 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / July 2005I Wonder Why Jan Drew Cannot Answer The Questions
Question 1: How does Jan Drew explain feeling better than she had in two years on the day she had eight of twelve amalgams removed? It sure was not because the dental work was over as Jan Drew originally claimed. >>>>>I believe the mercury is the cause of my problems. I hav felt better today that >>>>>I have in the last 2 years, and am looking forward to getting the rest of the >>>>>mercury out and the root canal pulled. >>>> >>>>>Jan Question 2: How does Jan Drew explain being able to go out line dancing a week after she had eight amalgams removed when her mercury level was higher by Jan's OWN WORDS? >>On 30 Aug 2004 06:44:36 GMT, jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote: >> >>>There's never been any arguement about the fact that removing amalgams puts >>>more mercury in the body. Question 3: Why did Jan Drew say that the reason she knows it was the mercury because she did not begin to regain her health until after her mercury level dropped when the truth is that a week after eight amalgams were removed when her mercury level was higher she went from bedridden to line dancing??? That sounds like she was BEGINNING to regain her health well BEFORE her mercury level dropped. In fact she began to regain her health when her mercury level was likely HIGHER!! >>>>How do I know it was the metal? Because my mercury level was monitored by my >>>>MD, it was only AFTER the metal was removed that it started dropping and I >>>>started to regain my health. >>> >>>http://tinyurl.com/6n3ax Jan Drew cannot answer any of these questions. All she can do is harass people. She has attempted to harass me by telephoning me. She has also tried to stalk me by telephoning people who might know me. Jan admits to this behavior. She is a sick woman who cannot accept that she is a liar and that her lies have been exposed. Aloha, Rich PS: I give 100% guarantee that IF Jan responds to this post it will be to divert attention by starting new thread attacking me. The title will be "I Wonder Why Rich Cannot Answer The Questions". Just watch. But she won't answer the above questions. She knows that she cannot. She knows that she is a liar. All she can do is call other people liars, bear false witness and show herself to be the egregious hypocrite she is. ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance > Question 1: How does Jan Drew explain feeling better than she had in > two years on the day she had eight of twelve amalgams removed? It sure [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >>>> > >>>>>Jan A lot of people feel better when they start a program of self-improvement, whether it's to do with physical health or something else. So what if she says she "felt better that day," it doesn't prove that removing the amalgams wasn't beneficial to her health over time. > Question 2: How does Jan Drew explain being able to go out line > dancing a week after she had eight amalgams removed when her mercury > level was higher by Jan's OWN WORDS? If you had YOUR amalgams taken out, your own mercury levels would rise, as well. Would that stop you from going to work or playing a game of tennis or taking a stroll in the park? WHo knows? Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. None of this proves nothing except that you, as a PHarma BLogger, have an agenda. > >>>There's never been any arguement about the fact that removing amalgams puts > >>>more mercury in the body. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > regain her health well BEFORE her mercury level dropped. In fact she > began to regain her health when her mercury level was likely HIGHER!! Do you know what her treatment protocol was? She may have been taking a chelator (some work with mercury better than others), so her physical symptoms may have been ameliorated. Either way, physical symptoms during such a short time-frame after this process began would not disprove the long-term benefits of removing a source of mercury from the human body. > >>>>How do I know it was the metal? Because my mercury level was monitored by my > >>>>MD, it was only AFTER the metal was removed that it started dropping and I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jan Drew cannot answer any of these questions. They aren't very good questions. They certainly don't look at things from a clinical perspective. Let's don't make a federal case out of someone's anecdotal comment about having a good day. Would you ask someone having a heart attack after taking aspirin if they still have a headache? Look at the bigger picture: Jan says she feels better NOW and has been feeling better since she had the amalgams removed. She is sharing her personal health issues with the ng out of the goodness of her heart, but here you are attacking her for it. I think you are being rather juvenile here. PeterB Feel free to jump in, Rich. > > Question 1: How does Jan Drew explain feeling better than she had in > > two years on the day she had eight of twelve amalgams removed? It sure [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > PeterB > > Question 1: How does Jan Drew explain feeling better than she had in > > two years on the day she had eight of twelve amalgams removed? It sure [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > else. So what if she says she "felt better that day," it doesn't prove > that removing the amalgams wasn't beneficial to her health over time. No, but Jan attributed her feeling better that day than she had in 2 years to amalgam removal in an attempt to persuade others that amalgam fillings cause illness. > > Question 2: How does Jan Drew explain being able to go out line > > dancing a week after she had eight amalgams removed when her mercury [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > tennis or taking a stroll in the park? WHo knows? Maybe it would, > maybe it wouldn't. Unfortunately, Jan was giving this as proof that removal of a mercury source in her body had done her good. I would agree with Petey that it would probably make no difference in the short term (I would say probably in the long term either, but that's not relevant here). But the point of Rich's post is what Jan said. > None of this proves nothing except that you, as a > PHarma BLogger, have an agenda. The boy Petey brings his delusions into play again:) > > >>>There's never been any arguement about the fact that removing amalgams puts > > >>>more mercury in the body. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Do you know what her treatment protocol was? She may have been taking > a chelator (some work with mercury better than others), Certainly, Jan, being very keen on chelation, would have said so. > so her physical > symptoms may have been ameliorated. Unlikely. > Either way, physical symptoms > during such a short time-frame after this process began would not > disprove the long-term benefits of removing a source of mercury from > the human body. Indeed not. But Jan used them as proof of such benefits. > > >>>>How do I know it was the metal? Because my mercury level was monitored by my > > >>>>MD, it was only AFTER the metal was removed that it started dropping and I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > They aren't very good questions. They certainly don't look at things > from a clinical perspective. But nor did Jan. > Let's don't make a federal case out of > someone's anecdotal comment about having a good day. Would you ask [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sharing her personal health issues with the ng out of the goodness of > her heart, Petey seems to have missed the point. Jan Drew, despite being the most mendacious individual I have ever come across, applies the word 'liar' to everyone she disagrees with; it's almost as consistent as his use of his fantasy construct, the 'pharma blogger'. Rich did not make a federal case out of anything. He pointed out that Jan lied. She claimed that her 'good day' was due to amalgam removal, and that her almost instant recovery was due to amalgam removal. As Petey says above: > Either way, physical symptoms > during such a short time-frame after this process began would not > disprove the long-term benefits of removing a source of mercury from > the human body. Nor would they prove them. But Jan claimed they did. And that Petey failed to notice that Rich's point was about Lollipop's lies, not amalgam, speaks volumes. > but here you are attacking her for it. I think you are > being rather juvenile here. 'Juvenile'? From someone who thinks 'bowdick' and 'cathybrainless' are witty? Please. That's almost as funny as Lollipop calling people liars. Petey's so much fun:) Cathy > PeterB > > > Question 1: How does Jan Drew explain feeling better than she had in > > > two years on the day she had eight of twelve amalgams removed? It sure [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > years to amalgam removal in an attempt to persuade others that amalgam > fillings cause illness. The BDA has acknowledged the reality of mercury toxicity from amalgams for years, citing valid scientific evidence that can't be ignored. That America's dentistry association has not been more balanced in their evaluation of the evidence doesn't constitute proof to the contrary. In testimony before the US Congress, Professor and Chair, Boyd E. Haley, Dept. of Chemistry at University of Kentucky, states the ADA is closing its eyes to valid and substantical data which demonstrates the hazards of putting mercury into the human mouth. Go figure. > > > Question 2: How does Jan Drew explain being able to go out line > > > dancing a week after she had eight amalgams removed when her mercury [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > probably in the long term either, but that's not relevant here). But > the point of Rich's post is what Jan said. You admit you don't care what the *long term* health effects of this procedure are, which tells me everything about you I need to know. Your purpose here is to fan a flame war between Jan and Rich and between other well-meaning posters and your fellow Pharma Bloggers. The real point is that Jan continues to feel better after a considerable period of time following amalgam removal. We should be celebrating a positive outcome for someone whose health issues have been largely resolved, even if we can't know all the medical factors involved with total certainty. > > None of this proves nothing except that you, as a > > PHarma BLogger, have an agenda. > > The boy Petey brings his delusions into play again:) You are deluded, but I can't manage to make you disappear. Is there a pill for that? > > > >>>There's never been any arguement about the fact that removing amalgams puts > > > >>>more mercury in the body. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Certainly, Jan, being very keen on chelation, would have said so. Professional amalgam removal requires a chelating agent, in case you didn't know. > > so her physical > > symptoms may have been ameliorated. > > Unlikely. We respect your opinion, doctor. Will your brain surgery for tomorrow go forward as planned? > > Either way, physical symptoms > > during such a short time-frame after this process began would not > > disprove the long-term benefits of removing a source of mercury from > > the human body. > > Indeed not. But Jan used them as proof of such benefits. What is this obsession with every iota of Jan's being? She is a lay person who reported what she felt following a medical procedure, and there are thousands more just like her. No one claims she is a medical researcher or scientist, she's a real person who wants to share what happened to her for the benefit of others. As far as I know, the ADA has not accused Jan Drew of being public enemy number one. I realize that you as a Pharma Blogger must studiously contest every minor aspect of a lay person's thoughts and observations, forever and a day. That's how people know you are the one who is either mentally deranged or professionally employed to be here. You can't afford to take this into the realm of science, because then you would have to be honest and admit that lots of things are possible when it comes to human health. Bottom line, amalgam removal has been a health-positive for Jan and you'll just have to live with it. <remainder of Pharma Blogging snipped> PeterB > > > > Question 1: How does Jan Drew explain feeling better than she had in > > > > two years on the day she had eight of twelve amalgams removed? It sure [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > contrary. In testimony before the US Congress, Professor and Chair, > Boyd E. Haley Ah. Boyd Haley. It would appear Rich is correct, and Petey is just a troll. However, here he has missed the point, which is not mercury, but Lollipop. >, Dept. of Chemistry at University of Kentucky, states the > ADA is closing its eyes to valid and substantical data which [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > You admit you don't care what the *long term* health effects of this > procedure are, which tells me everything about you I need to know. Note Peter putting words into people's mouths. Ten points to anyone who can find where I wrote I don't care what the long term health effects are. > Your purpose here is to fan a flame war between Jan and Rich and > between other well-meaning posters and your fellow Pharma Bloggers. Actually, I'm here to see what bizarro notion the boy comes up with next. The implication that Lollipop is well meaning when he must have read at least a few of her posts is amazing. > The real point is that Jan continues to feel better after a > considerable period of time following amalgam removal. We should be > celebrating a positive outcome for someone whose health issues have > been largely resolved, even if we can't know all the medical factors > involved with total certainty. Well, while we can all be glad that Jan is feeling better, Petey appears to have missed the point. Again. Rich posts about Jan's amalgam removal to expose her hypocrisy in calling others liars, not to discuss amalgams per se. Note that Petey has nothing to say on this issue. > > > None of this proves nothing except that you, as a > > > PHarma BLogger, have an agenda. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You are deluded, but I can't manage to make you disappear. Is there a > pill for that? Seems to have lost track of his thoughts here... > > > > >>>There's never been any arguement about the fact that removing amalgams puts > > > > >>>more mercury in the body. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > how people know you are the one who is either mentally deranged or > professionally employed to be here. Oh dear. Peter has run out of arguments, or indeed reasons for this post. He can't deny that Jan has lied, so instead he decides to roll out his 'you're being paid to disagree with me' fantasy again. Poor little Petey. >You can't afford to take this into > the realm of science, because then you would have to be honest and > admit that lots of things are possible when it comes to human health. > Bottom line, amalgam removal has been a health-positive for Jan and > you'll just have to live with it. See how Petey has changed Lollipop from being "someone whose health issues have been largely resolved, even if we can't know all the medical factors involved with total certainty." to someone for whom "amalgam removal has been a health-positive". > <remainder of Pharma Blogging snipped> Restored: And that Petey failed to notice that Rich's point was about Lollipop's lies, not amalgam, speaks volumes. > but here you are attacking her for it. I think you are > being rather juvenile here. 'Juvenile'? From someone who thinks 'bowdick' and 'cathybrainless' are witty? Please. That's almost as funny as Lollipop calling people liars. Petey's so much fun:) Please do explain how any of that is "pharma blogging"? Cathy > PeterB >> > > > Question 1: How does Jan Drew explain feeling better than she had >> > > > in [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> > years to amalgam removal in an attempt to persuade others that amalgam >> > fillings cause illness. My messages starts with *IF* *IF* you have an unanswered health problem,,,,,,,,CHECK THE TEETH! >> The BDA has acknowledged the reality of mercury toxicity from amalgams >> for years, citing valid scientific evidence that can't be ignored. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ah. Boyd Haley. Yes, Boyd Haley, top reaseacher, In testimony before the US Congress > It would appear Rich is correct, and Petey is just a troll. Richard H Jacobson is a liar, just like you. Look up the definition of a troll. However, here he has missed the point, which is not mercury, but Lollipop An obsession of the *gang*. They don't like hearing the truth. >>, Dept. of Chemistry at University of Kentucky, states the >> ADA is closing its eyes to valid and substantical data which [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> > probably in the long term either, but that's not relevant here). But >> > the point of Rich's post is what Jan said. The point is, YOU don't know what Rich said. WHY do you suppose he nuked his posts???? Another issue, not discussed. >> You admit you don't care what the *long term* health effects of this >> procedure are, which tells me everything about you I need to know. > > Note Peter putting words into people's mouths. Ten points to anyone who > can find where I wrote I don't care what the long term health effects > are. Ahhh. 15000000 points for anyone where I wote what cathy *claims* I wrote. As for putting things in people's mouth, you don't supppse, that is why Rich nuked his posts do you???? >> Your purpose here is to fan a flame war between Jan and Rich and >> between other well-meaning posters and your fellow Pharma Bloggers. > > Actually, I'm here to see what bizarro notion the boy comes up with > next. The implication that Lollipop is well meaning when he must have > read at least a few of her posts is amazing. Actually, he is not one of the *gang*. He can see see right through you and Rich. There is nothing well meaning about either of you. >> The real point is that Jan continues to feel better after a >> considerable period of time following amalgam removal. We should be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > calling others liars, not to discuss amalgams per se. Note that Petey > has nothing to say on this issue. Rich's posts and pattern have been shown along with his lies. His hypocrisy has been shown. Nothing has been said about that issue. >> > > None of this proves nothing except that you, as a >> > > PHarma BLogger, have an agenda. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Seems to have lost track of his thoughts here... Seems to have hit the nail right smack dab on the head. >> > > > >>>There's never been any arguement about the fact that removing >> > > > >>>amalgams puts [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> > >> > Certainly, Jan, being very keen on chelation, would have said so. The FACT is, I DID!!!!! Removing the amalgams was just the first step, then it's on to ridding the body of the mercury and repairing the damage done. You are way off base here. I didn't say I was instantly cured. The detoxing >>>that I have done is a major factor in my recovery. Yes, I will continue >>>to do >>>it for quite some time to remove the mercury from my body. As you know removing the metal stirs up the mercury. In many cases one should do some detoxing before having the dental work done. I was tested and I was ready because I had already been detoxing for six months. We need to remember that the mercury stored in our bodies is like a bomb. >After the mercury amalgam removal, it needs to be handled carefully or it >will explode in our faces. Take it apart as slow as possible. After all, it >took 20-30 years for the body to store it as "safe as possible" within our >tissues, one microgram at a time ..... we need to reverse the process. >Has anybody had a good experience with DMPS? There is a man by the name of Ray who did DMPS a long time ago. He now has irreversible damage. I am see a Contact Reflex Analysis (muscle testing) and am chelating with Standard Process supplements. As the mercury leaves the body these supplements are changed. No one should ever try to chelate on their own. >> Professional amalgam removal requires a chelating agent, in case you >> didn't know. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > >> > Unlikely. How VERY wrong you are. >> We respect your opinion, doctor. Will your brain surgery for tomorrow >> go forward as planned? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > >> > Indeed not. But Jan used them as proof of such benefits. http://www.wholisticresearch.com/info/artshow.php3?artid=7 <snip>I would like to share with you some of my case histories. I can tell you about the MS patients who could hardly walk down my corridor, and who can now run down it. I can tell you about the pianist whom I thought, when I looked at her the first time, that she was going to die on me, and who was completely transformed into a new being after amalgam removal. She wrote me a letter saying that, for the first time since a very long time, she was able to "connect" to her music. I can tell you of the lady who had her amalgam removed somewhere but felt no better, so she was sent to me. When I examined her I found a speck of amalgam still there by the side of one white filling. I told her that I did not think that that speck would have caused her symptoms, but I will remove it anyway. A week after the removal of this tiny mercury speck her husband came with her and asked me, what did you do to my wife! Her depression has gone, and she is now back to the woman I married 30 years ago. I can tell you of the person who had traveled the world looking for a cure from his continuous headaches. He had every conceivable test, x-ray, scan... you name it he had it. When he heard me speak about amalgam on TV, he thought, I tried everything, so let me try this one. I removed his amalgam with immediate cessation of his headaches. >> What is this obsession with every iota of Jan's being? She is a lay >> person who reported what she felt following a medical procedure, and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > out his 'you're being paid to disagree with me' fantasy again. Poor > little Petey. A *gang* tactic, if they can't answer, insult. >>You can't afford to take this into >> the realm of science, because then you would have to be honest and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > issues have > been largely resolved, Now, who is putting words in whose mouth?? Peter's words were: Bottom line, amalgam removal has been a health-positive for Jan even if we can't know all the medical factors > involved with total certainty." to someone for whom "amalgam removal > has been a health-positive". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And that Petey failed to notice that Rich's point was about Lollipop's > lies, not amalgam, speaks volumes. Right back atcha! Are you sure my name is Richard Jacobson?? >>>>Is it or isn't it? >>Negative. Does this mean that I don't have to agree to Jan's request to cease and desist?? Of course her request presumes that I have been stalking and harassing her. >I am grateful for one thing; that Richard Jacobson is not my real name. Unfortunately the Richard Jacobson that DOES live in Hawaii may not be too happy with my assuming his name for purposes of the internet especially given the recent events. He happens to live on a different island from me. I do plan to contact him to let him know that someone may try to harass him since he is listed in the phone book. =============================== Hiking The Kalalau Trail Richard Jacobson (richj@cris.com) Sat, 16 Mar 1996 00:27:34 -0500 (EST) >Hawaii's premier backpacking trail, the Kalalau Trail on the island of Kauai still remains closed past Hanakoa due to the reconstruction of the trail near "crawler's ridge". Estimated date of completion is Mid May. Until then, camping will only be permitted in Hanakapiai and Hanakoa Valleys. I for one am anxious to have Kalalau open again. It has to be one of the finest trails in the world. Aloha, Rich ------------------------ ------------------------ Richard H. Jacobson Always remember to put Horace before Descarte >> but here you are attacking her for it. I think you are >> being rather juvenile here. > > 'Juvenile'? From someone who thinks 'bowdick' and 'cathybrainless' are > witty? > Please. That's almost as funny as Lollipop calling people liars. Richard H Jacobson is a liar, YOU are a liar That's not funny, it is sad. Do post the three names I have called you as of late! MY POSTS, MY WORDS! Jan <snip> > Cathy > >> PeterB <snip> > > See how Petey has changed Lollipop from being "someone whose health > > issues have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > even if we can't know all the medical factors As Lollipop must be aware from her creative snipping, she has joined together the two separate pieces from Petey's post where he said two different things; that Jan had: a positive outcome for someone whose health issues have been largely resolved, even if we can't know all the medical factors involved with total certainty. And that: Bottom line, amalgam removal has been a health-positive for Jan <snip> Lollipop fails to address the subject of a post (her hypocrisy in calling others liars), lies about what Peter posted, and then (you've guessed it) calls others liars. She's a star. Only a sick person would go through these mental contortions to make someone else feel bad about their good health. When my blood pressure dropped, I had given up coffee and began eating raw nuts for breakfast. In the absence of medication, there is no doubt that my improved health is attributed to changes in my diet. This has been Jan's experience following her amalgam removal, and who are you to say it can't be? Most doctors will give weight to the anecdotal reports of patients, particularly if they have actually undergone a medical procedure. When combined with studies showing that mercury in amalgams do compromise human health, it's clear you have nothing to offer on this topic and nothing but a hysterical Pharma Blogger. Just one more evidence that Jan and I are casual posters and you are not is that she and I arrive at similar conclusions without mimicking one another word for word. Because of my background, I rarely express total certainty about anything of a scientific nature, however the science underlying this issue tells me Jan's accounting is most believable. Try to let go of your hatred for Jan and maybe things will be better in your OWN life. It can happen for you, cathy. PeterB > <snip> > > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > calling others liars), lies about what Peter posted, and then (you've > guessed it) calls others liars. She's a star. > Only a sick person would go through these mental contortions to make > someone else feel bad about their good health. When my blood pressure > dropped, I had given up coffee and began eating raw nuts for breakfast. > In the absence of medication, there is no doubt that my improved > health is attributed to changes in my diet. Yes PeterB, there is doubt. Many conditions, if not most, go up and down on their own, even for longer periods, whether you do anything (like changing your diet) or not. Only if solid research shows that your particular diet lowers blood pressure (for most people) then you can make that claim. > This has been Jan's experience following her amalgam removal, > and who are you to say it can't be? Elementary, my dear Watson, elementary. Jan's claim was: "I'm sick because of mercury in my blood and this mercury comes from my amalgams". Since she is sick from *mercury*, she should improve (if the sickness is reversible) from lowering the mercury level of her blood. She improved right after the removal of the amalgams, at a time when the mercury level in her blood could only have been the highest ever in her life! Even anti-amalgam dentists acknowledge that removing amalgams releases mercury and that therefore it has to be done only 1 or 2 fillings at a time. Logically Jan could not have felt better, since the mercury level in her blood was going thru the roof. However, she did feel better, much better. This shows, or rather proves, the amalgams and thus mercury were not the problem. Simple logical deduction PeterB, that's all there's to it. > Most doctors will give weight to the anecdotal reports of patients, > particularly if they have actually undergone a medical procedure. Those who (also) use alternative medicine might do that. Other doctors realize that giving weight to the anecdotal reports of patients is what kept bloodletting and 'eye of newt' remedies popular for centuries. > When combined with studies showing that mercury in amalgams do > compromise human health, it's clear you have nothing > to offer on this topic and nothing but a hysterical Pharma Blogger. Well, maybe you can inform everyone what dietary change will get rid of hysteria. > Just one more evidence that Jan and I are casual posters You're here everyday posting stuff like this several times per day. How is that 'casual'? Jan is calling people 'liar' several times a day and I'm not even gonna start compiling an average of her number of posts per day for the last 5 years. How is that 'casual'? > and you are not is that she and I arrive at similar conclusions > without mimicking one another word for word. Funny, I can tell most regular posters apart by their style and choice of words. But maybe I'm psychic. > Because of my background, I rarely express total certainty about anything > of a scientific nature, however the science underlying this issue tells > me Jan's accounting is most believable. If we, purely for the sake of argument, grant the premisis that mercury from amalgams causes healthproblems, then Jan's account is totally unbelievable. She should have felt a lot worse right after the removal of the amalgams (because of the very high mercury level) and then she should have slowly recovered, while her mercury levels were slowly dropping. That is definetely not what happened. > Try to let go of your hatred for Jan and maybe things will be better in > your OWN life. It can happen for you, cathy. Cathy posted only a few messages in this group when Jan Drew started to attack her without provocation, claiming she was really Peter Bowditch. I think Cathy has been rather friendly and polite toward Jan Drew, considering Jan's totally uncalled for agression towards her. Oh, and I'll save Jan Drew some typing here: THAT IS A TOTAL LIE. I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT CATHYB IS PETER BOWDITCH. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? LIAR! Just put some indents in front Jan, and you're all done. > PeterB > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >>calling others liars), lies about what Peter posted, and then (you've >>guessed it) calls others liars. She's a star. >> Only a sick person would go through these mental contortions to make >> someone else feel bad about their good health. When my blood pressure [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > This shows, or rather proves, the amalgams and thus mercury were not the > problem. Simple logical deduction PeterB, that's all there's to it. W R O N G! http://www.wholisticresearch.com/info/artshow.php3?artid=7 <snip>I would like to share with you some of my case histories. I can tell you about the MS patients who could hardly walk down my corridor, and who can now run down it. I can tell you about the pianist whom I thought, when I looked at her the first time, that she was going to die on me, and who was completely transformed into a new being after amalgam removal. She wrote me a letter saying that, for the first time since a very long time, she was able to "connect" to her music. I can tell you of the lady who had her amalgam removed somewhere but felt no better, so she was sent to me. When I examined her I found a speck of amalgam still there by the side of one white filling. I told her that I did not think that that speck would have caused her symptoms, but I will remove it anyway. A week after the removal of this tiny mercury speck her husband came with her and asked me, what did you do to my wife! Her depression has gone, and she is now back to the woman I married 30 years ago. I can tell you of the person who had traveled the world looking for a cure from his continuous headaches. He had every conceivable test, x-ray, scan... you name it he had it. When he heard me speak about amalgam on TV, he thought, I tried everything, so let me try this one. I removed his amalgam with immediate cessation of his headaches. >> Most doctors will give weight to the anecdotal reports of patients, >> particularly if they have actually undergone a medical procedure. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > start compiling an average of her number of posts per day for the last 5 > years. How is that 'casual'? One way to stop that is for the posters to STOP LYING EVERY DAY OVER AND OVER. I gonna start compiling the lies told here on a daily basis. Most EVERY post from the *gang is a LIE. Lying has become accepted. NOT by me. >> and you are not is that she and I arrive at similar conclusions without >> mimicking one another word for word. > > Funny, I can tell most regular posters apart by their style and choice of > words. But maybe I'm psychic. NO, you are a *gang* member, one that does a part of the lying. >> Because of my background, I rarely express total certainty about anything >> of a scientific nature, however the science underlying this issue tells [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > unbelievable. She should have felt a lot worse right after the removal of > the amalgams (because of the very high mercury level) WRONG! and then she should have slowly recovered, while her mercury levels were slowly > dropping. That is definetely not what happened. Yes it did happen!!!!! >> Try to let go of your hatred for Jan and maybe things will be better in >> your OWN life. It can happen for you, cathy. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think Cathy has been rather friendly and polite toward Jan Drew, > considering Jan's totally uncalled for agression towards her. WOW!!!!! Now YOU are LYING. Cathy's VERY first post! Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative From: "cathyb" <cathybees...@optusnet.com.au> - Find messages by this author Date: 1 Jun 2005 06:15:38 -0700 Local: Wed,Jun 1 2005 9:15 am Subject: Jan: thick or evil? Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse It's a difficult subject; I'm a liberal, and I like to think anyone can be helped. But if Jan really believes the crap she's peddling, she's as thick as two short planks. Possibly beyond help. And if she's any degree of intelligence at all, she (a) doesn't believe it, and (b) still peddles it, in the certain knowledge that she is doing possibly lethal harm. Evil. As the mother of four kids (miraculously live and healthy, despite being vaccinated--that was sarcasm Jan; I explain in case my stupidity theory is in fact correct), I would frankly rather they found pornography on the net than the outpourings of Jan and her ilk; I'd find it easier (though no less embarrassing) to explain. I'm not sure they would understand that people could actually *be* that stupid. > Oh, and I'll save Jan Drew some typing here: > > THAT IS A TOTAL LIE. I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT CATHYB IS PETER BOWDITCH. > WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? LIAR! > > Just put some indents in front Jan, and you're all done. You are all done, you just proved YOU ARE A LIAR!!!! Furthermore the words from cathy below are also LIES. I did NO creative snipping, nor joined two seperate posts, the FACT is, I posted from cathy's post! Jan >> PeterB >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >>>calling others liars), lies about what Peter posted, and then (you've >>>guessed it) calls others liars. She's a star. I can tell you that you are lying about someone diagnosed with MS running. My friend/neighbor is now wheel chair bound and has other major problems and it's not amalgams doing it. UM MOM Susan >>> Only a sick person would go through these mental contortions to make >>> someone else feel bad about their good health. When my blood pressure [quoted text clipped - 211 lines] >>>>calling others liars), lies about what Peter posted, and then (you've >>>>guessed it) calls others liars. She's a star. >I can tell you that you are lying about someone diagnosed with MS running. Cue Jan to call you a liar because she will say that she never said that she personally knew of anyone with MS running (although they certainly could in early stages). Cue Jan to say that this is a testimonial by someone else so she is not responsible for its content. Aloha, Rich >My friend/neighbor is now wheel chair bound and has other major problems and >it's not amalgams doing it. UM MOM Susan [quoted text clipped - 214 lines] >>>>>calling others liars), lies about what Peter posted, and then (you've >>>>>guessed it) calls others liars. She's a star. ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >I can tell you that you are lying about someone diagnosed with MS running. >My friend/neighbor is now wheel chair bound and has other major problems and >it's not amalgams doing it. UM MOM Susan It's the very lies of this kind which make me dislike quacks so much. The person talking about curing MS is lying and he knows it, but that doesn't stop him preying on the fears of people with the disease. And then this piece of sh.t pretends to cure depression, but would he care if the depressed person stopped taking meds and committed suicide instead? Of course not, as long as the cheque or credit card payment had cleared the bank. The really pathetic thing about this is that Jan keeps calling everyone else a liar but can't see the lies in this fraud. <snip> >> <snip>I would like to share with you some of my case histories. >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> immediate >> cessation of his headaches. <snip more garbage>  SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com >>I can tell you that you are lying about someone diagnosed with MS running. >>My friend/neighbor is now wheel chair bound and has other major problems [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The really pathetic thing about this is that Jan keeps calling > everyone else a liar but can't see the lies in this fraud. Peter Bowditch lies as he knows it. The pathetic thing is he puts these lies on his websites, when asked to prove them, he can't. *Organized medicine and dentistry* denies the history and dangers of amalgams. They are responsibility for suffering people. Jan > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > <snip more garbage> When I first went to the crohn's support group I was befriended by a U$ana sales person. I didn't know that at that time and really was frightened because I didn't have a clue about what my disease was other than there was no cure and I still hurt. The group there took me under their wing and helped me learn how to research and protected me from those that kept telling