Question: Which law firm can find the legal foundation upon
which to file a class action defamation suit against the
duly noted Barrett/Fumento/Milloy/Gots/Stossel and company
propaganda machine? Such a lawsuit would be on behalf of
every Chemical Sensitivity sufferer in the States, including
those Chemical Sensitivity sufferers formally diagnosed with
the following titles:
1a] Occupational Asthma due to low-molecular weight agents.
1b] Irritant-induced Asthma.
2] Chemical Worker's Lung.
3] External Allergic Alveolitis, aka Hypersensitivity
Pneumonitis "due to chemical sensitization."
4] Reactive Airway Dysfunction Syndrome.
5] World Trade Center Cough.
6] Sick Building Syndrome; a diagnostic title which is
even recognized in the Merck Manual.
7] Stevens-Johnson Syndrome.
8] Acute Generalized Exanthematous Pustulosi.
9a] Chronic Actinic Dermatitis.
9b] Occupational Dermatitis.
10] Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivity.
11] And of course, the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity which
is now recognized by name, by the following
licensed & accredited entities, in each one's
Occupatonal & Environmental Medicine Programs:
I] Johns Hopkins.
II] Mt. Sinai Hospital.
III] Yale.
IV] Cambridge Hospital (affiliate of Harvard Med. School.)
V] Northeast Specialty Hospital (also Harvard affiliate.)
VI] University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey.
VII] HealthPartners-Regions Hospital, Minneapolis
(affiliate of the NIOSH Educational Resource Ctr.)
VIII] Central New York Health Occupational Clinical Center.
IX] Marshall University.
X+] a number of board certified and licensed physicians.
Plus, there is the technologically advanced nation of
Germany which coded MCS as "an allergic condition."
And there are also a notable number of licensed entities
which recognize the titles:
"Indoor Air Quality Assessment", "Building-related Illness",
"Sick Building Syndrome", "Environmentally-related
Diseases", "Chronic Chemical Exposure", "Chemically-induced
Illness", "Occupationally-induced Illness", etc.
And this includes the world renown Duke, as well as Iowa
Univ., Boston Medical Ctr., the Univ. of Maryland, and the
Univ. of Pittsburgh (home of the polio vaccine and first
liver transplant.)
Of course, there is the matter of including CFS sufferers
and GWS sufferers. Of course, GWS sufferers have apparently
suffered the most defamation of all the Chemical Sensitivity
sufferers.
Perhaps, and only perhaps, a subset of patients who were
diagnosed with the following 'medically accepted' diagnostic
titles can be included:
1] Chemically-induced Hepatitis, 2] Chemically-induced
Aplastic Anemia (Bone Marrow Suppression).
The subset, of course, would consist in those who suffered
lingering sensitivity beyond the acute stage.
Such a lawsuit would not be against any licensed practicing
physician, it seems. After all, Barret was never board
certified at anything in his life, and he never praticed
"physical" medicine since his internship days, ending in
1957. Gots hadn't had a patient in decades, so say the
reports. As well, neither Fumento nor Stossel nor Milloy
have ever been doctors in any medical discipline. And of
course, the only non-licensed (or non-Doctorate-bearing)
person qualified to give sound & valid evidence into the MCS
matter is one who has suffered from the physiological
medical condition for years.
Nor would such a lawsuit be against the pharmaceutical
industry, unless of course, discovery would should that the
pharmaceutical industry funded any of the defamatory
propagandists for producing the defamatory things which they
did. That would be a subsequent filing and joinder.
The Barret/Fumento/Milloy/Stossel & company propaganda
machine employed slight-of-hand semantics & convenient
evidence omission in asserting to the inexperienced public
that Chemical Sensitivity is entirely a process of mental
illness, instead of a physiological process accompanied with
the following physiological medical findings:
1] Inflammation Scenarios, such as Turbinate Hypertrophy
& Interstitial Inflammation.
2] Failing the Arterial Blood Gases Test.
3] Dermatitis scenarios and similar.
4] Enzyme QPon-1 Deficiency.
5] Erythema, even internally.
6] Over Production of Leukotrienes, such as LTD4.
7] The Production of N-acetyl-benzoquinoneimine in
excess of the Mercapturate which neutralizes it.
8] Elevations of Alanine Aminotransferase,
aka Serum Glutamic Pyruvic Transaminase.
9] Hyperactive Conjugations and Deficient Conjugations.
10] Visible and Measurable Wheals during Skin Testing.
etc., etc., etc.
And then there is the matter P-300 Waves, IgA immunoglobins,
T-Cells, porphyira, and the observable and non-deniable
symptom of Profuse Dry Heaving, as well as that of
Blacking-Out. All in all, the smoking gun was the Fiber
Optic Rhinolaryngoscopic Exam and the medical findings thereof.
The defamatory propaganda resulted in the deprivation of
research funding. Furthermore, how many ignorant persons in
America believed the conclusions of Barret/Stossel/Fumento
and refused to accomodate a chemical sensitivity sufferer in
a time of crisis? How much suffering has that propaganda
machine caused? In as much, all Chemical Sensitivity
sufferers have suffered triply:
1] at the hands of the illness,
2] at the hands of a ruthless form of defamation,
3] at the hands of abandonment for years, due to
little research funding and outrightly lazy physicians
who make lots of money upon one nitch repetitively,
steamlining their practices to a comfortable laziness.
At this point in time, the plaintiff-class of Chemical
Sensitivity Sufferers would have mainstream medicine on it's
side. After all, the AMA, AAAAI, and American Lung
Association all recognize Chemical Sensitivity as it applies
to the ASTHMA symptom. And the AAAAI & AMA recognize it as
it applies to Dermatitis, Aspririn/Salicylate Senstivity,
Ramin Wood Allergy, Acetaminophen Intolerance, Red Cedar
Allergy, Peruvian Lily Allergy, Isocyanate Sensitivity,
Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivty, etc.
Moreover, the AMA, AAAAI, & ALA all advocate the practice of
AVOIDANCE as a necessary part of treatment for the
chemically sensitive, as it applies to asthmatics. Their
official literature enumerates the same chemical-bearing
agents that MCS patients has been avoiding for years, out of
instinct. And remember, Barrett condemned the practice of
AVOIDANCE as detrimental, while Fumento called the practice
"nonsense." Thus is the proof that Barrett is the real
quack, speaking contrary to the AMA & AAAAI. (Fumento is
simply a pushy-shovey brat who needs to be put his place, as
all bully-brats picking on helpless people need to be.)
Furthermore, comdemning the practice of AVOIDANCE, while
asserting that Chemical Sensitivity patients must be placed
in direct encounter with the triggers that torment them, is
the act of inciting a crime known in some jurisdictions as
TOXIC BATTERY. Thus, Fumento and Barret have publicly
advocated the committing of crimes.
Proof that the AMA, AAAI, & ALA recognize Chemical
Sensitivity, at least as it applies to the ASTHMA symptom,
can be found at the following mainstream medical sites:
AMA Report 4 of the Council of Scientific Affairs (A-98),
found at http://ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13603.html
The other ones are found at:
http://bdapps/ama-assn/org/aps/asthma/manage.htm
http://aaaai.org/patients/publications/publicedmat/tips/asthmatriggersandmgmt.stm
http://www.lungusa.org/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=34706&ct=67442
http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec04/ch044a/html
The propaganda mahcine fraudulently went about, claiming
that the AMA & AAAAI condemned MCS as non-existent. This is
a lie. The AMA & AAAAI merely declined to recognize the
specific title, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, as a
case-specific diagnostic title of its own medical code.
This is because MCS is too vague and non-case-specific of a
name. The AMA & AAAAI merely said that more research was
needed to be done, in order them to encapsulate MCS into a
meticulously defined and analysed "case definition". And
though they did not recognize Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
by name, they still recognized the phenomenon of Sensitivity
of Chemicals.
Mainstreams Medical Science has long since recognized the
process of "sensitization." And it has long since
recognized the phenomenon of hypersensitivity to
chemical-bearing agents when encountered by susceptible
persons, at commonly encounter levels (at low to moderate
levels).
The MCS debate has been game of semantics. The anti-MCS
lobby went beyond the sound barriers of obsecenity. All
contributing members must be held accountable.
1996 - 2007. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.