Posted by Patrick on 5/02/05

More | Report Post

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
hand?

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
person."

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
illness.

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
all.

---

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?

Class Actions Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST