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

More | Report Post

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 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.