 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / July 2005Jan Drew Cannot Stop Her Lying
Jan Drew claims that she answered the questions. But if you read what she posts it is clear that OTHERS have answered for Jan. Jan Drew NEVER explained how she felt better in two years BEFORE the dental work was finished. Jan Drew NEVER explained why she said that she knew it was the mercury because she did not begin to regain her health until after her mercury level dropped when she knows this is a complete lie. Jan Drew went from bedridden to line dancing a week after amalgam removal when by her own admission, her mercury level was higher. Jan Drew tries to divert attention away from her lies by posting thousands of lines of irrelevant text. Jan Drew needs help desperately. Sadly it looks like she is beyond help as is evidenced from her coming apart at the seams. As I said, if Jan Drew could post where SHE answered the questions in HER OWN WORDS, I would permanently stop posting in this newsgroup. I think it obvious if Jan had the proof that she would post it. Instead she posts thousands of lines of irrelevant text designed to divert attention from her failure to answer the questions. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance If all this were true, do you think Rich would continue posting to such a person on the newsgroups, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year? He claims he does this purely for entertainment, yet who in their right mind would continue to inflame someone whose behaviour is affecting the "victim's" personal life OUTSIDE the newsgroups? Does the claim that he engages in this for "entertainment" fit the evidence? I don't believe so. I think Rich is simply another of several Pharma Bloggers active on the newsgroups. These are people working for media groups contracted by various PR firms representing industry. Their purpose is to discredit people like Jan Drew, and even people like me who advocate natural medicine approaches in health care. If I'm right, and Jan has fought back, I feel no sympathy for a Pharma Blogger who continues to raise this issue and fuel it further. If his personal life suffers, good. As for the issue of mercury poisoning from amalgams, Rich is continuing to ignore my overview of the phsyiology involved in this procedure. Here it is again: The consequences of releasing mercury during the process of amalgam removal are quite variable. Let's take a closer look. Prior to this procedure, the proximity of mercury to the brain is quite pronounced. Mercury impacts both brain and neurological function, so even displacement of mercury within the body can dramatically effect levels of organ exposure. Symptoms unique to the metabolic pathways associated with that organ are understandably impacted once the source of mercury is eliminated. It's also important to see that two things are going on when this procedure is performed. First, the existing mercury leakage from amalgams (closest to the brain and methylated to an organic form resulting from exposure to oral bacteria) is removed, while mercury particles released from the drilling process (which do not generally methylate) enter the bloodstream. It is true, therefore, that a certain amount of additional mercury is entering the body (ie., the non-methylated and less toxic form), while another source of mercury (methylated and far more toxic) is being eliminated at exactly the same time. Some patients may, in fact, experience totally new symptoms during the process, while others may observe long-standing symptoms related to mercury poisoning begin to dissipate, even in the short term. Detoxification of any kind is extremely complex, both metabolically and symptomatically. Chelating agents are also used to control toxicity symptoms during and after the procedure. Rich will continue to look for any excuse to discredit posters who advocate natural medicine, or posters who question the merits of mainstream healthcare, despite his own medical background. This only makes it easier for others to identify Rich as a paid Pharma Blogger. PeterB > If all this were true, do you think Rich would continue posting to such > a person on the newsgroups, day after day, week after week, month after > month, year after year? He claims he does this purely for > entertainment, yet who in their right mind would continue to inflame > someone whose behaviour is affecting the "victim's" personal life > OUTSIDE the newsgroups? So PeteyB thinks he should have given in to her behaviour and continued to let her lie unimpeded? > Does the claim that he engages in this for > "entertainment" fit the evidence? I don't believe so. I think Rich is > simply another of several Pharma Bloggers active on the newsgroups. > These are people working for media groups contracted by various PR > firms representing industry. Oh, if only Petey could provide some evidence of this, apart from his own overheated imaginings and egomania. > Their purpose is to discredit people like > Jan Drew, and even people like me who advocate natural medicine > approaches in health care. Actually, it's just to make fun of them, and let others see it. Generally speaking, they discredit themselves. See this post for evidence. > If I'm right, Tee hee > and Jan has fought back, I > feel no sympathy for a Pharma Blogger who continues to raise this issue > and fuel it further. If his personal life suffers, good. Charming. > As for the issue of mercury poisoning from amalgams, Rich is continuing > to ignore my overview of the phsyiology involved in this procedure. Rich is actually continuing to stick to the point, Jan's lies. <snip the boy's views on amalgam--no point arguing; anyone who does is dismissed as a 'pharma blogger'. It's a novel tactic, certainly.