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

More | Report Post

Correction to a typographical error: When you count 27 spaces down, in
the response below, it should read "who does NOT give a proper referral."

By the way, a solid malpractice case involves "consummate and/or
irrevocable damage" to a patient, or one that caused so much jeopardy that
remedial measures are needed, in order to protect future patients who
would eitherwise go through the same fiasco as the malpractice plaintiff.

All in all, morally speaking, such skewing of clinical results and hiding
of truth goes beyond the sound barriers of obscenity, when it causes
numerous people to travel a prolonged course of violent illness. I assume
that such dishonest people who cause harm on a large scale, neither
believe in the existence of the Eternal God nor that of eternity. When
you waste away someone's life in this life, you waste away your own life
in the next. And in as much, there won't be a next life; simply an
unending death. Okay then, I need to respond to "v".

On 3/03/05, Patrick again wrote:
> Dear ff: Please refrain from using the phrase "junkscience". That is a
> a very sarcastic and uncivilized phrase used by the anti-MCS propaganda
> machine, as an all-purpose label against anything contrary to the
> sterotypical pro-pesticide and pro-chemical company agenda. Using the
> phrase "junkscience" can be confusing to a reader, making him/her wonder
> which side of the debate you are talking about. It is too vague a phrase.
>
> Anyway, you talked about "fraudulent misrepresentation aforethought" and
> the intentional rigging/skewing of clinical tests. Now, the legal
> aspect goes as follows:
>
> If a disability claimant's case ends up in court, and the defense
> presents its favored clinical tests, it is forbidden to hide any part of
> that test. And of course, the anti-MCS lobby simply omits mention of
> every medical finding in support of the physiological validity of
> Chemical Sensitivity. There is a cause of action, known as Spoliation
> of Evidence. Thus, the individuals who withhold medical evidence
> favorable to the disability claimant can be held accountable. They must
> submit the evidence to the attorneys before trial. So, you're looking
> for the phrase spoliation of evidence, as well as fraudulent
> misrepresentation. By the way, I have no idea what the AMA rules are,
> concerning stripping a medical license from a deliberate fraud who skews
> and rigs test results.
>
> A doctor who refrains from identifying and treating a chemically
> sensitive patient is only liable when he does gives a proper referral.
> If he refers the patient to a psychiatrist for "anxiety attacks", when
> in fact the patient has Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis and "interstitial
> inflammation" from years of sewer work, then its a matter of malpractice.
>
> Permit me to refer you the keywords: Dr. Ann Campbell MCS under siege.
> Furthermore, a Dr. Martin Pall [which see] sent me an email today,
> telling me that two new Papers on MCS is to be released within the
> month. Those Papers are a result of highly professional and highly
> credentialed doctors who are board certified and licensed. They are not
> written by lawyers, nor by health food store cashiers, nor by book club
> members. I'll continue this in my response to "v"; the one wrote after
> you did.
>
> On 3/03/05, v wrote:
>> ff: In the old days they were called snake oil salesman. I'm sure
>> there are some out there of which you speak. I think crdentials help
>> in these circumstances. Altho, what good are credentials if they are
>> a ninkompoop!
>>
>>
>> On 3/03/05, ff wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Patrick:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure about the firm and issue you raise, but it seems
>>> related to a question I have wondered about. Hypothetically
>>> speaking:
>>>
>>> If, by some sufficient means, it was learned that a group of
>>> professionals, doctors for example,profited by "creating"
>>> scientific studies and or testimony which they knew were really
>>> not scientifically valid, for a profit, and these invalid
>>> resources became useful in denying medical claims and essentially
>>> diseases, thereby causing the victim to continue to siffer and the
>>> condition to worsen, are the creators of the junk science in some
>>> way responsible for those affected?
>>>
>>> I guess, creating junk science for a profit with the intent or
>>> knowledge that people could suffer if the junk science and/or
>>> testimony were applied/used against those suffereing may be an
>>> easier way to express this.
>>>
>>> I could imagine someone approaching a scientist and asking them to
>>> develop a study that could be used to support the desired outcome
>>> that product X did not cause symtoms 1,2,3..., and, regardless of
>>> whether or not X did cause the problem. I guess, starting out
>>> with a desired conclusion, and them manipulating a research
>>> project to supported the desired conclusion?
>>>
>>> ff
>>>
>>> On 3/02/05, JD wrote:
>>>> At last! What a relief. Cowgirl Mary is both "speachless"
>>> and
>>>> "speechless"... Double the pleasure!
>>>>
>>>> JD
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/01/05, mary wrote:
>>>>> 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 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.