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

More | Report Post

In case anyone thinks my prior allegation of Steven Milloy to be "assumptive,"
simply go to http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn120100.htm. It's his own
writing. He expressly stated: "There is no credible evidence that DDT poses a
cancer risk, whatsoever." He also stated: "But there never was, and still isn't a
scientific basis for DDT fearmongering." Does that sound familiar? Replace DDT
with MCS, and you have the thesis statement of the anti-MCS lobby. This is proof
of the redundant use of all-purpose statements, used like gift wrapping paper torn
off a gift from the Christmas prior.

On 3/04/05, Pat wrote:
> Rather, I make a lot of summations and abbreviations, because this is not the
> venue for detailed discourse. This is a query. My approach is that of a search
> for leads, ideas, information. If I had all the legal/judicial answers, I
> wouldn't have posted this. I think that it is called "sending out feelers." I
> am aware that there is a matter of statutes of limitations, NY Times v.
> Sullivan, immunities, jurisdiction, slapp suit rulings, alternative liability,
> and even the probability of "failing to state a claim actionable . . .". That
> is why I am making a query.
>
> Even at that, the history of law is filled novel constructions. Anyway, maybe
> something can be taken to an agency's ALJ. I'm asking. Even at that, its
> simple matter Invasion of Privacy in a False Light. Not malpractice. Not
> 42USC1985 conspiracy claims. Simple defamation. Anybody or any class of people
> slandered has a right to have their assassinated reputations restored. That's
> the goal in this matter. If the judiciary is not answer, then hopefully someone
> will enlighten me as to where the answer is.
>
> I don't know you if you called my approach naive on account of the legal
> procedural matters, and expenses thereof, or on account of the idea of
> confronting power and influence. Well, the other side (the powerful and
> influential side) has been loosing the battle left and right, in re: the ADA,
> the Fair Housing Act, HUD, Social Security, 8th Amendment holdings, the
> Deliberate Intent holding of Birklid v. Boeing, the "fragrance-bearing magazine
> law" of California, etc., etc. History is filled with the powerful being
> toppled. Now, concerning the maze of modern law --- I see your point.
>
> Anyway, assumption means the possibility of non-truth. What I said about the
> AAAAI is true enough for a person to confirm by looking it up, if that person
> has the luxury of time. Barrett's CV is online, too. In fact, a court
> affidavit, posted online, admitted that he had never been board certified.
> Moreover, a person can lookup Dr. Ann Campbell and Dr. William Meggs for
> herself/himself. All in all, I was simply looking a lead, a firm's name, a
> website address, prior instance, an agency law, analternative idea. If you
> don't seek, you don't find.
>
> On 3/04/05, Ozarks Lawyer wrote:
>> 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.