 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / November 2005Excellent Example of *gang* Behavior
"JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message news:4384603c$0$2332$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl... > JanD wrote: > >> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message >> news:r6j7o116ddmlcme1lpgpi6pk3edui6r3pk@4ax.com... >> >>>"JanD" <JanD@insightbb.com> wrote: >>> >>>>A Repost >>>> >>>>Mercury-amalgam dental fillings have never been subjected to the kind of >>>>regulatory scrutiny and approval process demanded of all modern drugs >>>>and >>>>medical devices to prove safety. >>> >>>There is no such thing as "mercury-amalgam". >> >> ZZzz. >> >> You have been told this >> >>>before. >> >> ZZzz. >> >> Being the ARROGANT REPEATED HARASSER THAT YOU ARE, I shall post this >> AGAIN! > > --snip-- > > It is now obvious to me that 'Da Zapper' does not cure rabies. ZZZzzz...... All that needs to be said in response to one of Jan's posts. Mark, MD > ZZZzzz...... > > All that needs to be said in response to one of Jan's posts. > > Mark, MD That's another excellent example. They like to cover for each other. Of corse Mark MD, just made a liar out of himself, and proved I am the one who tells the truth. He does NOT come here because he is interested in health, he comes here to HARASS. However I will expose their DISHONESTY. JohnDoe" <d...@spam.me> wrote in message news:4384603c$0$2332$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl... >>>"JanD" <J...@insightbb.com> wrote: >>>>A Repost >>>>Mercury-amalgam dental fillings have never been subjected to the kind of >>>>regulatory scrutiny and approval process demanded of all modern drugs >>>>and >>>>medical devices to prove safety. >>>There is no such thing as "mercury-amalgam". >> ZZzz. >> You have been told this >>>before. >> ZZzz. >> Being the ARROGANT REPEATED HARASSER THAT YOU ARE, I shall post this >> AGAIN! > --snip-- > It is now obvious to me that 'Da Zapper' does not cure rabies. Restored: Being the ARROGANT REPEATED HARASSER THAT YOU ARE, I shall post this AGAIN! Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative From: "LadyLollipop" <LadyLolli...@insightbb.com> - Find messages by this author Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:03:28 GMT Local: Fri, Jun 17 2005 7:03 pm Subject: Re: Vaccination: a numbers game Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote in message news:i385b1hfpdkv0i8dj6nghrttgkuqs3atg3@4ax.com... > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLolli...@insightbb.com> wrote: >>> In article <1118898251.905026.78...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > See, it's easy to use the words "mercury amalgam" and still speak the > truth. Hmmm, says Peter Bowditch who has NO chemistry education nr NO medical training. Peter Bowditch Nov 23 2004, 11:30 pm There are no such things as "mercury amalgams". Only a person ignorant of chemistry would use such a stupid term. Amalgams are alloys of mercury with some other metal, and the idea of something forming an alloy with itself is ridiculous. Please stop using this badge of ignorance. Peter Bowditch Nov 14 2004, 6:36 am There is no such thing as "mercury amalgam". The expression makes no sense Words have meanings, and the word "amalgam" means an alloy of a metal with mercury. Therefore a "mercury amalgam" is either an alloy containing 50% of mercury mixed with 50% of mercury, or it is an expression containing redundancy. In either case it demonstrates the ignorance of the person using the expression. Please do not use it again, lest people think that you are ignorant and resistant to correction if that ignorance, and please use it as a filter which will allow you to ignore "scientific" papers which use this meaningless expression. Peter Bowditch Feb 23, 8:58 am As there is no such thing as "mercury amalgams", the rest of this diatribe can be discarded for the bullshit it is. Peter Bowditch Jul 2 2003, 10:34 pm There are no such things as "mercury amalgams". People with minimal education in chemistry and metallurgy know this. The expression "mercury amalgam" has as much semantic content as "apple fruit" or "prejudiced ... Peter Bowditch Apr 27 2004, 9:22 am There is no such thing as mercury amalgam. If anything fitting this description was used to fill teeth it would spill out if you tilted your head. > <snip> The studies found that the amount of mercury excreted in the urine was proprotional to the number and size of fillings in the victim's mouth. Moreover many oral habits such as chewing gum, clenching or grinding greatly increased the amount of mercury released and absorbed. == 6. Amalgam Fillings Largest Source of Mercury by Far Based on a number of studies in Sweden, the World Health Organization review of inorganic mercury in 1991 determined that mercury absorption is estimated to be approximately four times higher from amalgam fillings than from fish consumption. Recent studies have confirmed this estimate and shown that the amount absorbed can vary considerably from person to person. 7. Gold Crowns, Gum, Bruxism, Computer Monitors Increase Release of Mercury Significantly Gum chewing, bruxism (grinding of teeth), computer terminal exposure, presence of gold fillings or gold crowns (even if covering mercury fillings), teeth brushing, braces and even chewing food cause the release of significantly increased amounts of mercury from the fillings in one's teeth. 8. Cumulative Poison Builds Up in Organs Mercury released from fillings builds up in the brain, kidneys, liver, pituitary, adrenals and other parts of the body. ======== According to the World Health Organization the general sources of mercury in the body are: Breathed Air (.040 micrograms), Fish (2.34 micrograms), Non-fish food (.25 micrograms), Drinking-water .0035 micrograms), mercury vapor from dental amalgams (3 to 17 micrograms). *****The mercury vapor from dental amalgam alone is a bigger source than all the other sources together.