Follow us!

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

    Posted by Pat on 3/05/05

    Dear ff: You are looking for motive. Therefore, I should have mentioned this
    already: The motive of the corporate exec is: Stock Price & Bonus incentives,
    which often consists in the form of additional shares of stocks posted to the
    CEO's personal account.

    Plus, it is a little more than reasonably apparent that pesiticide company
    execs, fragrance company execs, and chemical company execs fear that parts of
    their product line will be banned like Chlordane & DDT was. And concerning some
    banned pesticides, they have "half-lives" that linger for decades. We need
    creative research departments in those three industries.

    On 3/05/05, ff wrote:
    > Ozark's Lawyer:
    > 3/04/05
    > How does a person become someone that enjoys, and
    >> profits, from damaging others?
    >> ff
    > 3/05/05
    > Assume it happens. Is this something that is learned behavior or do they
    > start out that way?
    > I'd like to know more about what makes these people tick, and I doubt it's
    > all just dollars. They have to be at least corruptible in the first place.
    > What forces are at work to cause alignments such as the Gots reference?
    > Does he have a conscience, does he actually believe he's right, or was he
    > just so greedy that he took advantage of an opportunity with total disregard
    > for those adversely affected?
    > Sorry about the ? marks, but you don't have to have answers to post here.
    > Like Pat said, seek answers. Offer information when you can.
    > ff
    > ff
    >> On 3/04/05, Pat wrote:
    >>> Dear ff: Dr. Ann Campbell and others write about this consolidated
    >> effort
    >>> of pesticide companies, perfume companies, etc. It has even been
    >> reported
    >>> in such literature that the previously mentioned Dr. Gots was paid
    >> $10,000
    >>> for one article to discredit MCS. This is why these people must be held
    >>> accountable. Of course, such a lawsuit would include the companies and
    >>> not merely the propagandists. It's just like the tobacco lobby days.
    >>> Now, concerning fatal errors of the proganda machine:
    >>> 1a] They can mock MCS all that they want. It does not take away the fact
    >>> that mainstream medicine already recognized Chemical Sensitivity "in
    >>> case-specific form." And of course, the propaganda machine's objective
    >>> was to convince the public that chemical-bearing should be allowed to
    >>> proliferate everywhere, at regulation levels. And to do this, they
    >> needed
    >>> to convince the public that no one at any time ever suffers adverse
    >>> ractivity from any chemical at low-to-moderate levels. So, they made the
    >>> MCS suffer the scapegoat, calling each one mentally ill. But, they
    >>> overlooked the fact that the exact same chemicals are avoided by asthma
    >>> patients who did fail the very physiological ABG test, etc. Thus, on
    >>> account of the duly diagnosed asthmatics, alone, those chemical-bearing
    >>> substance must be harnassed.
    >>> 1b] The propagandists always mention that the AAAAI rejected MCS as a
    >>> valid diagnosis, in its official position statement. But, they never
    >>> mentioned that, in the exact same statement, the AAAAI expressly
    >>> recognized as valid the diagnostic title, "Building-related Illness."
    >> And
    >>> of course, that is Sick Building Syndrome + lingering sensitivies. Sick
    >>> Building Syndrome (SBS) is also regarded as a cousion of MCS, by the way.
    >>> So, the propaganda machine needed to discredit SBS as much as MCS. The
    >>> AAAAI thwarted the propagand machine. As well, Fumento wrote a
    >>> sterotypically sarcastic article, mocking Sick Building Syndrome, as well
    >>> as an additional one or two, mocking the perfume sensitivity that
    >> afflicts
    >>> Sick Building Syndrome sufferers. Milloy did similar. By the way, Milloy
    >>> expressly advocated bringing back DDT to the market. He called the DDT
    >>> ban genocidal. That is the character of the propaganda machine.
    >>> 1c] By the way, the same AAAAI, in the same position statement, also
    >>> recognized Reactive Airway Dysfunction Syndrome as physiological illness
    >>> and not a matter of "anxiety attacks". It also recognized
    >>> Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis, as purely physiological and no psychiatric,
    >>> also. So, in its attempt to discredit chemical sensitivity, the anti-MCS
    >>> lobby cited the exact document that recognizes Chemical Sensitivity in
    >>> "case-specific form".
