Follow us!

    Post: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Milloy

    Posted by Patrick on 2/28/05

    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

    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
    The other ones are found at:

    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

    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.

    Posts on this thread, including this one

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.