******* http://tuberose.com/Amalgam_Fillings.html http://www.heart-disease-bypass-surgery.com/data/articles/85.htm http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/galv.html http://www.web-light.nl/AMALGAM/EN/frame_r.html http://www.eatingalive.com/windham/windhamA.htm http://tuberose.com/Mercury.html http://www.cqs.com/amalgam.htm A few from Medline: http://tinyurl.com/alfxm http://tinyurl.com/auzuc http://tinyurl.com/7nqft http://tinyurl.com/dxdnj Perhaps Peter can investigate each fool who wrote these, find some dirt in their past, maybe they didn't dot an i or cross a t, Peter is an expert (or so he thinks is making fools) of all who think outside of *organized medicine* which has been defined repeatedly. Jan You have been told before, YOU are wrong and a LIAR as well. [snip diversion, harassing and blather] restore: A Repost Mercury-amalgam dental fillings have never been subjected to the kind of regulatory scrutiny and approval process demanded of all modern drugs and medical devices to prove safety. Until this day dentistry has used marketing, political influence, and control of regulatory boards at all levels to impose its self-serving economic view that mercury-amalgam is completely safe. The science that proves safety is still not forthcoming from the ADA, nor from dental schools, nor from mercury-amalgam manufacturers. Science has not been the driving force behind the ADA's public information on mercury release. When asked about the safety of mercury amalgam the response one always heard previously, and can still hear today in many dental offices is: "once set, the mercury becomes completely stable and locked up, it doesn't leak out". After it was unequivocally demonstrated that mercury vapor continuously escapes from mercury-amalgam fillings the ADA repositioned itself and now claims: "the small amount of mercury released from amalgam restorations, especially during placement and removal, has not been shown to cause any adverse health effects." Mercury escapes from amalgam and is taken up by the human as metallic vapor, metallic vapor and ionic mercury dissolved in saliva, and as unknown mercury species directly through the tooth pulp and root into the bloodstream.[3] Ionic mercury in saliva is converted to methylmercury.[4] Mercury travels from amalgam fillings into the jaw, gut, liver, kidneys, glands and brain, crosses the placenta to the fetus, and is found in mother's milk.[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] WARNING TO PARENTS: "SILVER" FILLINGS ARE REALLY 50% MERCURY! THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION SAYS THEY ARE SAFE! CONCERNED PARENTS SHOULD KNOW: MERCURY has been eliminated from all other uses in the human body, including vaccines, disinfectants, and other oral uses. All other health care associations support full disclosure, while the American Dental Association hides its use of MERCURY. The ADA receives money from MERCURY amalgam manufacturers through its Seal of Acceptance program, in contrast with the American Medical Association, which rejected taking fees for product endorsements. The ADA holds patents on amalgam (since expired), furthering its business interests by the continued use of MERCURY in dentistry. The ADA endorses pre-Civil War medicine, saying amalgam is justified because its use began in 1850! The ADA says MERCURY dental fillings are safe to use in children's teeth. In 1997, MERCURY amalgam filling manufacturer Dentsply stated that MERCURY amalgam fillings are "contraindicated" (meaning DO NOT USE) for children and pregnant women. The American Dental Association is still calling MERCURY amalgam fillings "silver" and denies MERCURY fillings can ever be dangerous! Federal and most state medical insurance programs only pay for MERCURY fillings because they are the least expensive, so poor people and poor children are especially at risk. U.S. Public Health Service: The largest component of amalgam is MERCURY. ADA: Amalgam is "silver" fillings. U.S. Public Health Service: For most people, the leading cause of MERCURY toxicity is amalgam fillings, not fish. ADA: You only get traces of MERCURY vapor in your body. U S Public Health Service: MERCURY is a dangerous neuro-toxin; the MERCURY in amalgam goes to the brain, and to a fetus through the placenta. ADA: MERCURY exposure is like having an "allergy" to dust or pollen! American Medical Association: Don't take $$$ for endorsements. ADA: Receives fees from MERCURY amalgam manufacturers while calling amalgam "safe". For further information on this issue and links to recent press coverage of the controversy with the ADA and the dangers of Mercury in dentistry, please read the August 22 Page 1 article in the Chicago Tribune: http://chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0108220248aug22.story?coll=c... news%2Dhed and visit: www.toxicteeth.net I thought you were going to prove something about Mark MD but then you babble on with stuff about Peter and lots of cut and pasted stuff that you already posted. And this is supposed to show that you tell the truth? Mark is a dr at least what I can tell from his posts, do you know if he isn't? Have you looked for him to see? UM MOM Susan >> ZZZzzz...... >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > However I will expose their DISHONESTY. (snipped) >I thought you were going to prove something about Mark MD but then you >babble on with stuff about Peter and lots of cut and pasted stuff that you >already posted. And this is supposed to show that you tell the truth? Mark >is a dr at least what I can tell from his posts, do you know if he isn't? >Have you looked for him to see? UM MOM Susan Susan, you might want to follow what I think is my fine example and killfile Jan. Nothing good comes out of either reading Jan's posts or responding to them. Her posts will merely irritate you; she will either ignore your responses or carefully edit them in her replies to totally change their meaning. Jan, when she first arrived on m.h.a, was kind of reasonable. Those days are gone. She is totally nuts and is quite incapable of responding rationally or truthfully. Do yourself a favor and quit reading her. It'll give you more free time and help keep your blood pressure down. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth >>> ZZZzzz...... >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >(snipped) Thanks but with explorer I see what people I block write if someone responds to them which defeats the cause. UM MOM Susan >>I thought you were going to prove something about Mark MD but then you >>babble on with stuff about Peter and lots of cut and pasted stuff that you [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >>> >>(snipped) >Thanks but with explorer I see what people I block write if someone responds >to them which defeats the cause. UM MOM Susan Oh, I see the replies too, but I don't see the originals. That's worth plenty, believe me. Try it out for a few days, see what you think. You can always undo it later on if you feel it's not making any sort of improvement. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth >>>I thought you were going to prove something about Mark MD but then you >>>babble on with stuff about Peter and lots of cut and pasted stuff that you [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >>>> >>>(snipped) >Jan, when she first arrived on m.h.a, >was kind of reasonable. Oh really. Define reasonable. Find ONE discussion with Jan Drew since she burst on the mha scene in 1999 that she did not verbally abuse someone for disagreeing with her. Just one. AFAICR Jan Drew and Aaron Fox came to mha about the same time. Did you think her discussions with Aaron were "kind of reasonable"? How quickly they forget. From the get go Jan Drew was as crazy as a road lizard. The very first time I did not agree with her POV she accused me of being a PhD atheist. That is about as reasonable as she has been in six years. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >>Jan, when she first arrived on m.h.a, was kind of reasonable. > >Oh really. Define reasonable. Find ONE discussion with Jan Drew since >she burst on the mha scene in 1999 that she did not verbally abuse >someone for disagreeing with her. Just one. >AFAICR Jan Drew and Aaron Fox came to mha about the same time. Did you >think her discussions with Aaron were "kind of reasonable"? No. But that's not what I was talking about. I was thinking more in terms of my asking her a question and her giving me a civil and detailed answer. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth >>>Jan, when she first arrived on m.h.a, was kind of reasonable. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >terms of my asking her a question and her giving me a civil and >detailed answer. Perhaps you are thinking about your correspondence one on one in e-mail when she was more reasonable. From what I hear (I have no direct personal experience) Jan is much more reasonable in e-mail than on usenet where she has a big audience. As far as answering questions, Jan has learned that it is difficult for her to keep her lies straight so she avoids giving answers especially wrt her personal medical history. Aloha, Rich > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." > -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >>>>Jan, when she first arrived on m.h.a, was kind of reasonable. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > direct personal experience) Jan is much more reasonable in e-mail than > on usenet where she has a big audience. How can that be when she steadfastly demands that she not be emailed? > As far as answering questions, Jan has learned that it is difficult > for her to keep her lies straight so she avoids giving answers > especially wrt her personal medical history. Nah...she avoids giving answers when she knows the answers make her look like a hypocrite or fool. >>>>Jan, when she first arrived on m.h.a, was kind of reasonable. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >direct personal experience) Jan is much more reasonable in e-mail than >on usenet where she has a big audience. That's possible. I seem to recall email was involved, but I no longer remember the details, and I'm not sufficiently interested to dig back into history and find Jan's earliest postings in Google. Nor do I have any emails from her of that vintage (it was several jobs back). -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth >>>Jan, when she first arrived on m.h.a, was kind of reasonable. >> >>Oh really. Define reasonable. Find ONE discussion with Jan Drew since >>she burst on the mha scene in 1999 that she did not verbally abuse >>someone for disagreeing with her. Just one. LOL!!! Poor, poor Richard H Jacobson Somebody hold him down. His is foaming at the mouth!!!!! >>AFAICR Jan Drew and Aaron Fox came to mha about the same time. Did you >>think her discussions with Aaron were "kind of reasonable"? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." > -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth >>>>Jan, when she first arrived on m.h.a, was kind of reasonable. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > His is foaming at the mouth!!!!! No, Jan, he is not "foaming at the mouth." He is absolutely correct. You have NEVER carried on such a discussion in this newsgroup. That is because you are incapable of doing such a thing, as proven by you refusal to do just that in response to my challenge. Perhaps you'd like to prove me wrong. There's a prize in it for you, remember.  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/ >>>>>Jan, when she first arrived on m.h.a, was kind of reasonable. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >No, Jan, he is not "foaming at the mouth." It is very *curious* that Jan perceives me as being angry (foaming at the mouth) by my comment. I think it obvious that it is Jan who is very angry (foaming at the mouth) at me for pointing out how verbally abusive she is to anyone who disagrees with her. Instead of dealing with her own anger she simply projects it onto me. It won't be long before Jan starts a new thread gratuitously attacking me proving how angry she really is. Just watch. > He is absolutely correct. You >have NEVER carried on such a discussion in this newsgroup. That is because >you are incapable of doing such a thing, as proven by you refusal to do just >that in response to my challenge. Perhaps you'd like to prove me wrong. >There's a prize in it for you, remember. You are quite correct Rich. Jan Drew is completely incapable of having a discussion. Perhaps it would behoove you to understand what drives you to try to discuss something (anything) with someone who is completely incapable of discussion. Are you that much of a glutton for punishment?? Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >>>>>Jan, when she first arrived on m.h.a, was kind of reasonable. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > No, Jan, he is not "foaming at the mouth." He is absolutely correct. You > have NEVER carried on such a discussion in this newsgroup. He is ABSOLUTELY incorrect. YOU Rich Shewmaker, were NOT here in 1999. [diversion snipped] >> No, Jan, he is not "foaming at the mouth." He is absolutely correct. You >> have NEVER carried on such a discussion in this newsgroup. > >He is ABSOLUTELY incorrect. > >YOU Rich Shewmaker, were NOT here in 1999. That is irrelevant. Rich Shewmaker did not need to be here in 1999 to prove that you never carried a reasonable discussion on usenet without becoming abusive. I invite anyone to do a Google search from 1999 and find any discussion that Jan Drew conducted where she disagreed with someone and did not become abusive. Cue Jan to talking about my nuking my posts as if that has anything to do with *her* inability to discuss anything in a reasonable fashion. Cue Jan to call me a cyberstalker. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >>I thought you were going to prove something about Mark MD but then you >>babble on with stuff about Peter and lots of cut and pasted stuff that you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > totally change their meaning. Jan, when she first arrived on m.h.a, > was kind of reasonable. Those days are gone. Poor David. Just how would he know if they are gone, beings he claims to have me killfiled? She is totally nuts and > is quite incapable of responding rationally or truthfully. When you start whining about personalities,don't be surprised that it generates comments about your own. David Wright Do > yourself a favor and quit reading her. It'll give you more free time > and help keep your blood pressure down. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >>> >>(snipped) >>>I thought you were going to prove something about Mark MD but then you >>>babble on with stuff about Peter and lots of cut and pasted stuff that you [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Just how would he know if they are gone, beings he claims to have me > killfiled? Poor Jan, she does not realize that David is reading her bilge because others, who he does not have killfiled, quote it. It is sad that Jan has not learned this in over 6 years of infesting usenet. > She is totally nuts and >>is quite incapable of responding rationally or truthfully. > > When you start whining about personalities,don't be surprised that it > generates comments about your own. David Wright Poor Jan. She does not realize that being called "totally nuts" is not whing about personalities, but is accurately describing her. snip >>>>I thought you were going to prove something about Mark MD but then you >>>>babble on with stuff about Peter and lots of cut and pasted stuff that you [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >others, who he does not have killfiled, quote it. It is sad that Jan has >not learned this in over 6 years of infesting usenet. Mark, your setting the default replies to go to email is annoying. Anyway, yes, it is sad that she doesn't realize that. Also, it's perfectly possible for me to read her postings if I choose to, but I have to request them explicitly -- by default, I won't see them. I did go checking this thread a bit, and wow! Now she's taking me to task, not for the suggestion I gave to Susan, but for failing to notice that Susan wasn't quoting the right person, or some silly thing like that. Like I care. Like I read what she had to say. Like I haven't had a bellyful of all the people who regularly scream "LIAR!" at each other. >>> She is totally nuts and >>>is quite incapable of responding rationally or truthfully. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Poor Jan. She does not realize that being called "totally nuts" is not >whing about personalities, but is accurately describing her. She's always been very fond of quoting me, using that particular item. I've never seen her make any sense doing it, since the context never has anything to do with commenting on personalities. But I'm sure she thinks she's being just devastating. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth >>>>>I thought you were going to prove something about Mark MD but then you >>>>>babble on with stuff about Peter and lots of cut and pasted stuff that you [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Mark, your setting the default replies to go to email is annoying. Same thing with alt.null. I sent several brilliant comments there. > Anyway, yes, it is sad that she doesn't realize that. Also, it's > perfectly possible for me to read her postings if I choose to, but I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > haven't had a bellyful of all the people who regularly scream "LIAR!" > at each other. >>>> She is totally nuts and >>>>is quite incapable of responding rationally or truthfully. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." > -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth >>I thought you were going to prove something about Mark MD but then you >>babble on with stuff about Peter and lots of cut and pasted stuff that you >>already posted. [snip diversion] UM MOM Susan [snip] DISHONEST David Wright OVERLOOKED the FACT that the example was NOT from Mark MD, rather it came from JohnDoe, he also OVERLOOKED the FACT that Mark MD did nothing but belittle, which makes his statment of posting here for health interests a LIE. He also OVERLOOKED the FACT that Susan LIED as I proved that Mark MD LIED and he indeed is here to harass. Susan also OVERLOOKED the FACT that Peter is a HARASSER and has REPEATED THE THE SAME LIE REPEATEDLY. In FACT David Wright has REPEATED this the LIE also. "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote in message news:r6j7o116ddmlcme1lpgpi6pk3edui6r3pk@4ax.com... > "JanD" <J...@insightbb.com> wrote: >>A Repost >>Mercury-amalgam dental fillings have never been subjected to the kind of >>regulatory scrutiny and approval process demanded of all modern drugs and >>medical devices to prove safety. > There is no such thing as "mercury-amalgam". ZZzz. You have been told this > before. ZZzz. Being the ARROGANT REPEATED HARASSER THAT YOU ARE, I shall post this AGAIN! Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative From: "LadyLollipop" <LadyLolli...@insightbb.com> - Find messages by this author Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:03:28 GMT Local: Fri, Jun 17 2005 7:03 pm Subject: Re: Vaccination: a numbers game Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote in message news:i385b1hfpdkv0i8dj6nghrttgkuqs3atg3@4ax.com... > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLolli...@insightbb.com> wrote: >>> In article <1118898251.905026.78...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > See, it's easy to use the words "mercury amalgam" and still speak the > truth. Hmmm, says Peter Bowditch who has NO chemistry education nr NO medical training. Peter Bowditch Nov 23 2004, 11:30 pm There are no such things as "mercury amalgams". Only a person ignorant of chemistry would use such a stupid term. Amalgams are alloys of mercury with some other metal, and the idea of something forming an alloy with itself is ridiculous. Please stop using this badge of ignorance. Peter Bowditch Nov 14 2004, 6:36 am There is no such thing as "mercury amalgam". The expression makes no sense Words have meanings, and the word "amalgam" means an alloy of a metal with mercury. Therefore a "mercury amalgam" is either an alloy containing 50% of mercury mixed with 50% of mercury, or it is an expression containing redundancy. In either case it demonstrates the ignorance of the person using the expression. Please do not use it again, lest people think that you are ignorant and resistant to correction if that ignorance, and please use it as a filter which will allow you to ignore "scientific" papers which use this meaningless expression. Peter Bowditch Feb 23, 8:58 am As there is no such thing as "mercury amalgams", the rest of this diatribe can be discarded for the bullshit it is. Peter Bowditch Jul 2 2003, 10:34 pm There are no such things as "mercury amalgams". People with minimal education in chemistry and metallurgy know this. The expression "mercury amalgam" has as much semantic content as "apple fruit" or "prejudiced ... Peter Bowditch Apr 27 2004, 9:22 am There is no such thing as mercury amalgam. If anything fitting this description was used to fill teeth it would spill out if you tilted your head. > <snip> The studies found that the amount of mercury excreted in the urine was proprotional to the number and size of fillings in the victim's mouth. Moreover many oral habits such as chewing gum, clenching or grinding greatly increased the amount of mercury released and absorbed. == 6. Amalgam Fillings Largest Source of Mercury by Far Based on a number of studies in Sweden, the World Health Organization review of inorganic mercury in 1991 determined that mercury absorption is estimated to be approximately four times higher from amalgam fillings than from fish consumption. Recent studies have confirmed this estimate and shown that the amount absorbed can vary considerably from person to person. 7. Gold Crowns, Gum, Bruxism, Computer Monitors Increase Release of Mercury Significantly Gum chewing, bruxism (grinding of teeth), computer terminal exposure, presence of gold fillings or gold crowns (even if covering mercury fillings), teeth brushing, braces and even chewing food cause the release of significantly increased amounts of mercury from the fillings in one's teeth. 8. Cumulative Poison Builds Up in Organs Mercury released from fillings builds up in the brain, kidneys, liver, pituitary, adrenals and other parts of the body. ======== According to the World Health Organization the general sources of mercury in the body are: Breathed Air (.040 micrograms), Fish (2.34 micrograms), Non-fish food (.25 micrograms), Drinking-water .0035 micrograms), mercury vapor from dental amalgams (3 to 17 micrograms). *****The mercury vapor from dental amalgam alone is a bigger source than all the other sources together.******* http://tuberose.com/Amalgam_Fillings.html http://www.heart-disease-bypass-surgery.com/data/articles/85.htm http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/galv.html http://www.web-light.nl/AMALGAM/EN/frame_r.html http://www.eatingalive.com/windham/windhamA.htm http://tuberose.com/Mercury.html http://www.cqs.com/amalgam.htm A few from Medline: http://tinyurl.com/alfxm http://tinyurl.com/auzuc http://tinyurl.com/7nqft http://tinyurl.com/dxdnj Perhaps Peter can investigate each fool who wrote these, find some dirt in their past, maybe they didn't dot an i or cross a t, Peter is an expert (or so he thinks is making fools) of all who think outside of *organized medicine* which has been defined repeatedly. Jan You have been told before, YOU are wrong and a LIAR as well. [snip diversion, harassing and blather] restore: A Repost Mercury-amalgam dental fillings have never been subjected to the kind of regulatory scrutiny and approval process demanded of all modern drugs and medical devices to prove safety. Until this day dentistry has used marketing, political influence, and control of regulatory boards at all levels to impose its self-serving economic view that mercury-amalgam is completely safe. The science that proves safety is still not forthcoming from the ADA, nor from dental schools, nor from mercury-amalgam manufacturers. Science has not been the driving force behind the ADA's public information on mercury release. When asked about the safety of mercury amalgam the response one always heard previously, and can still hear today in many dental offices is: "once set, the mercury becomes completely stable and locked up, it doesn't leak out". After it was unequivocally demonstrated that mercury vapor continuously escapes from mercury-amalgam fillings the ADA repositioned itself and now claims: "the small amount of mercury released from amalgam restorations, especially during placement and removal, has not been shown to cause any adverse health effects." Mercury escapes from amalgam and is taken up by the human as metallic vapor, metallic vapor and ionic mercury dissolved in saliva, and as unknown mercury species directly through the tooth pulp and root into the bloodstream.[3] Ionic mercury in saliva is converted to methylmercury.[4] Mercury travels from amalgam fillings into the jaw, gut, liver, kidneys, glands and brain, crosses the placenta to the fetus, and is found in mother's milk.[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] WARNING TO PARENTS: "SILVER" FILLINGS ARE REALLY 50% MERCURY! THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION SAYS THEY ARE SAFE! CONCERNED PARENTS SHOULD KNOW: MERCURY has been eliminated from all other uses in the human body, including vaccines, disinfectants, and other oral uses. All other health care associations support full disclosure, while the American Dental Association hides its use of MERCURY. The ADA receives money from MERCURY amalgam manufacturers through its Seal of Acceptance program, in contrast with the American Medical Association, which rejected taking fees for product endorsements. The ADA holds patents on amalgam (since expired), furthering its business interests by the continued use of MERCURY in dentistry. The ADA endorses pre-Civil War medicine, saying amalgam is justified because its use began in 1850! The ADA says MERCURY dental fillings are safe to use in children's teeth. In 1997, MERCURY amalgam filling manufacturer Dentsply stated that MERCURY amalgam fillings are "contraindicated" (meaning DO NOT USE) for children and pregnant women. The American Dental Association is still calling MERCURY amalgam fillings "silver" and denies MERCURY fillings can ever be dangerous! Federal and most state medical insurance programs only pay for MERCURY fillings because they are the least expensive, so poor people and poor children are especially at risk. U.S. Public Health Service: The largest component of amalgam is MERCURY. ADA: Amalgam is "silver" fillings. U.S. Public Health Service: For most people, the leading cause of MERCURY toxicity is amalgam fillings, not fish. ADA: You only get traces of MERCURY vapor in your body. U S Public Health Service: MERCURY is a dangerous neuro-toxin; the MERCURY in amalgam goes to the brain, and to a fetus through the placenta. ADA: MERCURY exposure is like having an "allergy" to dust or pollen! American Medical Association: Don't take $$$ for endorsements. ADA: Receives fees from MERCURY amalgam manufacturers while calling amalgam "safe". For further information on this issue and links to recent press coverage of the controversy with the ADA and the dangers of Mercury in dentistry, please read the August 22 Page 1 article in the Chicago Tribune: http://chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0108220248aug22.story?coll=c... news%2Dhed and visit: www.toxicteeth.net > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >>> >>(snipped) > Jan, when she first arrived on m.h.a, was kind of reasonable. > Those days are gone. She is totally nuts and is quite > incapable of responding rationally or truthfully. I'm curious what happened to cause this change. I suspect that it is the failure of alternative methods (or any other methods) to resolve her health complaints, however I can think of other possible causes. I wouldn't chalk it up to simple aging, although an age-related dementia would not seem to be out of the question. (There are several age-related dementias distinct from Alzheimer's.) So far, we have had 17 perfect example of *gang* behavior. NOT one of them addressed the example given. The first one was to protect Peter Bowditch *gang* member who has REPEATEDLY HARASSED with the same repeated posts. They the rest were LIES about Jan. >So far, we have had 17 perfect example of *gang* behavior. > >NOT one of them addressed the example given. > >The first one was to protect Peter Bowditch *gang* member who has REPEATEDLY >HARASSED with the same repeated posts. In what way have I "REPEATEDLY HARASSED with the same repeated posts"? >They the rest were LIES about Jan. 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 >>So far, we have had 17 perfect example of *gang* behavior. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > In what way have I "REPEATEDLY HARASSED with the same repeated posts"? Another question is, in what way do you need protection (and from what)? From what I've seen, you're very well capable of taking care of yourself. Rather belittling from Jan Drew isn't, making it look like you're a defensless nitwit who needs protection from his Big Bros in Da Gang. >>They the rest were LIES about Jan. [snip diversion] >>>So far, we have had 17 perfect example of *gang* behavior. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> In what way have I "REPEATEDLY HARASSED with the same repeated posts"? >>>They the rest were LIES about Jan. >>So far, we have had 17 perfect example of *gang* behavior. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > In what way have I "REPEATEDLY HARASSED with the same repeated posts"? What? >>They the rest were LIES about Jan. >>>So far, we have had 17 perfect example of *gang* behavior. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What? So, you confused Peter and yourself with your confusing post. Mark Thorson wrote: > David Wright wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to be out of the question. (There are several > age-related dementias distinct from Alzheimer's.) To which Jan "replied": > So far, we have had 17 perfect example of *gang* behavior. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > They the rest were LIES about Jan. Which provides strong support for the age-related dementia theory. > So far, we have had 17 perfect example of *gang* behavior. > > NOT one of them addressed the example given. > > The first one was to protect Peter Bowditch *gang* member who has REPEATEDLY > HARASSED with the same repeated posts. Jan, you do not wag usenet. > They the rest were LIES about Jan. What you call lies was the truth. >>JanD wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> >>It is now obvious to me that 'Da Zapper' does not cure rabies. Jan, do you *still* believe that snipping some stuff for clarity will make the original post go away? You see, I was referring to your foaming at the mouth, not the whole cut-n-past job. Everyone who wants to read that can simply read the original, and your repost, and your repost and and and....... >>>JanD wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Jan, do you *still* believe that snipping some stuff for clarity will make > the original post go away? Poor John. ROTFLOL. YOU, did the snip, NOT me. You see, I was referring to your foaming > at the mouth, not the whole cut-n-past job. Evidently, you don't what you were referring to, you don't even remember YOU snipped. Get some ginkgo, John, maybe it will help upu to remember ytour last name also. Or the fact that you are a big chicken. WHIMP. Everyone who wants to read > that can simply read the original, and your repost, and your repost and > and and....... My restore: And see the ARROGANT REPEATED HARASSING of Peter Bowditch And the FACT that he KEEPS REPEATEDLY HARASSING LIKE MOST OF THE *GANG* Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative From: "LadyLollipop" <LadyLolli...@insightbb.com> - Find messages by this author Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:03:28 GMT Local: Fri, Jun 17 2005 7:03 pm Subject: Re: Vaccination: a numbers game Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote in message news:i385b1hfpdkv0i8dj6nghrttgkuqs3atg3@4ax.com... > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLolli...@insightbb.com> wrote: >>> In article <1118898251.905026.78...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > know that the term is a tautology". See, it's easy to use the words > "mercury amalgam" and still speak the truth. Hmmm, says Peter Bowditch who has NO chemistry education nr NO medical training. Peter Bowditch Nov 23 2004, 11:30 pm There are no such things as "mercury amalgams". Only a person ignorant of chemistry would use such a stupid term. Amalgams are alloys of mercury with some other metal, and the idea of something forming an alloy with itself is ridiculous. Please stop using this badge of ignorance. Peter Bowditch Nov 14 2004, 6:36 am There is no such thing as "mercury amalgam". The expression makes no sense Words have meanings, and the word "amalgam" means an alloy of a metal with mercury. Therefore a "mercury amalgam" is either an alloy containing 50% of mercury mixed with 50% of mercury, or it is an expression containing redundancy. In either case it demonstrates the ignorance of the person using the expression. Please do not use it again, lest people think that you are ignorant and resistant to correction if that ignorance, and please use it as a filter which will allow you to ignore "scientific" papers which use this meaningless expression. Peter Bowditch Feb 23, 8:58 am As there is no such thing as "mercury amalgams", the rest of this diatribe can be discarded for the bullshit it is. Peter Bowditch Jul 2 2003, 10:34 pm There are no such things as "mercury amalgams". People with minimal education in chemistry and metallurgy know this. The expression "mercury amalgam" has as much semantic content as "apple fruit" or "prejudiced ... Peter Bowditch Apr 27 2004, 9:22 am There is no such thing as mercury amalgam. If anything fitting this description was used to fill teeth it would spill out if you tilted your head. > <snip> -- > Peter Bowditch The studies found that the amount of mercury excreted in the urine was proprotional to the number and size of fillings in the victim's mouth. Moreover many oral habits such as chewing gum, clenching or grinding greatly increased the amount of mercury released and absorbed. == 6. Amalgam Fillings Largest Source of Mercury by Far Based on a number of studies in Sweden, the World Health Organization review of inorganic mercury in 1991 determined that mercury absorption is estimated to be approximately four times higher from amalgam fillings than from fish consumption. Recent studies have confirmed this estimate and shown that the amount absorbed can vary considerably from person to person. 7. Gold Crowns, Gum, Bruxism, Computer Monitors Increase Release of Mercury Significantly Gum chewing, bruxism (grinding of teeth), computer terminal exposure, presence of gold fillings or gold crowns (even if covering mercury fillings), teeth brushing, braces and even chewing food cause the release of significantly increased amounts of mercury from the fillings in one's teeth. 8. Cumulative Poison Builds Up in Organs Mercury released from fillings builds up in the brain, kidneys, liver, pituitary, adrenals and other parts of the body. ======== According to the World Health Organization the general sources of mercury in the body are: Breathed Air (.040 micrograms), Fish (2.34 micrograms), Non-fish food (.25 micrograms), Drinking-water .0035 micrograms), mercury vapor from dental amalgams (3 to 17 micrograms). *****The mercury vapor from dental amalgam alone is a bigger source than all the other sources together.******* http://tuberose.com/Amalgam_Fillings.html http://www.heart-disease-bypass-surgery.com/data/articles/85.htm http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/galv.html http://www.web-light.nl/AMALGAM/EN/frame_r.html http://www.eatingalive.com/windham/windhamA.htm http://tuberose.com/Mercury.html http://www.cqs.com/amalgam.htm A few from Medline: http://tinyurl.com/alfxm http://tinyurl.com/auzuc http://tinyurl.com/7nqft http://tinyurl.com/dxdnj Perhaps Peter can investigate each fool who wrote these, find some dirt in their past, maybe they didn't dot an i or cross a t, Peter is an expert (or so he thinks is making fools) of all who think outside of *organized medicine* which has been defined repeatedly. Jan You have been told before, YOU are wrong and a LIAR as well. [snip diversion, harassing and blather] restore: A Repost Mercury-amalgam dental fillings have never been subjected to the kind of regulatory scrutiny and approval process demanded of all modern drugs and medical devices to prove safety. Until this day dentistry has used marketing, political influence, and control of regulatory boards at all levels to impose its self-serving economic view that mercury-amalgam is completely safe. The science that proves safety is still not forthcoming from the ADA, nor from dental schools, nor from mercury-amalgam manufacturers. Science has not been the driving force behind the ADA's public information on mercury release. When asked about the safety of mercury amalgam the response one always heard previously, and can still hear today in many dental offices is: "once set, the mercury becomes completely stable and locked up, it doesn't leak out". After it was unequivocally demonstrated that mercury vapor continuously escapes from mercury-amalgam fillings the ADA repositioned itself and now claims: "the small amount of mercury released from amalgam restorations, especially during placement and removal, has not been shown to cause any adverse health effects." Mercury escapes from amalgam and is taken up by the human as metallic vapor, metallic vapor and ionic mercury dissolved in saliva, and as unknown mercury species directly through the tooth pulp and root into the bloodstream.[3] Ionic mercury in saliva is converted to methylmercury.[4] Mercury travels from amalgam fillings into the jaw, gut, liver, kidneys, glands and brain, crosses the placenta to the fetus, and is found in mother's milk.[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] WARNING TO PARENTS: "SILVER" FILLINGS ARE REALLY 50% MERCURY! THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION SAYS THEY ARE SAFE! CONCERNED PARENTS SHOULD KNOW: MERCURY has been eliminated from all other uses in the human body, including vaccines, disinfectants, and other oral uses. All other health care associations support full disclosure, while the American Dental Association hides its use of MERCURY. The ADA receives money from MERCURY amalgam manufacturers through its Seal of Acceptance program, in contrast with the American Medical Association, which rejected taking fees for product endorsements. The ADA holds patents on amalgam (since expired), furthering its business interests by the continued use of MERCURY in dentistry. The ADA endorses pre-Civil War medicine, saying amalgam is justified because its use began in 1850! The ADA says MERCURY dental fillings are safe to use in children's teeth. In 1997, MERCURY amalgam filling manufacturer Dentsply stated that MERCURY amalgam fillings are "contraindicated" (meaning DO NOT USE) for children and pregnant women. The American Dental Association is still calling MERCURY amalgam fillings "silver" and denies MERCURY fillings can ever be dangerous! Federal and most state medical insurance programs only pay for MERCURY fillings because they are the least expensive, so poor people and poor children are especially at risk. U.S. Public Health Service: The largest component of amalgam is MERCURY. ADA: Amalgam is "silver" fillings. U.S. Public Health Service: For most people, the leading cause of MERCURY toxicity is amalgam fillings, not fish. ADA: You only get traces of MERCURY vapor in your body. U S Public Health Service: MERCURY is a dangerous neuro-toxin; the MERCURY in amalgam goes to the brain, and to a fetus through the placenta. ADA: MERCURY exposure is like having an "allergy" to dust or pollen! American Medical Association: Don't take $$$ for endorsements. ADA: Receives fees from MERCURY amalgam manufacturers while calling amalgam "safe". For further information on this issue and links to recent press coverage of the controversy with the ADA and the dangers of Mercury in dentistry, please read the August 22 Page 1 article in the Chicago Tribune: http://chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0108220248aug22.story?coll=c... news%2Dhed and visit: www.toxicteeth.net |
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
|
©2008 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.