The MediaWiki software is built by Wikipedia so should already be able to work out that a subheading is linked to the topic page, and phrasing the first line under the heading carefully should be enough, e.g. The symptoms of MCS include...". Headings should be worded as per the examples on [[MEpedia:Article outlines]].

SEO rankings increase when small pages cover the exact topic, e.g. you could create a few small page in the format of a '''list''', [[Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms]] then use <code><nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity}}</nowiki></code> to point back to the original page. The original page would a less detailed description of symptoms, and could use <nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms}}</nowiki></code> to take users back to it. The new page would go in the [[Category:Lists]] and [[Category:Signs and symptoms]]. I am thinking of creating a list page for [[Deaths from myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]], so will be interested to see how this ranks compared to the [[causes of death]], [[Sophia Mirza]], and [[severe and very severe ME]] pages. (Sophia's is one of the top pages on MEpedia). ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

==Images==
I believe images would help SEO. If you would like a simple image creating eg for the symptoms, can you let me know what design and colors (green? primary colors?) you would like or links to any images with the layout you want. Images are highlighted by search engine results and encourage views and also get saved to pinterest which results in more views. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

== New Section on Symptoms -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:39, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

I would love to add a section on symptoms, suggest starting by listing symptoms from Belpomme 2020 in descending order of prevalence. Would like to incorporate Prevalence from other studies, as well, although not sure how much synthesis of data is allowed on this site.

===Re: New Section on Symptoms -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 18:32, September 23, 2021 (UTC)===

: My apologies, I somehow missed the symptoms section at the very top of the page. It does appear to be very well done. I may make suggestions for added references at a later date.

== Additions to history -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:54, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

It could aid patient advocacy to put some precedent setting decisions in here. One court case example that comes to mind is the Canada Revenue Association vs a woman (a large MCS advocate in Canada, forget the name) who had claimed tax deductible renovations on her home to accommodate MCS. Would this be helpful here, or would a section on MCS in the court system be more suitable?

== MCS as a symptom of a disease, not a disease. -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 06:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

This is a controversial idea, I know, and I am not aiming to make any additions or changes. However, given the rapidly advancing state of knowledge on the underlying mechanisms of MCS, I think it will be helpful to have a discussion about this idea.

The more I learn about MCS and talk to people with it, the more it becomes apparent that the sensitivity is a symptom of underlying problems which are diverse, complex, and different for every individual. And yes, the underlying problems are almost universally caused or initiated by toxic exposure. One example is Mast Cell Activation Syndrome. Another is Oxidative Stress. You get the idea. Thoughts?

== Additions to recognition section -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 16:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 16:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

It would be helpful for patients to add some more detail on legal recognition. For example, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has taken a rather firm stance on environmental sensitivities: https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/policy_sensitivity_0.pdf

"Individuals with environmental sensitivities experience a variety of adverse reactions to environmental
agents at concentrations well below those that might affect the “average person”. This medical condition is a
disability and those living with environmental sensitivities are entitled to the protection of the Canadian
Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability."

== New references for notable studies section -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 16:38, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

A recent review paper, published in reviews on environmental health about a week ago, would be useful to have in this section:

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2021-0043/html

User talk:Aletheia2020

2021-09-23T18:23:38Z

Silliestchris:/* A new Ally -- ~~~~ */ new section

{{Template:Welcome|realName=|name=Aletheia2020}}

-- [[User:New user message|New user message]] ([[User talk:New user message|talk]]) 22:24, February 8, 2020 (EST)

== Welcome! Duplicate accounts? -- [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 12:10, February 9, 2020 (EST) ==

Hi and welcome Aletheia2020! Thanks for joining us at MEpedia. I see that you appear to have duplicate accounts ([[User:Aletheia]] as well as [[User:Aletheia2020]]). Would you like me to delete one of these accounts for you?

Again, welcome, check out our [[Help:Tutorial]], and let me know if you have any questions, or you can ask them at our [[MEpedia:Help desk]].
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 12:10, February 9, 2020 (EST)
==MCS and pictures ==
Hi [[User:Aletheia2020]]. I saw you had uploaded some good images. Can you the copyright information and sources (eg link that they are from). There's some info explaining the details in the [[MEpedia:Copyright_policy]]. Just use "edit source" to add it. The image from Safe would be better if the contrast with higher and it was a bit lighter - it looks just black on a mobile sized screen.
I have also posted on [[Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity‎‎]] about the content / topics - basically I am unsure how MCS and [[Mold illness]], Electrohypersensitivity, allergies and autoimmune illnesses are linked (or if they are), and what comorbidities are common. Is there also involvement of [[mast cell activation syndrome]] in many people with MCS? I also put a photo on the talk page. There will be others in research that could be used. Thanks for your work on the MCS page, and in the new page for Safe. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 21:22, May 17, 2020 (EDT)

== A new Ally -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 18:23, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

Hello Aletheia, I would like to introduce myself. I see you are a main contributor to the MCS page. This is also the primary reason I joined MEpedia. I see the MCS page is protected... very wise move as the other side of the argument would certainly target it for disinformation.

After developing full blast MCS 4 years ago, I have become extremely familiar with the topic from a scientific and Canadian perspective in particular.

Anyway, I've made a couple of suggestions for additions on the discussion page and opened up some new discussions that I anticipate will become more relevant as research progresses.

Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity

2021-09-23T16:38:35Z

Silliestchris:/* New references for notable studies section -- ~~~~ */ new section

== Formatting problem with references -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:04, June 4, 2020 (EDT) ==

There seems to be a problem with some references disappearing. They remain as numbers without the reference. This seemed to start after the insertion of "see also"s, although I don't know if it's related.

Does anyone know how to fix? Thanks [User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:I have only just seen this. Which references are affected? If the text looks OK but the references list has entries like: <nowiki > 20. ^ </nowiki > then click on the up arrow symbol and it should show you whwre it comes from. The source editor view can then be used to see what the issue is. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:57, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

== Images -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT) ==

Could anyone please direct me to where I can read about policies relating to image use.

Also, I uploaded three images and they didn't seem to be well formatted on the mobile app, with the image apearing in the middle of sentences. I tried to fix, but unless my mobile is showing the old version, I'm not sure how to fix it, if anyone can help. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

==Electrohypersensitivity==
Does this belong as part of the page, or is it better on a separate page? Are there specific types or subtypes of MCS to cover?
If EHS goes on this page this this image
and reference look worth adding. Skin lesions on a patient with [[electrohypersensitivity]] (EHS).
[[File:Electrohypersensitivity_MCS_skin_lesions.png|thumb|center|200px|[https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 Skin lesson caused by electrohypersensitivity. Source: 2020, Belpomme and & Irigaray. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.]]]
*2020, Belpomme, Dominique; and Irigaray, Philippe. Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.<ref name="Belpomme2020">https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915</ref> - [https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 (Full text)]
Could MCS be broken down into Electrohypersensitivity, Food/drink allergies and intolerances, and chemical/environmental allergies and sensitivities? The MCSAware website (for instance) seemed to concentrate on those areas. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 20:43, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:56, June 4, 2020 (EDT)===

:Thanks for raising this. It's important. EHS is included under the umbrella term Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances, but most of the researchers into MCS don't like this term, since it has certain political associations. I think the consensus would say that EHS is a commonly comorbid condition to MCS and ME/CFS. I think it needs its own page.

:Likewise, food/drink allergies and intolerances are not MCS, which has a specific diagnostic criteria. Even though, many people with MCS do have food intolerances as well.[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:29, September 23, 2021 (UTC)===

: Hi, anectodally I have observed that EHS and MCS seem to be comorbid for some people. The Belpomme article really drives this home, as well. I think a statement should be made on the possible relationship, but EHS should have its own distinct page.

==Scientific sources==
Some sources don't meet the [[MEpedia:Science guidelines]], which have been updated quite recently. Sources that are blogs, websites belonging to an individual or a small group, or patients have been used as sources (or in Learn more) in some places without making it clear whose view these are. Verywellhealth for instance is simply a patient/health website without medical oversight. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Scientific sources -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:24, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: Surprisingly, not a lot of scholarly articles on the controvery itself except in miniature: like, controversy of mast cells' role in neuroendocrinology.

:: I'm looking into this now. Will add a list here. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:51, May 15, 2020 (EDT)

==Popular culture==
This isn't a section we normally cover (see [[MEpedia:Article_outlines]] and I would like it remove it. This page is already very long. The popular culture pages here are only for NE/CFS, so if there is something notable covering ME/CFS and MCS it could have a separate page in the culture category. [[User:Aletheia2020]] [[User:Kmdenmark]] [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]
I think the should also be less weight given to skeptics, Wikipedia and blogs in the controversy section. Wikipedia often includes excessive skeptical sources and excessive weight is given to them, but here we are mostly concerned with MCS as it relates to ME/CFS and possibly fibromyalgia or other comorbidities. Surely there should be some peer-reviewed research relating to the controversy? Articles on myths or misconceptions could be useful here, and in the Learn more section. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)===

: Hey [[User:Notjusttired]] Thanks very much for taking the time to review the page and for your thoughts. I'm new to MEpedia so will rely on the adivce of more established users but this was my rationale.

I'll go through your points one by one.

CC: [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]

'''Long, dense page''': I kept it all on one page primarily for SEO purposes, and following the Wikipedia model.

'''Popular culture:''' (taken from Wikipedia format) In the review of Safe, I tried to give a psychosocial perspective on how MCS is widely perceived and how this impacts the lives of sufferers. From my perspective, as an MCS sufferer, this is the more important section on the page because the scientific studies I don't think really describe how profound the social disslocation is that many people with MCS experience as a result of stigma.

'''Weight to skeptic argument:''' First, I do hear you on questioning my inclusion of this. I chose to cover it (what I see as the elephant in the room) because skeptics have dominated the Wikipedia page on MCS for many years. They delete anything there that contradicts their view and delete their accounts.

I hoped the summary of the controversy would give readers an intellectual and political context for Wikipedia's content--after all, Wikipedia has a big influence.

Also, because I'd read that Quackwatch and SBM invest a lot in their SEO, I thought that referring to many of their articles and using the language that they use to denigrate people with MCS may help the page's SEO. That hypothesis might have worked since the page has moved from page 30 to page 1 on a range of MCS search terms.

Re peer-reviewed research relating to this controversy, other than the consensus of last year (which said that the scientists arguing that MCS was psychologically-caused had conflicts of interest), I'm not aware of anything. It may be out there, but I've not seen it. Unfortunately, research into MCS has been limited.

'''General direction'''
I wrote this page for MEpedia on the understanding that this would just be a page about MCS--one that wasn't subject to the censorship restrictions of Wikipedia.

While there is a section on how it relates to ME, that certainly wasn't my goal in investing my time in this. My goal was to create
a reputable source that people with MCS could go to for resources and that they could direct others to (ie. loved ones, new friends, doctors, hospitals).

If MEpedia would prefer for the focus to be on how MCS relates to ME, I don't think I'd want to be involved with that. One, because I'm not an expert on that subject (I'm also not sure if much research has been done on that subject); and two, because I don't think it's what people with MCS need.

Sensitivities can be a symptom of ME, but MCS is a standalone condition, and I'd like it to get the space and spotlight it needs as a very serious standalone condition.

If MEpedia isn't the place for that, I understand. I also wish I'd known that before I'd given my content to MEpedia and invested a lot of time on the page. In light of that, I'd like to be able to take my content with me, if you decide to change the direction of the page significantly. I wrote all of it except for the section ME and MCS. It's the culmination of several years work for me, and I'd like to see it published somewhere.

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

:::Thanks for your reply [[User:Aletheia2020]]. I perhaps was a bit unclear about how it impacts ME - I think a stand alone page is incredibly useful, but any extra sources that cover it as a comorbidity of ME/CFS and/or fibromyalgia would be really useful. MCS is a huge complication for many with ME so the page is extremely useful. Similarly, the Fibromyalgia has ended up very long, there's a separate [[Fibromyalgia drugs]] page - would a [[Fibromyalgia treatments]] summary page be helpful? Anything that could be added to individual treatment pages about MCS would be helpful, just add a subheading for it (not sure what potions there are in terms of management / treatments).
I think if you have time, some of what is here would be useful on pages like [[Medically unexplained symptoms]], and [[psychologization]]. As regards SEO, the MediaWiki software controls so much of that. Things I've noticed that are very useful are adding some images (quotes or other pictures), careful wording of the first 2 lines of the article, increasing the number of subheadings and having subheadings related to things that are commonly searched for since these then appear as short links in the search results.
Perhaps the "popular culture" heading could be changed to something about what it's like to live with MCS?
Regarding the "learn more" section - are there some leaflets for patients or Consensus guidelines and criteria that could go there?
I've noticed the huge amount of work you are putting into the page, I can't think you enough for that. :-) I see so many online struggling with MCS and with few reliable places to go, and difficulties explaining things to others. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 06:58, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for your note and suggestions[[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] and [[User:JaimeS]].

I took from your further comments that you're OK with leaving the page generally as is but that you wanted the popular culture section changed and more on how MCS impacts ME. Is that right? Or do you still think further sections should be cut, reduced or separated out onto other pages?

As for how MCS impacts ME, I agree it's an important subject, and it's actually not one I had thought much about until this conversation.

Myself I have both conditions, and I would say that out of the people I know with severe and longstanding MCS, the majority seem to also have ME.

From my perspective, the biggest complication MCS creates for a person who also has ME is access/disability issues, which can greatly compromise getting accommodation, support and medical care. Of course, these disability aspects of MCS create these complexities for the sufferer in relation to any comorbid medical condition, not just ME. It complicates them getting medical care for MCS symptoms.

Access issues is a section I've been meaning to write (and it's alluded to in hospital care). I've been procrastinating on it cos it's literally such a big subject, I'm still figuring out how to summarise it into a small section.

So, im summary, I agree that this subject is important. It's just not what I had in mind when I wrote this page page. And to me it seems a bit specific for this page.

I wrote this page with a general, unninformed target audience in mind, hence talking a little about a wide range of subjects, with the idea that the reader could come to the page with literally no idea what MCS is.

In contrast, how MCS impacts ME would be for an informed audience (ie. mostly likely people with both conditions or their loved ones or carers).

As for SEO, the reason I started paying more attention to that, is that when the page was first up (for the first month or so), it was coming up around page 30 on Google--really too deeply buried to make a difference for random searches. I consulted an SEO expert and he suggested incorporating certain words and questions into the content, where possible. Two weeks after I started doing that, I noticed the page coming up much higher in Google for certain subjects. And it seemed to come up higher still the more I did it. It wasn't the only SEO tactic I used, so I don't know for sure whether it was responsible for it coming up higher, but I think it might have been.

Like you [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] the SEO consultant said that incorporating common googled phrases and questions in headings is the best, although I thought your page followed a similar template to Wikipedia in relation to headings, so didn't want to mess with them. It sounds like there is some flexibility there, though?

On images [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]], thanks, that's good to know. They would be good to incorporate. Is there a place that MEpedia contributors commonly get stock images?

And [[User:JaimeS]] with the Safe review having non-scientific resources quoted, I assumed this was OK because a movie review is a movie review--ie. it's not making any controversial scientific claims (and obviously there are no scientific sources about movies). I still thought there was value in quoting media and academic sources about the film because it gives a glimpse into the director's intent and how it was widely interpreted.

I see that Safe has been shortened and some of that content moved to the Safe page. Wasn't sure if that related to the sources I'd used to you just wanting to shorten it.

But I wonder if you'd consider leaving it as is. I ask because the review was carefully written, dense with terms and phrases that I thought could potentially help SEO. It was easier to do that in this section because it had freer form that the scientific sections.

As well, I think the detail about Safe is important because it's not a straight-out narrative about someone having MCS.

The film is actually very vague about what's happening to Carol and why (even though it's a perfectly realistic depiction of what MCS looks like). This vagueness is probably why the film was interpreted in many diverse ways (eg. as a horror film, as a feminist film).

The summary as brief as it is now I don't think really conveys the nuance of how nuance of how the condition is presented. For example, I think it's an important detail to include that nowhere in the film does it mention MCS. It's just that Haynes has confirmed that this was the condition he wrote the film about. Haynes actually wrote the film as a metaphor for how patients with AIDS were treated. I didn't go into that cos it did seem like unnecessary detail for the MCS page, but, basically, Safe isn't a clear cut film about MCS.

Also, I thought because it is at the bottom of the page, I didn't think it would distract from other content by being a little detailed.

Finally re Mepedia policies, apologies if I haven't adhered to all of them and for the time it takes other editors to fix my mistakes [[User:JaimeS]] [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]. I did read through them at the start, and probably didn't retain all I read. I'll go over them again. But my memory isn't great, so thanks for nudges about times that I've deviated from them. [[User:Aletheia2020]]

====Re: Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 19:29, May 16, 2020 (EDT)====

:: Replace this text with your reply

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:13, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: I agree that the section that exists now is a little over-sourced and could be edited down. Re: censorship, I know that Wikipedia has a really frustrating and demeaning history of falling on the side of reactionary skepticism/mockery of people with chronic conditions. MEpedia is moderated by a patient advocacy organization, not would not seek stifle the voice of people with chronic conditions.

I think you and I have had conversations on this, Aletheia2020! You know I agree with you that good information should be available for those who seek it. As I mentioned when we spoke about this, we do have particular requirements for which sources are considered scholarly, and some general editing rules of thumb (like how many sources are cited per fact). You can find most of these in the science guidelines (http://me-pedia.org/wiki/Science_Guidelines).

Since this is a Wiki, the page would be open to improvement by anyone at any time. In the case of vandalism or unhelpful edits, we have the ability to revert to the previous edits, but locking a page indefinitely after one set of edits would be something we would only do if we were seeing (or suspected we would see) repeated vandalism on the page.

[Edit -- reading quickly through, let me know if there's anything I've missed.]

== Missing reference #19 -- [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST) ==

[[User:Aletheia2020]] Thanks for your great work on this page! There is one reference missing though, currently numbered #19. Please double-check. Thanks again.
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST)

:[[User:Pyrrhus]] Thank you, and sorry about that reference. For some reason, a few disappeared. It will take me a bit of time to work out which ones went missing when I cut and pasted. I'll try to fix it in the coming days <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

== First section on chemical sensitivities in ME/CFS ==

Hey, I wasn't sure who edited this section, but I envisaged this page as one about MCS as a standalone condition--a condition which is commonly comorbid with ME/CFS. I didn't want it to be chemical sensitivities or MCS in ME/CFS, since the content that follows that section isn't that.

