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

More | Report Post

Ozark's Lawyer:

I was looking for opinions and answers to questions I feel are worth asking, and thank you
as well as the others for the responses.

Regarding your comments, I'm thinking deeper than "litigation." I would suggest, and
solicit further opnion on this, that the litigation is a symptom of a bigger problem.
That problem, relating to corporate philosophies and overall product quality. The
sacrifice comes with the products, when quality is sacrificed/compromised. Once this
happens, it's like a cancer -

Possibly the litigation you refer to is the irresponsible manufacturer's treatment for the
quality cancer?

Note that market pressure is, at best, an excessively long term solution to defective
products backed by junk science and defended on this same basis. There must be a better
way.

What would you do about quality as a lawyer? Would you keep standards high to avoid the
analagous malpractice suits, or say "what the heck" and take the risks - is one cheaper
than the other? Do you fix the defect and save lives, or take the bottom line route?

I opt for the quality approach, and likely, so do you and everyone else. (?)

ff

On 3/04/05, v wrote:
> 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.