Follow us!

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

    Posted by Pat on 3/04/05

    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 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
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.