I was going to change it back, but if you don't agree, happy to chat about it.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:I'm afraid I don't understand what exactly you are referring to. Could you clarify? Generally speaking, pages on MEpedia should state at the outset what the relevance to ME/CFS is. This section is usually titled "Such-and-such in ME/CFS". The point of the section is to explain why this topic is RELEVANT to ME, to avoid having the page deleted for falling outside the scope of MEpedia. The merits of considering a particular condition as a COMORBIDITY are typically covered in a separate section. I hope this helps.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:51, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Hey [[User:Pyrrhus]] thank you for the extra details. I understand.

::My concerns is that medication, food and odour sensitivities are not MCS and the way that the paragraph is now phrased makes it a little confusing on a page about MCS--especially when it's the first section after the intro.

::MCS has specific diagnostic criteria, and, yes, it often is accompanied by medication, food and odour sensitivities, but not always. And the MCS community has some good reasons to distinguish between odour and chemical sensitivities because different studies and conclusions apply to these two phenomenon.

::If you'd rather leave the title like that because its your convention, no worries. I think that works OK.

::But I think that taking the paragraph back to what I had would make it clearer about what MCS is. Food sensitivities etc are really for a whole nother page.

::Also, I spelled out ME/CFS here since it's the first time it's mentioned on the page and people may come to this page from Googling MCS and not know what ME/CFS is. I also thought it important to specify that the consensus documents were about ME/CFS since it's not clear otherwise what they are consenses about.

::What do you think?[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::You make some very good points [[User:Aletheia2020]]. Give me a little time to incorporate your points into a draft section, which I will post here on the discussion page for you to review and edit. Thanks.
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:41, February 12, 2020 (EST)

:::Okay, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], how does the following section look?
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:59, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::::Thanks for doing that [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]]. Looks good. I think that that is very clear. Whether that level of detail is required above what was there before, I don't know. But I found it interesting to read the details.

::::The only thing I didn't agree with was the last bit, saying some studies differentiate odour and chemical sensitivities. I think it's a very important to make clear that MCS is not odour sensitivity. I think this is a common misconception.

::::If you look at the 1999 criteria for MCS (and proposed changes to that in the 2019 consensus) there is nothing about sensitivities to odours mentioned in the diagnostic criteria.

::::Some triggering chemicals have odours and some people with MCS have exaggerated senses of smell, but many triggering chemicals (eg. many pesticides) don't have a perceptible smell and many people with MCS have normal senses of smell, and some have no sense of smell at all (which makes avoiding triggers pretty tricky).

::::In my experience, studies into odour sensitivity are often more focused on a perceived nocebo/psychosomatic angle, and in relation to MCS, these have been used in attempts to discredit MCS as a physical disorder. So I'd rather keep my distance from them.

::::From what I can tell, the Quackwatch/SBM mob like to characterise MCS as something like: a bunch of hysterical women getting anxious, angry and upset when they smell perfume or petrol, in some kind of paranoid fit of chemophobia.

::::But this characterisation doesn't explain MCS when the triggering chemical has no smell or when the reaction is from topical contact, ingestion or injection (eg. in the case of anaesthetics, which are notorious for making people with MCS ill).

::::Anyway, in summary, I'd just cut the final sentence. I think the rest of the contact makes it clear MCS is not sensitivity to odours. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::::Thanks for all the background, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]]. I have learned a lot about MCS in this conversation. I think many people in the ME community, including those with MCS, are unaware that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria. So your work on this page helps a lot. I'll go ahead and cut the final sentence and then copy it over. Thanks again.
:::::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:17, February 14, 2020 (EST)

::::::It's really good to read that feedback : [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] -- thank you. I think the "is MCS real?" conversation has really eclipsed conversations about what the condition actually is. And that hasn't helped sufferers. Hopefully this page is of use to other people with chemical sensitivities or MCS.

::::::Also, thank you also for your patience with me as I've been learning how things work on here.````Aletheia2020

<div style="background:#FFFFE0;border:1px dotted black">
== MCS in ME and ME/CFS ==
MCS has been described as a comorbidity of [[ME/CFS|myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]] (ME/CFS) and [[fibromyalgia]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ammes.org/overlapping-conditions/|title=Overlapping Conditions – American ME and CFS Society|website=ammes.org|language=en-US|access-date=2018-08-12}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.verywellhealth.com/fibromyalgia-comorbid-overlapping-conditions-716184|title=Illness That Come Along with Fibromyalgia & Chronic Fatigue Syndrome|last=Dellwo|first=Adrienne|authorlink=Adrienne Dellwo|date=Feb 26, 2018|work=Verywell Health|access-date=2018-08-23|archive-url=|archive-date=|url-status=}}</ref> The [[Canadian Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing ME/CFS lists "new sensitivities to food, medications and/or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)" as a comorbidity. The [[International Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) lists "sensitivities to food, medications, odours or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "multiple chemical sensitivities" as a comorbidity. A 2019 publication of the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition lists "chemical sensitivity" as a symptom of ME/CFS and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities" as a commonly comorbid condition.<ref>“Diagnosing and Treating ME/CFS” by the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition, August 2019. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SG7hlJTCSDrDHqvioPMq-cX-rgRKXjfk/view</ref>

However, it is important to note that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria which do ''not'' include medication, food or odor sensitivities.<ref name="pmid10444033" /> Furthermore, some studies have differentiated odor sensitivity and chemical sensitivity as two separate phenomena.{{citation needed}}
</div>

== On This is a Potential comorbidities page ==
I wondered how we can resolve whether it is or isn't a comorbidity. I know the US Coalition on ME/CFS consensus from last year said it was, but I'm really not up on other ME/CFS stuff.

I think removing the banner would look better if it can be agreed either way.

Thanks <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:A page is expected to objectively weigh the evidence for and against considering a condition as a comorbidity. As much as possible, we leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Because of this, we recently renamed our "Comorbidities" category to "Potential comorbidities", in order to let the page itself weigh the evidence, and in order to let the reader come to their own conclusion.

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, got it. Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:These sorts of debates just don't belong in category-naming decisions. Categories are simply a convenient way to group articles, nothing more, and we don't want to complicate things by politicizing category names. We did the same thing with the "Treatments" category, which is now called "Potential treatments". With that said, the banner is indeed ugly and distracting. We have developed a better banner and are (still) waiting for our technical people to finally implement the better banner. For the time being, we just have to put up with the current ugly and distracting banner...

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK. That's good to know. Yes, it's very dominating as it is atm. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:07, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Oops, [[User:Aletheia2020]], I forgot to mention that the word "comorbidity" on MEpedia has a specific meaning: it means a condition that is statistically more likely to be found in the original condition, than it is to be found in the general population. I only mention that since there are other definitions out there...
::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:28, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, noted. I'll stick with your definition. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== English or American spelling? ==

[[User:Pyrrhus]] I noticed that you changed some ss to zs in words but changed centers to centres. So I was unsure if you went with American or English spelling on this page? Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:44, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:The [[MEpedia:Manual of style]] specifies American spelling and dates, which I why I changed some spelling, including changing "centres" to "centers". Then I realized that the word "centres" was part of a quote from a Canadian, so I changed "centers" back to "centres". I hope this clarifies things. Good catch!
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:48, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::Ah, I got it [[User:pyrrhus|pyrrhus]]. No worries.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== Questionable comparison that could be interpreted as bias ==

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], I notice that you make a comparison between "merchants of doubt", who are paid to disseminate disinformation that they don't themselves believe, and intolerant skeptics, who may use similar tactics but are unpaid and actually believe what they are claiming. Some may say that this is an unfair comparison that displays bias on our part. Perhaps rephrase?
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 14:34, February 12, 2020 (EST)

===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.

: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.

: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).

: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

==References==
{{reftalk}}

== Headings and SEO -- ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT) ==

Please avoid using questions as headings, and avoid using the page name within headings. The MediaWiki software is built by Wikipedia so should already be able to work out that a subheading is linked to the topic page, and phrasing the first line under the heading carefully should be enough, e.g. The symptoms of MCS include...". Headings should be worded as per the examples on [[MEpedia:Article outlines]].

SEO rankings increase when small pages cover the exact topic, e.g. you could create a few small page in the format of a '''list''', [[Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms]] then use <code><nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity}}</nowiki></code> to point back to the original page. The original page would a less detailed description of symptoms, and could use <nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms}}</nowiki></code> to take users back to it. The new page would go in the [[Category:Lists]] and [[Category:Signs and symptoms]]. I am thinking of creating a list page for [[Deaths from myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]], so will be interested to see how this ranks compared to the [[causes of death]], [[Sophia Mirza]], and [[severe and very severe ME]] pages. (Sophia's is one of the top pages on MEpedia). ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

==Images==
I believe images would help SEO. If you would like a simple image creating eg for the symptoms, can you let me know what design and colors (green? primary colors?) you would like or links to any images with the layout you want. Images are highlighted by search engine results and encourage views and also get saved to pinterest which results in more views. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

== New Section on Symptoms -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:39, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

I would love to add a section on symptoms, suggest starting by listing symptoms from Belpomme 2020 in descending order of prevalence. Would like to incorporate Prevalence from other studies, as well, although not sure how much synthesis of data is allowed on this site.

== Additions to history -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:54, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

It could aid patient advocacy to put some precedent setting decisions in here. One court case example that comes to mind is the Canada Revenue Association vs a woman (a large MCS advocate in Canada, forget the name) who had claimed tax deductible renovations on her home to accommodate MCS. Would this be helpful here, or would a section on MCS in the court system be more suitable?

== MCS as a symptom of a disease, not a disease. -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 06:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

This is a controversial idea, I know, and I am not aiming to make any additions or changes. However, given the rapidly advancing state of knowledge on the underlying mechanisms of MCS, I think it will be helpful to have a discussion about this idea.

The more I learn about MCS and talk to people with it, the more it becomes apparent that the sensitivity is a symptom of underlying problems which are diverse, complex, and different for every individual. And yes, the underlying problems are almost universally caused or initiated by toxic exposure. One example is Mast Cell Activation Syndrome. Another is Oxidative Stress. You get the idea. Thoughts?

== Additions to recognition section -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 16:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 16:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

It would be helpful for patients to add some more detail on legal recognition. For example, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has taken a rather firm stance on environmental sensitivities: https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/policy_sensitivity_0.pdf

"Individuals with environmental sensitivities experience a variety of adverse reactions to environmental
agents at concentrations well below those that might affect the “average person”. This medical condition is a
disability and those living with environmental sensitivities are entitled to the protection of the Canadian
Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability."

== New references for notable studies section -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 16:38, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

A recent review paper, published in reviews on environmental health about a week ago, would be useful to have in this section:

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2021-0043/html

User:Silliestchris

2021-09-23T16:25:40Z

Silliestchris:Added a bit of details about myself.

Canadian scientist (physics) and explorer.

Broad multidisciplinary background in general science.

Advocate for the downtrodden.

Environmentalist.

Trying to reduce climate change.

I am living high functioning with MCS. Digesting the scientific literature has been a fascinating side project.

My wife is a researcher and has EDS, so I am somewhat familiar with this topic as well.

My free time is often spent on mountains or rivers.

Whitewater kayaking makes me happier than any other thing on Earth I have ever experienced.

I also love motorcycles.

MCS is a highly charged and hotly divided topic. Details about me are intentionally left just vague enough to protect my anonymity.

Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity

2021-09-23T16:02:19Z

Silliestchris:/* Additions to recognition section -- ~~~~ -- ~~~~ */ new section

== Formatting problem with references -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:04, June 4, 2020 (EDT) ==

There seems to be a problem with some references disappearing. They remain as numbers without the reference. This seemed to start after the insertion of "see also"s, although I don't know if it's related.

Does anyone know how to fix? Thanks [User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:I have only just seen this. Which references are affected? If the text looks OK but the references list has entries like: <nowiki > 20. ^ </nowiki > then click on the up arrow symbol and it should show you whwre it comes from. The source editor view can then be used to see what the issue is. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:57, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

== Images -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT) ==

Could anyone please direct me to where I can read about policies relating to image use.

Also, I uploaded three images and they didn't seem to be well formatted on the mobile app, with the image apearing in the middle of sentences. I tried to fix, but unless my mobile is showing the old version, I'm not sure how to fix it, if anyone can help. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

==Electrohypersensitivity==
Does this belong as part of the page, or is it better on a separate page? Are there specific types or subtypes of MCS to cover?
If EHS goes on this page this this image
and reference look worth adding. Skin lesions on a patient with [[electrohypersensitivity]] (EHS).
[[File:Electrohypersensitivity_MCS_skin_lesions.png|thumb|center|200px|[https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 Skin lesson caused by electrohypersensitivity. Source: 2020, Belpomme and & Irigaray. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.]]]
*2020, Belpomme, Dominique; and Irigaray, Philippe. Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.<ref name="Belpomme2020">https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915</ref> - [https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 (Full text)]
Could MCS be broken down into Electrohypersensitivity, Food/drink allergies and intolerances, and chemical/environmental allergies and sensitivities? The MCSAware website (for instance) seemed to concentrate on those areas. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 20:43, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:56, June 4, 2020 (EDT)===

:Thanks for raising this. It's important. EHS is included under the umbrella term Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances, but most of the researchers into MCS don't like this term, since it has certain political associations. I think the consensus would say that EHS is a commonly comorbid condition to MCS and ME/CFS. I think it needs its own page.

:Likewise, food/drink allergies and intolerances are not MCS, which has a specific diagnostic criteria. Even though, many people with MCS do have food intolerances as well.[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:29, September 23, 2021 (UTC)===

: Hi, anectodally I have observed that EHS and MCS seem to be comorbid for some people. The Belpomme article really drives this home, as well. I think a statement should be made on the possible relationship, but EHS should have its own distinct page.

==Scientific sources==
Some sources don't meet the [[MEpedia:Science guidelines]], which have been updated quite recently. Sources that are blogs, websites belonging to an individual or a small group, or patients have been used as sources (or in Learn more) in some places without making it clear whose view these are. Verywellhealth for instance is simply a patient/health website without medical oversight. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Scientific sources -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:24, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: Surprisingly, not a lot of scholarly articles on the controvery itself except in miniature: like, controversy of mast cells' role in neuroendocrinology.

:: I'm looking into this now. Will add a list here. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:51, May 15, 2020 (EDT)

==Popular culture==
This isn't a section we normally cover (see [[MEpedia:Article_outlines]] and I would like it remove it. This page is already very long. The popular culture pages here are only for NE/CFS, so if there is something notable covering ME/CFS and MCS it could have a separate page in the culture category. [[User:Aletheia2020]] [[User:Kmdenmark]] [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]
I think the should also be less weight given to skeptics, Wikipedia and blogs in the controversy section. Wikipedia often includes excessive skeptical sources and excessive weight is given to them, but here we are mostly concerned with MCS as it relates to ME/CFS and possibly fibromyalgia or other comorbidities. Surely there should be some peer-reviewed research relating to the controversy? Articles on myths or misconceptions could be useful here, and in the Learn more section. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)===

: Hey [[User:Notjusttired]] Thanks very much for taking the time to review the page and for your thoughts. I'm new to MEpedia so will rely on the adivce of more established users but this was my rationale.

I'll go through your points one by one.

CC: [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]

'''Long, dense page''': I kept it all on one page primarily for SEO purposes, and following the Wikipedia model.

'''Popular culture:''' (taken from Wikipedia format) In the review of Safe, I tried to give a psychosocial perspective on how MCS is widely perceived and how this impacts the lives of sufferers. From my perspective, as an MCS sufferer, this is the more important section on the page because the scientific studies I don't think really describe how profound the social disslocation is that many people with MCS experience as a result of stigma.

'''Weight to skeptic argument:''' First, I do hear you on questioning my inclusion of this. I chose to cover it (what I see as the elephant in the room) because skeptics have dominated the Wikipedia page on MCS for many years. They delete anything there that contradicts their view and delete their accounts.

I hoped the summary of the controversy would give readers an intellectual and political context for Wikipedia's content--after all, Wikipedia has a big influence.

Also, because I'd read that Quackwatch and SBM invest a lot in their SEO, I thought that referring to many of their articles and using the language that they use to denigrate people with MCS may help the page's SEO. That hypothesis might have worked since the page has moved from page 30 to page 1 on a range of MCS search terms.

Re peer-reviewed research relating to this controversy, other than the consensus of last year (which said that the scientists arguing that MCS was psychologically-caused had conflicts of interest), I'm not aware of anything. It may be out there, but I've not seen it. Unfortunately, research into MCS has been limited.

'''General direction'''
I wrote this page for MEpedia on the understanding that this would just be a page about MCS--one that wasn't subject to the censorship restrictions of Wikipedia.

While there is a section on how it relates to ME, that certainly wasn't my goal in investing my time in this. My goal was to create
a reputable source that people with MCS could go to for resources and that they could direct others to (ie. loved ones, new friends, doctors, hospitals).

If MEpedia would prefer for the focus to be on how MCS relates to ME, I don't think I'd want to be involved with that. One, because I'm not an expert on that subject (I'm also not sure if much research has been done on that subject); and two, because I don't think it's what people with MCS need.

Sensitivities can be a symptom of ME, but MCS is a standalone condition, and I'd like it to get the space and spotlight it needs as a very serious standalone condition.

If MEpedia isn't the place for that, I understand. I also wish I'd known that before I'd given my content to MEpedia and invested a lot of time on the page. In light of that, I'd like to be able to take my content with me, if you decide to change the direction of the page significantly. I wrote all of it except for the section ME and MCS. It's the culmination of several years work for me, and I'd like to see it published somewhere.

