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

More | Report Post

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?

ff

On 3/04/05, Pat wrote:
> 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 http://ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13603.html
>>>>>>>> The other ones are found at:
>>>>>>>> http://bdapps/ama-assn/org/aps/asthma/manage.htm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://aaaai.org/patients/publications/publicedmat/tips/
>>>>> asthmatriggersandmgmt.stm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.lungusa.org/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=
>>>>> 34706&ct=67442
>>>>>>>> http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec04/ch044a/html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.