Follow us!

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

    Posted by mary on 3/01/05

    See? And Speechless too...

    On 3/01/05, mary wrote:
    > 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
    >> The other ones are found at:
    >> http://bdapps/ama-assn/org/aps/asthma/manage.htm
    >> 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.

    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.