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

:::Thanks for your reply [[User:Aletheia2020]]. I perhaps was a bit unclear about how it impacts ME - I think a stand alone page is incredibly useful, but any extra sources that cover it as a comorbidity of ME/CFS and/or fibromyalgia would be really useful. MCS is a huge complication for many with ME so the page is extremely useful. Similarly, the Fibromyalgia has ended up very long, there's a separate [[Fibromyalgia drugs]] page - would a [[Fibromyalgia treatments]] summary page be helpful? Anything that could be added to individual treatment pages about MCS would be helpful, just add a subheading for it (not sure what potions there are in terms of management / treatments).
I think if you have time, some of what is here would be useful on pages like [[Medically unexplained symptoms]], and [[psychologization]]. As regards SEO, the MediaWiki software controls so much of that. Things I've noticed that are very useful are adding some images (quotes or other pictures), careful wording of the first 2 lines of the article, increasing the number of subheadings and having subheadings related to things that are commonly searched for since these then appear as short links in the search results.
Perhaps the "popular culture" heading could be changed to something about what it's like to live with MCS?
Regarding the "learn more" section - are there some leaflets for patients or Consensus guidelines and criteria that could go there?
I've noticed the huge amount of work you are putting into the page, I can't think you enough for that. :-) I see so many online struggling with MCS and with few reliable places to go, and difficulties explaining things to others. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 06:58, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for your note and suggestions[[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] and [[User:JaimeS]].

I took from your further comments that you're OK with leaving the page generally as is but that you wanted the popular culture section changed and more on how MCS impacts ME. Is that right? Or do you still think further sections should be cut, reduced or separated out onto other pages?

As for how MCS impacts ME, I agree it's an important subject, and it's actually not one I had thought much about until this conversation.

Myself I have both conditions, and I would say that out of the people I know with severe and longstanding MCS, the majority seem to also have ME.

From my perspective, the biggest complication MCS creates for a person who also has ME is access/disability issues, which can greatly compromise getting accommodation, support and medical care. Of course, these disability aspects of MCS create these complexities for the sufferer in relation to any comorbid medical condition, not just ME. It complicates them getting medical care for MCS symptoms.

Access issues is a section I've been meaning to write (and it's alluded to in hospital care). I've been procrastinating on it cos it's literally such a big subject, I'm still figuring out how to summarise it into a small section.

So, im summary, I agree that this subject is important. It's just not what I had in mind when I wrote this page page. And to me it seems a bit specific for this page.

I wrote this page with a general, unninformed target audience in mind, hence talking a little about a wide range of subjects, with the idea that the reader could come to the page with literally no idea what MCS is.

In contrast, how MCS impacts ME would be for an informed audience (ie. mostly likely people with both conditions or their loved ones or carers).

As for SEO, the reason I started paying more attention to that, is that when the page was first up (for the first month or so), it was coming up around page 30 on Google--really too deeply buried to make a difference for random searches. I consulted an SEO expert and he suggested incorporating certain words and questions into the content, where possible. Two weeks after I started doing that, I noticed the page coming up much higher in Google for certain subjects. And it seemed to come up higher still the more I did it. It wasn't the only SEO tactic I used, so I don't know for sure whether it was responsible for it coming up higher, but I think it might have been.

Like you [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] the SEO consultant said that incorporating common googled phrases and questions in headings is the best, although I thought your page followed a similar template to Wikipedia in relation to headings, so didn't want to mess with them. It sounds like there is some flexibility there, though?

On images [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]], thanks, that's good to know. They would be good to incorporate. Is there a place that MEpedia contributors commonly get stock images?

And [[User:JaimeS]] with the Safe review having non-scientific resources quoted, I assumed this was OK because a movie review is a movie review--ie. it's not making any controversial scientific claims (and obviously there are no scientific sources about movies). I still thought there was value in quoting media and academic sources about the film because it gives a glimpse into the director's intent and how it was widely interpreted.

I see that Safe has been shortened and some of that content moved to the Safe page. Wasn't sure if that related to the sources I'd used to you just wanting to shorten it.

But I wonder if you'd consider leaving it as is. I ask because the review was carefully written, dense with terms and phrases that I thought could potentially help SEO. It was easier to do that in this section because it had freer form that the scientific sections.

As well, I think the detail about Safe is important because it's not a straight-out narrative about someone having MCS.

The film is actually very vague about what's happening to Carol and why (even though it's a perfectly realistic depiction of what MCS looks like). This vagueness is probably why the film was interpreted in many diverse ways (eg. as a horror film, as a feminist film).

The summary as brief as it is now I don't think really conveys the nuance of how nuance of how the condition is presented. For example, I think it's an important detail to include that nowhere in the film does it mention MCS. It's just that Haynes has confirmed that this was the condition he wrote the film about. Haynes actually wrote the film as a metaphor for how patients with AIDS were treated. I didn't go into that cos it did seem like unnecessary detail for the MCS page, but, basically, Safe isn't a clear cut film about MCS.

Also, I thought because it is at the bottom of the page, I didn't think it would distract from other content by being a little detailed.

Finally re Mepedia policies, apologies if I haven't adhered to all of them and for the time it takes other editors to fix my mistakes [[User:JaimeS]] [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]. I did read through them at the start, and probably didn't retain all I read. I'll go over them again. But my memory isn't great, so thanks for nudges about times that I've deviated from them. [[User:Aletheia2020]]

====Re: Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 19:29, May 16, 2020 (EDT)====

:: Replace this text with your reply

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:13, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: I agree that the section that exists now is a little over-sourced and could be edited down. Re: censorship, I know that Wikipedia has a really frustrating and demeaning history of falling on the side of reactionary skepticism/mockery of people with chronic conditions. MEpedia is moderated by a patient advocacy organization, not would not seek stifle the voice of people with chronic conditions.

I think you and I have had conversations on this, Aletheia2020! You know I agree with you that good information should be available for those who seek it. As I mentioned when we spoke about this, we do have particular requirements for which sources are considered scholarly, and some general editing rules of thumb (like how many sources are cited per fact). You can find most of these in the science guidelines (http://me-pedia.org/wiki/Science_Guidelines).

Since this is a Wiki, the page would be open to improvement by anyone at any time. In the case of vandalism or unhelpful edits, we have the ability to revert to the previous edits, but locking a page indefinitely after one set of edits would be something we would only do if we were seeing (or suspected we would see) repeated vandalism on the page.

[Edit -- reading quickly through, let me know if there's anything I've missed.]

== Missing reference #19 -- [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST) ==

[[User:Aletheia2020]] Thanks for your great work on this page! There is one reference missing though, currently numbered #19. Please double-check. Thanks again.
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST)

:[[User:Pyrrhus]] Thank you, and sorry about that reference. For some reason, a few disappeared. It will take me a bit of time to work out which ones went missing when I cut and pasted. I'll try to fix it in the coming days <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

== First section on chemical sensitivities in ME/CFS ==

Hey, I wasn't sure who edited this section, but I envisaged this page as one about MCS as a standalone condition--a condition which is commonly comorbid with ME/CFS. I didn't want it to be chemical sensitivities or MCS in ME/CFS, since the content that follows that section isn't that.

I was going to change it back, but if you don't agree, happy to chat about it.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:I'm afraid I don't understand what exactly you are referring to. Could you clarify? Generally speaking, pages on MEpedia should state at the outset what the relevance to ME/CFS is. This section is usually titled "Such-and-such in ME/CFS". The point of the section is to explain why this topic is RELEVANT to ME, to avoid having the page deleted for falling outside the scope of MEpedia. The merits of considering a particular condition as a COMORBIDITY are typically covered in a separate section. I hope this helps.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:51, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Hey [[User:Pyrrhus]] thank you for the extra details. I understand.

::My concerns is that medication, food and odour sensitivities are not MCS and the way that the paragraph is now phrased makes it a little confusing on a page about MCS--especially when it's the first section after the intro.

::MCS has specific diagnostic criteria, and, yes, it often is accompanied by medication, food and odour sensitivities, but not always. And the MCS community has some good reasons to distinguish between odour and chemical sensitivities because different studies and conclusions apply to these two phenomenon.

::If you'd rather leave the title like that because its your convention, no worries. I think that works OK.

::But I think that taking the paragraph back to what I had would make it clearer about what MCS is. Food sensitivities etc are really for a whole nother page.

::Also, I spelled out ME/CFS here since it's the first time it's mentioned on the page and people may come to this page from Googling MCS and not know what ME/CFS is. I also thought it important to specify that the consensus documents were about ME/CFS since it's not clear otherwise what they are consenses about.

::What do you think?[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::You make some very good points [[User:Aletheia2020]]. Give me a little time to incorporate your points into a draft section, which I will post here on the discussion page for you to review and edit. Thanks.
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:41, February 12, 2020 (EST)

:::Okay, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], how does the following section look?
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:59, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::::Thanks for doing that [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]]. Looks good. I think that that is very clear. Whether that level of detail is required above what was there before, I don't know. But I found it interesting to read the details.

::::The only thing I didn't agree with was the last bit, saying some studies differentiate odour and chemical sensitivities. I think it's a very important to make clear that MCS is not odour sensitivity. I think this is a common misconception.

::::If you look at the 1999 criteria for MCS (and proposed changes to that in the 2019 consensus) there is nothing about sensitivities to odours mentioned in the diagnostic criteria.

::::Some triggering chemicals have odours and some people with MCS have exaggerated senses of smell, but many triggering chemicals (eg. many pesticides) don't have a perceptible smell and many people with MCS have normal senses of smell, and some have no sense of smell at all (which makes avoiding triggers pretty tricky).

::::In my experience, studies into odour sensitivity are often more focused on a perceived nocebo/psychosomatic angle, and in relation to MCS, these have been used in attempts to discredit MCS as a physical disorder. So I'd rather keep my distance from them.

::::From what I can tell, the Quackwatch/SBM mob like to characterise MCS as something like: a bunch of hysterical women getting anxious, angry and upset when they smell perfume or petrol, in some kind of paranoid fit of chemophobia.

::::But this characterisation doesn't explain MCS when the triggering chemical has no smell or when the reaction is from topical contact, ingestion or injection (eg. in the case of anaesthetics, which are notorious for making people with MCS ill).

::::Anyway, in summary, I'd just cut the final sentence. I think the rest of the contact makes it clear MCS is not sensitivity to odours. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::::Thanks for all the background, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]]. I have learned a lot about MCS in this conversation. I think many people in the ME community, including those with MCS, are unaware that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria. So your work on this page helps a lot. I'll go ahead and cut the final sentence and then copy it over. Thanks again.
:::::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:17, February 14, 2020 (EST)

::::::It's really good to read that feedback : [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] -- thank you. I think the "is MCS real?" conversation has really eclipsed conversations about what the condition actually is. And that hasn't helped sufferers. Hopefully this page is of use to other people with chemical sensitivities or MCS.

::::::Also, thank you also for your patience with me as I've been learning how things work on here.````Aletheia2020

<div style="background:#FFFFE0;border:1px dotted black">
== MCS in ME and ME/CFS ==
MCS has been described as a comorbidity of [[ME/CFS|myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]] (ME/CFS) and [[fibromyalgia]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ammes.org/overlapping-conditions/|title=Overlapping Conditions – American ME and CFS Society|website=ammes.org|language=en-US|access-date=2018-08-12}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.verywellhealth.com/fibromyalgia-comorbid-overlapping-conditions-716184|title=Illness That Come Along with Fibromyalgia & Chronic Fatigue Syndrome|last=Dellwo|first=Adrienne|authorlink=Adrienne Dellwo|date=Feb 26, 2018|work=Verywell Health|access-date=2018-08-23|archive-url=|archive-date=|url-status=}}</ref> The [[Canadian Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing ME/CFS lists "new sensitivities to food, medications and/or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)" as a comorbidity. The [[International Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) lists "sensitivities to food, medications, odours or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "multiple chemical sensitivities" as a comorbidity. A 2019 publication of the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition lists "chemical sensitivity" as a symptom of ME/CFS and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities" as a commonly comorbid condition.<ref>“Diagnosing and Treating ME/CFS” by the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition, August 2019. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SG7hlJTCSDrDHqvioPMq-cX-rgRKXjfk/view</ref>

However, it is important to note that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria which do ''not'' include medication, food or odor sensitivities.<ref name="pmid10444033" /> Furthermore, some studies have differentiated odor sensitivity and chemical sensitivity as two separate phenomena.{{citation needed}}
</div>

== On This is a Potential comorbidities page ==
I wondered how we can resolve whether it is or isn't a comorbidity. I know the US Coalition on ME/CFS consensus from last year said it was, but I'm really not up on other ME/CFS stuff.

I think removing the banner would look better if it can be agreed either way.

Thanks <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:A page is expected to objectively weigh the evidence for and against considering a condition as a comorbidity. As much as possible, we leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Because of this, we recently renamed our "Comorbidities" category to "Potential comorbidities", in order to let the page itself weigh the evidence, and in order to let the reader come to their own conclusion.

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, got it. Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:These sorts of debates just don't belong in category-naming decisions. Categories are simply a convenient way to group articles, nothing more, and we don't want to complicate things by politicizing category names. We did the same thing with the "Treatments" category, which is now called "Potential treatments". With that said, the banner is indeed ugly and distracting. We have developed a better banner and are (still) waiting for our technical people to finally implement the better banner. For the time being, we just have to put up with the current ugly and distracting banner...

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK. That's good to know. Yes, it's very dominating as it is atm. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:07, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Oops, [[User:Aletheia2020]], I forgot to mention that the word "comorbidity" on MEpedia has a specific meaning: it means a condition that is statistically more likely to be found in the original condition, than it is to be found in the general population. I only mention that since there are other definitions out there...
::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:28, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, noted. I'll stick with your definition. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== English or American spelling? ==

[[User:Pyrrhus]] I noticed that you changed some ss to zs in words but changed centers to centres. So I was unsure if you went with American or English spelling on this page? Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:44, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:The [[MEpedia:Manual of style]] specifies American spelling and dates, which I why I changed some spelling, including changing "centres" to "centers". Then I realized that the word "centres" was part of a quote from a Canadian, so I changed "centers" back to "centres". I hope this clarifies things. Good catch!
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:48, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::Ah, I got it [[User:pyrrhus|pyrrhus]]. No worries.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== Questionable comparison that could be interpreted as bias ==

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], I notice that you make a comparison between "merchants of doubt", who are paid to disseminate disinformation that they don't themselves believe, and intolerant skeptics, who may use similar tactics but are unpaid and actually believe what they are claiming. Some may say that this is an unfair comparison that displays bias on our part. Perhaps rephrase?
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 14:34, February 12, 2020 (EST)

===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.

: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.

: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).

: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

==References==
{{reftalk}}

== Headings and SEO -- ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT) ==

Please avoid using questions as headings, and avoid using the page name within headings. The MediaWiki software is built by Wikipedia so should already be able to work out that a subheading is linked to the topic page, and phrasing the first line under the heading carefully should be enough, e.g. The symptoms of MCS include...". Headings should be worded as per the examples on [[MEpedia:Article outlines]].

SEO rankings increase when small pages cover the exact topic, e.g. you could create a few small page in the format of a '''list''', [[Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms]] then use <code><nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity}}</nowiki></code> to point back to the original page. The original page would a less detailed description of symptoms, and could use <nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms}}</nowiki></code> to take users back to it. The new page would go in the [[Category:Lists]] and [[Category:Signs and symptoms]]. I am thinking of creating a list page for [[Deaths from myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]], so will be interested to see how this ranks compared to the [[causes of death]], [[Sophia Mirza]], and [[severe and very severe ME]] pages. (Sophia's is one of the top pages on MEpedia). ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

==Images==
I believe images would help SEO. If you would like a simple image creating eg for the symptoms, can you let me know what design and colors (green? primary colors?) you would like or links to any images with the layout you want. Images are highlighted by search engine results and encourage views and also get saved to pinterest which results in more views. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

== New Section on Symptoms -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:39, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

I would love to add a section on symptoms, suggest starting by listing symptoms from Belpomme 2020 in descending order of prevalence. Would like to incorporate Prevalence from other studies, as well, although not sure how much synthesis of data is allowed on this site.

== Additions to history -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:54, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

It could aid patient advocacy to put some precedent setting decisions in here. One court case example that comes to mind is the Canada Revenue Association vs a woman (a large MCS advocate in Canada, forget the name) who had claimed tax deductible renovations on her home to accommodate MCS. Would this be helpful here, or would a section on MCS in the court system be more suitable?

== MCS as a symptom of a disease, not a disease. -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 06:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

This is a controversial idea, I know, and I am not aiming to make any additions or changes. However, given the rapidly advancing state of knowledge on the underlying mechanisms of MCS, I think it will be helpful to have a discussion about this idea.

The more I learn about MCS and talk to people with it, the more it becomes apparent that the sensitivity is a symptom of underlying problems which are diverse, complex, and different for every individual. And yes, the underlying problems are almost universally caused or initiated by toxic exposure. One example is Mast Cell Activation Syndrome. Another is Oxidative Stress. You get the idea. Thoughts?

== Additions to recognition section -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 16:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 16:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

It would be helpful for patients to add some more detail on legal recognition. For example, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has taken a rather firm stance on environmental sensitivities: https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/policy_sensitivity_0.pdf

"Individuals with environmental sensitivities experience a variety of adverse reactions to environmental
agents at concentrations well below those that might affect the “average person”. This medical condition is a
disability and those living with environmental sensitivities are entitled to the protection of the Canadian
Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability."

Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity

2021-09-23T06:02:22Z

Silliestchris:/* MCS as a symptom of a disease, not a disease. -- ~~~~ */ new section

== Formatting problem with references -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:04, June 4, 2020 (EDT) ==

There seems to be a problem with some references disappearing. They remain as numbers without the reference. This seemed to start after the insertion of "see also"s, although I don't know if it's related.

Does anyone know how to fix? Thanks [User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:I have only just seen this. Which references are affected? If the text looks OK but the references list has entries like: <nowiki > 20. ^ </nowiki > then click on the up arrow symbol and it should show you whwre it comes from. The source editor view can then be used to see what the issue is. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:57, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

== Images -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT) ==

Could anyone please direct me to where I can read about policies relating to image use.

