Talk:Eosinophilia–myalgia syndrome

Genetic engineering

First, the specific bacterial culture used to synthesise this tryptophan had recently been genetically engineered to greatly increase tryptophan production.

Can somebody explain why is this considered part of the "improper preparation" of the culture? This sentences simply doesn't make sense in its current context. Genetic engineering is an essential part of the preparation of bacterial lines for the production of a biochemical, and is done for thousands of commercial and medical products. Hoes does the author propose the bacteria were going to produce a commercially viable quantity of the product otherwise? Joe D (t) 20:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Good question and I agree that much of the history section of this article is misleading. The whole EMS episode is greatly confusing and to this date, a definitive explanation of what caused the outbreak has not been found. One theory is that a minor impurity in the production of tryptophan caused the disease and furthermore some of the proposed impurities where dimeric in structure (formed by a chemical reaction between two molecules of tryptophan). It is conceivable that higher concentrations of tryptophan produced in the bioreactor could have resulted in significantly higher production of tryptophan impurities, particularly dimeric impurities. In short, it is unlikely that genetically engineered cells would have directly lead to the impurities, but rather the impurities may have arisen from higher concentrations of tryptophan produced during the fermentation. But again, this has never been proven and therefore criticism of the GM industry over this incident is in my view is unwarranted. Also as stated in the article, the disease may have been caused by consumption of excessive quantities of tryptophan made possible by a cheap and plentiful supply. If this is true, the dietary supplement industry would certainly be to blame and the FDA would be fully justified in banning the sale of tryptophan supplements. Boghog2 21:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above that much of the history section of this article is misleading, especially the phrase "improper preparation." This Wikipedia entry lacks many important details, such as the clinical features of the disease. I recommend that the article be revised by a physician or research scientist to include a more objective accounting of the history of the disease, as well as a more detailed description of the clinical aspects of EMS. Csu-am (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Changed wording: "improper preparation" -> "modifed procedures." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csu-am (talk • contribs) 06:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

More on syndrome?

Is anything more known about the disease? Except for the lead paragraph the article is excusively speculation about the association with tryptophan. What are the symptoms, the treatment, etc? 76.171.96.183 (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Up to date research

I am starting an article on the topic for journal publication. I would also like to update the Wikipedia entry. Does anyone wish to help me. - Carl Royalhistorian (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerns over content

I think this page has been polluted by Monsanto-influenced, pro-GMO interests to cast doubt and uncertainty on the (probable) conclusion this disaster was the result of GENETIC ENGINEERING, which produces NOVEL RESULTS. Could we get this reviewed by a PhD in the area who's NOT associated with Monsanto? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:400:C001:69A1:588A:4356:3A4D:C66C (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

How about you go take a nice deep look at the current scientific literature on the subject like I did when I rewrote the article? Your claims are not supported by the evidence. Almost nobody is interested in this article, few people have contributed to it despite how long it has existed, and the numerous unanswered past requests for expert input on this talk page should give you an idea of how unlikely it is that it'll get any attention from experts (who have far better things to do). And those experts, by the way, would not agree with your WP:FRINGE views on this subject, so I think you'd be quite disappointed. I have no relevant conflicts of interest, so please quit trying to poison the well with idiotic claims of conspiracy. I am quite happy to discuss this further with you if you want, and I can explain specific points in further detail if that'd help. Garzfoth (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I decided to clean up this page's formatting a bit, and as part of that I moved your comment to a new section titled "Concerns over content" as it is better to have a new section to discuss your particular concerns (instead of continuing discussion in an old section from years ago). Also, in the future, please be sure to sign your messages with four tildes at the end. Garzfoth (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I second that. This Garzfoth has clearly a lot of links with the industry (Pharma, GMOs, Nuke). He's all over the controversial pages. This cannot be a coincidence.Alain Pannetier (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Once again, I have no relevant conflicts of interest for any of the topics I edit, so please quit trying to poison the well with idiotic claims of conspiracy. Garzfoth (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)