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....
> 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
>> 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:
>> 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