>Subject: Re: The Question That Jan Drew Cannot Answer
>From: W_B no_one@nowhere.net
>Date: 11/14/2004 11:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ctifp0l9nqrk5k5p8191dptin2fufochnr@4ax.com>
>
>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:39:48 -0500, Joel M. Eichen
><joeleichen@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:33:59 GMT, Rich.@. wrote

> On Tue, 7 May 2002 10:11:19 +1000, "P Moran" <pjmoran@gil.com.au>
> wrote:
>  
>>Who are you trying to convince, Jan?  Yourself, to justify your own
>>excursion into amalgam removal,   apparently without any spectacular
>>success?
>
> Bingo!!! That is likely, IMO,  exactly the motivation behind Jan
> obsessively posting about the dangers of mercury amalgams. Despite the
> fact that I have quite convincingly (except to Jan and Bubba)
> demonstrated, based upon Jan's history, that her health improvement is
> VERY VERY likely to be predominantly due to psychologic factors and
> that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that her health problems were due to
> mercury toxicity,  Jan delusionally continues not only to believe that
> she had mercury poisoning but also believes (paranoically) that there
> is a vast conspiracy by the ADA to cover it all up.

> I thought it would be useful for me to summarize my opinion with
> respect to the likelihood of Jan Drew having psychologic factors
> influencing physical illness (peripheral neuropathy) as opposed to
> either Amalgam Related Illness or Mercury Poisoning and answer some
> pertinent questions raised about my opinion.
>
> I believe that the most compelling evidence that it is psychologic
> factors vs ARI or MP is the following statement by Jan Drew when she
> was asked how she could explain feeling better than she had in two
> years within days after having the amalgams removed when it is
> extremely unlikely that her mercury levels would have been lower and
> actually may have been even higher due to the procedure to remove
> them.
>
> Here is the statement in its entirety followed by an analysis of it.
>
>>Jan Drew says:
>
>>Rich for the LAST time, I said I felt better than I had in two years.
>>That was very true. I had been very very ill and my health was
>>deteriorating fast. After much reading and research I was convinced it
>>was my teeth. I wasn't absolutely positivity 100% sure, but it all fit
>>together and I knew I had to do something. It wasn't easy, what if it
>>didn't work? That was very stressful.
>>
>>Finally all the work was done, the metal was out, the bill was paid, I
>>didn't have to sit in the dentist chairs for hours with a rubber dam in
>>my mouth!!!!!!!!!! Of course I was very relieved. A big big burden was
>>lifted. That makes one FEEL BETTER.
>>
>>What's so hard to understand?
>>
>>I also reported I had only begun, now on to chelating the mercury from
>>my body. With mercury poisoning, it comes and goes, I had some pretty
>>bad spells. I'm still chelating Rich and will be for some time. I slowly
>>am regaining my health and my PN is much better. I don't have the
>>painful periods that I once had, and yes it was after I started taking
>>medication.
>>
>>You added a few words to what I said  which *implied* that I was
>>physicially free from pain..........as in BANG I'm home free. That is
>>NOT what I meant.............and you know it.
>>
>>Now do you better understand?  I hope so because I feel no need to
>>explain it AGAIN. Please respect that I didn't have to explain AGAIN
>>this time.
>>
>>Jan

> First let me say that I think that it important not to take everything
> that Jan says at face value.

> This is because she clearly has a
> vendetta against conventional medicine as reflected by her frequent
> kneejerk responses to most anyone who may endorse something that is
> also endorsed by conventional medicine invoking some kind of
> conspiracy using terms like "organized medicine". Jan will likely deny
> this but as I have said before, the proof is in the pudding.

> It is also important not to take what she says at face value due to
> the numerous inconsistencies that she has made over the years.
>
> The above statement made by Jan Drew is important because it is likely
> a truthful one. I say this because Jan clearly has a very negative
> reaction whenever anyone suggests that she may be having a placebo
> response. She is extremely sensitive to even the suggestion that she
> may have had a placebo response so that an acknowledgement on her part
> (as she did above) that psychologic factors were responsible for her
> feeling better, at least initially is both amazing and likely true.

> So let us look at her statement more closely.
>
> In response to my question about how she could feel better than she
> had for two years so quickly after having the amalgams removed, Jan
> first admitted that she indeed did feel better than she had in two
> years.
>
> She then admits that after being told by Hulda Clark to check the
> teeth that she did some research which resulted in her being quite
> convinced (not 100%) that her problem was with the amalgams in her
> teeth. This is very important information because it reflects Jan's
> state of mind. Based upon her research she concluded that the mercury
> from her amalgams had been leeching into her system and causing her
> major health problems. She even believed that she was going to die as
> a result of this.

> It is perfectly understandable why Jan would feel a great sense of
> relief following the removal of the amalgams given her state of mind.
> And as a result of this relief Jan felt better than she had in two
> years.
>
> This alone, to me, is very convincing evidence that Jan's initial
> improvement was very likely psychological. Jan could not have given a
> much more convincing statement to make my point.

> A question was raised as to whether Jan's symptoms preceded her
> worrying about the amalgams. Certainly some of them did. After all she
> has peripheral neuropathy, a very painful and uncomfortable disease.

