Follow us!

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

    Posted by v on 3/06/05

    Your right Pat. There are exceptions to that rule, like the one who gets whacked
    with a shovel.

    On 3/06/05, Pat wrote:
    > It's simply a matter of this, v:
    > These people go through life saying, "Pain? What pain? I don't feel a thing."
    > On 3/05/05, v wrote:
    >> ff: If you lived here surounded by my three sets of neighbors, you would coe
    >> to the conclussion the p*&#ks are born that way. They love their jobs. And they
    >> are who they are because they like it. Did anyone loose sleep after the incident
    >> in Bopall India? where between two & three thousand died. Surely no one lost
    >> sleep after Chyernoble. The clean up crews were sent to their deaths. Prickyness
    >> can be unlearnned that's for sure. But what about those who live for it? They
    >> will always be with us.
    >> 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.