Follow us!

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

    Posted by Ozarks Lawyer on 3/04/05

    You are making an awful lot of assumptions, which makes your approach as
    naive as your thesis.

    On 3/04/05, ff wrote:
    > 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
    >>>>>>>>> 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.