I'm a bit confused by some of these numbers and dates. The first Gulf War was in 1990. If that Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses report came out in 2008, it was less than 20 years after the fact, not 40 years. 20 years seems to be a reasonably good turnaround time, considering the pace of research and the time it can take to connect the dots on causality. However, what do Gulf War Veterans's Illnesses have to do with MCS (Multiple Chemical Sensitivity)? Are you saying that all those illnesses were shown to be MCS? My understanding is that veterans' exposure to the smoke of burning oilfields exposed them to real smoke inhalation, involving real, identifiable chemical irritants in measurable quantities. On the other hand, MCS is characterized by individuals claiming hypersensitivity to normally-low levels of chemical substances. In other words, they smell things others cannot, and further believe that smelling those things is proof that those things are harmful. In other words, "It smells bad to me, so it must be bad." Here's what Wikipedia has to say: What about EMF? In physics class I was taught that stood for Electro-Motive Force, or electromagnetic field. That covers a very wide range of energy levels and frequencies, some which can be harmful, many others that are not. All life on earth has evolved in the presence of the planet's electromagnetic field. Now, man-made electromagnetic fields are part of the mix, starting around the time of Thomas Edison (well, Morse and Bell, who pre-date Edison by a bit). Surely causality should have been established by now, more than 150 years later. Yet what we have instead are perennial suspicions that it must, somehow, be bad for us. The problem with Alternative Medicine (and plain old conventional medicine) is that, as earnest and honest as most practitioners may be, it is also a cloak for plain old quackery. If there is a patient out there in search of a treatment, there will undoubtedly be a charlatan or two (hundred) willing to agree with the patient's self-diagnosis and separate him from his money. The presence of someone offering a treatment is hardly proof that the treatment is valid or effective. That's a fundamental reason agencies like the FDA, medical licensing boards, peer-reviewed journals, etc. were created in the first place. Like monkeys with typewriters, or broken clocks that are correct twice daily, there will always be the occasional example of a disregarded voice in the wilderness who is proven right in the long run. However, the odds (and history) are very much against them. The numbers of such "misunderstood/ignored outsiders" are staggering, and their track record is dismal. It may be romantic for them to believe they are the exception and will someday be remembered as Galileo is today, but Galileo's observations and explanations are famous because they were widely duplicated and corroborated, in a very short period of time. While the Church tried to suppress his truth, it did not succeed for long. Like they say, the truth will out. Most people lose track of the fact that science is a process for finding truth. It arose out of philosophy, logic, evidentiary legal proceedings... It's not a system of beliefs. The scientific method exists to turn "I believe" into "true" or "not true," and if there is insufficient proof found for or against, then the hypothesis simply remains unproven. "They haven't proven me wrong" is not proof of being correct. The establishment will not get it right 100% of the time. There will be prejudice masquerading as "scientific judgement." There will be vested financial interests dead set on maintaining the status quo. There will be cases of academic fraud. Humanity strives for perfection, but humanity is also flawed. The existence of those flaws, however, is not proof that every disputed theory and claim is suppressed truth. Oh, and someone else said something earlier about exposure to blue photons from the sun.... that people spend most of their time indoors, so solar radiation doesn't count (or some such). With the exception of a limited number of species that live in caves or ocean deeps, nearly every creature on earth evolved (and survived) under the full light of the sun. This has been going on for billions of years. Our bodies evolved and adapted to survive broad daylight. The light from a 6" diagonal smartphone display pales by comparison (literally - try reading one of those screens in broad daylight). Some of us have again become cave-dwellers, but about two hundred years ago, your ancestors were likely engaged in agriculture. They didn't plow their fields by candlelight, and they rarely harvested under parasols. Our circadian rhythms evolved before we had firelight. It's not blue light vs. red/orange light; that's just nostalgia for a simpler era. It's blue light vs. no light at all. Anytime we stay awake after dark, we're bucking the system.