    >>> 2] Barrett gave himself away when he wrote "synthetic chemicals",
    >> claiming
    >>> that there is no evidence that anyone could be sensitized to the chemical
    >>> industry's procudt line. Well, if I were a hired propagandist, I would
    >>> have simply mentioned that not all chemical sensitivity triggers are
    >>> limited to the chemical industry's product line. Rather, some chemical
    >>> sensitvity triggers are found in unprocessed nature, as is the case in
    >>> untreated pine, peruvian lily, willow bark, tulip, and primose. I would
    >>> have said, "Some people are allergic to pine. But, that does not mean
    >>> that you cut down all the pine trees in the forests." "Some people are
    >>> allergic to freshly cut grass. But, that does not mean that you uproot
    >>> all the grass in the world." "Some workers get sensitized to cotton dust
    >>> and develop a respiratory illness known as byssinossis. But, that doesn't
    >>> mean that you bury all the cotton in the world." You simply give these
    >>> people their allergy-free climates. But, the propaganda machine didn't
    >> do
    >>> this. This shows intentional deceit. This indicates that:
    >>> 1] either they knew that there was a harm factor in the perfume,
    >>> pesticide, and chemical industry's product line.
    >>> 2] or they are so greedy and selfish that they want their product line
    >>> sold and applied everywhere unrestrictedly.
    >>> 3] or both.
    >>> You know what, there is something deadly wrong with a society that
    >> insists
    >>> on even having its toilet paper scented. This is gluttony. By the way,
    >>> do you know why certain people are fixated on having scents everywhere
    >>> they go? Ans: To stimulate their bored adrenal system. In fact, that
    >> is
    >>> the exact same reason why certain people frequented horror movies. All
    >>> that these people have to do to is take up vigorous exercise:
    >>> return sprints, full court basketball, tennis, trampoline, etc. Simply
    >>> get a punching bag or some rope to skip. Sprint up hillsides. It has to
    >>> be something that breaks a sweat and makes a person feel free. That will
    >>> do it. Scent gluttony is the result of a sedentary society.
    >>> On 3/04/05, ff wrote:
    >>>> Pat, Patrick,and all:
    >>>> "Junk Science" is, of course, not my term, but thank you for your
    >>>> feedback and additional thoughts.
    >>>> What comes to mind after reading your references to MCS, and
    >>>> those "scientists" supported by industry that may conduct fraudulent
    >>>> science efforts to suppress a medical consensus which would ultimately
    >>>> place liability on chemical manufacturers, is the Chemical
    >>>> Manufacturers _________ (If I have the name correct, an association?).
    >>>> In previous discussions on this board, reference was made to such an
    >>>> industry organization's plan/recommendations on how to handle the
    >>>> merging MCS issue. As I recall, it was pretty crude. I'm still
    >>>> baffled that huge corporations with the resources to do things right,
    >>>> don't mind screwing up so bad. The screw-ups contradict the portrayed
    >>>> corporate image, but seem to go relatively un-noticed.
    >>>> Is it possible that an 'association' comprised of specific corporate
    >>>> entities is behind a fraudulent science effort (just avoiding the term
    >>>> junk science)? If so, is there something wrong with such an effort?
    >>>> ff
    >>>> On 3/03/05, Pat wrote:
    >>>>> ff: I should finish this train of thought with you. If want to see
    >>>>> how an actual expert writes look up a Dr. William Meggs, Vice Chair
    >>>>> for Clinical Affairs, Division of Toxicology, Department of Emergency
    >>>>> Medicine, East Carolina University.
    >>>>> On 3/03/05, ff wrote:
    >>>>>> Patrick:
    >>>>>> I'm not sure about the firm and issue you raise, but it seems
    >>>>>> related to a question I have wondered about. Hypothetically
    >>>>>> speaking:
    >>>>>> If, by some sufficient means, it was learned that a group of
    >>>>>> professionals, doctors for example,profited by "creating"
    >>>>>> scientific studies and or testimony which they knew were really
    >>>>>> not scientifically valid, for a profit, and these invalid
    >>>>>> resources became useful in denying medical claims and essentially
    >>>>>> diseases, thereby causing the victim to continue to siffer and the
    >>>>>> condition to worsen, are the creators of the junk science in some
    >>>>>> way responsible for those affected?
    >>>>>> I guess, creating junk science for a profit with the intent or
    >>>>>> knowledge that people could suffer if the junk science and/or
    >>>>>> testimony were applied/used against those suffereing may be an
    >>>>>> easier way to express this.
    >>>>>> I could imagine someone
    >>>>> approaching a scientist and asking them to
    >>>>>> develop a study that could be used to support the desired outcome
    >>>>>> that product X did not cause symtoms 1,2,3..., and, regardless of
    >>>>>> whether or not X did cause the problem. I guess, starting out
    >>>>>> with a desired conclusion, and them manipulating a research
    >>>>>> project to supported the desired conclusion?
    >>>>>> ff
    >>>>>> On 3/02/05, JD wrote:
    >>>>>>> At last! What a relief. Cowgirl Mary is both "speachless"
    >>>>>> and
    >>>>>>> "speechless"... Double the pleasure!
    >>>>>>> JD
    >>>>>>> On 3/01/05, mary wrote:
    >>>>>>>> See? And Speechless too...
    >>>>>>>> On 3/01/05, mary wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> Wow...... I'm speachless....
    >>>>>>>>> Mary
    >>>>>>>>> On 2/28/05, Patrick wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> Question: Which law firm can find the legal foundation upon
    >>>>>>>>>> which to file a class action defamation suit against the
    >>>>>>>>>> duly noted Barrett/Fumento/Milloy/Gots/Stossel and company
    >>>>>>>>>> propaganda machine? Such a lawsuit would be on behalf of
    >>>>>>>>>> every Chemical Sensitivity sufferer in the States, including
    >>>>>>>>>> those Chemical Sensitivity sufferers formally diagnosed with
    >>>>>>>>>> the following titles:
    >>>>>>>>>> 1a] Occupational Asthma due to low-molecular weight agents.
    >>>>>>>>>> 1b] Irritant-induced Asthma.
    >>>>>>>>>> 2] Chemical Worker's Lung.
    >>>>>>>>>> 3] External Allergic Alveolitis, aka Hypersensitivity
    >>>>>>>>>> Pneumonitis "due to chemical sensitization."
    >>>>>>>>>> 4] Reactive Airway Dysfunction Syndrome.
    >>>>>>>>>> 5] World Trade Center Cough.
    >>>>>>>>>> 6] Sick Building Syndrome; a diagnostic title which is
    >>>>>>>>>> even recognized in the Merck Manual.
    >>>>>>>>>> 7] Stevens-Johnson Syndrome.
    >>>>>>>>>> 8] Acute Generalized Exanthematous Pustulosi.
    >>>>>>>>>> 9a] Chronic Actinic Dermatitis.
    >>>>>>>>>> 9b] Occupational Dermatitis.
    >>>>>>>>>> 10] Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivity.
    >>>>>>>>>> 11] And of course, the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity which
    >>>>>>>>>> is now recognized by name, by the following
    >>>>>>>>>> licensed & accredited entities, in each one's
    >>>>>>>>>> Occupatonal & Environmental Medicine Programs:
    >>>>>>>>>> I] Johns Hopkins.
    >>>>>>>>>> II] Mt. Sinai Hospital.
    >>>>>>>>>> III] Yale.
    >>>>>>>>>> IV] Cambridge Hospital (affiliate of Harvard Med. School.)
    >>>>>>>>>> V] Northeast Specialty Hospital (also Harvard affiliate.)
    >>>>>>>>>> VI] University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey.
    >>>>>>>>>> VII] HealthPartners-Regions Hospital, Minneapolis
    >>>>>>>>>> (affiliate of the NIOSH Educational Resource Ctr.)
    >>>>>>>>>> VIII] Central New York Health Occupational Clinical Center.
    >>>>>>>>>> IX] Marshall University.
    >>>>>>>>>> X+] a number of board certified and licensed physicians.
    >>>>>>>>>> Plus, there is the technologically advanced nation of
    >>>>>>>>>> Germany which coded MCS as "an allergic condition."
    >>>>>>>>>> And there are also a notable number of licensed entities
    >>>>>>>>>> which recognize the titles:
    >>>>>>>>>> "Indoor Air Quality Assessment", "Building-related Illness",
    >>>>>>>>>> "Sick Building Syndrome", "Environmentally-related
    >>>>>>>>>> Diseases", "Chronic Chemical Exposure", "Chemically-induced
    >>>>>>>>>> Illness", "Occupationally-induced Illness", etc.
    >>>>>>>>>> And this includes the world renown Duke, as well as Iowa
    >>>>>>>>>> Univ., Boston Medical Ctr., the Univ. of Maryland, and the
    >>>>>>>>>> Univ. of Pittsburgh (home of the polio vaccine and first
    >>>>>>>>>> liver transplant.)
    >>>>>>>>>> Of course, there is the matter of including CFS sufferers
    >>>>>>>>>> and GWS sufferers. Of course, GWS sufferers have apparently
    >>>>>>>>>> suffered the most defamation of all the Chemical Sensitivity
    >>>>>>>>>> sufferers.
