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

More | Report Post

But, ff's sentences ended in question marks, as a habit. You can't make assumptions
with questions marks. She was asking, "if A is such, then what is it's cause."
Furthermore, ff didn't speak a lot, actually. So, I assumed . . .

On 3/04/05, Ozarks Lawyer wrote:
> Pat,
>
> I wasn't talking about your post. I was referring to ff. The poster assumes that
> profits are higher by spending more money up front and avoiding litigation. He or
> she is naive is wonder why don't people don't do the right thing all the time.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3/04/05, Pat: P.S. wrote:
>> 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.