Also, I uploaded three images and they didn't seem to be well formatted on the mobile app, with the image apearing in the middle of sentences. I tried to fix, but unless my mobile is showing the old version, I'm not sure how to fix it, if anyone can help. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

==Electrohypersensitivity==
Does this belong as part of the page, or is it better on a separate page? Are there specific types or subtypes of MCS to cover?
If EHS goes on this page this this image
and reference look worth adding. Skin lesions on a patient with [[electrohypersensitivity]] (EHS).
[[File:Electrohypersensitivity_MCS_skin_lesions.png|thumb|center|200px|[https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 Skin lesson caused by electrohypersensitivity. Source: 2020, Belpomme and & Irigaray. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.]]]
*2020, Belpomme, Dominique; and Irigaray, Philippe. Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.<ref name="Belpomme2020">https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915</ref> - [https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 (Full text)]
Could MCS be broken down into Electrohypersensitivity, Food/drink allergies and intolerances, and chemical/environmental allergies and sensitivities? The MCSAware website (for instance) seemed to concentrate on those areas. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 20:43, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:56, June 4, 2020 (EDT)===

:Thanks for raising this. It's important. EHS is included under the umbrella term Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances, but most of the researchers into MCS don't like this term, since it has certain political associations. I think the consensus would say that EHS is a commonly comorbid condition to MCS and ME/CFS. I think it needs its own page.

:Likewise, food/drink allergies and intolerances are not MCS, which has a specific diagnostic criteria. Even though, many people with MCS do have food intolerances as well.[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:29, September 23, 2021 (UTC)===

: Hi, anectodally I have observed that EHS and MCS seem to be comorbid for some people. The Belpomme article really drives this home, as well. I think a statement should be made on the possible relationship, but EHS should have its own distinct page.

==Scientific sources==
Some sources don't meet the [[MEpedia:Science guidelines]], which have been updated quite recently. Sources that are blogs, websites belonging to an individual or a small group, or patients have been used as sources (or in Learn more) in some places without making it clear whose view these are. Verywellhealth for instance is simply a patient/health website without medical oversight. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Scientific sources -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:24, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: Surprisingly, not a lot of scholarly articles on the controvery itself except in miniature: like, controversy of mast cells' role in neuroendocrinology.

:: I'm looking into this now. Will add a list here. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:51, May 15, 2020 (EDT)

==Popular culture==
This isn't a section we normally cover (see [[MEpedia:Article_outlines]] and I would like it remove it. This page is already very long. The popular culture pages here are only for NE/CFS, so if there is something notable covering ME/CFS and MCS it could have a separate page in the culture category. [[User:Aletheia2020]] [[User:Kmdenmark]] [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]
I think the should also be less weight given to skeptics, Wikipedia and blogs in the controversy section. Wikipedia often includes excessive skeptical sources and excessive weight is given to them, but here we are mostly concerned with MCS as it relates to ME/CFS and possibly fibromyalgia or other comorbidities. Surely there should be some peer-reviewed research relating to the controversy? Articles on myths or misconceptions could be useful here, and in the Learn more section. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)===

: Hey [[User:Notjusttired]] Thanks very much for taking the time to review the page and for your thoughts. I'm new to MEpedia so will rely on the adivce of more established users but this was my rationale.

I'll go through your points one by one.

CC: [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]

'''Long, dense page''': I kept it all on one page primarily for SEO purposes, and following the Wikipedia model.

'''Popular culture:''' (taken from Wikipedia format) In the review of Safe, I tried to give a psychosocial perspective on how MCS is widely perceived and how this impacts the lives of sufferers. From my perspective, as an MCS sufferer, this is the more important section on the page because the scientific studies I don't think really describe how profound the social disslocation is that many people with MCS experience as a result of stigma.

'''Weight to skeptic argument:''' First, I do hear you on questioning my inclusion of this. I chose to cover it (what I see as the elephant in the room) because skeptics have dominated the Wikipedia page on MCS for many years. They delete anything there that contradicts their view and delete their accounts.

I hoped the summary of the controversy would give readers an intellectual and political context for Wikipedia's content--after all, Wikipedia has a big influence.

Also, because I'd read that Quackwatch and SBM invest a lot in their SEO, I thought that referring to many of their articles and using the language that they use to denigrate people with MCS may help the page's SEO. That hypothesis might have worked since the page has moved from page 30 to page 1 on a range of MCS search terms.

Re peer-reviewed research relating to this controversy, other than the consensus of last year (which said that the scientists arguing that MCS was psychologically-caused had conflicts of interest), I'm not aware of anything. It may be out there, but I've not seen it. Unfortunately, research into MCS has been limited.

'''General direction'''
I wrote this page for MEpedia on the understanding that this would just be a page about MCS--one that wasn't subject to the censorship restrictions of Wikipedia.

While there is a section on how it relates to ME, that certainly wasn't my goal in investing my time in this. My goal was to create
a reputable source that people with MCS could go to for resources and that they could direct others to (ie. loved ones, new friends, doctors, hospitals).

If MEpedia would prefer for the focus to be on how MCS relates to ME, I don't think I'd want to be involved with that. One, because I'm not an expert on that subject (I'm also not sure if much research has been done on that subject); and two, because I don't think it's what people with MCS need.

Sensitivities can be a symptom of ME, but MCS is a standalone condition, and I'd like it to get the space and spotlight it needs as a very serious standalone condition.

If MEpedia isn't the place for that, I understand. I also wish I'd known that before I'd given my content to MEpedia and invested a lot of time on the page. In light of that, I'd like to be able to take my content with me, if you decide to change the direction of the page significantly. I wrote all of it except for the section ME and MCS. It's the culmination of several years work for me, and I'd like to see it published somewhere.

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

:::Thanks for your reply [[User:Aletheia2020]]. I perhaps was a bit unclear about how it impacts ME - I think a stand alone page is incredibly useful, but any extra sources that cover it as a comorbidity of ME/CFS and/or fibromyalgia would be really useful. MCS is a huge complication for many with ME so the page is extremely useful. Similarly, the Fibromyalgia has ended up very long, there's a separate [[Fibromyalgia drugs]] page - would a [[Fibromyalgia treatments]] summary page be helpful? Anything that could be added to individual treatment pages about MCS would be helpful, just add a subheading for it (not sure what potions there are in terms of management / treatments).
I think if you have time, some of what is here would be useful on pages like [[Medically unexplained symptoms]], and [[psychologization]]. As regards SEO, the MediaWiki software controls so much of that. Things I've noticed that are very useful are adding some images (quotes or other pictures), careful wording of the first 2 lines of the article, increasing the number of subheadings and having subheadings related to things that are commonly searched for since these then appear as short links in the search results.
Perhaps the "popular culture" heading could be changed to something about what it's like to live with MCS?
Regarding the "learn more" section - are there some leaflets for patients or Consensus guidelines and criteria that could go there?
I've noticed the huge amount of work you are putting into the page, I can't think you enough for that. :-) I see so many online struggling with MCS and with few reliable places to go, and difficulties explaining things to others. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 06:58, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for your note and suggestions[[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] and [[User:JaimeS]].

I took from your further comments that you're OK with leaving the page generally as is but that you wanted the popular culture section changed and more on how MCS impacts ME. Is that right? Or do you still think further sections should be cut, reduced or separated out onto other pages?

As for how MCS impacts ME, I agree it's an important subject, and it's actually not one I had thought much about until this conversation.

Myself I have both conditions, and I would say that out of the people I know with severe and longstanding MCS, the majority seem to also have ME.

From my perspective, the biggest complication MCS creates for a person who also has ME is access/disability issues, which can greatly compromise getting accommodation, support and medical care. Of course, these disability aspects of MCS create these complexities for the sufferer in relation to any comorbid medical condition, not just ME. It complicates them getting medical care for MCS symptoms.

Access issues is a section I've been meaning to write (and it's alluded to in hospital care). I've been procrastinating on it cos it's literally such a big subject, I'm still figuring out how to summarise it into a small section.

So, im summary, I agree that this subject is important. It's just not what I had in mind when I wrote this page page. And to me it seems a bit specific for this page.

I wrote this page with a general, unninformed target audience in mind, hence talking a little about a wide range of subjects, with the idea that the reader could come to the page with literally no idea what MCS is.

In contrast, how MCS impacts ME would be for an informed audience (ie. mostly likely people with both conditions or their loved ones or carers).

As for SEO, the reason I started paying more attention to that, is that when the page was first up (for the first month or so), it was coming up around page 30 on Google--really too deeply buried to make a difference for random searches. I consulted an SEO expert and he suggested incorporating certain words and questions into the content, where possible. Two weeks after I started doing that, I noticed the page coming up much higher in Google for certain subjects. And it seemed to come up higher still the more I did it. It wasn't the only SEO tactic I used, so I don't know for sure whether it was responsible for it coming up higher, but I think it might have been.

Like you [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] the SEO consultant said that incorporating common googled phrases and questions in headings is the best, although I thought your page followed a similar template to Wikipedia in relation to headings, so didn't want to mess with them. It sounds like there is some flexibility there, though?

On images [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]], thanks, that's good to know. They would be good to incorporate. Is there a place that MEpedia contributors commonly get stock images?

And [[User:JaimeS]] with the Safe review having non-scientific resources quoted, I assumed this was OK because a movie review is a movie review--ie. it's not making any controversial scientific claims (and obviously there are no scientific sources about movies). I still thought there was value in quoting media and academic sources about the film because it gives a glimpse into the director's intent and how it was widely interpreted.

I see that Safe has been shortened and some of that content moved to the Safe page. Wasn't sure if that related to the sources I'd used to you just wanting to shorten it.

But I wonder if you'd consider leaving it as is. I ask because the review was carefully written, dense with terms and phrases that I thought could potentially help SEO. It was easier to do that in this section because it had freer form that the scientific sections.

As well, I think the detail about Safe is important because it's not a straight-out narrative about someone having MCS.

The film is actually very vague about what's happening to Carol and why (even though it's a perfectly realistic depiction of what MCS looks like). This vagueness is probably why the film was interpreted in many diverse ways (eg. as a horror film, as a feminist film).

The summary as brief as it is now I don't think really conveys the nuance of how nuance of how the condition is presented. For example, I think it's an important detail to include that nowhere in the film does it mention MCS. It's just that Haynes has confirmed that this was the condition he wrote the film about. Haynes actually wrote the film as a metaphor for how patients with AIDS were treated. I didn't go into that cos it did seem like unnecessary detail for the MCS page, but, basically, Safe isn't a clear cut film about MCS.

Also, I thought because it is at the bottom of the page, I didn't think it would distract from other content by being a little detailed.

Finally re Mepedia policies, apologies if I haven't adhered to all of them and for the time it takes other editors to fix my mistakes [[User:JaimeS]] [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]. I did read through them at the start, and probably didn't retain all I read. I'll go over them again. But my memory isn't great, so thanks for nudges about times that I've deviated from them. [[User:Aletheia2020]]

====Re: Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 19:29, May 16, 2020 (EDT)====

:: Replace this text with your reply

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:13, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: I agree that the section that exists now is a little over-sourced and could be edited down. Re: censorship, I know that Wikipedia has a really frustrating and demeaning history of falling on the side of reactionary skepticism/mockery of people with chronic conditions. MEpedia is moderated by a patient advocacy organization, not would not seek stifle the voice of people with chronic conditions.

I think you and I have had conversations on this, Aletheia2020! You know I agree with you that good information should be available for those who seek it. As I mentioned when we spoke about this, we do have particular requirements for which sources are considered scholarly, and some general editing rules of thumb (like how many sources are cited per fact). You can find most of these in the science guidelines (http://me-pedia.org/wiki/Science_Guidelines).

Since this is a Wiki, the page would be open to improvement by anyone at any time. In the case of vandalism or unhelpful edits, we have the ability to revert to the previous edits, but locking a page indefinitely after one set of edits would be something we would only do if we were seeing (or suspected we would see) repeated vandalism on the page.

[Edit -- reading quickly through, let me know if there's anything I've missed.]

== Missing reference #19 -- [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST) ==

[[User:Aletheia2020]] Thanks for your great work on this page! There is one reference missing though, currently numbered #19. Please double-check. Thanks again.
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST)

:[[User:Pyrrhus]] Thank you, and sorry about that reference. For some reason, a few disappeared. It will take me a bit of time to work out which ones went missing when I cut and pasted. I'll try to fix it in the coming days <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

== First section on chemical sensitivities in ME/CFS ==

Hey, I wasn't sure who edited this section, but I envisaged this page as one about MCS as a standalone condition--a condition which is commonly comorbid with ME/CFS. I didn't want it to be chemical sensitivities or MCS in ME/CFS, since the content that follows that section isn't that.

I was going to change it back, but if you don't agree, happy to chat about it.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:I'm afraid I don't understand what exactly you are referring to. Could you clarify? Generally speaking, pages on MEpedia should state at the outset what the relevance to ME/CFS is. This section is usually titled "Such-and-such in ME/CFS". The point of the section is to explain why this topic is RELEVANT to ME, to avoid having the page deleted for falling outside the scope of MEpedia. The merits of considering a particular condition as a COMORBIDITY are typically covered in a separate section. I hope this helps.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:51, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Hey [[User:Pyrrhus]] thank you for the extra details. I understand.

::My concerns is that medication, food and odour sensitivities are not MCS and the way that the paragraph is now phrased makes it a little confusing on a page about MCS--especially when it's the first section after the intro.

::MCS has specific diagnostic criteria, and, yes, it often is accompanied by medication, food and odour sensitivities, but not always. And the MCS community has some good reasons to distinguish between odour and chemical sensitivities because different studies and conclusions apply to these two phenomenon.

::If you'd rather leave the title like that because its your convention, no worries. I think that works OK.

::But I think that taking the paragraph back to what I had would make it clearer about what MCS is. Food sensitivities etc are really for a whole nother page.

::Also, I spelled out ME/CFS here since it's the first time it's mentioned on the page and people may come to this page from Googling MCS and not know what ME/CFS is. I also thought it important to specify that the consensus documents were about ME/CFS since it's not clear otherwise what they are consenses about.

::What do you think?[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::You make some very good points [[User:Aletheia2020]]. Give me a little time to incorporate your points into a draft section, which I will post here on the discussion page for you to review and edit. Thanks.
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:41, February 12, 2020 (EST)

:::Okay, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], how does the following section look?
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:59, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::::Thanks for doing that [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]]. Looks good. I think that that is very clear. Whether that level of detail is required above what was there before, I don't know. But I found it interesting to read the details.

::::The only thing I didn't agree with was the last bit, saying some studies differentiate odour and chemical sensitivities. I think it's a very important to make clear that MCS is not odour sensitivity. I think this is a common misconception.

::::If you look at the 1999 criteria for MCS (and proposed changes to that in the 2019 consensus) there is nothing about sensitivities to odours mentioned in the diagnostic criteria.

::::Some triggering chemicals have odours and some people with MCS have exaggerated senses of smell, but many triggering chemicals (eg. many pesticides) don't have a perceptible smell and many people with MCS have normal senses of smell, and some have no sense of smell at all (which makes avoiding triggers pretty tricky).

::::In my experience, studies into odour sensitivity are often more focused on a perceived nocebo/psychosomatic angle, and in relation to MCS, these have been used in attempts to discredit MCS as a physical disorder. So I'd rather keep my distance from them.

::::From what I can tell, the Quackwatch/SBM mob like to characterise MCS as something like: a bunch of hysterical women getting anxious, angry and upset when they smell perfume or petrol, in some kind of paranoid fit of chemophobia.

::::But this characterisation doesn't explain MCS when the triggering chemical has no smell or when the reaction is from topical contact, ingestion or injection (eg. in the case of anaesthetics, which are notorious for making people with MCS ill).

::::Anyway, in summary, I'd just cut the final sentence. I think the rest of the contact makes it clear MCS is not sensitivity to odours. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::::Thanks for all the background, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]]. I have learned a lot about MCS in this conversation. I think many people in the ME community, including those with MCS, are unaware that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria. So your work on this page helps a lot. I'll go ahead and cut the final sentence and then copy it over. Thanks again.
:::::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:17, February 14, 2020 (EST)

::::::It's really good to read that feedback : [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] -- thank you. I think the "is MCS real?" conversation has really eclipsed conversations about what the condition actually is. And that hasn't helped sufferers. Hopefully this page is of use to other people with chemical sensitivities or MCS.

::::::Also, thank you also for your patience with me as I've been learning how things work on here.````Aletheia2020

<div style="background:#FFFFE0;border:1px dotted black">
== MCS in ME and ME/CFS ==
MCS has been described as a comorbidity of [[ME/CFS|myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]] (ME/CFS) and [[fibromyalgia]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ammes.org/overlapping-conditions/|title=Overlapping Conditions – American ME and CFS Society|website=ammes.org|language=en-US|access-date=2018-08-12}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.verywellhealth.com/fibromyalgia-comorbid-overlapping-conditions-716184|title=Illness That Come Along with Fibromyalgia & Chronic Fatigue Syndrome|last=Dellwo|first=Adrienne|authorlink=Adrienne Dellwo|date=Feb 26, 2018|work=Verywell Health|access-date=2018-08-23|archive-url=|archive-date=|url-status=}}</ref> The [[Canadian Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing ME/CFS lists "new sensitivities to food, medications and/or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)" as a comorbidity. The [[International Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) lists "sensitivities to food, medications, odours or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "multiple chemical sensitivities" as a comorbidity. A 2019 publication of the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition lists "chemical sensitivity" as a symptom of ME/CFS and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities" as a commonly comorbid condition.<ref>“Diagnosing and Treating ME/CFS” by the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition, August 2019. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SG7hlJTCSDrDHqvioPMq-cX-rgRKXjfk/view</ref>

However, it is important to note that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria which do ''not'' include medication, food or odor sensitivities.<ref name="pmid10444033" /> Furthermore, some studies have differentiated odor sensitivity and chemical sensitivity as two separate phenomena.{{citation needed}}
</div>

== On This is a Potential comorbidities page ==
I wondered how we can resolve whether it is or isn't a comorbidity. I know the US Coalition on ME/CFS consensus from last year said it was, but I'm really not up on other ME/CFS stuff.

I think removing the banner would look better if it can be agreed either way.

Thanks <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:A page is expected to objectively weigh the evidence for and against considering a condition as a comorbidity. As much as possible, we leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Because of this, we recently renamed our "Comorbidities" category to "Potential comorbidities", in order to let the page itself weigh the evidence, and in order to let the reader come to their own conclusion.

