Fw: Barrett & MCS Disinformation & The Drudge Report

[Guest guest]

From: " Ilena Rose " <ilena@...>

Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 12:06 AM

Subject: Barrett & MCS Disinformation & The Drudge Report

Just found out our lawsuit victory made the front page of The Drudge Report.

http://www.drudgereport.com/

http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View

& c=A

rticle & cid=ZZZV7P5HVPC & live=true & cst=1 & pc=3 & pa=0 & s=News & ExpIgnore=true & shows

umma

ry=0

Here's one of the reasons Barrett and I got on the wrong sides of each

other's fences. His ACSH views are the true junk science I believe.

Regarding this, this is from my Declaration:

In the course of my research and work on this very controversial health

issue [breast implants] I became aware of plaintiff Barrett. He heads

" Quackwatch, " an

Internet website whose self-proclaimed purpose is to expose and eliminate

what Barrett considers to be " Quackery " and " Health Fraud. " (Exhibit G,

p. 1.www.quackwatch.com) Its Mission Statement says, " Quackwatch, Inc. ä

is a nonprofit corporation whose purpose is to combat health-related

frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies. Its primary focus is on

quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get

elsewhere. " (Exhibit H, p. 1.

http://www.quackwatch.com/00AboutQuackwatch/mission.html) Barrett's

" Quackwatch " website claims to have had 1.7 million visitors since 1997.

(Exhibit G, p. 9).

My viewpoint on the topic of breast implant safety is 180 degrees from

the highly publicized viewpoint of Barrett and the American Council of

Science & Health (ACSH), an organization with which Barrett is aligned.

Barrett is listed on ACSH¼s website, www.acsh.org, as a " Scientific and

Political Advisor " for ACSH. He has written for and been quoted in ACSH

publications. (See, e.g., Exhibit I, Barrett, " ACSH Editorial: MCS:

Mis-Concern Serious, Parts 1 &

2. " http://umm.drkoop.com/news/focus/december/mcs_1.html

http://umm.drkoop.com/news/focus/december/mcs_2.html)

In " Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: A Spurious Diagnosis, " Barrett

writes: " The Environmental Protection Agency is considering a proposal to

recognize MCS as a disease and to promote special accommodations for

people who claim to have it. This proposal flies in the face of

scientific knowledge and can have serious legal and economic

consequences. . . . " Multiple chemical sensitivity " is not a legitimate

diagnosis. " (Exhibit J, p. 6.)

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mcs.html

I read the information on Barrett¼s website regarding MCS and found

Barrett¼s conclusions totally contrary to current research. In, " Multiple

Chemical Sensitivity: A 1999 Consensus, " published in the Archives of

Environmental Health (Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 147,149 ), 35 medical doctors

and scientists concurred that with MCS:

" The symptoms are reproducible with [repeated chemical] exposure. "

" The condition is chronic. "

" Low levels of exposure [lower than previously or commonly tolerated]

result in manifestations of the syndrome. "

" The symptoms improve or resolve when the incitants are removed. "

" Responses occur to multiple chemically unrelated substances. "

[Added in 1999]: Symptoms involve multiple organ systems.

(Exhibit K, p. 3.)

http://www.heldref.org/html/Consensus.html