me that they could cure me. I "almost" spent over a $100 on supplements suggested. The only thing that prevented this expense was acute diarrhea which would have put all the tablets, like everything else, in the bowl. It is things like this that makes me very hesitant about alternates in pill form but there are some that I am interested in learning more about that have been recommended by my dr to check into but can't seem to find anyone here talking about them. UM MOM Susan >>I can tell you that you are lying about someone diagnosed with MS running. >>My friend/neighbor is now wheel chair bound and has other major problems [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > <snip more garbage> >I can tell you that you are lying about someone diagnosed with MS running. >My friend/neighbor is now wheel chair bound and has other major problems >and it's not amalgams doing it. UM MOM Susan No, you can not tell *I* am lying. *I* did not write it. If you had read it, you would have found it was a *dentist* who wrote it. Furthermore, your friend/neighbor is one person, ALL people have different experiences. JJ MOM Jan >>>> Only a sick person would go through these mental contortions to make >>>> someone else feel bad about their good health. When my blood pressure [quoted text clipped - 214 lines] >>>>>calling others liars), lies about what Peter posted, and then (you've >>>>>guessed it) calls others liars. She's a star. >Cue Jan to call you a liar because she will say that she never said >that she personally knew of anyone with MS running (although they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Rich And then right on cue less than an hour later: >>I can tell you that you are lying about someone diagnosed with MS running. >>My friend/neighbor is now wheel chair bound and has other major problems [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >JJ MOM Jan Some things are so predictable. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance No I didn't catch that and will go back and look. Did you say that these letters were written by someone else? I don't remember seeing that either but I didn't read all of them either. I apologize for the error then. And you are right, everyone is different with their disease, you have no argument from me there at all. Crohn's drives me nuts cause it is so different to everyone. UM MOM Susan > No, you can not tell *I* am lying. *I* did not write it. > [quoted text clipped - 231 lines] >>>>>>calling others liars), lies about what Peter posted, and then (you've >>>>>>guessed it) calls others liars. She's a star. >>I can tell you that you are lying about someone diagnosed with MS running. >>My friend/neighbor is now wheel chair bound and has other major problems [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > JJ MOM Jan But if it's *your* experience, then that's different.... >>>I can tell you that you are lying about someone diagnosed with MS >>>running. My friend/neighbor is now wheel chair bound and has other major [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > But if it's *your* experience, then that's different.... ALL people have different experiences. > > Only a sick person would go through these mental contortions to make > > someone else feel bad about their good health. When my blood pressure [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yes PeterB, there is doubt. No, Johndopey, there isn't. I shaved 20 points off my blood pressure and have maintained that for going on 2 years, completely without medication. That's not a random fluctuation, ask my doctor. > Many conditions, if not most, go up and down > on their own, even for longer periods, whether you do anything (like > changing your diet) or not. Fluctuations are natural, that's why the supposed benefits of marginally effective drugs are just a marketing scam. Taking one's cholesterol down 5%, for example, is meaningless, since more than half of all heart attack victims have "normal" cholesterol to begin with. I choose diet and exercise over drugs for practical reasons. I have not had a PVC in 3 years now. > Only if solid research shows that your > particular diet lowers blood pressure (for most people) then you can > make that claim. I just made it. > > This has been Jan's experience following her amalgam removal, > > and who are you to say it can't be? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > right after the removal of the amalgams, at a time when the mercury > level in her blood could only have been the highest ever in her life! You can't base the value of a medical procedure on a subjective report of well-being immediately following treatment. See my response to Rich in his thread from last week for an explanation as to why mercury leaching is variable, how phsyiological responses to chronic exposures are latent, and how mercury loads are altered and dislocated in terms of organ exposure during and after the procedure. All of these are factors in how reductions in toxic exposure might affect what a person is feeling on any given day. Simple enough? > Even anti-amalgam dentists acknowledge that removing amalgams releases > mercury and that therefore it has to be done only 1 or 2 fillings at a > time. Logically Jan could not have felt better, since the mercury level > in her blood was going thru the roof. However, she did feel better, much > better. This shows, or rather proves, the amalgams and thus mercury were > not the problem. Simple logical deduction PeterB, that's all there's to it. No, it doesn't prove anything of the kind, for the reasons I noted above. > > Most doctors will give weight to the anecdotal reports of patients, > > particularly if they have actually undergone a medical procedure. > > Those who (also) use alternative medicine might do that. Other doctors > realize that giving weight to the anecdotal reports of patients is what > kept bloodletting and 'eye of newt' remedies popular for centuries. More likely it's what eventually led to their decline. Sick and dead people have very few happy stories to tell. > > When combined with studies showing that mercury in amalgams do > > compromise human health, it's clear you have nothing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You're here everyday posting stuff like this several times per day. How > is that 'casual'? Being interested and engaged in health issues doesn't mean I'm not a casual poster. > Jan is calling people 'liar' several times a day and I'm not even gonna > start compiling an average of her number of posts per day for the last 5 > years. How is that 'casual'? By "casual" I mean "sincere," not "occasional." > > and you are not is that she and I arrive at similar conclusions > > without mimicking one another word for word. > > Funny, I can tell most regular posters apart by their style and choice > of words. But maybe I'm psychic. Stylistic differences in expression don't conceal the "groupthink" patterns of behaviour practiced by Pharma Bloggers. > > Because of my background, I rarely express total certainty about anything > > of a scientific nature, however the science underlying this issue tells [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > should have slowly recovered, while her mercury levels were slowly > dropping. That is definetely not what happened. Those assumptions are based on your lack of medical knowledge as pointed out above. I predict your team will continue to ignore these factors even after they've been pointed out to you. <remainder snipped for irrelevance> PeterB > Stylistic differences in expression don't conceal the "groupthink" > patterns of behaviour practiced by Pharma Bloggers. Did it ever occur to you that the "group" might think similarly because we are all beginning with the same reality-based assumptions? The real world truths produce the same answers reliably. If you want individualistic, diverse ideation, read the fantasy-based paranoids like Illena, Lollipop, John (Whaleto), banmilk, pizzagirl, and well, yourself. Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ > > Stylistic differences in expression don't conceal the "groupthink" > > patterns of behaviour practiced by Pharma Bloggers. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > diverse ideation, read the fantasy-based paranoids like Illena, Lollipop, > John (Whaleto), banmilk, pizzagirl, and well, yourself. Did it occur to you that "reality-based assumptions" is a bit of an oxy-moron? Still, I'll make a note to myself that you and the other Pharma Bloggers have all achieved the "real world" view that ends our search for truth. PeterB >>>Stylistic differences in expression don't conceal the "groupthink" >>>patterns of behaviour practiced by Pharma Bloggers. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > PeterB The difference is that you and yours are looking for the tooth fairy and searching for Santa's house on the North Pole, while some other folks have long figured out the truth about those, using reality-based assumptions. There are some other things about which nobody knows the truth yet, but the basis of your thinking will not ever lead to answers about anything. > >>>Stylistic differences in expression don't conceal the "groupthink" > >>>patterns of behaviour practiced by Pharma Bloggers. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > truth yet, but the basis of your thinking will not ever lead to answers > about anything. *chuckle* > The difference is that you and yours are looking for the tooth > fairy and searching for Santa's house on the North Pole, while > some other folks have long figured out the truth about those, > using reality-based assumptions. Oh dear... I've just reread Terry Pratchett's "Hogfather" featuring toothfairies and a Santa-like bloke, of course Mr Pratchett can make anything "real" in his world but did you have to bring me out of the story quite so quickly?