Re: Class Action Defamation Suit against Barret/Fumento/Mill
Posted by v on 3/04/05
Look at this mess!! it's them post it notes. They burn holes in your brain. Ok, let me
clear up the spelling to make it more intelligable. Yeah right.
On 3/04/05, v wrote:
> Ozzy: ff wrote, his question was
> hypothetical in nature. So there for
> there could be no assumptions,
> because a hypothisis is really
> nothing of any real nature. It's an
> idea, a thought of a possibilty. ff
> asumes no responsabilty.
>
There done. Good luck ff in your hypothicals.
>
> 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.