Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill

More | Report Post

Wow...... I'm speachless....

Mary

On 2/28/05, Patrick wrote:
> 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.