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, got it. Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:These sorts of debates just don't belong in category-naming decisions. Categories are simply a convenient way to group articles, nothing more, and we don't want to complicate things by politicizing category names. We did the same thing with the "Treatments" category, which is now called "Potential treatments". With that said, the banner is indeed ugly and distracting. We have developed a better banner and are (still) waiting for our technical people to finally implement the better banner. For the time being, we just have to put up with the current ugly and distracting banner...

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK. That's good to know. Yes, it's very dominating as it is atm. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:07, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Oops, [[User:Aletheia2020]], I forgot to mention that the word "comorbidity" on MEpedia has a specific meaning: it means a condition that is statistically more likely to be found in the original condition, than it is to be found in the general population. I only mention that since there are other definitions out there...
::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:28, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, noted. I'll stick with your definition. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== English or American spelling? ==

[[User:Pyrrhus]] I noticed that you changed some ss to zs in words but changed centers to centres. So I was unsure if you went with American or English spelling on this page? Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:44, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:The [[MEpedia:Manual of style]] specifies American spelling and dates, which I why I changed some spelling, including changing "centres" to "centers". Then I realized that the word "centres" was part of a quote from a Canadian, so I changed "centers" back to "centres". I hope this clarifies things. Good catch!
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:48, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::Ah, I got it [[User:pyrrhus|pyrrhus]]. No worries.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== Questionable comparison that could be interpreted as bias ==

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], I notice that you make a comparison between "merchants of doubt", who are paid to disseminate disinformation that they don't themselves believe, and intolerant skeptics, who may use similar tactics but are unpaid and actually believe what they are claiming. Some may say that this is an unfair comparison that displays bias on our part. Perhaps rephrase?
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 14:34, February 12, 2020 (EST)

===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.

: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.

: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).

: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

==References==
{{reftalk}}

== Headings and SEO -- ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT) ==

Please avoid using questions as headings, and avoid using the page name within headings. The MediaWiki software is built by Wikipedia so should already be able to work out that a subheading is linked to the topic page, and phrasing the first line under the heading carefully should be enough, e.g. The symptoms of MCS include...". Headings should be worded as per the examples on [[MEpedia:Article outlines]].

SEO rankings increase when small pages cover the exact topic, e.g. you could create a few small page in the format of a '''list''', [[Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms]] then use <code><nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity}}</nowiki></code> to point back to the original page. The original page would a less detailed description of symptoms, and could use <nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms}}</nowiki></code> to take users back to it. The new page would go in the [[Category:Lists]] and [[Category:Signs and symptoms]]. I am thinking of creating a list page for [[Deaths from myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]], so will be interested to see how this ranks compared to the [[causes of death]], [[Sophia Mirza]], and [[severe and very severe ME]] pages. (Sophia's is one of the top pages on MEpedia). ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

==Images==
I believe images would help SEO. If you would like a simple image creating eg for the symptoms, can you let me know what design and colors (green? primary colors?) you would like or links to any images with the layout you want. Images are highlighted by search engine results and encourage views and also get saved to pinterest which results in more views. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

== New Section on Symptoms -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:39, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

I would love to add a section on symptoms, suggest starting by listing symptoms from Belpomme 2020 in descending order of prevalence. Would like to incorporate Prevalence from other studies, as well, although not sure how much synthesis of data is allowed on this site.

== Additions to history -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:54, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

It could aid patient advocacy to put some precedent setting decisions in here. One court case example that comes to mind is the Canada Revenue Association vs a woman (a large MCS advocate in Canada, forget the name) who had claimed tax deductible renovations on her home to accommodate MCS. Would this be helpful here, or would a section on MCS in the court system be more suitable?

== MCS as a symptom of a disease, not a disease. -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 06:02, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

This is a controversial idea, I know, and I am not aiming to make any additions or changes. However, given the rapidly advancing state of knowledge on the underlying mechanisms of MCS, I think it will be helpful to have a discussion about this idea.

The more I learn about MCS and talk to people with it, the more it becomes apparent that the sensitivity is a symptom of underlying problems which are diverse, complex, and different for every individual. And yes, the underlying problems are almost universally caused or initiated by toxic exposure. One example is Mast Cell Activation Syndrome. Another is Oxidative Stress. You get the idea. Thoughts?

Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity

2021-09-23T05:54:41Z

Silliestchris:/* Additions to history -- ~~~~ */ new section

== Formatting problem with references -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:04, June 4, 2020 (EDT) ==

There seems to be a problem with some references disappearing. They remain as numbers without the reference. This seemed to start after the insertion of "see also"s, although I don't know if it's related.

Does anyone know how to fix? Thanks [User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:I have only just seen this. Which references are affected? If the text looks OK but the references list has entries like: <nowiki > 20. ^ </nowiki > then click on the up arrow symbol and it should show you whwre it comes from. The source editor view can then be used to see what the issue is. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:57, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

== Images -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT) ==

Could anyone please direct me to where I can read about policies relating to image use.

Also, I uploaded three images and they didn't seem to be well formatted on the mobile app, with the image apearing in the middle of sentences. I tried to fix, but unless my mobile is showing the old version, I'm not sure how to fix it, if anyone can help. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

==Electrohypersensitivity==
Does this belong as part of the page, or is it better on a separate page? Are there specific types or subtypes of MCS to cover?
If EHS goes on this page this this image
and reference look worth adding. Skin lesions on a patient with [[electrohypersensitivity]] (EHS).
[[File:Electrohypersensitivity_MCS_skin_lesions.png|thumb|center|200px|[https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 Skin lesson caused by electrohypersensitivity. Source: 2020, Belpomme and & Irigaray. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.]]]
*2020, Belpomme, Dominique; and Irigaray, Philippe. Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.<ref name="Belpomme2020">https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915</ref> - [https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 (Full text)]
Could MCS be broken down into Electrohypersensitivity, Food/drink allergies and intolerances, and chemical/environmental allergies and sensitivities? The MCSAware website (for instance) seemed to concentrate on those areas. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 20:43, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:56, June 4, 2020 (EDT)===

:Thanks for raising this. It's important. EHS is included under the umbrella term Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances, but most of the researchers into MCS don't like this term, since it has certain political associations. I think the consensus would say that EHS is a commonly comorbid condition to MCS and ME/CFS. I think it needs its own page.

:Likewise, food/drink allergies and intolerances are not MCS, which has a specific diagnostic criteria. Even though, many people with MCS do have food intolerances as well.[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:29, September 23, 2021 (UTC)===

: Hi, anectodally I have observed that EHS and MCS seem to be comorbid for some people. The Belpomme article really drives this home, as well. I think a statement should be made on the possible relationship, but EHS should have its own distinct page.

==Scientific sources==
Some sources don't meet the [[MEpedia:Science guidelines]], which have been updated quite recently. Sources that are blogs, websites belonging to an individual or a small group, or patients have been used as sources (or in Learn more) in some places without making it clear whose view these are. Verywellhealth for instance is simply a patient/health website without medical oversight. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Scientific sources -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:24, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: Surprisingly, not a lot of scholarly articles on the controvery itself except in miniature: like, controversy of mast cells' role in neuroendocrinology.

:: I'm looking into this now. Will add a list here. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:51, May 15, 2020 (EDT)

==Popular culture==
This isn't a section we normally cover (see [[MEpedia:Article_outlines]] and I would like it remove it. This page is already very long. The popular culture pages here are only for NE/CFS, so if there is something notable covering ME/CFS and MCS it could have a separate page in the culture category. [[User:Aletheia2020]] [[User:Kmdenmark]] [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]
I think the should also be less weight given to skeptics, Wikipedia and blogs in the controversy section. Wikipedia often includes excessive skeptical sources and excessive weight is given to them, but here we are mostly concerned with MCS as it relates to ME/CFS and possibly fibromyalgia or other comorbidities. Surely there should be some peer-reviewed research relating to the controversy? Articles on myths or misconceptions could be useful here, and in the Learn more section. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)===

: Hey [[User:Notjusttired]] Thanks very much for taking the time to review the page and for your thoughts. I'm new to MEpedia so will rely on the adivce of more established users but this was my rationale.

I'll go through your points one by one.

CC: [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]

'''Long, dense page''': I kept it all on one page primarily for SEO purposes, and following the Wikipedia model.

'''Popular culture:''' (taken from Wikipedia format) In the review of Safe, I tried to give a psychosocial perspective on how MCS is widely perceived and how this impacts the lives of sufferers. From my perspective, as an MCS sufferer, this is the more important section on the page because the scientific studies I don't think really describe how profound the social disslocation is that many people with MCS experience as a result of stigma.

'''Weight to skeptic argument:''' First, I do hear you on questioning my inclusion of this. I chose to cover it (what I see as the elephant in the room) because skeptics have dominated the Wikipedia page on MCS for many years. They delete anything there that contradicts their view and delete their accounts.

I hoped the summary of the controversy would give readers an intellectual and political context for Wikipedia's content--after all, Wikipedia has a big influence.

Also, because I'd read that Quackwatch and SBM invest a lot in their SEO, I thought that referring to many of their articles and using the language that they use to denigrate people with MCS may help the page's SEO. That hypothesis might have worked since the page has moved from page 30 to page 1 on a range of MCS search terms.

Re peer-reviewed research relating to this controversy, other than the consensus of last year (which said that the scientists arguing that MCS was psychologically-caused had conflicts of interest), I'm not aware of anything. It may be out there, but I've not seen it. Unfortunately, research into MCS has been limited.

'''General direction'''
I wrote this page for MEpedia on the understanding that this would just be a page about MCS--one that wasn't subject to the censorship restrictions of Wikipedia.

While there is a section on how it relates to ME, that certainly wasn't my goal in investing my time in this. My goal was to create
a reputable source that people with MCS could go to for resources and that they could direct others to (ie. loved ones, new friends, doctors, hospitals).

If MEpedia would prefer for the focus to be on how MCS relates to ME, I don't think I'd want to be involved with that. One, because I'm not an expert on that subject (I'm also not sure if much research has been done on that subject); and two, because I don't think it's what people with MCS need.

Sensitivities can be a symptom of ME, but MCS is a standalone condition, and I'd like it to get the space and spotlight it needs as a very serious standalone condition.

If MEpedia isn't the place for that, I understand. I also wish I'd known that before I'd given my content to MEpedia and invested a lot of time on the page. In light of that, I'd like to be able to take my content with me, if you decide to change the direction of the page significantly. I wrote all of it except for the section ME and MCS. It's the culmination of several years work for me, and I'd like to see it published somewhere.

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

:::Thanks for your reply [[User:Aletheia2020]]. I perhaps was a bit unclear about how it impacts ME - I think a stand alone page is incredibly useful, but any extra sources that cover it as a comorbidity of ME/CFS and/or fibromyalgia would be really useful. MCS is a huge complication for many with ME so the page is extremely useful. Similarly, the Fibromyalgia has ended up very long, there's a separate [[Fibromyalgia drugs]] page - would a [[Fibromyalgia treatments]] summary page be helpful? Anything that could be added to individual treatment pages about MCS would be helpful, just add a subheading for it (not sure what potions there are in terms of management / treatments).
I think if you have time, some of what is here would be useful on pages like [[Medically unexplained symptoms]], and [[psychologization]]. As regards SEO, the MediaWiki software controls so much of that. Things I've noticed that are very useful are adding some images (quotes or other pictures), careful wording of the first 2 lines of the article, increasing the number of subheadings and having subheadings related to things that are commonly searched for since these then appear as short links in the search results.
Perhaps the "popular culture" heading could be changed to something about what it's like to live with MCS?
Regarding the "learn more" section - are there some leaflets for patients or Consensus guidelines and criteria that could go there?
I've noticed the huge amount of work you are putting into the page, I can't think you enough for that. :-) I see so many online struggling with MCS and with few reliable places to go, and difficulties explaining things to others. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 06:58, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for your note and suggestions[[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] and [[User:JaimeS]].

I took from your further comments that you're OK with leaving the page generally as is but that you wanted the popular culture section changed and more on how MCS impacts ME. Is that right? Or do you still think further sections should be cut, reduced or separated out onto other pages?

As for how MCS impacts ME, I agree it's an important subject, and it's actually not one I had thought much about until this conversation.

Myself I have both conditions, and I would say that out of the people I know with severe and longstanding MCS, the majority seem to also have ME.

From my perspective, the biggest complication MCS creates for a person who also has ME is access/disability issues, which can greatly compromise getting accommodation, support and medical care. Of course, these disability aspects of MCS create these complexities for the sufferer in relation to any comorbid medical condition, not just ME. It complicates them getting medical care for MCS symptoms.

Access issues is a section I've been meaning to write (and it's alluded to in hospital care). I've been procrastinating on it cos it's literally such a big subject, I'm still figuring out how to summarise it into a small section.

So, im summary, I agree that this subject is important. It's just not what I had in mind when I wrote this page page. And to me it seems a bit specific for this page.

I wrote this page with a general, unninformed target audience in mind, hence talking a little about a wide range of subjects, with the idea that the reader could come to the page with literally no idea what MCS is.

In contrast, how MCS impacts ME would be for an informed audience (ie. mostly likely people with both conditions or their loved ones or carers).

As for SEO, the reason I started paying more attention to that, is that when the page was first up (for the first month or so), it was coming up around page 30 on Google--really too deeply buried to make a difference for random searches. I consulted an SEO expert and he suggested incorporating certain words and questions into the content, where possible. Two weeks after I started doing that, I noticed the page coming up much higher in Google for certain subjects. And it seemed to come up higher still the more I did it. It wasn't the only SEO tactic I used, so I don't know for sure whether it was responsible for it coming up higher, but I think it might have been.

Like you [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] the SEO consultant said that incorporating common googled phrases and questions in headings is the best, although I thought your page followed a similar template to Wikipedia in relation to headings, so didn't want to mess with them. It sounds like there is some flexibility there, though?

On images [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]], thanks, that's good to know. They would be good to incorporate. Is there a place that MEpedia contributors commonly get stock images?

And [[User:JaimeS]] with the Safe review having non-scientific resources quoted, I assumed this was OK because a movie review is a movie review--ie. it's not making any controversial scientific claims (and obviously there are no scientific sources about movies). I still thought there was value in quoting media and academic sources about the film because it gives a glimpse into the director's intent and how it was widely interpreted.

I see that Safe has been shortened and some of that content moved to the Safe page. Wasn't sure if that related to the sources I'd used to you just wanting to shorten it.

But I wonder if you'd consider leaving it as is. I ask because the review was carefully written, dense with terms and phrases that I thought could potentially help SEO. It was easier to do that in this section because it had freer form that the scientific sections.

As well, I think the detail about Safe is important because it's not a straight-out narrative about someone having MCS.

The film is actually very vague about what's happening to Carol and why (even though it's a perfectly realistic depiction of what MCS looks like). This vagueness is probably why the film was interpreted in many diverse ways (eg. as a horror film, as a feminist film).

The summary as brief as it is now I don't think really conveys the nuance of how nuance of how the condition is presented. For example, I think it's an important detail to include that nowhere in the film does it mention MCS. It's just that Haynes has confirmed that this was the condition he wrote the film about. Haynes actually wrote the film as a metaphor for how patients with AIDS were treated. I didn't go into that cos it did seem like unnecessary detail for the MCS page, but, basically, Safe isn't a clear cut film about MCS.

Also, I thought because it is at the bottom of the page, I didn't think it would distract from other content by being a little detailed.

Finally re Mepedia policies, apologies if I haven't adhered to all of them and for the time it takes other editors to fix my mistakes [[User:JaimeS]] [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]. I did read through them at the start, and probably didn't retain all I read. I'll go over them again. But my memory isn't great, so thanks for nudges about times that I've deviated from them. [[User:Aletheia2020]]

====Re: Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 19:29, May 16, 2020 (EDT)====

:: Replace this text with your reply

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:13, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: I agree that the section that exists now is a little over-sourced and could be edited down. Re: censorship, I know that Wikipedia has a really frustrating and demeaning history of falling on the side of reactionary skepticism/mockery of people with chronic conditions. MEpedia is moderated by a patient advocacy organization, not would not seek stifle the voice of people with chronic conditions.

I think you and I have had conversations on this, Aletheia2020! You know I agree with you that good information should be available for those who seek it. As I mentioned when we spoke about this, we do have particular requirements for which sources are considered scholarly, and some general editing rules of thumb (like how many sources are cited per fact). You can find most of these in the science guidelines (http://me-pedia.org/wiki/Science_Guidelines).

Since this is a Wiki, the page would be open to improvement by anyone at any time. In the case of vandalism or unhelpful edits, we have the ability to revert to the previous edits, but locking a page indefinitely after one set of edits would be something we would only do if we were seeing (or suspected we would see) repeated vandalism on the page.

[Edit -- reading quickly through, let me know if there's anything I've missed.]

== Missing reference #19 -- [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST) ==

[[User:Aletheia2020]] Thanks for your great work on this page! There is one reference missing though, currently numbered #19. Please double-check. Thanks again.
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST)

:[[User:Pyrrhus]] Thank you, and sorry about that reference. For some reason, a few disappeared. It will take me a bit of time to work out which ones went missing when I cut and pasted. I'll try to fix it in the coming days <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

== First section on chemical sensitivities in ME/CFS ==

Hey, I wasn't sure who edited this section, but I envisaged this page as one about MCS as a standalone condition--a condition which is commonly comorbid with ME/CFS. I didn't want it to be chemical sensitivities or MCS in ME/CFS, since the content that follows that section isn't that.

I was going to change it back, but if you don't agree, happy to chat about it.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:I'm afraid I don't understand what exactly you are referring to. Could you clarify? Generally speaking, pages on MEpedia should state at the outset what the relevance to ME/CFS is. This section is usually titled "Such-and-such in ME/CFS". The point of the section is to explain why this topic is RELEVANT to ME, to avoid having the page deleted for falling outside the scope of MEpedia. The merits of considering a particular condition as a COMORBIDITY are typically covered in a separate section. I hope this helps.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:51, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Hey [[User:Pyrrhus]] thank you for the extra details. I understand.

::My concerns is that medication, food and odour sensitivities are not MCS and the way that the paragraph is now phrased makes it a little confusing on a page about MCS--especially when it's the first section after the intro.

::MCS has specific diagnostic criteria, and, yes, it often is accompanied by medication, food and odour sensitivities, but not always. And the MCS community has some good reasons to distinguish between odour and chemical sensitivities because different studies and conclusions apply to these two phenomenon.

