Follow us!

    Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret - Hey Pat

    Posted by mary on 3/04/05


    Is this the same Pat of MCS board fame? If yes, where the heck
    have you been and how are you doing?


    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
    > 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.