Follow us!

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

    Posted by Pat on 3/03/05

    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
    >>>>> The other ones are found at:
    >>>>> http://bdapps/ama-assn/org/aps/asthma/manage.htm
    >> asthmatriggersandmgmt.stm
    >> 34706&ct=67442
    >>>>> 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.