Protecting the Bottom Line Doctors fear MCS becoming a legitimate physical health condition known to the public, since it cuts to the heart of their own legitimacy as health practitioners. Their profession depends heavily upon a public perception of chemicals as purveyors of health over the mysterious causes of illness. The longer the causes remain mysterious, the better, in their view. The association of the word chemical with the causes of ill health is to be avoided at all cost. The chemical/pharmaceutical corporations also have a vested interest in ensuring that their products do not become sullied in the public mind by word association. Since these companies initiate research for their own profit, it’s not surprising that so little MCS research is being done. Government doesn’t want to annoy its patrons (big business) by looking into their products and discovering them to be major causes of human illness. Governments also don’t want to find themselves in the blatantly complicit position of being a party to the causing of serious illness by not acting on what they find. Better to do no research at all. In the interests of keeping the cat in the bag, all government-funded organizations (and many of the charitable ones as well) are being misinformed or not informed at all as to the existence, nature and cause of multiple chemical sensitivity and what it takes to accommodate it as a serious disability. Why would the average worker in such organizations so readily accept pronouncements that do not jibe with the regular evening news and what it says about injury by chemicals? I came to realize that where one set of information conflicts with another, the decision-making party will always choose the path of least resistance and of greatest benefit. So employees will always go with what their superiors set down as the truth. In addition, particularly where MCS is concerned, the real truth is too horrifying to handle. All of this is to keep the eyes of the public shut, lest they put two and two together and come up with the stunning conclusion that environments are us, the poisoned animals are us, the oily waterfowl are us, the habitat lost is ours, the species in decline is us. Multiple chemical sensitivity is the clearest proof there is.
Posted on: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:50:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015