> Fortunately for Jan the one treatment that even she admits is
> responsible for reducing much of her pain are the meds (Elavil and
> Neurontin) manufactured by those evil pharmaceutical companies that
> are part of organized medicine.

>  However following Hulda telling Jan about the dangers of amalgams Jan
> began to believe that she was dying.  Her health really deteriorated
> after Hulda told Jan about the dangers of amalgams and after Jan did
> her research.

> There also has been a question about the characterization of her
> improvement as being psychosomatic or psych factors influencing a
> physical condition. Let me explain the difference between these two
> conditions and how it is not very relevant to the question of whether
> Jan's improvement was psychologic or due to the amalgams.
>
> Psychologic factors influencing physical illness is where psychologic
> factors are important in a preexisting physical condition.

> This would
> be a more appropriate characterization for Jan's situation with
> respect to amalgams.

> Psychosomatic disorder refers to a physical condition which arises to
> significant degree by psychologic factors such as anxiety, paranoia,
> etc.

> I have expressed my opinion that Jan's problems are psychosomatic as
> well as due to psychologic factors influencing a physical condition.

> They are not mutually exclusive. I believe there is good evidence that
> she has BOTH.

> In the case of the PN it is latter. Her belief that she
> was infested with multiple parasites was, for example, likely the
> latter. This is my opinion. I am not 100% sure of it.

> Jan Drew's animosity toward conventional medicine is a matter of
> record that she will likely deny. I can only suggest that people read
> her posts to see what I mean. The proof is in the pudding as it were.

> Jan has reported improvement with so many different unproven
> alternative methods over the years that makes it quite likely that her
> improvements are due to psychologic factors. The other explanation is
> that all these alt treatments were effective for her serious ailments.
> I will allow others to come to their own determination.

> While I
> personally don't think that all alt treatments are complete quackery,
> I am doubtful that so many of them (as reported by Jan) can be helpful
> other than for psychologic reasons. This is just my opinion. I am not
> 100% certain of it.

> Another points raised was the Jan's comments should be taken at face
> value or else we will be shooting at a moving target. With all due
> respect, anyone who thinks that it is reasonable to take her comments
> at face value is deluding himself. And with respect to shooting at a
> moving target, perhaps you have not been reading Jan's many comments
> over the years because her numerous contradictions define a moving
> target. Anyone who is familiar with Jan's history knows exactly what I
> am talking about. For example when I posted the exact statement that
> Jan made regarding feeling better than she had in two years , she said
> that I lied. But I did not. I quote exactly. Once I left out "two
> years" and just said "years" because I did not recall how many and Jan
> accused me of lying then too. Jan has an interesting way of defining
> "lying" as most of you are quite aware by her numerous accusations
> while ridiculing OTHERS for calling people liars.

> Another point raised was my certainty of her having a particular
> psychiatric diagnosis.

> While I often weigh in with my opinion I ALSO
> specifically advise people to seek out qualified professional help to
> reach diagnoses and that no one should accept anyone's opinion
> (including mine) in this newsgroup. This is a discussion newsgroup for
> expressing opinions. I advise NO ONE to accept my  diagnoses as
> definitive and have frequently stated this.
>
> And with respect to the question of how one can rule out amalgam
> related illness or mercury related illness in this case we cannot.

> Of
> course I cannot also rule out interplanetary alien influence either.
> It has been suggested that my comment about interplanetary alien
> influence is a stupid skeptic trick. My response is two fold. One:
> Please provide specific evidence that ARI or MP is more likely than
> IAI. How would you go about ruling out IAI?? Please be specific since
> you claimed that my analogy was a stupid skeptic trick.

> Btw, I know of several individuals who thought that they had
> electronic devices planted in their amalgams by interplanetary aliens
> and following the removal all the symptoms that they experienced
> disappeared with removal of the amalgams. Note that this is PURELY
> anecdotal, and I don't personally believe the conclusions arrived at
> by these individuals is true. I only bring it up to illustrate a
> point. That point is that one cannot rule out with 100% certainty
> anything.

> Another point is that I asked for a scenario that would indicate that
> Jan's problem was likely psychologic and was told that if she had
> white amalgams replacing the silver ones that would be the case. It
> was later pointed out that white amalgams don't exist. I was given a
> completely specious criterium for the belief that the cause was likely
> psychologic. Of course without knowing a person's baseline for
> believing in a psychologic etiology or exacerbation from psych
> problems it is very difficult to have a meaningful discussion.

> I hope that I have been clear in my opinion and reasons for my
> opinion. I elected to make all these comments in a single post rather
> than to answer specific questions in another post so my reasoning and
> rationale for my opinions would be clear. I hope that I have answered
> all questions that are *relevant* to the issue at hand. I prefer not
> to get side tracked with tangential issues.

> I would be happy to answer any substantive questions related to this
> discussion but will likely decline to answer any tangential or
> irrelevant questions that are designed to deflect from the issue at
> hand realizing that that may trigger someone to impulsively kill file
> me again.
>
> I also hope that this discussion can be continued without the hurling
> of insults. I am trying my best to raise the level of discussion here,
> recognizing that I am not always successful in achieving that goal.

> Another point is that this is an open discussion group and NOT for one
> on one discussion. It is not appropriate in my opinion to discourage
> others from participating in the discussion. If people want to have a
> one on one discussion it would be better handled through e-mail.

> Rich