Follow us!

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

    Posted by Pat on 3/04/05

    Dear ff: Dr. Ann Campbell and others write about this consolidated effort
    of pesticide companies, perfume companies, etc. It has even been reported
    in such literature that the previously mentioned Dr. Gots was paid $10,000
    for one article to discredit MCS. This is why these people must be held
    accountable. Of course, such a lawsuit would include the companies and
    not merely the propagandists. It's just like the tobacco lobby days.

    Now, concerning fatal errors of the proganda machine:

    1a] They can mock MCS all that they want. It does not take away the fact
    that mainstream medicine already recognized Chemical Sensitivity "in
    case-specific form." And of course, the propaganda machine's objective
    was to convince the public that chemical-bearing should be allowed to
    proliferate everywhere, at regulation levels. And to do this, they needed
    to convince the public that no one at any time ever suffers adverse
    ractivity from any chemical at low-to-moderate levels. So, they made the
    MCS suffer the scapegoat, calling each one mentally ill. But, they
    overlooked the fact that the exact same chemicals are avoided by asthma
    patients who did fail the very physiological ABG test, etc. Thus, on
    account of the duly diagnosed asthmatics, alone, those chemical-bearing
    substance must be harnassed.

    1b] The propagandists always mention that the AAAAI rejected MCS as a
    valid diagnosis, in its official position statement. But, they never
    mentioned that, in the exact same statement, the AAAAI expressly
    recognized as valid the diagnostic title, "Building-related Illness." And
    of course, that is Sick Building Syndrome + lingering sensitivies. Sick
    Building Syndrome (SBS) is also regarded as a cousion of MCS, by the way.
    So, the propaganda machine needed to discredit SBS as much as MCS. The
    AAAAI thwarted the propagand machine. As well, Fumento wrote a
    sterotypically sarcastic article, mocking Sick Building Syndrome, as well
    as an additional one or two, mocking the perfume sensitivity that afflicts
    Sick Building Syndrome sufferers. Milloy did similar. By the way, Milloy
    expressly advocated bringing back DDT to the market. He called the DDT
    ban genocidal. That is the character of the propaganda machine.

    1c] By the way, the same AAAAI, in the same position statement, also
    recognized Reactive Airway Dysfunction Syndrome as physiological illness
    and not a matter of "anxiety attacks". It also recognized
    Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis, as purely physiological and no psychiatric,
    also. So, in its attempt to discredit chemical sensitivity, the anti-MCS
    lobby cited the exact document that recognizes Chemical Sensitivity in
    "case-specific form".

    2] Barrett gave himself away when he wrote "synthetic chemicals", claiming
    that there is no evidence that anyone could be sensitized to the chemical
    industry's procudt line. Well, if I were a hired propagandist, I would
    have simply mentioned that not all chemical sensitivity triggers are
    limited to the chemical industry's product line. Rather, some chemical
    sensitvity triggers are found in unprocessed nature, as is the case in
    untreated pine, peruvian lily, willow bark, tulip, and primose. I would
    have said, "Some people are allergic to pine. But, that does not mean
    that you cut down all the pine trees in the forests." "Some people are
    allergic to freshly cut grass. But, that does not mean that you uproot
    all the grass in the world." "Some workers get sensitized to cotton dust
    and develop a respiratory illness known as byssinossis. But, that doesn't
    mean that you bury all the cotton in the world." You simply give these
    people their allergy-free climates. But, the propaganda machine didn't do
    this. This shows intentional deceit. This indicates that:

    1] either they knew that there was a harm factor in the perfume,
    pesticide, and chemical industry's product line.

    2] or they are so greedy and selfish that they want their product line
    sold and applied everywhere unrestrictedly.

    3] or both.

    You know what, there is something deadly wrong with a society that insists
    on even having its toilet paper scented. This is gluttony. By the way,
    do you know why certain people are fixated on having scents everywhere
    they go? Ans: To stimulate their bored adrenal system. In fact, that is
    the exact same reason why certain people frequented horror movies. All
    that these people have to do to is take up vigorous exercise:
    return sprints, full court basketball, tennis, trampoline, etc. Simply
    get a punching bag or some rope to skip. Sprint up hillsides. It has to
    be something that breaks a sweat and makes a person feel free. That will
    do it. Scent gluttony is the result of a sedentary society.

    On 3/04/05, ff wrote:
    > Pat, Patrick,and all:
    > "Junk Science" is, of course, not my term, but thank you for your
    > feedback and additional thoughts.
    > What comes to mind after reading your references to MCS, and
    > those "scientists" supported by industry that may conduct fraudulent
    > science efforts to suppress a medical consensus which would ultimately
    > place liability on chemical manufacturers, is the Chemical
    > Manufacturers _________ (If I have the name correct, an association?).
    > In previous discussions on this board, reference was made to such an
    > industry organization's plan/recommendations on how to handle the
    > merging MCS issue. As I recall, it was pretty crude. I'm still
    > baffled that huge corporations with the resources to do things right,
    > don't mind screwing up so bad. The screw-ups contradict the portrayed
    > corporate image, but seem to go relatively un-noticed.
    > Is it possible that an 'association' comprised of specific corporate
    > entities is behind a fraudulent science effort (just avoiding the term
    > junk science)? If so, is there something wrong with such an effort?
    > ff
    > On 3/03/05, Pat wrote:
    >> 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.