Fw: criteria - a question and a response

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Kathi " <pureheart@...>

Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 7:22 AM

Subject: criteria - a question and a response

> Greetings,

>

> I hate to sound stupid, but I have been trying to figure out where you

> all are getting the new info concerning disease criteria Q & A, etc. Are

> you " reading " from the Amended Joint Disclosure

> Stmt dated February 4, 1999? I can't seem to find what you are talking

> about in the booklet. Am I missing something to download?

>

> Thank You

> lindaamos@...

>

>

> 1 ---I dont think the " rupture " claim is dependant on whether you were

> implanted with a gel implant like the " explant " claim is ---if you had

> dow and had a rupture (termanology could be the problem area here) you

> can claim the " rupture " amount -BUT ONLY ONCE NO MATTER HOW MANY

> RUPTURES

> 2--- the information I found about the " UPDATED REVISED CRITERIA FROM

> THE 1982 COLLEGE OF RHEUMATOLOGY (note the two words --UPDATED &

> REVISED ) the update was done in 94 or 95 --they all got together and

> changed the part about the antiphospidal cardiolipin ect being a

> criteria ---its the same item the dow bankrupcy wants us to use but it

> was UPDATED ---and as far as I can see it was updated and all the large

> rheumatologists used it BEFORE WE EVER VOTED ON THE DOW BANKRUPCY AND

> THEIR TERMS --so if they left out one of the criteria that is set now as

>

> one of the 11 ( you need 4 of 11 for diagnosis ) when dow wrote their

> bankrpupcy plan (intended or not ) its still the way the diagnosis is

> now and has been since 94 or 95 ---the american lupus foundation uses

> the UPDATED version and so does MERCK the giant medical site online and

> many others who are on top of the issue and want the latest and the way

> it should read NOW === 3 --- I have started to read

> (over and over ) the whole plan ruling that was put on here a few days

> ago --the one that showed the fellow from nevada who was an expert and

> the fellow who did the math and said there would be plenty of money left

>

> in the LITIGATION FACILITY --HA I JUST WANT TO FIGURE OUT WHO WOULD

> ALLOW THIS PLAN AND THE WAY THIS FELLOW THOUGHT TO GO THRU ---WHO WAS ON

>

> OUR SIDE TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF THIS ---DID YOU DO THE MATH ? MR

> DUMBEAR (DUNBAR) SAID THE AVERAGE WOMAN WOULD " WIN " $11,000

> DOLLARS IN THE LITIGATION FACILITY IF SHE WON AT TRIAL ---SO THEY WOULD

> HAVE LOTS OF MONEYLEFT AS MOST OF THE WOMEN WHO LITIGATE WOULDNT HAVE A

> CASE WITH " MARKET VALUE " AND I AM GOING TO FIGURE THAT STATEMENT OUT TOO

>

> ---AND ANOTHER QUESTION IS WHY DO THEY SAY THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION TO

> THE VOTE NUMBERS OR TO THE NUMBERS DUNBAR PUT FORTH --is this FACT ?/ IF

>

> WE DIDNT KNOW NOONE WAS OPPOSING THIS STUPID PLAN ALL IN DOWS FAVOR THEN

>

> WHAT DID WE HAVE A TCC FOR AND WHY COULDNT WE HAVE HAD MORE INPUT INTO

> IT ? if we left it up to the wolves and they got what they wanted WHO

> WAS ON OUR SIDE?? WHO TRIED TO ARGUE THE FIGURES ? DID YOU HEAR ANY

> INFO ABOUT THIS WHOLE ISSUE WITH THE LITIGATION FACILITY AND THE NUMBERS

>

> ? DO YOU THINK A LAWYER WILL JUMP TO FIGHT DOW IN LITIGATION IF THE

> WINNING AMOUNT IS $11,000 ??? IS ALL THIS TO JUST GET THE MAJORITY OF

> THE WOMEN TOTAKE THE $2000 AND GO AWAY AND LET DOWS GET ON WITH THEIR

> MILLIONS ??? IS THE STRICT DISEASE CRITERIA (and why didn t our TCC

> argue for our REAL ILLNESS NOT THE ONES THEY KNEW WE DIDNT HAVE ) AND

> THE FLAWED LITIGATION FACILITY GEARED TO SHOO ALL THE CLAIMS INTO THE

> LOWER LEVEL AND THE EASY 2 THOU??????? THIS IS JUST CRAP ---IF THEY

> CROW ABOUT HOW IT WAS OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED YES -----AND HOW WE WANTED

> THIS ---THEN WHAT DID WE BASE OUR CHOICE ON ? CAUSE ITS GONNA BE THE

> JOKE OF THE CENTURY AND WE HAVE NOWHERE TO TURN ---GEOFF WHITE IS TIRED

> AND HAS SPENT TIME AND MONEY AND WORKED VERY HARD FOR SOME KIND OF

> JUSTICE BUT HES BEEN ALONE ---JUDGE SPECTOR TRIED TO BE FAIR AND LET THE

>

> ONES WHO WANTED THE PLAN TO HAVE IT AND THOSE WHO DIDNT TO OPT OUT AND

> GO AFTER DOW CHEMCIAL ----BUT HEY HE GOT FIRED IN A RARE INSTANCE BY THE

>

> 6 CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (WONDER WHY ? SURE ) WE HAD ONE CHANCE TO

> STAND TOGETHER AND LEARN WHAT WE WERE FIGHTING BUT WE COULDNT GET

> TOGETHER AND WE COULDNT GET THE TRUTH AND HELP FROM OUR OWN TCC -----WE

> LET THEM TAKE CARE OF IT AND NOW WE ARE SEEING THE WRITING ON THE WALL

> AND ITS NOT PRETTY -----you find a dr who will jump thru the hoops dow

> has set up ----timewise and criteria wise ----You find a lawyer who

> wants to try the litigation facilty cause even they dont know exactly

> what its about ---cept trouble I feel sorry for the leaders who worked

> so hard for so long trying to get some justice and they got drug on and

> on till they were down and out ---they wanted justice and we got apathy

> ----its easy to feel when its so big and so confusing that the lawyers

> can handle it for us ---WELL THATS WHAT GOT US HERE ----AND WHO GOT

> THEIRS ? THE LAWYERS ---what do we do now ?? can we sue someone or can

> we file a protest ? or can we all refuse to play the game ? or has it

> already been done ---is it too late ? I AM GOING TO WORK ON THIS THRU

> THE HOLIDAYS AND SEE WHAT SOME OTHERS SAY -----WE MUST HAVE SOME OPTIONS

>

> CAUSE THE PLAN IS NOT GOING TO WORK ---NOR THE LITIGATION THING ----IF

> ANYONE HAS ANY IDEAS LETS GET THE BALL ROLLING ----BEFORE DOW TAKES OUR

> BALL AWAY -----LUV CB

> SWEETCAROLINELV@...

>

> --

> Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are

> honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure,

> whatsoever

> things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any

>

> virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

>

>