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

More | Report Post

ff: I should finish this train of thought with you. If want to see
how an actual expert writes look up a Dr. William Meggs, Vice Chair
for Clinical Affairs, Division of Toxicology, Department of Emergency
Medicine, East Carolina University.

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.