<g> Vashti >> > Stylistic differences in expression don't conceal the "groupthink" >> > patterns of behaviour practiced by Pharma Bloggers. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Did it occur to you that "reality-based assumptions" is a bit of an > oxy-moron? Not at all. For example, Annie's assumption that "The Sun Will Come Up Tomorrow" is based on the reality that the sun "comes up" every day. Even though the perspective that the Annie's locale on the Earth will rotate into the sunlight is more accurate, her assumption is still reality based. The notion that pharmaceutical companies are paying people to post to this newsgroup and influencing them to think alike is based on nothing more than a fantastic conspiracy theory. > Still, I'll make a note to myself that you and the other > Pharma Bloggers have all achieved the "real world" view that ends our > search for truth. The search for truth will never end. Every question answered give rise to new questions. But a search for truth must be based on the truths already discovered and observed events, not fantasies and conspiracy theories. Science education and widespread scientific literacy would go a long way toward promoting the rational "groupthink" that you deplore. Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ > >> > Stylistic differences in expression don't conceal the "groupthink" > >> > patterns of behaviour practiced by Pharma Bloggers. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > newsgroup and influencing them to think alike is based on nothing more than > a fantastic conspiracy theory. There isn't anything fantastic about money driving business communications on the Internet. The fact you are posting under a pretense is highly deceptive, but I don't characterize your presence as a conspiracy. Another evidence that what I am saying is true is your continual need to address this subject, ad infinitum. This, of course, is your primary dilemna (ie., the Dilbert Principle of deceptive marketing): "We cannot ignore what we must deny." If you were a casual poster, you would have LONG since given up posting to Jan, and me, as well. > > Still, I'll make a note to myself that you and the other > > Pharma Bloggers have all achieved the "real world" view that ends our [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Science education and widespread scientific literacy would go a long way > toward promoting the rational "groupthink" that you deplore. I don't deplore "groupthink," I simply point it out. But if the answered question is what gives rise to new questions, you'll have to re-write the book on scientific breakthroughs for the past one thousand years. Throughout history, science has advanced primarily on what occurs when someone's "fantasy" proves to be merely fantastic. And those responsible for such leaps of knowledge have been resisted by people like you for thousands of years. PeterB >> >> > Stylistic differences in expression don't conceal the "groupthink" >> >> > patterns of behaviour practiced by Pharma Bloggers. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > pretense is highly deceptive, but I don't characterize your presence as > a conspiracy. To just what "pretence" do you refer? I'm being paid by no one to post here. Nobody else is being paid to post here. It's all in your paranoid little mind. > Another evidence that what I am saying is true is your > continual need to address this subject, ad infinitum. This, of course, > is your primary dilemna (ie., the Dilbert Principle of deceptive > marketing): "We cannot ignore what we must deny." If you were a > casual poster, you would have LONG since given up posting to Jan, and > me, as well. I continue to post here for the same reason you do. It's entertainment. It's more stimulating than watching sitcom reruns on TV. Who pays YOU to persist in this newsgroup? Why is your continued presence "casual" but mine "evidence"? >> > Still, I'll make a note to myself that you and the other >> > Pharma Bloggers have all achieved the "real world" view that ends our [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > years. Throughout history, science has advanced primarily on what > occurs when someone's "fantasy" proves to be merely fantastic. Science has advanced on tiny steps, each built on the one before. The "breakthroughs" have mostly occurred when an experiment to advance one of those little steps produced results which were unexpected and the researcher chose to find out why. > And > those responsible for such leaps of knowledge have been resisted by > people like you for thousands of years. Just what leap(s) of knowledge do you perceive that I am "resisting"? Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >>>Only a sick person would go through these mental contortions to make >>>someone else feel bad about their good health. When my blood pressure [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > choose diet and exercise over drugs for practical reasons. I have not > had a PVC in 3 years now. Aha, now it's diet AND exercise. You (conveniantly) forgot to mention the 'exercise' bit. >>Only if solid research shows that your particular diet lowers blood >> pressure (for most people) then you can make that claim. > > I just made it. Ok, score one for you. I forgat that Beatles song: 'there's nothing you can do that can't be done....' But you know what I mean (at least I hope so) >>>This has been Jan's experience following her amalgam removal, >>>and who are you to say it can't be? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > factors in how reductions in toxic exposure might affect what a person > is feeling on any given day. Simple enough? No. Why didn't she get worse then later on, when the original psychological response wore off and reality set in? Her mercury levels must have been high for a long time. What I do read, and that is simple enough, is that you build in so many caveats, that you can explain things any which way you like, which in this case is 'amalgams are evil'. >>Even anti-amalgam dentists acknowledge that removing amalgams releases >>mercury and that therefore it has to be done only 1 or 2 fillings at a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No, it doesn't prove anything of the kind, for the reasons I noted > above. If it doesn't prove a thing, why do you consider 'amalgams are eeeevil' as proven, at least partly based on Jan's story? >>>Most doctors will give weight to the anecdotal reports of patients, >>>particularly if they have actually undergone a medical procedure. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > More likely it's what eventually led to their decline. Sick and dead > people have very few happy stories to tell. Yes, exactly, that is why they could report all those happy anecdotal reports about bloodletting and 'eye of newt' concoctions. People who weren't happy about the treatment were dead and couldn't tell them anything. Only after scientific medicine realised there are a load of biases that can influence your judgement about a treatment did they get rid of them (both anecdotal evidence and bloodletting etc.). >>>When combined with studies showing that mercury in amalgams do >>>compromise human health, it's clear you have nothing [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > By "casual" I mean "sincere," not "occasional." If you mean 'sincere', then why don't you call it 'sincere'. Is that an indication of how jumbled you thoughts are? >>>and you are not is that she and I arrive at similar conclusions >>>without mimicking one another word for word. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Stylistic differences in expression don't conceal the "groupthink" > patterns of behaviour practiced by Pharma Bloggers. Ah, you mean that all that's needed for you to draw your conclusion is that they don't agree with you and/or Jan Drew? Is that what tells 'Pharma Bloggers' from casual, errr, I mean sincere posters? >>>Because of my background, I rarely express total certainty about anything >>>of a scientific nature, however the science underlying this issue tells [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > pointed out above. I predict your team will continue to ignore these > factors even after they've been pointed out to you. You have no clue about my medical knowledge. Or rather, you should have. You really think Big Pharma would put me on their payroll if I knew absolutely nothing? You should keep you paranoid thinking logical mate. > <remainder snipped for irrelevance> 'for irrelevance', huh. You couldn't just snip stuff could you? You just had to make an irrelevant remark didn't you? There is medication that helps against compulsive disorders (note: see me pushing Big Pharma products here? They pay well and I'm worth every penny!). > PeterB > >>>Only a sick person would go through these mental contortions to make > >>>someone else feel bad about their good health. When my blood pressure [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Aha, now it's diet AND exercise. You (conveniantly) forgot to mention > the 'exercise' bit. Actually, I got the 20pt drop before the "exercise" kicked in, plus it's not programmed exercise; most people would probably laugh that I refer to my increased level of activity *as* exercise. I figure it's helping but I should be doing more. > >>Only if solid research shows that your particular diet lowers blood > >> pressure (for most people) then you can make that claim. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > psychological response wore off and reality set in? Her mercury levels > must have been high for a long time. I didn't say her immediate response was psychological, although it may have been a factor in her initial sense of well being. What I said was that a physiological response could be explained in purely biological terms as the mercury loads were dislocated. THOSE effects might have yielded short term benefits, however I'm far more interested in health changes observed over time. As for how high her mercury levels may have been weeks or months later, there is no reason to presume a dramatic change for the worse. How much exposure to mercury was endured as a result of the initial procedure? We don't know. How effective was the chelating agent as therapy progressed? We don't know. I presume her doctor has this data. How much reduction in mercury occured as a result of the amalgam removal? It could have been substantial, however the answer depends on the level of mercury leaching from her amalgams originally. What we know for sure is that her exposure to mercury has been effectively reduced to zero, and that her overall health has been improved. > What I do read, and that is simple enough, is that you build in so many > caveats, that you can explain things any which way you like, which in > this case is 'amalgams are evil'. Merucry is one of EPA's most toxic known and rated metals; to place it inside the human body in an environment that endures considerable daily stress (ie., chewing), makes no sense. > >>Even anti-amalgam dentists acknowledge that removing amalgams releases > >>mercury and that therefore it has to be done only 1 or 2 fillings at a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If it doesn't prove a thing, why do you consider 'amalgams are eeeevil' > as proven, at least partly based on Jan's story? My view that mercury is not biological-friendly isn't based on Jan's story. And while not every human being with mercury-based amalgams is experiencing active mercury exposure, some are, and some are super sensitive to very small exposures. > >>>Most doctors will give weight to the anecdotal reports of patients, > >>>particularly if they have actually undergone a medical procedure. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Yes, exactly, that is why they could report all those happy anecdotal > reports about bloodletting and 'eye of newt' concoctions. That would mean the doctors themselves were fabricating, not their patients. It's hard to know who to trust these days -- doctors, Big Pharma, or dead people. > People who > weren't happy about the treatment were dead and couldn't tell them > anything. Only after scientific medicine realised there are a load of > biases that can influence your judgement about a treatment did they get > rid of them (both anecdotal evidence and bloodletting etc.). I agree that getting answers is easier with today's technology, however bias is merely a trait of human nature. What does the scientific method (which I promote) have to do with that? > >>>When combined with studies showing that mercury in amalgams do > >>>compromise human health, it's clear you have nothing [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > If you mean 'sincere', then why don't you call it 'sincere'. Is that an > indication of how jumbled you thoughts are? You seemed to think the word "casual" is at odds with frequent posting, which it isn't. I prefer "casual" when referring to non-Pharma Bloggers because it indicates a lack of professional affiliation as a reason for being here. I can't say every casual poster is necessarily sincere, but I can say that every Pharma Blogger is not a casual poster. > >>>and you are not is that she and I arrive at similar conclusions > >>>without mimicking one another word for word. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that they don't agree with you and/or Jan Drew? Is that what tells > 'Pharma Bloggers' from casual, errr, I mean sincere posters? You need to read the Alert regarding Pharma Blogging tactics. I'll be posting it again tonight more widely. It has nothing to do with disagreements about health issues. > >>>Because of my background, I rarely express total certainty about anything > >>>of a scientific nature, however the science underlying this issue tells [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > You really think Big Pharma would put me on their payroll if I knew > absolutely nothing? You should keep you paranoid thinking logical mate. When addressing a Pharma Blogger, it's easier to go along for the ride and "pretend" the other poster is casual and uninformed. If you have greater knowledge than what you've revealed, by all means reveal it. Otherwise, don't whine when jabbed. It's your job to be tormented, not mine. <remainder snipped for silliness> PeterB --snip-- >>>You can't base the value of a medical procedure on a subjective report >>>of well-being immediately following treatment. See my response to Rich [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > that a physiological response could be explained in purely biological > terms as the mercury loads were dislocated. Let me see: 1) Jan Drew is being exposed to very tiny amounts of mercury in her mouth (leaching remember), coming from her amalgams, and she is very sick; 2) Jan Drew is being exposed to huge amounts of mercury, coming from her amalgams (released while removing them) and she feels just great. Nope, I still don't get it. > THOSE effects might have yielded short term benefits, however > I'm far more interested in health > changes observed over time. As for how high her mercury levels may > have been weeks or months later, there is no reason to presume a > dramatic change for the worse. So mercury levels being extremely high for a long time after removing amalgams (and remember, it's the anti-amalgam dentists themselves who worry about this!) has no ill effect on your health? There is no dose-effect correlation in mercury? Ah, I get it, it's a homeopathic effect - the less exposure, the bigger the effect! > How much exposure to mercury was endured as a result of the initial procedure? If your referring to the removal of the amalgams, alternative dentists themselves are warning about the dangers of high mercury exposure from amalgam removal. Jan Drew had 8 amalgams removed in one go, that's really a lot, so the exposure must have been significant, very significant. > We don't know. How effective was the chelating agent as therapy progressed? > We don't know. I presume her doctor has this data. Jan Drew could have silenced her critics with those data and she didn't. I wonder why. I presume her doctor has lot of happy anecdotes from his patients and zero data. > How much reduction in mercury occured as a result of the amalgam removal? No reduction PeterB, none! Her mercury increased from the removal, a fact supported by alternative dentists themselves. > It could have been substantial, however the answer depends on the level of mercury > leaching from her amalgams originally. > What we know for sure is that > her exposure to mercury has been effectively reduced to zero, and that > her overall health has been improved. Her overall health improved long, very long before her exposure had been reduced to zero. Her mercury levels were very high and not all of her amalgams had been removed yet. So she had a very high level of mercury in her blood from amalgam removal and (according to your ideas about amalgam) she was still getting daily exposure from the remaining amalgams, yet she went from bedridden to perfect health in a day's time. >>What I do read, and that is simple enough, is that you build in so many >>caveats, that you can explain things any which way you like, which in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > inside the human body in an environment that endures considerable daily > stress (ie., chewing), makes no sense. Natrium is toxic, chloride is toxic, yet most people put both on their food on a daily basis without ill effects. To consider amalgam is being the same as mercury, makes no sense. >>>>Even anti-amalgam dentists acknowledge that removing amalgams releases >>>>mercury and that therefore it has to be done only 1 or 2 fillings at a [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > That would mean the doctors themselves were fabricating, not their > patients. You don't get it do you. Those doctor's weren't fabricating a thing, they simply weren't aware that anecdotal evidence can not be trusted. They really had happy patients, they simply were not aware that they also had a lot of unhappy or even dead patients. Once that was discovered, bloodletting and other stuff that didn't work was thrown out fast. But you obviously would like to go back to the days when doctors based themselves on anecdotes, ignoring the experience from the past with that method. > It's hard to know who to trust these days -- doctors, Big > Pharma, or dead people. Depends what you put your trust in. I now I can trust alternative medicine to take my money, give me something worthless in return and endanger my health while they're at it. >>People who weren't happy about the treatment were dead and couldn't tell them >>anything. Only after scientific medicine realised there are a load of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bias is merely a trait of human nature. What does the scientific > method (which I promote) have to do with that? The scientific method nullifies bias, specifically with double-blind testing. And double-bling testing is despised by the alt-med community, because it always shows their treatments don't work. Just read up on how for instance homeopathy claims that it can not be tested that way. --snip-- >>>>Jan is calling people 'liar' several times a day and I'm not even gonna >>>>start compiling an average of her number of posts per day for the last 5 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > sincere, but I can say that every Pharma Blogger is not a casual > poster. This is obviously the sick paranoid part of your brain speaking. I've always been told to try and concentrate on the part that is still functioning normally, but it's hard to figure out what part of you that is. You really should see a doctor about this PeterB. --snip-- >>>Those assumptions are based on your lack of medical knowledge as >>>pointed out above. I predict your team will continue to ignore these [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Otherwise, don't whine when jabbed. It's your job to be tormented, not > mine. This is definitely not my job. There isn't much to do at my job lately and the amusement value of this beats staring out the window and picking my nose, again. And I get the impression that most other folks you identify as 'pharma bloggers' simply fing posting here a better use of their time then watching sitcoms or surfing the net for porn. Although sometimes watching the grass grow is more intelectually satisfying then reading the drivel of certain folks here. > <remainder snipped for silliness> > > PeterB > --snip-- > [quoted text clipped - 191 lines] > > > <remainder snipped for silliness> Cheers, John. The deadline on the book I'm editing at the moment has been tightened, so I've bugger-all spare time. I just dropped by to refute Lollipop's thrice daily claim that I'm not me, and found this. So now I'm busy but smiling. Cathy > yet she went from bedridden to perfect health in a day's time. Cue Jan to jump all over this and call JohnDoe a liar because she never said that she was in "perfect" health. Just watch. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance > --snip-- > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Let me see: > 1) Jan Drew is being exposed to very tiny amounts You don't see. That is something you have been told by *organized medicine and dentistry* lies. of mercury in her > mouth (leaching remember), coming from her amalgams, and she is very sick; > 2) Jan Drew is being exposed to huge amounts of mercury, coming from her > amalgams (released while removing them) and she feels just great. Great is, YOUR choice of words. > Nope, I still don't get it. That's correct. >> THOSE effects might have yielded short term benefits, however I'm far >> more interested in health [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > amalgams (and remember, it's the anti-amalgam dentists themselves who > worry about this!) has no ill effect on your health? That's NOT what he said. Read it again. <snip> >> How much exposure to mercury was endured as a result of the initial >> procedure? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > amalgam removal. Jan Drew had 8 amalgams removed in one go, that's really > a lot, so the exposure must have been significant, very significant. NO, I did NOT!!!!! >> We don't know. How effective was the chelating agent as therapy >> progressed? We don't know. I presume her doctor has this data. > > Jan Drew could have silenced her critics with those data and she didn't. I > wonder why. You keep right on wondering. Richard H Jacobson also had the audacity to even ask others to send *him* their medical records. Why don't YOU tell us your real name, JohnDoe?? I presume her doctor has lot of happy anecdotes from his > patients and zero data. My doctor is a she. You don't even use your real name, you sure are one to ask others to post their medical records. >> How much reduction in mercury occured as a result of the amalgam removal? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Her overall health improved long, very long before her exposure had been > reduced to zero. NO, it did NOT! Getting the metal removed was just the first step.Then it is on the ridding the body of the mercury. You see this is what Richard H Jacobson's proven liar leaves out of his lying story, which other liars are so eager to believe. Her mercury levels were very high and not all of her > amalgams had been removed yet. So she had a very high level of mercury in > her blood from amalgam removal and (according to your ideas about amalgam) > she was still getting daily exposure from the remaining amalgams, yet she > went from bedridden to perfect health in a day's time. WOW!!!! The lies are rampant and growing. *Perfect health* *in a day's time* Neither do YOU know when I was bedridden. YOU are such a L I A R!! Jan >>>What I do read, and that is simple enough, is that you build in so many >>>caveats, that you can explain things any which way you like, which in [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >> That would mean the doctors themselves were fabricating, not their >> patients. ----snip---- >> It's hard to know who to trust these days -- doctors, Big >> Pharma, or dead people. [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >> >> PeterB >Why don't YOU tell us your real name, JohnDoe?? Why does Jan Drew want his real name? So she can post his address and phone number? She has already done this with a number of posters. So she can call him?? She has admitted to trying to do this. So she can call people who might know him?? She has admitted to doing this. Be aware that Jan Drew is a stalker. Do not give your real name in this newsgroup or elsewhere on the internet. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance --snip-- >>Nope, I still don't get it. > > That's correct. See Jan, not everything I say is a lie! ;-) --snip-- >>Jan Drew could have silenced her critics with those data and she didn't. I >>wonder why. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why don't YOU tell us your real name, JohnDoe?? My first name is John, and my last name does start with a D. But for the rest, based on your behaviour, I do believe that you are a mentally disturbed person and that it is in my best interest to protect my privacy from you. >> I presume her doctor has lot of happy anecdotes from his >> patients and zero data. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You don't even use your real name, you sure are one to ask others to post > their medical records. I just supposed you would be interested in stopping people from lying about you by showing them facts and data. If you don't show them, you should stop complaining. -snip-- > WOW!!!! > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Jan YES! I've been finally called a liar by Jan Drew! That means I can collect my Pharma Blogger bonuscheck! Goody goody! BTW Jan, aren't the L, the I, the A and the R keys on your keyboard worn out by now? > --snip-- > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > See Jan, not everything I say is a lie! ;-) That's correct, I only call lies, when there are lies, just as I did below. > --snip-- > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > disturbed person and that it is in my best interest to protect my privacy > from you. Uh huh. So you are using a fake name, based solely on *my* behavior. Oh meo myo. Guess what John Boy. *I* am not responsibile for the decisions you make about using your real name. I suspect you made that decision long before you ever read my posts. How long have you been blaming others for the decsions you make? >>> I presume her doctor has lot of happy anecdotes from his >>> patients and zero data. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > about you by showing them facts and data. If you don't show them, you > should stop complaining. Sure you did. You just supposed that people should post their medical records on line. Uh huh. But you don't use your real name. The fact is Richard H Jacobson is a proven liar, not only about his story about me, but long before I ever came here. That is a proven fact as I have showen by his posts, but you chose to over looked that. > -snip-- > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > YES! I've been finally called a liar by Jan Drew! WRONG! John Boy, it is not finally, you have lied else where and been caught. When will you ever learn?? <spin> Would you care to apologize???? *Perfect health* *in a day's time* Is a LIE! Neither do YOU know when I was bedridden. You also skipped over this: If your referring to the removal of the amalgams, alternative dentists > themselves are warning about the dangers of high mercury exposure from > amalgam removal. Jan Drew had 8 amalgams removed in one go, that's really > a lot, so the exposure must have been significant, very significant. NO, I did NOT!!!!! This is exactly how this story of Rich's get twisted. LIES added by people like you. Then you have the audacity to call *me* mentally disturbed. Would you care to apologize???? Jan Rich is a cyerbstalker and he has been stalking Jan for a long time. John Bain >>>>Nope, I still don't get it. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >That's correct, I only call lies, when there are lies, just as I did below: > >Mark Thorson says: > >Soon, she may accuse you of being on the payroll of the > >pharmaceutical companies, etc. That's the way Jan works. > >Jan Drew/Lady Lollipop says: > That would be ANOTHER LIE from Mark Thorson. I have NEVER accused anyone of > any such thing. > > So do prove your claim Mark!!!!! > > You can't YOU JUST LIED AGAIN!!!!!!! ----- example quotes of Jan accusing people of being paid shills ----- Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030415173745.18794.00000646%40mb-fn.aol.com Any time alt. health is mentioned the personal trashing starts. Mostly comes from paid shill Mark Probert. Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030412210802.08778.00000680%40mb-fw.aol.com Internet bully Mark Probert who is a paid shill and lives off his wife. Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030410170838.14245.00000347%40mb-ct.aol.com As for Mark, he is a paid shill and lives off his wife. Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030325123827.25124.00000246%40mb-mn.aol.com As long as Mark is here, the paid shill will call names when in fact he is the one who is a bigot. Speaking of his own people. ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance > I have not had a PVC in 3 years now. Mag |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message