The most common mistake people make is to subject persons with sensitivities to a reverse onus when they report their experience of repeatable, controllable circumstances, contrary to ethics, social convention and laws since the Magna Carta. This practice is unethical in any context, but becomes especially damaging in clinical medicine.
Electronically Enhanced Text (c) Copyright 1996, World Library(R)
WHOEVER wishes to investigate medicine properly, should proceed thus: in the first place to consider the seasons of the year, and what effects each of them produces for they are not at all alike, but differ much from themselves in regard to their changes. Then the winds, the hot and the cold, especially such as are common to all countries, and then such as are peculiar to each locality. We must also consider the qualities of the waters, for as they differ from one another in taste and weight, so also do they differ much in their qualities. In the same manner, when one comes into a city to which he is a stranger, he ought to consider its situation, how it lies as to the winds and the rising of the sun; for its influence is not the same whether it lies to the north or the south, to the rising or to the setting sun.
In 1985, Eugene Garfield, PhD, President & Founding Editor of The Scientist provided an excellent overview of medical literature about sensitivities. Garfield documents several approaches, as described in scientific and medical literature before the discussion was subsumed under debate about the approaches of doctors of environmental medicine.
Some academics quite openly ridicule vulnerable persons by subjecting them to a reverse onus and then forwarding arbitrary hypotheses. This abusiveness is defended by people who confuse hatefulness and academic freedom. Abusers like Barry Beyerstein of SFU are often otherwise the most affable and caring amongst their peers.