Follow us!

    Post: Michael Fumento Hate Mail

    Posted by Patrick on 5/02/05

    This is in reference to a 2-28-05 post that sought leads to
    any possible law firm familiar with defamation lawsuits on a
    class action level. Well, there is an update to that 2-28
    post. Michael Fumento located it and posted it only in
    part, in one of his volumes of Hate Mail. Four pertinent
    sections of that 2-28 post were omitted. It was acknowledgd
    where the omissions were located, but it was done in such a
    way as to attack the credibility of those sections left
    unseen and the person who posted them. Those four sections
    are outlined below.

    Moreover, a predictable character assassination was included
    by Mr. Fumento, but in brevity. None-the-less, it was done
    in a presumptive light. It is explained herein.

    All in all, the abridgement of the 2-28 post, in Mr.
    Fumento's Hate Mail, constitutes another instance of:

    "slight-of-hand semantics and convenient evidence omission."

    That would constitute "the same old story."

    As a review, an ultimate goal of that 2-28 post was to
    enable the reading public to be reminded, without
    interference, that mainstream medical science has long since
    recognized that low-to-moderate levels of chemical-bearing
    agents have been duly known to cause adverse physical
    reactions in susceptible persons. And this includes
    ingredients found in perfumes and fragrances.

    In as much, an accompanying goal was that of having the same
    reading public know, in a readily accessible fashion, that
    mainstream medical science has recognized a number of
    chemicals as "Potent Sensitizers," as well as having
    recognized the phenomenons of of "Sensitization" and
    "Concomitant Sensitivity," AKA "Cross-Sensitization."

    Another sought goal was that of letting it be more readily
    known that the chemically sensitive most certainly have been
    documented as having objective medical findings, thereby
    denoting some type of physical illness.

    Moreover, an equally concurrent goal was that of enabling
    the same reading public to know that Chemical Sensitivity
    has already been recognized by mainstream medical science in
    numerous "case-specific forms." After all, the AAAAI
    expressly acknowledged the existence of "true
    environmentally caused diseases," citing Reactive Airways
    Dysfunction Syndrome as among a few examples.

    In as much, when I said that any hypothetical class action
    lawsuit would be on behalf of numerous persons sufferring
    from any one of a number of chemical sensitivity scenarios,
    I did not mean that they all would be "propsed plaintiffs."
    I meant that they too would be able to benefit from a
    successful proposed lawsuit without ever being involved in
    the lawsuit. After all, the aforementioned objectives can
    result in the cessation of a lot of defamation,
    misunderstanding, and unfavorble presumption; as well as
    withheld research funding. And of course, such a
    hypothetical lawsuit would mostly consist in injunctions
    that involve restitution in print and even on air.


    Now, concerning the character assassination posted in one of
    Mr. Fumento's Hate Mail volumes, in response to the 2-28 post:

    He stated that he was not going to spend the rest of his
    life pointing out what he asserted were errors to my
    assertions. Thus, he does not prove me wrong in a single
    instance. And of course, assertions cited from mainstream
    medical texts are different than legal queries posted in the
    conditional mode.

    And also concerning that 2-28 post, Mr. Fumento stated,
    "Assume all his assertions are errors." Well, what is the
    foundation upon which to follow this instruction? Would not
    an assessment of those assertions be the in the academic
    jurisdiction of a board-certified and duly licensed medical
    professional personally experienced in the subject matter at

    Moreover, Mr. Fumento made note of the typographical errors
    in the 2-28 post, calling them misspellings, and thereby
    suggesting a mental deficiency, as if those typographical
    errors were intentionally inserted. After all,
    "typographical errors" can denote exhaustion at the end of
    the day, divided attention, the lack of a spell-check
    function, and/or the lack of a "save-draft" function.
    Therefore, the phrase "typographical errors" lacks the
    subliminal impact that "misspellings" has. None-the-less,
    would pointing out unintentional typos in a venue that has
    neither a "save draft" function nor a "spell-check" function
    be reasonably regarded as pettiness, especially since the
    post was neither a term paper nor a document?

    Also, Mr. Fumento posted a photo next to the abridged text,
    where within is a note that reads, "Do not annoy the crazy

    In addition, Mr. Fumento presumptively stated that the 2-28
    post shows that people claiming to have MCS really are sick,
    but not in they way they think. (Of course, an insinuation
    of mental illness.)

    Firstly, for the record,I was diagnosed with textbook
    asthma, inter alia. And, in order to receive that
    diagnosis, one needs to have an objective medical finding as
    pronounced as failing the arterial blood gases test.
    Furthermore, when you are in an ER, with needles in both
    arms, all the while being administered known asthma
    medication, you are regarded as physically ill; especially
    when you were in an occupation that involved pronounced
    exposure to chemical-bearing agents.

    Also, there was the matter of a specialist observing
    turbinate hypertrophy in me, during a rhinolaryngoscopic
    exam. He prescribed me a well-known allergy medication, to
    see if it would help. After all, such an upper-respiratory
    inflammation scenario can be indicative of an allergic
    condition or an "irritant-induced" condition. And in as
    much, one who has that type of inflammation is regarded as
    physically ill. In fact, I was also cited as having had an
    internal form of erythema, by yet another specialist. And
    that would cooberate with the previously cited inflammation
    scenario of the other licensed physician.

    And then there was the matter of an internist ordering a
    common battery of blood tests for me. The findings of that
    test resulted in him arranging for me, via his secretary, an
    appointment with a liver specialist, inter alia. Thus, a
    referral to a liver specialist would also denote physical

    And of course, there were other objective findings attached
    to my medical records. In fact, I did win my case and
    received an award. And in order for that to have happened,
    objective medical findings were required to have been present.