    >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps, and only perhaps, a subset of patients who were
    >>>>>>>>>> diagnosed with the following 'medically accepted' diagnostic
    >>>>>>>>>> titles can be included:
    >>>>>>>>>> 1] Chemically-induced Hepatitis, 2] Chemically-induced
    >>>>>>>>>> Aplastic Anemia (Bone Marrow Suppression).
    >>>>>>>>>> The subset, of course, would consist in those who suffered
    >>>>>>>>>> lingering sensitivity beyond the acute stage.
    >>>>>>>>>> Such a lawsuit would not be against any licensed practicing
    >>>>>>>>>> physician, it seems. After all, Barret was never board
    >>>>>>>>>> certified at anything in his life, and he never praticed
    >>>>>>>>>> "physical" medicine since his internship days, ending in
    >>>>>>>>>> 1957. Gots hadn't had a patient in decades, so say the
    >>>>>>>>>> reports. As well, neither Fumento nor Stossel nor Milloy
    >>>>>>>>>> have ever been doctors in any medical discipline. And of
    >>>>>>>>>> course, the only non-licensed (or non-Doctorate-bearing)
    >>>>>>>>>> person qualified to give sound & valid evidence into the MCS
    >>>>>>>>>> matter is one who has suffered from the physiological
    >>>>>>>>>> medical condition for years.
    >>>>>>>>>> Nor would such a lawsuit be against the pharmaceutical
    >>>>>>>>>> industry, unless of course, discovery would should that the
    >>>>>>>>>> pharmaceutical industry funded any of the defamatory
    >>>>>>>>>> propagandists for producing the defamatory things which they
    >>>>>>>>>> did. That would be a subsequent filing and joinder.
    >>>>>>>>>> The Barret/Fumento/Milloy/Stossel & company propaganda
    >>>>>>>>>> machine employed slight-of-hand semantics & convenient
    >>>>>>>>>> evidence omission in asserting to the inexperienced public
    >>>>>>>>>> that Chemical Sensitivity is entirely a process of mental
    >>>>>>>>>> illness, instead of a physiological process accompanied with
    >>>>>>>>>> the following physiological medical findings:
    >>>>>>>>>> 1] Inflammation Scenarios, such as Turbinate Hypertrophy
    >>>>>>>>>> & Interstitial Inflammation.
    >>>>>>>>>> 2] Failing the Arterial Blood Gases Test.
    >>>>>>>>>> 3] Dermatitis scenarios and similar.
    >>>>>>>>>> 4] Enzyme QPon-1 Deficiency.
    >>>>>>>>>> 5] Erythema, even internally.
    >>>>>>>>>> 6] Over Production of Leukotrienes, such as LTD4.
    >>>>>>>>>> 7] The Production of N-acetyl-benzoquinoneimine in
    >>>>>>>>>> excess of the Mercapturate which neutralizes it.
    >>>>>>>>>> 8] Elevations of Alanine Aminotransferase,
    >>>>>>>>>> aka Serum Glutamic Pyruvic Transaminase.
    >>>>>>>>>> 9] Hyperactive Conjugations and Deficient Conjugations.
    >>>>>>>>>> 10] Visible and Measurable Wheals during Skin Testing.
    >>>>>>>>>> etc., etc., etc.
    >>>>>>>>>> And then there is the matter P-300 Waves, IgA immunoglobins,
    >>>>>>>>>> T-Cells, porphyira, and the observable and non-deniable
    >>>>>>>>>> symptom of Profuse Dry Heaving, as well as that of
    >>>>>>>>>> Blacking-Out. All in all, the smoking gun was the Fiber
    >>>>>>>>>> Optic Rhinolaryngoscopic Exam and the medical findings
    >>>>>> thereof.
    >>>>>>>>>> The defamatory propaganda resulted in the deprivation of
    >>>>>>>>>> research funding. Furthermore, how many ignorant persons in
    >>>>>>>>>> America believed the conclusions of Barret/Stossel/Fumento
    >>>>>>>>>> and refused to accomodate a chemical sensitivity sufferer in
    >>>>>>>>>> a time of crisis? How much suffering has that propaganda
    >>>>>>>>>> machine caused? In as much, all Chemical Sensitivity
    >>>>>>>>>> sufferers have suffered triply:
    >>>>>>>>>> 1] at the hands of the illness,
    >>>>>>>>>> 2] at the hands of a ruthless form of defamation,
    >>>>>>>>>> 3] at the hands of abandonment for years, due to
    >>>>>>>>>> little research funding and outrightly lazy physicians
    >>>>>>>>>> who make lots of money upon one nitch repetitively,
    >>>>>>>>>> steamlining their practices to a comfortable laziness.
