Follow us!

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

    Posted by v on 3/04/05

    Watch it OZ! i saw the hot suffer
    chick first. Mary aint speeless,
    she's in LOOOVE!! with Woosta! Mary!
    been having trouble sleeping? are
    you having speech problems? does
    your tummy ach? yep, just as i thot.
    You need a batch of post it notes.
    They cure love problems.

    On 3/03/05, Ozarks Lawyer wrote:
    > That in turn makes me speachless.
    Must be a first time for
    > everything.
    > 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
    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
    >>>> 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
    >>>> "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'
    >>>> 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
    >>>> the following physiological
    medical findings:
    >>>> 1] Inflammation Scenarios,
    such as Turbinate Hypertrophy
    >>>> & Interstitial
    >>>> 2] Failing the Arterial Blood
    Gases Test.
    >>>> 3] Dermatitis scenarios and
    >>>> 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
    >>>> 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
    >>>> 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-
    >>>> The other ones are found at:
    >>>> http://bdapps/ama-
    > ggersandmgmt.stm
    > c=dvLUK9O0E&b=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.