Follow us!

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

    Posted by v on 3/04/05

    Ozzy: ff wtote, his question was
    hypothetical in nature. So there for
    there could be no assumtions,
    because a hypothisis is really
    nothing of any real nature. It's an
    idea, a thought of a possibilty. ff
    asumes no responsabilty.

    On 3/04/05, Pat wrote:
    > 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
    120100.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
    >>> 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
    >>>> 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
    >>>> toppled. Now, concerning the
    maze of modern law --- I see your
    >>>> 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
    >>>>> 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
    >>>>>> 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
    >>>>>> effort
    >>>>>>> of pesticide companies,
    perfume companies, etc. It has even
    >>>>>> reported
    >>>>>>> in such literature that the
    previously mentioned Dr. Gots was
    >>>>>> $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
    >>>>>>> was to convince the public
    that chemical-bearing should be
    allowed to
    >>>>>>> proliferate everywhere, at
    regulation levels. And to do this,
    >>>>>> needed
    >>>>>>> to convince the public that
    no one at any time ever suffers
    >>>>>>> ractivity from any chemical
    at low-to-moderate levels. So, they
    made the
    >>>>>>> MCS suffer the scapegoat,
    calling each one mentally ill. But,
    >>>>>>> overlooked the fact that the
    exact same chemicals are avoided by
    >>>>>>> patients who did fail the
    very physiological ABG test, etc.
    Thus, on
    >>>>>>> account of the duly
    diagnosed asthmatics, alone, those
    >>>>>>> substance must be
    >>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>> 1] either they knew that
    there was a harm factor in the
    >>>>>>> pesticide, and chemical
    industry's product line.
    >>>>>>> 2] or they are so greedy and
    selfish that they want their product
    >>>>>>> sold and applied everywhere
    >>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>>> place liability on chemical
    manufacturers, is the Chemical
    >>>>>>>> Manufacturers _________ (If
    I have the name correct, an
    >>>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>>> baffled that huge
    corporations with the resources to
    do things right,
    >>>>>>>> don't mind screwing up so
    bad. The screw-ups contradict the
    >>>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>>>> On 3/03/05, ff wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> Patrick:
    >>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure about the
    firm and issue you raise, but it
    >>>>>>>>>> related to a question I
    have wondered about. Hypothetically
    >>>>>>>>>> speaking:
    >>>>>>>>>> If, by some sufficient
    means, it was learned that a group
    >>>>>>>>>> professionals, doctors
    for example,profited by "creating"
    >>>>>>>>>> scientific studies and or
    testimony which they knew were
    >>>>>>>>>> not scientifically valid,
    for a profit, and these invalid
    >>>>>>>>>> resources became useful
    in denying medical claims and
    >>>>>>>>>> diseases, thereby causing
    the victim to continue to siffer and
    >>>>>>>>>> condition to worsen, are
    the creators of the junk science in
    >>>>>>>>>> way responsible for those
    >>>>>>>>>> I guess, creating junk
    science for a profit with the intent
    >>>>>>>>>> knowledge that people
    could suffer if the junk science
    >>>>>>>>>> testimony were
    applied/used against those
    suffereing may be an
    >>>>>>>>>> easier way to express
    >>>>>>>>>> I could imagine someone
    >>>>>>>>> approaching a scientist
    and asking them to
    >>>>>>>>>> develop a study that
    could be used to support the desired
    >>>>>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/01/05, mary wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow...... I'm
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mary
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/28/05, Patrick
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Question: Which law
    firm can find the legal foundation
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which to file a class
    action defamation suit against the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> duly noted
    and company
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> propaganda machine?
    Such a lawsuit would be on behalf of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> every Chemical
    Sensitivity sufferer in the States,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> those Chemical
    Sensitivity sufferers formally
    diagnosed with
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the following titles:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1a] Occupational
    Asthma due to low-molecular weight
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1b] Irritant-induced
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2] Chemical
    Worker's Lung.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3] External
    Allergic Alveolitis, aka
    Pneumonitis "due to chemical
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4] Reactive Airway
    Dysfunction Syndrome.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5] World Trade
    Center Cough.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6] Sick Building
    Syndrome; a diagnostic title which
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
    recognized in the Merck Manual.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7] Stevens-Johnson
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8] Acute
    Generalized Exanthematous Pustulosi.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9a] Chronic Actinic
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9b] Occupational
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10] Phthalic
    Anhydride Hypersensitivity.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11] And of course,
    the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is now
    recognized by name, by the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> licensed &
    accredited entities, in each one's
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Occupatonal
    & Environmental Medicine Programs:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I] Johns Hopkins.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> II] Mt. Sinai
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> III] Yale.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IV] Cambridge
    Hospital (affiliate of Harvard Med.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> V] Northeast
    Specialty Hospital (also Harvard
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> VI] University of
    Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> VII] HealthPartners-
    Regions Hospital, Minneapolis
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (affiliate
    of the NIOSH Educational Resource
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> VIII] Central New
    York Health Occupational Clinical
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IX] Marshall
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> X+] a number of
    board certified and licensed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Indoor Air Quality
    Assessment", "Building-related
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Sick Building
    Syndrome", "Environmentally-related
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diseases", "Chronic
    Chemical Exposure", "Chemically-
    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
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffered the most
    defamation of all the Chemical
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufferers.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps, and only
    perhaps, a subset of patients who
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> diagnosed with the
    following 'medically accepted'
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> titles can be
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1] Chemically-induced
    Hepatitis, 2] Chemically-induced
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aplastic
    Anemia (Bone Marrow Suppression).
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The subset, of
    course, would consist in those who
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> lingering sensitivity
    beyond the acute stage.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such a lawsuit would
    not be against any licensed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter is one who has
    suffered from the physiological
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> medical condition for
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nor would such a
    lawsuit be against the pharmaceutical
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> industry, unless of
    course, discovery would should that
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> illness, instead of a
    physiological process accompanied
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the following
    physiological medical findings:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1] Inflammation
    Scenarios, such as Turbinate
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> & Interstitial
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2] Failing the
    Arterial Blood Gases Test.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3] Dermatitis
    scenarios and similar.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4] Enzyme QPon-1
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5] Erythema, even
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10] Visible and
    Measurable Wheals during Skin
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc., etc., etc.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And then there is the
    matter P-300 Waves, IgA
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> side. After all, the
    AMA, AAAAI, and American Lung
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Association all
    recognize Chemical Sensitivity as it
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the ASTHMA
    symptom. And the AAAAI & AMA
    recognize it as
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it applies to
    Dermatitis, Aspririn/Salicylate
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all bully-brats
    picking on helpless people need to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore,
    comdemning the practice of
    AVOIDANCE, while
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> asserting that
    Chemical Sensitivity patients must
    be placed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in direct encounter
    with the triggers that torment them,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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-
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other ones are
    found at:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://bdapps/ama-
    >>>>>>>>>>> asthmatriggersandmgmt.stm
    >>>>>>>>>>> 34706&ct=67442
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The propaganda
    mahcine fraudulently went about,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the AMA & AAAAI
    condemned MCS as non-existent. This
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lie. The AMA &
    AAAAI merely declined to recognize
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific title,
    Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, as a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> case-specific
    diagnostic title of its own medical
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is because MCS
    is too vague and non-case-specific
    of a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> name. The AMA &
    AAAAI merely said that more research
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by name, they still
    recognized the phenomenon of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Chemicals.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mainstreams Medical
    Science has long since recognized the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
    of "sensitization." And it has long
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognized the
    phenomenon of hypersensitivity to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> chemical-bearing
    agents when encountered by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.