> > Rich will continue to look for any excuse to discredit posters who > advocate natural medicine, or posters who question the merits of > mainstream healthcare, despite his own medical background. This only > makes it easier for others to identify Rich as a paid Pharma Blogger. Oh dear. Petey's paranoia and egomania in full bloom. This poster has actually attempted elsewhere to imply that Lollipop is here out of goodness of heart. How, I wonder, does he reconcile her goodness of heart with her recorded racism, anti-semitism, homophobia and all-round religious bigotry? Why would he assume that she is truthful about her medical history when he has read her myriad lies elsewhere? Even about his own posts? Yup, he doesn't give a monkey's if she lies--as long as it supports his position. Still, he's never less than amusing. Cathy >>Rich will continue to look for any excuse to discredit posters who >>advocate natural medicine, or posters who question the merits of >>mainstream healthcare, despite his own medical background. This only >>makes it easier for others to identify Rich as a paid Pharma Blogger. > > Oh dear. Petey's paranoia and egomania in full bloom. And mind you, I posted about the British Pathologists entering the Chelsea Flower Show with plants providing all natural medicine (for conventional, scientifically based treatments). Looks like advocating 'natural cures'to me. I was not attacked by Rich. Only yesterday, replying to a post by Peter Moran, I clearly said that I think that totally cutting funding on research into the medical merits of herbs (a natural cure if I ever saw one) would be nothing short of disastrous. Looks like advocating to me. I was not attacked by Rich. But then again, in PeterB's world, we're probably Pharma Blogging buddies. And facts don't seem to get in the way of his opinion either. > This poster has actually attempted elsewhere to imply that Lollipop is > here out of goodness of heart. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Cathy > >>Rich will continue to look for any excuse to discredit posters who > >>advocate natural medicine, or posters who question the merits of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > But then again, in PeterB's world, we're probably Pharma Blogging > buddies. And facts don't seem to get in the way of his opinion either. I don't recall being attacked by Rich for mentioning the use of maggots for abrading wounds either. But Petey doesn't really believe the 'pharma blogging' crap. It's simply his way of admitting that he has no argument. Pretty much like Lollipop's "liar!" stuff. I still can't decide which is funnier. Cheers, Cathy > > This poster has actually attempted elsewhere to imply that Lollipop is > > here out of goodness of heart. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > > Cathy > If all this were true, do you think Rich would continue posting to such > a person on the newsgroups, day after day, week after week, month after [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > PeterB > > If all this were true, do you think Rich would continue posting to such > > a person on the newsgroups, day after day, week after week, month after [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > > > PeterB > If all this were true, do you think Rich would continue posting to such > a person on the newsgroups, day after day, week after week, month after [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > PeterB Who is jan drew? What's her handle? | Jan Drew claims that she answered the questions. But if you read what | she posts it is clear that OTHERS have answered for Jan. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] | | Best defense to logic is ignorance >Who is jan drew? What's her handle? Lady Lollipop. Aloha, Rich >| Jan Drew claims that she answered the questions. But if you read what >| she posts it is clear that OTHERS have answered for Jan. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >| >| Best defense to logic is ignorance ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance I see a lot (LOT) of threads about this famous or infamous Jan Drew (lollipop lady). And everyone piles on. By doing that it would seem you guys are making her more important than she needs to be. If you think she is so nuts why do you keep giving her so much attention? Isn't that just making her bigger? | >Who is jan drew? What's her handle? | [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] | | Best defense to logic is ignorance It's not a casual assault, these are Pharma Bloggers attempting to shape public sentiment about the risks of mainstream medicine. They harass Jan incessantly. See the message titled "Warning: Industry is Blogging these Newsgroups to Maintain Their Monopolies." http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/browse_frm/thread/3f 9ed7f6e70a9793/8267012414dd8e8a?hl=en#8267012414dd8e8a It's not a casual assault, these are Pharma Bloggers attempting to shape public sentiment about the risks of mainstream medicine. They harass Jan incessantly. See the message titled "Warning: Industry is Blogging these Newsgroups to Maintain