    Also, there were several witness statements of persons who
    observed me dry heaving and the such in various settings. In
    fact, one such account came via transcription, from a
    board-certified and licensed physician in the field of
    Occupational & Environmental Medicine.

    Keep in mind that I didn't claim the "findings" attached to
    my record. Medical professionals and laboratory
    professionals did the claiming. In fact, I never even heard
    of turbinate hypertrophy or erythema until after the fact.


    Now, concerning the omitted parts of the 2-28 post:

    One was derived from the Association of Occupational &
    Environmental Clinics. And it consisted in a list of nine,
    and only nine, institutions that were reported as having
    amongst their "most common diagnoses" seen, Multiple
    Chemical Sensitivity. It also included the mention of the
    technologically advanced Germany who coded MCS as an
    "allergic condition."

    Well, Mr. Fumento omitted that section. In its place and in
    parenthesis was, "Omitted a long list of organizations that
    he claims recognize MCS, none of which do."

    1] I did not claim it. The AOEC did.

    2] These entities are NOT organziations. They are licensed,
    accredited, and board-certified medical facilities that
    practice medicine.

    3] Does a list of nine things plus one additional thing
    constitute a "long list." Are the Ten Commandments are long
    list? If there are, they how could someone carry them down
    from a mountain, in a medium of stone? And of course, "long
    list" insinuates babbling, and therefore, mental deficiency,
    or something less favorable.


    The next section that was omitted by Michael Fumento
    consisted of a list of ten, and only ten, medical findings
    cited to have been found in chemically sensitive persons.
    In parenthesis and in substitution of that list, he wrote,
    "Omission of a humongous list."

    1] Now, does a list of ten constitute "humongous?" Are the
    Ten Commandments a humongous list? None-the-less,
    "humongous" insinuates babbling, and therefore mental
    deficiency, or something less favorable.


    Another thing omitted by Mr. Fumento was the section which
    mentioned that Stephen Barret was never board-certified in
    anything a single day in his life, and that he has not
    practiced any form of physical medicine since his internship
    days ending in 1957. (Actually, it might have been 1956 or
    1958.) None-the-less, that part also mentioned that Dr.
    Ronald Gots has been reported to have not seen a patient in
    years. And it furthermore mentioned that certain persons
    antagonistic to MCS were neither licensed, nor
    board-certified, nor accredited in any medical discipline at


    And finally, omitted by Mr. Fumento was the section that
    addressed AVOIDANCE; something advocated by the AMA, AAAAI,
    American Lung Association, and even mentioned in the Merck
    manual. And of course, this advocation of Avoidance was
    made applicable to chemically sensitive asthmatics, as much
    as it was made to asthmatic intolerant of certain
    high-molecular weight agents. And of course, Mr. Fumento
    called Avoidance "nonsense." Well, not according to
    mainstream medicine.

    That same omitted section mentioned that the AMA, the AAAAI,
    ALA, and the Merck Manual recognize a number of
    chemical-bearing agents as "triggers" of asthma. And, it
    included web addresses of the aforementioned entities, in
    order to supply proof that they do recognize that asthma has
    been known to be induced by chemical-bearing agents.

    All in all, the omitted section was six paragraphs long. In
    as much, keep in mind that the 2-28 post was prompted by
    years of defamatory propaganda that extends the length of
    many paragraphs. Thus, a six paragraph section, in response
    to years of defamatory allegations, cast upon an entire
    class of people, is not that unreasonable.


    Now, the 2-28 post has a stream of other messages attached
    to it, of courses. And, one such message addresses perfume
    intolerance scenarios, such as in "analphylaxis due to
    perfume." Mr. Fumento made no mention of that subsequent
    post. And of course, he is the one who called the perfume
    intolerant a bunch of "fragrance phobic fruitcakes."
    Abstracts in the National Library of Medicine hold otherwise.

    All in all, keep in mind that each chemical sensitivity
    scenario involves low-weight molecular agents. And such a
    thing would denote easier than usual permeability in
    susecptible persons, inter alia.

    Moreover, each chemical sensitivity scenario consists in
    chemical-bearing agents triggering adverse reactivity at
    low-to-moderate levels of exposure. That is the common
    trait of all chemical sensitivity scenarios.


    An enemy is someone who brings out the worst you, all the
    while seeking to omit your best and to furthermore show you
    in an unfavorable light. That post was provoked to be
    written in a mode of frustration and indignation.
    None-the-less, it did cite things derived from mainstream
    medicine, and even included web addressed of mainstream
    entities, for confirmation purposes.

    Moreover, it was not a term paper, nor a submission for
    publication in a medical journal, nor a document. It was a
    query, accompanied by things that could serve as points of
    consideration. It was a post. Therefore, it was not
    outlined and diagrammed before its writing. There was no
    saved draft to edit, etc, etc. And it's not the first post
    with typographical errors that someone should make comment
    on them.

    Yes, it could have been written differently, in as far as
    concerns the packaging of it, and as far as concerns the
    selection of qualifying statments which need to economized
    in a text, unless that text is book length. Anyway:

    When you relentlessly attack an entire class of people,
    assassinating their characters in execution-style rejection
    , there is the possibility that somebody somewhere will
    make an effort to come to their defense. And there is the
    possibility that a defense will occur in the plural. After
    all, people are not always objects in a shooting gallery, as
    if you can fire at will with no one ever firing back.

    Hatred is not an intriguing legacy. It's been done before,
    with less-than-desirable consequences. In fact, history has
    in it so much hatred that the redundancy of it should be
    enough for it to loose its appeal.

    None-the-less, what type of person it is who elects to have
    his name indentified with hatred, as in Hate Mail, all the
    while inducting numerous direct object pronouns of humanity
    into his roll call of hate? And when such a person dies,
    upon hearing the news of his death, does anyone end up
    getting tears in his/her eyes?

    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.