::If you'd rather leave the title like that because its your convention, no worries. I think that works OK.

::But I think that taking the paragraph back to what I had would make it clearer about what MCS is. Food sensitivities etc are really for a whole nother page.

::Also, I spelled out ME/CFS here since it's the first time it's mentioned on the page and people may come to this page from Googling MCS and not know what ME/CFS is. I also thought it important to specify that the consensus documents were about ME/CFS since it's not clear otherwise what they are consenses about.

::What do you think?[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::You make some very good points [[User:Aletheia2020]]. Give me a little time to incorporate your points into a draft section, which I will post here on the discussion page for you to review and edit. Thanks.
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:41, February 12, 2020 (EST)

:::Okay, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], how does the following section look?
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:59, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::::Thanks for doing that [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]]. Looks good. I think that that is very clear. Whether that level of detail is required above what was there before, I don't know. But I found it interesting to read the details.

::::The only thing I didn't agree with was the last bit, saying some studies differentiate odour and chemical sensitivities. I think it's a very important to make clear that MCS is not odour sensitivity. I think this is a common misconception.

::::If you look at the 1999 criteria for MCS (and proposed changes to that in the 2019 consensus) there is nothing about sensitivities to odours mentioned in the diagnostic criteria.

::::Some triggering chemicals have odours and some people with MCS have exaggerated senses of smell, but many triggering chemicals (eg. many pesticides) don't have a perceptible smell and many people with MCS have normal senses of smell, and some have no sense of smell at all (which makes avoiding triggers pretty tricky).

::::In my experience, studies into odour sensitivity are often more focused on a perceived nocebo/psychosomatic angle, and in relation to MCS, these have been used in attempts to discredit MCS as a physical disorder. So I'd rather keep my distance from them.

::::From what I can tell, the Quackwatch/SBM mob like to characterise MCS as something like: a bunch of hysterical women getting anxious, angry and upset when they smell perfume or petrol, in some kind of paranoid fit of chemophobia.

::::But this characterisation doesn't explain MCS when the triggering chemical has no smell or when the reaction is from topical contact, ingestion or injection (eg. in the case of anaesthetics, which are notorious for making people with MCS ill).

::::Anyway, in summary, I'd just cut the final sentence. I think the rest of the contact makes it clear MCS is not sensitivity to odours. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::::Thanks for all the background, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]]. I have learned a lot about MCS in this conversation. I think many people in the ME community, including those with MCS, are unaware that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria. So your work on this page helps a lot. I'll go ahead and cut the final sentence and then copy it over. Thanks again.
:::::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:17, February 14, 2020 (EST)

::::::It's really good to read that feedback : [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] -- thank you. I think the "is MCS real?" conversation has really eclipsed conversations about what the condition actually is. And that hasn't helped sufferers. Hopefully this page is of use to other people with chemical sensitivities or MCS.

::::::Also, thank you also for your patience with me as I've been learning how things work on here.````Aletheia2020

<div style="background:#FFFFE0;border:1px dotted black">
== MCS in ME and ME/CFS ==
MCS has been described as a comorbidity of [[ME/CFS|myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]] (ME/CFS) and [[fibromyalgia]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ammes.org/overlapping-conditions/|title=Overlapping Conditions – American ME and CFS Society|website=ammes.org|language=en-US|access-date=2018-08-12}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.verywellhealth.com/fibromyalgia-comorbid-overlapping-conditions-716184|title=Illness That Come Along with Fibromyalgia & Chronic Fatigue Syndrome|last=Dellwo|first=Adrienne|authorlink=Adrienne Dellwo|date=Feb 26, 2018|work=Verywell Health|access-date=2018-08-23|archive-url=|archive-date=|url-status=}}</ref> The [[Canadian Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing ME/CFS lists "new sensitivities to food, medications and/or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)" as a comorbidity. The [[International Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) lists "sensitivities to food, medications, odours or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "multiple chemical sensitivities" as a comorbidity. A 2019 publication of the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition lists "chemical sensitivity" as a symptom of ME/CFS and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities" as a commonly comorbid condition.<ref>“Diagnosing and Treating ME/CFS” by the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition, August 2019. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SG7hlJTCSDrDHqvioPMq-cX-rgRKXjfk/view</ref>

However, it is important to note that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria which do ''not'' include medication, food or odor sensitivities.<ref name="pmid10444033" /> Furthermore, some studies have differentiated odor sensitivity and chemical sensitivity as two separate phenomena.{{citation needed}}
</div>

== On This is a Potential comorbidities page ==
I wondered how we can resolve whether it is or isn't a comorbidity. I know the US Coalition on ME/CFS consensus from last year said it was, but I'm really not up on other ME/CFS stuff.

I think removing the banner would look better if it can be agreed either way.

Thanks <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:A page is expected to objectively weigh the evidence for and against considering a condition as a comorbidity. As much as possible, we leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Because of this, we recently renamed our "Comorbidities" category to "Potential comorbidities", in order to let the page itself weigh the evidence, and in order to let the reader come to their own conclusion.

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, got it. Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:These sorts of debates just don't belong in category-naming decisions. Categories are simply a convenient way to group articles, nothing more, and we don't want to complicate things by politicizing category names. We did the same thing with the "Treatments" category, which is now called "Potential treatments". With that said, the banner is indeed ugly and distracting. We have developed a better banner and are (still) waiting for our technical people to finally implement the better banner. For the time being, we just have to put up with the current ugly and distracting banner...

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK. That's good to know. Yes, it's very dominating as it is atm. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:07, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Oops, [[User:Aletheia2020]], I forgot to mention that the word "comorbidity" on MEpedia has a specific meaning: it means a condition that is statistically more likely to be found in the original condition, than it is to be found in the general population. I only mention that since there are other definitions out there...
::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:28, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, noted. I'll stick with your definition. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== English or American spelling? ==

[[User:Pyrrhus]] I noticed that you changed some ss to zs in words but changed centers to centres. So I was unsure if you went with American or English spelling on this page? Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:44, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:The [[MEpedia:Manual of style]] specifies American spelling and dates, which I why I changed some spelling, including changing "centres" to "centers". Then I realized that the word "centres" was part of a quote from a Canadian, so I changed "centers" back to "centres". I hope this clarifies things. Good catch!
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:48, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::Ah, I got it [[User:pyrrhus|pyrrhus]]. No worries.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== Questionable comparison that could be interpreted as bias ==

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], I notice that you make a comparison between "merchants of doubt", who are paid to disseminate disinformation that they don't themselves believe, and intolerant skeptics, who may use similar tactics but are unpaid and actually believe what they are claiming. Some may say that this is an unfair comparison that displays bias on our part. Perhaps rephrase?
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 14:34, February 12, 2020 (EST)

===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.

: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.

: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).

: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

==References==
{{reftalk}}

== Headings and SEO -- ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT) ==

Please avoid using questions as headings, and avoid using the page name within headings. The MediaWiki software is built by Wikipedia so should already be able to work out that a subheading is linked to the topic page, and phrasing the first line under the heading carefully should be enough, e.g. The symptoms of MCS include...". Headings should be worded as per the examples on [[MEpedia:Article outlines]].

SEO rankings increase when small pages cover the exact topic, e.g. you could create a few small page in the format of a '''list''', [[Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms]] then use <code><nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity}}</nowiki></code> to point back to the original page. The original page would a less detailed description of symptoms, and could use <nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms}}</nowiki></code> to take users back to it. The new page would go in the [[Category:Lists]] and [[Category:Signs and symptoms]]. I am thinking of creating a list page for [[Deaths from myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]], so will be interested to see how this ranks compared to the [[causes of death]], [[Sophia Mirza]], and [[severe and very severe ME]] pages. (Sophia's is one of the top pages on MEpedia). ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

==Images==
I believe images would help SEO. If you would like a simple image creating eg for the symptoms, can you let me know what design and colors (green? primary colors?) you would like or links to any images with the layout you want. Images are highlighted by search engine results and encourage views and also get saved to pinterest which results in more views. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

== New Section on Symptoms -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:39, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

I would love to add a section on symptoms, suggest starting by listing symptoms from Belpomme 2020 in descending order of prevalence. Would like to incorporate Prevalence from other studies, as well, although not sure how much synthesis of data is allowed on this site.

== Additions to history -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:54, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

It could aid patient advocacy to put some precedent setting decisions in here. One court case example that comes to mind is the Canada Revenue Association vs a woman (a large MCS advocate in Canada, forget the name) who had claimed tax deductible renovations on her home to accommodate MCS. Would this be helpful here, or would a section on MCS in the court system be more suitable?

Talk:Ehlers-Danlos syndrome

2021-09-23T05:46:27Z

Silliestchris:/* sub-types improvements -- ~~~~ */ new section

Rheumatological presentation of Bartonella koehlerae and Bartonella henselae bacteremias: A case report
https://journals.lww.com/md-journal/Pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2018&issue=04270&article=00032&type=Fulltext

== sub-types improvements -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:46, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

Hi, I think it would be useful for EDS sufferers to know which of the sub-types can be identified by genetic testing. I'm fuzzy on the details but I know a lot of them can be tested for but one or a few are still a mystery from a genetic perspective.

Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity

2021-09-23T05:39:18Z

Silliestchris:/* New Section on Symptoms -- ~~~~ */ new section

== Formatting problem with references -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:04, June 4, 2020 (EDT) ==

There seems to be a problem with some references disappearing. They remain as numbers without the reference. This seemed to start after the insertion of "see also"s, although I don't know if it's related.

Does anyone know how to fix? Thanks [User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:I have only just seen this. Which references are affected? If the text looks OK but the references list has entries like: <nowiki > 20. ^ </nowiki > then click on the up arrow symbol and it should show you whwre it comes from. The source editor view can then be used to see what the issue is. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:57, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

== Images -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT) ==

Could anyone please direct me to where I can read about policies relating to image use.

Also, I uploaded three images and they didn't seem to be well formatted on the mobile app, with the image apearing in the middle of sentences. I tried to fix, but unless my mobile is showing the old version, I'm not sure how to fix it, if anyone can help. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

==Electrohypersensitivity==
Does this belong as part of the page, or is it better on a separate page? Are there specific types or subtypes of MCS to cover?
If EHS goes on this page this this image
and reference look worth adding. Skin lesions on a patient with [[electrohypersensitivity]] (EHS).
[[File:Electrohypersensitivity_MCS_skin_lesions.png|thumb|center|200px|[https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 Skin lesson caused by electrohypersensitivity. Source: 2020, Belpomme and & Irigaray. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.]]]
*2020, Belpomme, Dominique; and Irigaray, Philippe. Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.<ref name="Belpomme2020">https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915</ref> - [https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 (Full text)]
Could MCS be broken down into Electrohypersensitivity, Food/drink allergies and intolerances, and chemical/environmental allergies and sensitivities? The MCSAware website (for instance) seemed to concentrate on those areas. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 20:43, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:56, June 4, 2020 (EDT)===

:Thanks for raising this. It's important. EHS is included under the umbrella term Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances, but most of the researchers into MCS don't like this term, since it has certain political associations. I think the consensus would say that EHS is a commonly comorbid condition to MCS and ME/CFS. I think it needs its own page.

:Likewise, food/drink allergies and intolerances are not MCS, which has a specific diagnostic criteria. Even though, many people with MCS do have food intolerances as well.[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:29, September 23, 2021 (UTC)===

: Hi, anectodally I have observed that EHS and MCS seem to be comorbid for some people. The Belpomme article really drives this home, as well. I think a statement should be made on the possible relationship, but EHS should have its own distinct page.

==Scientific sources==
Some sources don't meet the [[MEpedia:Science guidelines]], which have been updated quite recently. Sources that are blogs, websites belonging to an individual or a small group, or patients have been used as sources (or in Learn more) in some places without making it clear whose view these are. Verywellhealth for instance is simply a patient/health website without medical oversight. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Scientific sources -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:24, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: Surprisingly, not a lot of scholarly articles on the controvery itself except in miniature: like, controversy of mast cells' role in neuroendocrinology.

:: I'm looking into this now. Will add a list here. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:51, May 15, 2020 (EDT)

==Popular culture==
This isn't a section we normally cover (see [[MEpedia:Article_outlines]] and I would like it remove it. This page is already very long. The popular culture pages here are only for NE/CFS, so if there is something notable covering ME/CFS and MCS it could have a separate page in the culture category. [[User:Aletheia2020]] [[User:Kmdenmark]] [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]
I think the should also be less weight given to skeptics, Wikipedia and blogs in the controversy section. Wikipedia often includes excessive skeptical sources and excessive weight is given to them, but here we are mostly concerned with MCS as it relates to ME/CFS and possibly fibromyalgia or other comorbidities. Surely there should be some peer-reviewed research relating to the controversy? Articles on myths or misconceptions could be useful here, and in the Learn more section. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)===

: Hey [[User:Notjusttired]] Thanks very much for taking the time to review the page and for your thoughts. I'm new to MEpedia so will rely on the adivce of more established users but this was my rationale.

I'll go through your points one by one.

CC: [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]

'''Long, dense page''': I kept it all on one page primarily for SEO purposes, and following the Wikipedia model.

'''Popular culture:''' (taken from Wikipedia format) In the review of Safe, I tried to give a psychosocial perspective on how MCS is widely perceived and how this impacts the lives of sufferers. From my perspective, as an MCS sufferer, this is the more important section on the page because the scientific studies I don't think really describe how profound the social disslocation is that many people with MCS experience as a result of stigma.

'''Weight to skeptic argument:''' First, I do hear you on questioning my inclusion of this. I chose to cover it (what I see as the elephant in the room) because skeptics have dominated the Wikipedia page on MCS for many years. They delete anything there that contradicts their view and delete their accounts.

I hoped the summary of the controversy would give readers an intellectual and political context for Wikipedia's content--after all, Wikipedia has a big influence.

Also, because I'd read that Quackwatch and SBM invest a lot in their SEO, I thought that referring to many of their articles and using the language that they use to denigrate people with MCS may help the page's SEO. That hypothesis might have worked since the page has moved from page 30 to page 1 on a range of MCS search terms.

Re peer-reviewed research relating to this controversy, other than the consensus of last year (which said that the scientists arguing that MCS was psychologically-caused had conflicts of interest), I'm not aware of anything. It may be out there, but I've not seen it. Unfortunately, research into MCS has been limited.

'''General direction'''
I wrote this page for MEpedia on the understanding that this would just be a page about MCS--one that wasn't subject to the censorship restrictions of Wikipedia.

While there is a section on how it relates to ME, that certainly wasn't my goal in investing my time in this. My goal was to create
a reputable source that people with MCS could go to for resources and that they could direct others to (ie. loved ones, new friends, doctors, hospitals).

If MEpedia would prefer for the focus to be on how MCS relates to ME, I don't think I'd want to be involved with that. One, because I'm not an expert on that subject (I'm also not sure if much research has been done on that subject); and two, because I don't think it's what people with MCS need.

Sensitivities can be a symptom of ME, but MCS is a standalone condition, and I'd like it to get the space and spotlight it needs as a very serious standalone condition.

If MEpedia isn't the place for that, I understand. I also wish I'd known that before I'd given my content to MEpedia and invested a lot of time on the page. In light of that, I'd like to be able to take my content with me, if you decide to change the direction of the page significantly. I wrote all of it except for the section ME and MCS. It's the culmination of several years work for me, and I'd like to see it published somewhere.

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

:::Thanks for your reply [[User:Aletheia2020]]. I perhaps was a bit unclear about how it impacts ME - I think a stand alone page is incredibly useful, but any extra sources that cover it as a comorbidity of ME/CFS and/or fibromyalgia would be really useful. MCS is a huge complication for many with ME so the page is extremely useful. Similarly, the Fibromyalgia has ended up very long, there's a separate [[Fibromyalgia drugs]] page - would a [[Fibromyalgia treatments]] summary page be helpful? Anything that could be added to individual treatment pages about MCS would be helpful, just add a subheading for it (not sure what potions there are in terms of management / treatments).
I think if you have time, some of what is here would be useful on pages like [[Medically unexplained symptoms]], and [[psychologization]]. As regards SEO, the MediaWiki software controls so much of that. Things I've noticed that are very useful are adding some images (quotes or other pictures), careful wording of the first 2 lines of the article, increasing the number of subheadings and having subheadings related to things that are commonly searched for since these then appear as short links in the search results.
Perhaps the "popular culture" heading could be changed to something about what it's like to live with MCS?
Regarding the "learn more" section - are there some leaflets for patients or Consensus guidelines and criteria that could go there?
I've noticed the huge amount of work you are putting into the page, I can't think you enough for that. :-) I see so many online struggling with MCS and with few reliable places to go, and difficulties explaining things to others. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 06:58, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for your note and suggestions[[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] and [[User:JaimeS]].

I took from your further comments that you're OK with leaving the page generally as is but that you wanted the popular culture section changed and more on how MCS impacts ME. Is that right? Or do you still think further sections should be cut, reduced or separated out onto other pages?

As for how MCS impacts ME, I agree it's an important subject, and it's actually not one I had thought much about until this conversation.

Myself I have both conditions, and I would say that out of the people I know with severe and longstanding MCS, the majority seem to also have ME.

From my perspective, the biggest complication MCS creates for a person who also has ME is access/disability issues, which can greatly compromise getting accommodation, support and medical care. Of course, these disability aspects of MCS create these complexities for the sufferer in relation to any comorbid medical condition, not just ME. It complicates them getting medical care for MCS symptoms.

Access issues is a section I've been meaning to write (and it's alluded to in hospital care). I've been procrastinating on it cos it's literally such a big subject, I'm still figuring out how to summarise it into a small section.

So, im summary, I agree that this subject is important. It's just not what I had in mind when I wrote this page page. And to me it seems a bit specific for this page.

I wrote this page with a general, unninformed target audience in mind, hence talking a little about a wide range of subjects, with the idea that the reader could come to the page with literally no idea what MCS is.

In contrast, how MCS impacts ME would be for an informed audience (ie. mostly likely people with both conditions or their loved ones or carers).

