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
http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn
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
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/publication
s/publicedmat/tips/
>>>>>>>>>>> asthmatriggersandmgmt.stm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.lungusa.org/site/apps/s/co
ntent.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=
>>>>>>>>>>> 34706&ct=67442
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec04/ch044
a/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.
Posts on this thread, including this one
- Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Milloy , 2/28/05, by Patrick .
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/01/05, by mary.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/01/05, by mary.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/02/05, by JD.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/03/05, by ff.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/03/05, by CC.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/03/05, by SF.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/03/05, by v.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/03/05, by Patrick again.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/03/05, by Pat.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/03/05, by Pat.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/03/05, by Ozarks Lawyer.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/03/05, by Pat.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by v.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by ff.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret - Hey Pat, 3/04/05, by mary.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret - Hey Pat, 3/04/05, by The other Patrick.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by Pat.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by ff.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret - Hey Pat, 3/04/05, by Mary.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by Ozarks Lawyer.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by Pat.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by Pat.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by Pat: P.S..
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by Ozarks Lawyer.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by Pat.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by v.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/04/05, by v.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/05/05, by ff.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/05/05, by ff.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/05/05, by Pat.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/05/05, by ff.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/05/05, by Pat.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/05/05, by v.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/06/05, by Pat.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 3/06/05, by v.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 5/06/05, by PostScription.
- Re: Johns Hopkins, Yale, Mt. Sinai, etc, 5/06/05, by Postscript.
- Re: Northeast Specialty Hospital's COEM, 5/08/05, by Added PostScript.
- Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill, 10/13/05, by RITA VEMA.
|
1996 - 2007. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.