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.
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.
Researchers at the University of Toronto accepted money and pretended that things already known were not known. They accepted money to research things they knew or ought to have known were impossibly defined. They allow the damaging misinterpretation of their work by funders.
Children with undiagnosed sensitivities, along with other vulnerable people, are being injured and killed in health care. Canadian authorities and Canadian political parties invisibilize protective measures Health Canada was encouraging prior to 1993.
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.
“We examined the prevalence of multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS), a hypersensitivity to common chemical substances. We used a randomly selected sample of 1582 respondents from the Atlanta, Ga, standard metropolitan statistical area. We found that 12.6% of our sample reported the hypersensitivity and that, while the hypersensitivity is more common in women, it is experienced by both men and women of a variety of ages and educational levels.
In 1985, 
