The Psychogenic Thesis for Environmental Diseases – No Value for Science, Destructive for Legal Rights
As an explanation of environmental illnesses the psychogenic thesis is nothing but bullshit
The psychogenic thesis was introduced to the discourse on environmental illnesses only once the prevalence of these diseases was already quite high. It was originated in the 90s. Publications about TE – toxic encephalopathy – can be traced back to 1904, MCS was discovered in 1945. The scientific contribution of the psychogenic thesis was next to nothing; however the harm to legal rights was immense. It was not initiated despite its recognition but because of the recognition as an organic illness by the WHO (ICD-10 code for MCS: T78.4). Keep in mind: In about 1996 they tried to rename MCS in IEI (Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances).
This is no scientific debate, it’s plain jurisprudence. All western civilizations are based on the human rights, which are declared in particular Constitutions and which must be met by their subsequent laws. Therein health is a big legal value. E.g. physical integrity is explicitly protected in the German Constitution in article 2.2. This legal protection is undermined by the psychogenic debate, because legal protection is not granted for imaginary ills or other wackos. Thus the psychogenic thesis serves to steal the rights of the diseased. That’s its main purpose. Whether for insurance or damages the victims fail judicially. That they do not receive any adequate medical care for this reason is in some manner of speaking a collateral damage.
You are right, if you find this to be outrageous because the psychogenic thesis makes use of the fact that neurotoxins damage mental brain functions. This mental dysfunctions from neurotoxins were already defined 1985 in the diagnose criteria for TE (WHO). Cause and effect were simply swapped. They can make as many studies as they want and find what they expected: psychological disorders. That they are from another structure than known psychological diseases is suppressed or is not evaluated thoroughly enough. Because of that, the psychogenic thesis is no scientific finding. Because the effects of neurotoxins for the psyche were already well-known. Therefore the analysis is always bogus.
This is something with no term in German. The English language offers several possibilities, namely fake, bullshit or phoney. The moral philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt (Prof. emerit. Princeton) has analyzed such terms philological philosophic. “On Bullshit” became a bestseller. Referring to that the substance (a term from philosophy) of bullshit is the absence of correspondence to reality. A lie can be caught: a detail in an arrangement of facts (findings) altered intentionally. This can be verified. Bullshit is a invention, free from the annoying study of reality (maybe science). The psychogenic thesis is bullshit, the invention consists of swapping cause and effect. If somebody tries to refute it scientifically, he already confirms the main intention of the bullshit, to fake science. Parameters from the laboratory will not help. Because “bingo!” the item has changed and a phantom debate takes place. H.G. Frankfurt says: Bullshit causes more harm than lies. It damages all findings, not only in detail. Until now, this was always the case in the psychogenic debate: as soon as the term psychosomatic medicine was mentioned, the discussion instantly focused on it exclusively.
You cannot disprove bullshit scientifically, only debunk it. In his 2009 paper Prof. Pall specifies of the psychogenic thesis. Thus he risks his clarification of the basic biochemical pathomechanism is also buried in oblivion, and thus the discussion is pushed away again. This has worked well over the last decades. The German RKI-Study “found” that the mental scores of MCS patients differ from the ones of psychiatry patients. Already two years later this annoying detail was forgotten. Since the 80s we know exactly about the nature of MCS. However bullshit is discussed more frequently than the item. There is no reason to be astonished.
Bullshit damages more: even humans. A phrase of a German Constitution expert goes like this (logical): “It is the most perfidious kind of genocide, to leave those on their own, who are unable to help themselves.” He didn’t mean the diseased (in 1954). But today, instead of race or religion, individuals with wrong genes – the bad detoxifier – were rendered to substandard persons (ecochonder is one of the inventions). That’s truly perfidious.
This can only be changed, if we understand that this is a matter of law and not science. The scientific case is decided since decades. We have to realize that scientific decisions generate a legal effect by the legal concept of “recognized state of the scientific knowledge”. The intention exactly is to avoid this legal effect. The psychogenic thesis accomplished this quite effective, so far. It only takes changing the item, to invoke a pseudo debate, and instantly MCS is unknown, mysterious and also not recognized by the WHO. This allows the undermining of law and justice. Committed appraisers argue scientifically than to abide by the state-of-the-art of science, what in fact is their job. And the patient organizations also struggle for scientific findings, which are all known – and recognized! This allowed the bullshitters to always succeed without much effort.
There only will be a change if those who want the change take courage to call bullshit really bullshit and not to be intimidated by the arrogance of exclusive interpretive sovereignty, according to Frankfurt, always an attribute of bullshit. The weapon against is the argument, that the point is physical integrity or in other words bodily injury. The psychogenic thesis abets physical injury.
Author: Dr. Tino Merz for CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network, March 12, 2009
Translation: BrunO / Thanks for proofreading and help: John
Dear Silvia,
maybe the arbitrary and stereotype diagnosis of psychosomatic or mental disease for intolerance against environmental pollutants (or MCS/TILT) from the part of IME’s (=Independent Medical Examiner’s), who are in reality Government employee’s , deserves no other predicate/rating, but bullshit,although I am not sure as to whether or not sophisticated ladies could be encouraged
to use this word in this or other kind of setting. Men would most likely argue: “True bullshit simply has to be called bullshit”. In circumstances like this I instead heard a lady say: “This is horse-feathers”, and she retired from the dispute immediately. This maybe an effective substitute for bullshit, expressing the same thing-more elegantly.
Bullshit is a typical American phenomenon. I have heard it on all kinds of occasions , and people using it have always turned me off, because I
never had enough time to consult with natural science and mathematics to prove objectivity in
a daily transaction or medical service. The only way for selfprotection is to stay away from IME’s
or to take a certified Videographer and Court Reporter along to such an interview or exam.
S. Fischer
PS. Dr. Merz has truly raised a worthy argument
which needs to be explored in even greater detail. It is just amazing, that any serious trade in the world can indeed be legally operated on the basis of bullshit. How about trying surgery, aviation,
space-technology et al. with this kind of wheeling and dealing and forcing participants to use this kind of suicidal service then?
Interesting discussion. Bullshit was definitely the overriding theme during the 50-year period the tobacco companies were allowed to lie about the health effects of tobacco. Now, some of those same so-called expert witnesses (from the tobacco debacle) are using bullshit again to lie about the health effects of mold and mycotoxins. When is the government going to put a stop to this bullshit?