Their Monopolies." http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/browse_frm/thread/3f 9ed7f6e70a9793/8267012414dd8e8a?hl=en#8267012414dd8e8a >I see a lot (LOT) of threads about this famous or infamous Jan Drew >(lollipop lady). And everyone piles on. By doing that it would seem you guys >are making her more important than she needs to be. >If you think she is so nuts why do you keep giving her so much attention? Nutty people can be dangerous. Osama Bin Laden is pretty nutty too. And before anyone gets bent out of shape, I am merely pointing out that just because one is nutty does not mean that they should just be ignored. Some nutty people should just be ignored. Jan Drew IMO is not one of them. If Jan Drew is allowed to post her lie about having mercury poisoning without it being challenged and without proving that she lied, it is much more likely that some unsuspecting scientifically illiterate person will believe her and her links to whacko anti-amalgam websites, and have their amalgams unnecessarily removed. Or even worse they may eschew life saving conventional treatment in favor of removing the amalgams. It is only when one exposes her lie with her own words that her nuttiness becomes apparent. >Isn't that just making her bigger? No. Aloha, Rich >| >Who is jan drew? What's her handle? >| [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >| >| Best defense to logic is ignorance ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance What has she to gain by telling a lie about poisoning from mercury leaking into her systerm? If that's what it is. (I have not read those posts. I sure don't have time to read all this junk out here). But it would not be the first case of too much mercury leaking from a filling, making someone sick. Why do you think so many dentists quit using them? It's not like she's profiting from this info. Some dentists now routinely use non mercury fillings and have stopped using them altogether. Others will give you a choice. I don't see how she or anyone would be gaining any advantage in this way unless perhaps they had stock in the alternative product. | >I see a lot (LOT) of threads about this famous or infamous Jan Drew | >(lollipop lady). And everyone piles on. By doing that it would seem you guys [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] | | Best defense to logic is ignorance >What has she to gain by telling a lie about poisoning from mercury leaking >into her systerm? If that's what it is. Her ego. Initially she believed that she almost died of mercury poisoning from amalgams. Then it was explained to Jan Drew that the timing of her improvement was not consistent with mercury poisoning. That is when Jan Drew changed her history to make it look more credible that she had mercury poisoning. Her ego cannot admit that her decision to remove all her amalgams was totally unnecessary. > (I have not read those posts. I sure >don't have time to read all this junk out here). Obviously that is why you don't understand why she is lying. > But it would not be the >first case of too much mercury leaking from a filling, making someone sick. Jan Drew was feeling pretty good on March 4, 1999. Then she read about the amalgam mercury poisoning connection in a Hulda Clark book. She began to worry and obsess about having mercury so close to her brain. Over several weeks her health deteriorated until on June 16, 1999 she was bedridden and unable to walk. Two days later after having eight of twelve amalgams out she felt better than she had in two years. A week later when her mercury level was likely the highest in her life, she went from bedridden to line dancing with no more foot pain (soon to return since placebo responses are short lived). >Why do you think so many dentists quit using them? Different reasons. Some for cosmetic >It's not like she's profiting from this info. Never said she was. >Some dentists now routinely >use non mercury fillings and have stopped using them altogether. Others will >give you a choice. True. There are situations in which dental amalgams are superior to composites. Go to the dental group to ask about it. >I don't see how she or anyone would be gaining any advantage in this way >unless perhaps they had stock in the alternative product. Advantage?? She is just protecting her fragile ego and can't admit she had her amalgams out unnecessarily. Aloha, Rich PS: I guarantee that Jan DRew is going to use Stacy's post to simply attack me. Just watch. >| >I see a lot (LOT) of threads about this famous or infamous Jan Drew >| >(lollipop lady). And everyone piles on. By doing that it would seem you [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] >| >| Best defense to logic is ignorance ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance > I see a lot (LOT) of threads about this famous or infamous Jan Drew You can use infamous. It is most accurate. > (lollipop lady). And everyone piles on. By doing that it would seem you guys > are making her more important than she needs to be. Nah...she knows she is not important. > If you think she is so nuts why do you keep giving her so much attention? > Isn't that just making her bigger? Nope. Her E G O is so large that it was recently photographed from the Space Shuttle. > | >Who is jan drew? What's her handle? > | [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > | > | Best defense to logic is ignorance |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.