    >>>>>>>>>> At this point in time, the plaintiff-class of Chemical
    >>>>>>>>>> Sensitivity Sufferers would have mainstream medicine on it's
    >>>>>>>>>> side. After all, the AMA, AAAAI, and American Lung
    >>>>>>>>>> Association all recognize Chemical Sensitivity as it applies
    >>>>>>>>>> to the ASTHMA symptom. And the AAAAI & AMA recognize it as
    >>>>>>>>>> it applies to Dermatitis, Aspririn/Salicylate Senstivity,
    >>>>>>>>>> Ramin Wood Allergy, Acetaminophen Intolerance, Red Cedar
    >>>>>>>>>> Allergy, Peruvian Lily Allergy, Isocyanate Sensitivity,
    >>>>>>>>>> Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivty, etc.
    >>>>>>>>>> Moreover, the AMA, AAAAI, & ALA all advocate the practice of
    >>>>>>>>>> AVOIDANCE as a necessary part of treatment for the
    >>>>>>>>>> chemically sensitive, as it applies to asthmatics. Their
    >>>>>>>>>> official literature enumerates the same chemical-bearing
    >>>>>>>>>> agents that MCS patients has been avoiding for years, out of
    >>>>>>>>>> instinct. And remember, Barrett condemned the practice of
    >>>>>>>>>> AVOIDANCE as detrimental, while Fumento called the practice
    >>>>>>>>>> "nonsense." Thus is the proof that Barrett is the real
    >>>>>>>>>> quack, speaking contrary to the AMA & AAAAI. (Fumento is
    >>>>>>>>>> simply a pushy-shovey brat who needs to be put his place, as
    >>>>>>>>>> all bully-brats picking on helpless people need to be.)
    >>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, comdemning the practice of AVOIDANCE, while
    >>>>>>>>>> asserting that Chemical Sensitivity patients must be placed
    >>>>>>>>>> in direct encounter with the triggers that torment them, is
    >>>>>>>>>> the act of inciting a crime known in some jurisdictions as
    >>>>>>>>>> TOXIC BATTERY. Thus, Fumento and Barret have publicly
    >>>>>>>>>> advocated the committing of crimes.
    >>>>>>>>>> Proof that the AMA, AAAI, & ALA recognize Chemical
    >>>>>>>>>> Sensitivity, at least as it applies to the ASTHMA symptom,
    >>>>>>>>>> can be found at the following mainstream medical sites:
    >>>>>>>>>> AMA Report 4 of the Council of Scientific Affairs (A-98),
    >>>>>>>>>> found at
    >>>>>>>>>> The other ones are found at:
    >>>>>>>>>> http://bdapps/ama-assn/org/aps/asthma/manage.htm
    >>>>>>> asthmatriggersandmgmt.stm
    >>>>>>> 34706&ct=67442
    >>>>>>>>>> The propaganda mahcine fraudulently went about, claiming
    >>>>>>>>>> that the AMA & AAAAI condemned MCS as non-existent. This is
    >>>>>>>>>> a lie. The AMA & AAAAI merely declined to recognize the
    >>>>>>>>>> specific title, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, as a
    >>>>>>>>>> case-specific diagnostic title of its own medical code.
    >>>>>>>>>> This is because MCS is too vague and non-case-specific of a
    >>>>>>>>>> name. The AMA & AAAAI merely said that more research was
    >>>>>>>>>> needed to be done, in order them to encapsulate MCS into a
    >>>>>>>>>> meticulously defined and analysed "case definition". And
    >>>>>>>>>> though they did not recognize Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
    >>>>>>>>>> by name, they still recognized the phenomenon of Sensitivity
    >>>>>>>>>> of Chemicals.
    >>>>>>>>>> Mainstreams Medical Science has long since recognized the
    >>>>>>>>>> process of "sensitization." And it has long since
    >>>>>>>>>> recognized the phenomenon of hypersensitivity to
    >>>>>>>>>> chemical-bearing agents when encountered by susceptible
    >>>>>>>>>> persons, at commonly encounter levels (at low to moderate
    >>>>>>>>>> levels).
    >>>>>>>>>> The MCS debate has been game of semantics. The anti-MCS
    >>>>>>>>>> lobby went beyond the sound barriers of obsecenity. All
    >>>>>>>>>> contributing members must be held accountable.

    Posts on this thread, including this one

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.