As for SEO, the reason I started paying more attention to that, is that when the page was first up (for the first month or so), it was coming up around page 30 on Google--really too deeply buried to make a difference for random searches. I consulted an SEO expert and he suggested incorporating certain words and questions into the content, where possible. Two weeks after I started doing that, I noticed the page coming up much higher in Google for certain subjects. And it seemed to come up higher still the more I did it. It wasn't the only SEO tactic I used, so I don't know for sure whether it was responsible for it coming up higher, but I think it might have been.

Like you [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] the SEO consultant said that incorporating common googled phrases and questions in headings is the best, although I thought your page followed a similar template to Wikipedia in relation to headings, so didn't want to mess with them. It sounds like there is some flexibility there, though?

On images [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]], thanks, that's good to know. They would be good to incorporate. Is there a place that MEpedia contributors commonly get stock images?

And [[User:JaimeS]] with the Safe review having non-scientific resources quoted, I assumed this was OK because a movie review is a movie review--ie. it's not making any controversial scientific claims (and obviously there are no scientific sources about movies). I still thought there was value in quoting media and academic sources about the film because it gives a glimpse into the director's intent and how it was widely interpreted.

I see that Safe has been shortened and some of that content moved to the Safe page. Wasn't sure if that related to the sources I'd used to you just wanting to shorten it.

But I wonder if you'd consider leaving it as is. I ask because the review was carefully written, dense with terms and phrases that I thought could potentially help SEO. It was easier to do that in this section because it had freer form that the scientific sections.

As well, I think the detail about Safe is important because it's not a straight-out narrative about someone having MCS.

The film is actually very vague about what's happening to Carol and why (even though it's a perfectly realistic depiction of what MCS looks like). This vagueness is probably why the film was interpreted in many diverse ways (eg. as a horror film, as a feminist film).

The summary as brief as it is now I don't think really conveys the nuance of how nuance of how the condition is presented. For example, I think it's an important detail to include that nowhere in the film does it mention MCS. It's just that Haynes has confirmed that this was the condition he wrote the film about. Haynes actually wrote the film as a metaphor for how patients with AIDS were treated. I didn't go into that cos it did seem like unnecessary detail for the MCS page, but, basically, Safe isn't a clear cut film about MCS.

Also, I thought because it is at the bottom of the page, I didn't think it would distract from other content by being a little detailed.

Finally re Mepedia policies, apologies if I haven't adhered to all of them and for the time it takes other editors to fix my mistakes [[User:JaimeS]] [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]. I did read through them at the start, and probably didn't retain all I read. I'll go over them again. But my memory isn't great, so thanks for nudges about times that I've deviated from them. [[User:Aletheia2020]]

====Re: Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 19:29, May 16, 2020 (EDT)====

:: Replace this text with your reply

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:13, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: I agree that the section that exists now is a little over-sourced and could be edited down. Re: censorship, I know that Wikipedia has a really frustrating and demeaning history of falling on the side of reactionary skepticism/mockery of people with chronic conditions. MEpedia is moderated by a patient advocacy organization, not would not seek stifle the voice of people with chronic conditions.

I think you and I have had conversations on this, Aletheia2020! You know I agree with you that good information should be available for those who seek it. As I mentioned when we spoke about this, we do have particular requirements for which sources are considered scholarly, and some general editing rules of thumb (like how many sources are cited per fact). You can find most of these in the science guidelines (http://me-pedia.org/wiki/Science_Guidelines).

Since this is a Wiki, the page would be open to improvement by anyone at any time. In the case of vandalism or unhelpful edits, we have the ability to revert to the previous edits, but locking a page indefinitely after one set of edits would be something we would only do if we were seeing (or suspected we would see) repeated vandalism on the page.

[Edit -- reading quickly through, let me know if there's anything I've missed.]

== Missing reference #19 -- [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST) ==

[[User:Aletheia2020]] Thanks for your great work on this page! There is one reference missing though, currently numbered #19. Please double-check. Thanks again.
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST)

:[[User:Pyrrhus]] Thank you, and sorry about that reference. For some reason, a few disappeared. It will take me a bit of time to work out which ones went missing when I cut and pasted. I'll try to fix it in the coming days <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

== First section on chemical sensitivities in ME/CFS ==

Hey, I wasn't sure who edited this section, but I envisaged this page as one about MCS as a standalone condition--a condition which is commonly comorbid with ME/CFS. I didn't want it to be chemical sensitivities or MCS in ME/CFS, since the content that follows that section isn't that.

I was going to change it back, but if you don't agree, happy to chat about it.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:I'm afraid I don't understand what exactly you are referring to. Could you clarify? Generally speaking, pages on MEpedia should state at the outset what the relevance to ME/CFS is. This section is usually titled "Such-and-such in ME/CFS". The point of the section is to explain why this topic is RELEVANT to ME, to avoid having the page deleted for falling outside the scope of MEpedia. The merits of considering a particular condition as a COMORBIDITY are typically covered in a separate section. I hope this helps.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:51, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Hey [[User:Pyrrhus]] thank you for the extra details. I understand.

::My concerns is that medication, food and odour sensitivities are not MCS and the way that the paragraph is now phrased makes it a little confusing on a page about MCS--especially when it's the first section after the intro.

::MCS has specific diagnostic criteria, and, yes, it often is accompanied by medication, food and odour sensitivities, but not always. And the MCS community has some good reasons to distinguish between odour and chemical sensitivities because different studies and conclusions apply to these two phenomenon.

::If you'd rather leave the title like that because its your convention, no worries. I think that works OK.

::But I think that taking the paragraph back to what I had would make it clearer about what MCS is. Food sensitivities etc are really for a whole nother page.

::Also, I spelled out ME/CFS here since it's the first time it's mentioned on the page and people may come to this page from Googling MCS and not know what ME/CFS is. I also thought it important to specify that the consensus documents were about ME/CFS since it's not clear otherwise what they are consenses about.

::What do you think?[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::You make some very good points [[User:Aletheia2020]]. Give me a little time to incorporate your points into a draft section, which I will post here on the discussion page for you to review and edit. Thanks.
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:41, February 12, 2020 (EST)

:::Okay, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], how does the following section look?
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:59, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::::Thanks for doing that [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]]. Looks good. I think that that is very clear. Whether that level of detail is required above what was there before, I don't know. But I found it interesting to read the details.

::::The only thing I didn't agree with was the last bit, saying some studies differentiate odour and chemical sensitivities. I think it's a very important to make clear that MCS is not odour sensitivity. I think this is a common misconception.

::::If you look at the 1999 criteria for MCS (and proposed changes to that in the 2019 consensus) there is nothing about sensitivities to odours mentioned in the diagnostic criteria.

::::Some triggering chemicals have odours and some people with MCS have exaggerated senses of smell, but many triggering chemicals (eg. many pesticides) don't have a perceptible smell and many people with MCS have normal senses of smell, and some have no sense of smell at all (which makes avoiding triggers pretty tricky).

::::In my experience, studies into odour sensitivity are often more focused on a perceived nocebo/psychosomatic angle, and in relation to MCS, these have been used in attempts to discredit MCS as a physical disorder. So I'd rather keep my distance from them.

::::From what I can tell, the Quackwatch/SBM mob like to characterise MCS as something like: a bunch of hysterical women getting anxious, angry and upset when they smell perfume or petrol, in some kind of paranoid fit of chemophobia.

::::But this characterisation doesn't explain MCS when the triggering chemical has no smell or when the reaction is from topical contact, ingestion or injection (eg. in the case of anaesthetics, which are notorious for making people with MCS ill).

::::Anyway, in summary, I'd just cut the final sentence. I think the rest of the contact makes it clear MCS is not sensitivity to odours. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::::Thanks for all the background, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]]. I have learned a lot about MCS in this conversation. I think many people in the ME community, including those with MCS, are unaware that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria. So your work on this page helps a lot. I'll go ahead and cut the final sentence and then copy it over. Thanks again.
:::::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:17, February 14, 2020 (EST)

::::::It's really good to read that feedback : [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] -- thank you. I think the "is MCS real?" conversation has really eclipsed conversations about what the condition actually is. And that hasn't helped sufferers. Hopefully this page is of use to other people with chemical sensitivities or MCS.

::::::Also, thank you also for your patience with me as I've been learning how things work on here.````Aletheia2020

<div style="background:#FFFFE0;border:1px dotted black">
== MCS in ME and ME/CFS ==
MCS has been described as a comorbidity of [[ME/CFS|myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]] (ME/CFS) and [[fibromyalgia]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ammes.org/overlapping-conditions/|title=Overlapping Conditions – American ME and CFS Society|website=ammes.org|language=en-US|access-date=2018-08-12}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.verywellhealth.com/fibromyalgia-comorbid-overlapping-conditions-716184|title=Illness That Come Along with Fibromyalgia & Chronic Fatigue Syndrome|last=Dellwo|first=Adrienne|authorlink=Adrienne Dellwo|date=Feb 26, 2018|work=Verywell Health|access-date=2018-08-23|archive-url=|archive-date=|url-status=}}</ref> The [[Canadian Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing ME/CFS lists "new sensitivities to food, medications and/or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)" as a comorbidity. The [[International Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) lists "sensitivities to food, medications, odours or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "multiple chemical sensitivities" as a comorbidity. A 2019 publication of the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition lists "chemical sensitivity" as a symptom of ME/CFS and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities" as a commonly comorbid condition.<ref>“Diagnosing and Treating ME/CFS” by the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition, August 2019. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SG7hlJTCSDrDHqvioPMq-cX-rgRKXjfk/view</ref>

However, it is important to note that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria which do ''not'' include medication, food or odor sensitivities.<ref name="pmid10444033" /> Furthermore, some studies have differentiated odor sensitivity and chemical sensitivity as two separate phenomena.{{citation needed}}
</div>

== On This is a Potential comorbidities page ==
I wondered how we can resolve whether it is or isn't a comorbidity. I know the US Coalition on ME/CFS consensus from last year said it was, but I'm really not up on other ME/CFS stuff.

I think removing the banner would look better if it can be agreed either way.

Thanks <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:A page is expected to objectively weigh the evidence for and against considering a condition as a comorbidity. As much as possible, we leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Because of this, we recently renamed our "Comorbidities" category to "Potential comorbidities", in order to let the page itself weigh the evidence, and in order to let the reader come to their own conclusion.

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, got it. Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:These sorts of debates just don't belong in category-naming decisions. Categories are simply a convenient way to group articles, nothing more, and we don't want to complicate things by politicizing category names. We did the same thing with the "Treatments" category, which is now called "Potential treatments". With that said, the banner is indeed ugly and distracting. We have developed a better banner and are (still) waiting for our technical people to finally implement the better banner. For the time being, we just have to put up with the current ugly and distracting banner...

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK. That's good to know. Yes, it's very dominating as it is atm. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:07, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Oops, [[User:Aletheia2020]], I forgot to mention that the word "comorbidity" on MEpedia has a specific meaning: it means a condition that is statistically more likely to be found in the original condition, than it is to be found in the general population. I only mention that since there are other definitions out there...
::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:28, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, noted. I'll stick with your definition. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== English or American spelling? ==

[[User:Pyrrhus]] I noticed that you changed some ss to zs in words but changed centers to centres. So I was unsure if you went with American or English spelling on this page? Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:44, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:The [[MEpedia:Manual of style]] specifies American spelling and dates, which I why I changed some spelling, including changing "centres" to "centers". Then I realized that the word "centres" was part of a quote from a Canadian, so I changed "centers" back to "centres". I hope this clarifies things. Good catch!
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:48, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::Ah, I got it [[User:pyrrhus|pyrrhus]]. No worries.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== Questionable comparison that could be interpreted as bias ==

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], I notice that you make a comparison between "merchants of doubt", who are paid to disseminate disinformation that they don't themselves believe, and intolerant skeptics, who may use similar tactics but are unpaid and actually believe what they are claiming. Some may say that this is an unfair comparison that displays bias on our part. Perhaps rephrase?
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 14:34, February 12, 2020 (EST)

===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.

: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.

: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).

: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

==References==
{{reftalk}}

== Headings and SEO -- ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT) ==

Please avoid using questions as headings, and avoid using the page name within headings. The MediaWiki software is built by Wikipedia so should already be able to work out that a subheading is linked to the topic page, and phrasing the first line under the heading carefully should be enough, e.g. The symptoms of MCS include...". Headings should be worded as per the examples on [[MEpedia:Article outlines]].

SEO rankings increase when small pages cover the exact topic, e.g. you could create a few small page in the format of a '''list''', [[Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms]] then use <code><nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity}}</nowiki></code> to point back to the original page. The original page would a less detailed description of symptoms, and could use <nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms}}</nowiki></code> to take users back to it. The new page would go in the [[Category:Lists]] and [[Category:Signs and symptoms]]. I am thinking of creating a list page for [[Deaths from myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]], so will be interested to see how this ranks compared to the [[causes of death]], [[Sophia Mirza]], and [[severe and very severe ME]] pages. (Sophia's is one of the top pages on MEpedia). ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

==Images==
I believe images would help SEO. If you would like a simple image creating eg for the symptoms, can you let me know what design and colors (green? primary colors?) you would like or links to any images with the layout you want. Images are highlighted by search engine results and encourage views and also get saved to pinterest which results in more views. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

== New Section on Symptoms -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:39, September 23, 2021 (UTC) ==

I would love to add a section on symptoms, suggest starting by listing symptoms from Belpomme 2020 in descending order of prevalence. Would like to incorporate Prevalence from other studies, as well, although not sure how much synthesis of data is allowed on this site.

Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity

2021-09-23T05:29:36Z

Silliestchris:/* Electrohypersensitivity */

== Formatting problem with references -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:04, June 4, 2020 (EDT) ==

There seems to be a problem with some references disappearing. They remain as numbers without the reference. This seemed to start after the insertion of "see also"s, although I don't know if it's related.

Does anyone know how to fix? Thanks [User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:I have only just seen this. Which references are affected? If the text looks OK but the references list has entries like: <nowiki > 20. ^ </nowiki > then click on the up arrow symbol and it should show you whwre it comes from. The source editor view can then be used to see what the issue is. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:57, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

== Images -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT) ==

Could anyone please direct me to where I can read about policies relating to image use.

Also, I uploaded three images and they didn't seem to be well formatted on the mobile app, with the image apearing in the middle of sentences. I tried to fix, but unless my mobile is showing the old version, I'm not sure how to fix it, if anyone can help. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 21:16, May 16, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

==Electrohypersensitivity==
Does this belong as part of the page, or is it better on a separate page? Are there specific types or subtypes of MCS to cover?
If EHS goes on this page this this image
and reference look worth adding. Skin lesions on a patient with [[electrohypersensitivity]] (EHS).
[[File:Electrohypersensitivity_MCS_skin_lesions.png|thumb|center|200px|[https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 Skin lesson caused by electrohypersensitivity. Source: 2020, Belpomme and & Irigaray. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.]]]
*2020, Belpomme, Dominique; and Irigaray, Philippe. Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915.<ref name="Belpomme2020">https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915</ref> - [https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915 (Full text)]
Could MCS be broken down into Electrohypersensitivity, Food/drink allergies and intolerances, and chemical/environmental allergies and sensitivities? The MCSAware website (for instance) seemed to concentrate on those areas. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 20:43, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:56, June 4, 2020 (EDT)===

:Thanks for raising this. It's important. EHS is included under the umbrella term Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances, but most of the researchers into MCS don't like this term, since it has certain political associations. I think the consensus would say that EHS is a commonly comorbid condition to MCS and ME/CFS. I think it needs its own page.

:Likewise, food/drink allergies and intolerances are not MCS, which has a specific diagnostic criteria. Even though, many people with MCS do have food intolerances as well.[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

===Re: Electrohypersensitivity -- [[User:Silliestchris|Silliestchris]] ([[User talk:Silliestchris|talk]]) 05:29, September 23, 2021 (UTC)===

: Hi, anectodally I have observed that EHS and MCS seem to be comorbid for some people. The Belpomme article really drives this home, as well. I think a statement should be made on the possible relationship, but EHS should have its own distinct page.

==Scientific sources==
Some sources don't meet the [[MEpedia:Science guidelines]], which have been updated quite recently. Sources that are blogs, websites belonging to an individual or a small group, or patients have been used as sources (or in Learn more) in some places without making it clear whose view these are. Verywellhealth for instance is simply a patient/health website without medical oversight. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Scientific sources -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:24, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: Surprisingly, not a lot of scholarly articles on the controvery itself except in miniature: like, controversy of mast cells' role in neuroendocrinology.

:: I'm looking into this now. Will add a list here. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:51, May 15, 2020 (EDT)

==Popular culture==
This isn't a section we normally cover (see [[MEpedia:Article_outlines]] and I would like it remove it. This page is already very long. The popular culture pages here are only for NE/CFS, so if there is something notable covering ME/CFS and MCS it could have a separate page in the culture category. [[User:Aletheia2020]] [[User:Kmdenmark]] [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]
I think the should also be less weight given to skeptics, Wikipedia and blogs in the controversy section. Wikipedia often includes excessive skeptical sources and excessive weight is given to them, but here we are mostly concerned with MCS as it relates to ME/CFS and possibly fibromyalgia or other comorbidities. Surely there should be some peer-reviewed research relating to the controversy? Articles on myths or misconceptions could be useful here, and in the Learn more section. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 13:43, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)===

: Hey [[User:Notjusttired]] Thanks very much for taking the time to review the page and for your thoughts. I'm new to MEpedia so will rely on the adivce of more established users but this was my rationale.

I'll go through your points one by one.

CC: [[User:Pyrrhus]] [[User:JaimeS]]

'''Long, dense page''': I kept it all on one page primarily for SEO purposes, and following the Wikipedia model.

'''Popular culture:''' (taken from Wikipedia format) In the review of Safe, I tried to give a psychosocial perspective on how MCS is widely perceived and how this impacts the lives of sufferers. From my perspective, as an MCS sufferer, this is the more important section on the page because the scientific studies I don't think really describe how profound the social disslocation is that many people with MCS experience as a result of stigma.

'''Weight to skeptic argument:''' First, I do hear you on questioning my inclusion of this. I chose to cover it (what I see as the elephant in the room) because skeptics have dominated the Wikipedia page on MCS for many years. They delete anything there that contradicts their view and delete their accounts.

I hoped the summary of the controversy would give readers an intellectual and political context for Wikipedia's content--after all, Wikipedia has a big influence.

