Follow us!

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

    Posted by ff on 3/04/05

    Thanks, Pat:

    It probably sounds crazy, and it's not as though I am naive or lack
    exposure in the real world, but I still ask and wonder, why don't they
    just do what is right. How does a person become someone that enjoys, and
    profits, from damaging others?

    I suggest that if you took all the resources and energy that goes into the
    whole picture, and re-applied to manufacturing, science, etc., that their
    profits would be greater, and without the hassle?


    On 3/04/05, Pat wrote:
    > Dear ff: Dr. Ann Campbell and others write about this consolidated
    > of pesticide companies, perfume companies, etc. It has even been
    > in such literature that the previously mentioned Dr. Gots was paid
    > 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
    > 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."
    > 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
    > 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",
    > 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
    > 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
    > 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
    > 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.