Also, because I'd read that Quackwatch and SBM invest a lot in their SEO, I thought that referring to many of their articles and using the language that they use to denigrate people with MCS may help the page's SEO. That hypothesis might have worked since the page has moved from page 30 to page 1 on a range of MCS search terms.

Re peer-reviewed research relating to this controversy, other than the consensus of last year (which said that the scientists arguing that MCS was psychologically-caused had conflicts of interest), I'm not aware of anything. It may be out there, but I've not seen it. Unfortunately, research into MCS has been limited.

'''General direction'''
I wrote this page for MEpedia on the understanding that this would just be a page about MCS--one that wasn't subject to the censorship restrictions of Wikipedia.

While there is a section on how it relates to ME, that certainly wasn't my goal in investing my time in this. My goal was to create
a reputable source that people with MCS could go to for resources and that they could direct others to (ie. loved ones, new friends, doctors, hospitals).

If MEpedia would prefer for the focus to be on how MCS relates to ME, I don't think I'd want to be involved with that. One, because I'm not an expert on that subject (I'm also not sure if much research has been done on that subject); and two, because I don't think it's what people with MCS need.

Sensitivities can be a symptom of ME, but MCS is a standalone condition, and I'd like it to get the space and spotlight it needs as a very serious standalone condition.

If MEpedia isn't the place for that, I understand. I also wish I'd known that before I'd given my content to MEpedia and invested a lot of time on the page. In light of that, I'd like to be able to take my content with me, if you decide to change the direction of the page significantly. I wrote all of it except for the section ME and MCS. It's the culmination of several years work for me, and I'd like to see it published somewhere.

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 02:55, May 14, 2020 (EDT)Aletheia2020

:::Thanks for your reply [[User:Aletheia2020]]. I perhaps was a bit unclear about how it impacts ME - I think a stand alone page is incredibly useful, but any extra sources that cover it as a comorbidity of ME/CFS and/or fibromyalgia would be really useful. MCS is a huge complication for many with ME so the page is extremely useful. Similarly, the Fibromyalgia has ended up very long, there's a separate [[Fibromyalgia drugs]] page - would a [[Fibromyalgia treatments]] summary page be helpful? Anything that could be added to individual treatment pages about MCS would be helpful, just add a subheading for it (not sure what potions there are in terms of management / treatments).
I think if you have time, some of what is here would be useful on pages like [[Medically unexplained symptoms]], and [[psychologization]]. As regards SEO, the MediaWiki software controls so much of that. Things I've noticed that are very useful are adding some images (quotes or other pictures), careful wording of the first 2 lines of the article, increasing the number of subheadings and having subheadings related to things that are commonly searched for since these then appear as short links in the search results.
Perhaps the "popular culture" heading could be changed to something about what it's like to live with MCS?
Regarding the "learn more" section - are there some leaflets for patients or Consensus guidelines and criteria that could go there?
I've noticed the huge amount of work you are putting into the page, I can't think you enough for that. :-) I see so many online struggling with MCS and with few reliable places to go, and difficulties explaining things to others. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 06:58, May 14, 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for your note and suggestions[[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] and [[User:JaimeS]].

I took from your further comments that you're OK with leaving the page generally as is but that you wanted the popular culture section changed and more on how MCS impacts ME. Is that right? Or do you still think further sections should be cut, reduced or separated out onto other pages?

As for how MCS impacts ME, I agree it's an important subject, and it's actually not one I had thought much about until this conversation.

Myself I have both conditions, and I would say that out of the people I know with severe and longstanding MCS, the majority seem to also have ME.

From my perspective, the biggest complication MCS creates for a person who also has ME is access/disability issues, which can greatly compromise getting accommodation, support and medical care. Of course, these disability aspects of MCS create these complexities for the sufferer in relation to any comorbid medical condition, not just ME. It complicates them getting medical care for MCS symptoms.

Access issues is a section I've been meaning to write (and it's alluded to in hospital care). I've been procrastinating on it cos it's literally such a big subject, I'm still figuring out how to summarise it into a small section.

So, im summary, I agree that this subject is important. It's just not what I had in mind when I wrote this page page. And to me it seems a bit specific for this page.

I wrote this page with a general, unninformed target audience in mind, hence talking a little about a wide range of subjects, with the idea that the reader could come to the page with literally no idea what MCS is.

In contrast, how MCS impacts ME would be for an informed audience (ie. mostly likely people with both conditions or their loved ones or carers).

As for SEO, the reason I started paying more attention to that, is that when the page was first up (for the first month or so), it was coming up around page 30 on Google--really too deeply buried to make a difference for random searches. I consulted an SEO expert and he suggested incorporating certain words and questions into the content, where possible. Two weeks after I started doing that, I noticed the page coming up much higher in Google for certain subjects. And it seemed to come up higher still the more I did it. It wasn't the only SEO tactic I used, so I don't know for sure whether it was responsible for it coming up higher, but I think it might have been.

Like you [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]] the SEO consultant said that incorporating common googled phrases and questions in headings is the best, although I thought your page followed a similar template to Wikipedia in relation to headings, so didn't want to mess with them. It sounds like there is some flexibility there, though?

On images [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]], thanks, that's good to know. They would be good to incorporate. Is there a place that MEpedia contributors commonly get stock images?

And [[User:JaimeS]] with the Safe review having non-scientific resources quoted, I assumed this was OK because a movie review is a movie review--ie. it's not making any controversial scientific claims (and obviously there are no scientific sources about movies). I still thought there was value in quoting media and academic sources about the film because it gives a glimpse into the director's intent and how it was widely interpreted.

I see that Safe has been shortened and some of that content moved to the Safe page. Wasn't sure if that related to the sources I'd used to you just wanting to shorten it.

But I wonder if you'd consider leaving it as is. I ask because the review was carefully written, dense with terms and phrases that I thought could potentially help SEO. It was easier to do that in this section because it had freer form that the scientific sections.

As well, I think the detail about Safe is important because it's not a straight-out narrative about someone having MCS.

The film is actually very vague about what's happening to Carol and why (even though it's a perfectly realistic depiction of what MCS looks like). This vagueness is probably why the film was interpreted in many diverse ways (eg. as a horror film, as a feminist film).

The summary as brief as it is now I don't think really conveys the nuance of how nuance of how the condition is presented. For example, I think it's an important detail to include that nowhere in the film does it mention MCS. It's just that Haynes has confirmed that this was the condition he wrote the film about. Haynes actually wrote the film as a metaphor for how patients with AIDS were treated. I didn't go into that cos it did seem like unnecessary detail for the MCS page, but, basically, Safe isn't a clear cut film about MCS.

Also, I thought because it is at the bottom of the page, I didn't think it would distract from other content by being a little detailed.

Finally re Mepedia policies, apologies if I haven't adhered to all of them and for the time it takes other editors to fix my mistakes [[User:JaimeS]] [[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]. I did read through them at the start, and probably didn't retain all I read. I'll go over them again. But my memory isn't great, so thanks for nudges about times that I've deviated from them. [[User:Aletheia2020]]

====Re: Re: Popular culture -- [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 19:29, May 16, 2020 (EDT)====

:: Replace this text with your reply

===Re: Popular culture -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 13:13, May 15, 2020 (EDT)===

: I agree that the section that exists now is a little over-sourced and could be edited down. Re: censorship, I know that Wikipedia has a really frustrating and demeaning history of falling on the side of reactionary skepticism/mockery of people with chronic conditions. MEpedia is moderated by a patient advocacy organization, not would not seek stifle the voice of people with chronic conditions.

I think you and I have had conversations on this, Aletheia2020! You know I agree with you that good information should be available for those who seek it. As I mentioned when we spoke about this, we do have particular requirements for which sources are considered scholarly, and some general editing rules of thumb (like how many sources are cited per fact). You can find most of these in the science guidelines (http://me-pedia.org/wiki/Science_Guidelines).

Since this is a Wiki, the page would be open to improvement by anyone at any time. In the case of vandalism or unhelpful edits, we have the ability to revert to the previous edits, but locking a page indefinitely after one set of edits would be something we would only do if we were seeing (or suspected we would see) repeated vandalism on the page.

[Edit -- reading quickly through, let me know if there's anything I've missed.]

== Missing reference #19 -- [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST) ==

[[User:Aletheia2020]] Thanks for your great work on this page! There is one reference missing though, currently numbered #19. Please double-check. Thanks again.
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 23:52, February 9, 2020 (EST)

:[[User:Pyrrhus]] Thank you, and sorry about that reference. For some reason, a few disappeared. It will take me a bit of time to work out which ones went missing when I cut and pasted. I'll try to fix it in the coming days <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

== First section on chemical sensitivities in ME/CFS ==

Hey, I wasn't sure who edited this section, but I envisaged this page as one about MCS as a standalone condition--a condition which is commonly comorbid with ME/CFS. I didn't want it to be chemical sensitivities or MCS in ME/CFS, since the content that follows that section isn't that.

I was going to change it back, but if you don't agree, happy to chat about it.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:I'm afraid I don't understand what exactly you are referring to. Could you clarify? Generally speaking, pages on MEpedia should state at the outset what the relevance to ME/CFS is. This section is usually titled "Such-and-such in ME/CFS". The point of the section is to explain why this topic is RELEVANT to ME, to avoid having the page deleted for falling outside the scope of MEpedia. The merits of considering a particular condition as a COMORBIDITY are typically covered in a separate section. I hope this helps.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:51, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Hey [[User:Pyrrhus]] thank you for the extra details. I understand.

::My concerns is that medication, food and odour sensitivities are not MCS and the way that the paragraph is now phrased makes it a little confusing on a page about MCS--especially when it's the first section after the intro.

::MCS has specific diagnostic criteria, and, yes, it often is accompanied by medication, food and odour sensitivities, but not always. And the MCS community has some good reasons to distinguish between odour and chemical sensitivities because different studies and conclusions apply to these two phenomenon.

::If you'd rather leave the title like that because its your convention, no worries. I think that works OK.

::But I think that taking the paragraph back to what I had would make it clearer about what MCS is. Food sensitivities etc are really for a whole nother page.

::Also, I spelled out ME/CFS here since it's the first time it's mentioned on the page and people may come to this page from Googling MCS and not know what ME/CFS is. I also thought it important to specify that the consensus documents were about ME/CFS since it's not clear otherwise what they are consenses about.

::What do you think?[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::You make some very good points [[User:Aletheia2020]]. Give me a little time to incorporate your points into a draft section, which I will post here on the discussion page for you to review and edit. Thanks.
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:41, February 12, 2020 (EST)

:::Okay, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], how does the following section look?
:::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 20:59, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::::Thanks for doing that [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]]. Looks good. I think that that is very clear. Whether that level of detail is required above what was there before, I don't know. But I found it interesting to read the details.

::::The only thing I didn't agree with was the last bit, saying some studies differentiate odour and chemical sensitivities. I think it's a very important to make clear that MCS is not odour sensitivity. I think this is a common misconception.

::::If you look at the 1999 criteria for MCS (and proposed changes to that in the 2019 consensus) there is nothing about sensitivities to odours mentioned in the diagnostic criteria.

::::Some triggering chemicals have odours and some people with MCS have exaggerated senses of smell, but many triggering chemicals (eg. many pesticides) don't have a perceptible smell and many people with MCS have normal senses of smell, and some have no sense of smell at all (which makes avoiding triggers pretty tricky).

::::In my experience, studies into odour sensitivity are often more focused on a perceived nocebo/psychosomatic angle, and in relation to MCS, these have been used in attempts to discredit MCS as a physical disorder. So I'd rather keep my distance from them.

::::From what I can tell, the Quackwatch/SBM mob like to characterise MCS as something like: a bunch of hysterical women getting anxious, angry and upset when they smell perfume or petrol, in some kind of paranoid fit of chemophobia.

::::But this characterisation doesn't explain MCS when the triggering chemical has no smell or when the reaction is from topical contact, ingestion or injection (eg. in the case of anaesthetics, which are notorious for making people with MCS ill).

::::Anyway, in summary, I'd just cut the final sentence. I think the rest of the contact makes it clear MCS is not sensitivity to odours. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:::::Thanks for all the background, [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]]. I have learned a lot about MCS in this conversation. I think many people in the ME community, including those with MCS, are unaware that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria. So your work on this page helps a lot. I'll go ahead and cut the final sentence and then copy it over. Thanks again.
:::::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:17, February 14, 2020 (EST)

::::::It's really good to read that feedback : [[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] -- thank you. I think the "is MCS real?" conversation has really eclipsed conversations about what the condition actually is. And that hasn't helped sufferers. Hopefully this page is of use to other people with chemical sensitivities or MCS.

::::::Also, thank you also for your patience with me as I've been learning how things work on here.````Aletheia2020

<div style="background:#FFFFE0;border:1px dotted black">
== MCS in ME and ME/CFS ==
MCS has been described as a comorbidity of [[ME/CFS|myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]] (ME/CFS) and [[fibromyalgia]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ammes.org/overlapping-conditions/|title=Overlapping Conditions – American ME and CFS Society|website=ammes.org|language=en-US|access-date=2018-08-12}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.verywellhealth.com/fibromyalgia-comorbid-overlapping-conditions-716184|title=Illness That Come Along with Fibromyalgia & Chronic Fatigue Syndrome|last=Dellwo|first=Adrienne|authorlink=Adrienne Dellwo|date=Feb 26, 2018|work=Verywell Health|access-date=2018-08-23|archive-url=|archive-date=|url-status=}}</ref> The [[Canadian Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing ME/CFS lists "new sensitivities to food, medications and/or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)" as a comorbidity. The [[International Consensus Criteria]] for diagnosing myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) lists "sensitivities to food, medications, odours or chemicals" as a symptom and lists "multiple chemical sensitivities" as a comorbidity. A 2019 publication of the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition lists "chemical sensitivity" as a symptom of ME/CFS and lists "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities" as a commonly comorbid condition.<ref>“Diagnosing and Treating ME/CFS” by the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition, August 2019. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SG7hlJTCSDrDHqvioPMq-cX-rgRKXjfk/view</ref>

However, it is important to note that MCS has specific diagnostic criteria which do ''not'' include medication, food or odor sensitivities.<ref name="pmid10444033" /> Furthermore, some studies have differentiated odor sensitivity and chemical sensitivity as two separate phenomena.{{citation needed}}
</div>

== On This is a Potential comorbidities page ==
I wondered how we can resolve whether it is or isn't a comorbidity. I know the US Coalition on ME/CFS consensus from last year said it was, but I'm really not up on other ME/CFS stuff.

I think removing the banner would look better if it can be agreed either way.

Thanks <br>[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]])

:A page is expected to objectively weigh the evidence for and against considering a condition as a comorbidity. As much as possible, we leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Because of this, we recently renamed our "Comorbidities" category to "Potential comorbidities", in order to let the page itself weigh the evidence, and in order to let the reader come to their own conclusion.

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, got it. Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:These sorts of debates just don't belong in category-naming decisions. Categories are simply a convenient way to group articles, nothing more, and we don't want to complicate things by politicizing category names. We did the same thing with the "Treatments" category, which is now called "Potential treatments". With that said, the banner is indeed ugly and distracting. We have developed a better banner and are (still) waiting for our technical people to finally implement the better banner. For the time being, we just have to put up with the current ugly and distracting banner...

::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK. That's good to know. Yes, it's very dominating as it is atm. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:07, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::Oops, [[User:Aletheia2020]], I forgot to mention that the word "comorbidity" on MEpedia has a specific meaning: it means a condition that is statistically more likely to be found in the original condition, than it is to be found in the general population. I only mention that since there are other definitions out there...
::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 21:28, February 10, 2020 (EST)

::::[[User:Pyrrhus]] OK, noted. I'll stick with your definition. [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:26, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== English or American spelling? ==

[[User:Pyrrhus]] I noticed that you changed some ss to zs in words but changed centers to centres. So I was unsure if you went with American or English spelling on this page? Thanks [[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 03:44, February 12, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

:The [[MEpedia:Manual of style]] specifies American spelling and dates, which I why I changed some spelling, including changing "centres" to "centers". Then I realized that the word "centres" was part of a quote from a Canadian, so I changed "centers" back to "centres". I hope this clarifies things. Good catch!
:[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 13:48, February 12, 2020 (EST)

::Ah, I got it [[User:pyrrhus|pyrrhus]]. No worries.[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]] ([[User talk:Aletheia2020|talk]]) 01:29, February 14, 2020 (EST)Aletheia2020

== Questionable comparison that could be interpreted as bias ==

[[User:Aletheia2020|Aletheia2020]], I notice that you make a comparison between "merchants of doubt", who are paid to disseminate disinformation that they don't themselves believe, and intolerant skeptics, who may use similar tactics but are unpaid and actually believe what they are claiming. Some may say that this is an unfair comparison that displays bias on our part. Perhaps rephrase?
<br>[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 14:34, February 12, 2020 (EST)

===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.

: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.

: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).

: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

==References==
{{reftalk}}

== Headings and SEO -- ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT) ==

Please avoid using questions as headings, and avoid using the page name within headings. The MediaWiki software is built by Wikipedia so should already be able to work out that a subheading is linked to the topic page, and phrasing the first line under the heading carefully should be enough, e.g. The symptoms of MCS include...". Headings should be worded as per the examples on [[MEpedia:Article outlines]].

SEO rankings increase when small pages cover the exact topic, e.g. you could create a few small page in the format of a '''list''', [[Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms]] then use <code><nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity}}</nowiki></code> to point back to the original page. The original page would a less detailed description of symptoms, and could use <nowiki >{{See also|Multiple chemical sensitivity symptoms}}</nowiki></code> to take users back to it. The new page would go in the [[Category:Lists]] and [[Category:Signs and symptoms]]. I am thinking of creating a list page for [[Deaths from myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]], so will be interested to see how this ranks compared to the [[causes of death]], [[Sophia Mirza]], and [[severe and very severe ME]] pages. (Sophia's is one of the top pages on MEpedia). ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)

==Images==
I believe images would help SEO. If you would like a simple image creating eg for the symptoms, can you let me know what design and colors (green? primary colors?) you would like or links to any images with the layout you want. Images are highlighted by search engine results and encourage views and also get saved to pinterest which results in more views. ~[[User:Notjusttired|Njt]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:13, June 30, 2020 (EDT)