I think that I figured it out.....



H

Hotmoon

Guest
In the world today, we have had a upsurge of fundamentalism: Muslim fundamentalism, Hindu
nationalism, Aum ...whatever that freak in Japan, Tamil Tigers, shooting abortion doctors, etc. In
American society, what is the dominent religion. It is not Christianity. Christianity does not
define the nature of our dialog. It is science. And the debunker wierdos are the fundamentalists of
science and the scientific culture and society. Like all fundamentalists, for them, the ends justify
the means. They will use ANY means to achieve their goals. They don't give a fig about anything
else. They don't care how big of a lie they tell. They don't care who they hurt. Their standard of
morality, like all fundamentalists, is the achievement of their goals, not anything else. And like
all fundamentalists, they care more about the culture, society, and symbols of science than they do
about the spirit of inquiry and the spirit of science. (Muslims fundamentalists are the same; the
spirit of Islam is not of great interest to them; if you have your troops in their holy land or if
you support an alleged enemy of Islam, then you are a target.)

So, shall we call them debunker fundamentalists, or what? In this forum, I think that it is best to
simply ignore them. Perhaps labeling them with a post as debunker fundamentalist would be good. Then
people who care about truth and learning can ignore them.
 
"hotmoon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In the world today, we have had a upsurge of fundamentalism: Muslim fundamentalism, Hindu
> nationalism, Aum ...whatever that freak in Japan, Tamil Tigers, shooting abortion doctors, etc. In
> American society, what is the dominent religion. It is not Christianity. Christianity does not
> define the nature of our dialog. It is science. And the debunker wierdos are the fundamentalists
> of science and the scientific culture and society. Like all fundamentalists, for them, the ends
> justify the means. They will use ANY means to achieve their goals. They don't give a fig about
> anything else. They don't care how big of a lie they tell. They don't care who they hurt. Their
> standard of morality, like all fundamentalists, is the achievement of their goals, not anything
> else. And like all fundamentalists, they care more about the culture, society, and symbols of
> science than they do about the spirit of inquiry and the spirit of science. (Muslims
> fundamentalists are the same; the spirit of Islam is not of great interest to them; if you have
> your troops in their holy land or if you support an alleged enemy of Islam, then you are a
> target.)
>
> So, shall we call them debunker fundamentalists, or what? In this forum, I think that it is best
> to simply ignore them. Perhaps labeling them with a post as debunker fundamentalist would be good.
> Then people who care about truth and learning can ignore them.

You figured that out with your own little brain? Try to figure out that this is a public forum that
is open to discussion. Accept that if you post pseudoscientific nonsense, anti-science propaganda,
or attacks on conventional healthcare, you will be challenged by people who know better. If you find
that hurtful, that's too bad.

--Rich -->Science is not a religion. It is a system of knowing, and has contributed more to human
knowledge than any other organized philosophy.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
hotmoon <[email protected]> wrote:
>In the world today, we have had a upsurge of fundamentalism: Muslim fundamentalism, Hindu
>nationalism, Aum ...whatever that freak in Japan, Tamil Tigers, shooting abortion doctors, etc. In
>American society, what is the dominent religion. It is not Christianity. Christianity does not
>define the nature of our dialog. It is science.

How silly, and how diametrically wrong. The whole point of science is to say that we don't
have final answers, and even the things we think we know are subject to revision in the face
of new evidence.

Religion, which requires you to take things on faith, and even lauds you for doing it, is the
antithesis.

Now, if you want something that seems an awful lot like religion, how about homeopathy? They work
from their sacred books (the original 19th century works of good ol' Sam), and they don't even try
to disprove anything in them. There's no Nobel Prize for homeopathy where you could get an award for
proving that the provings :)-) were bogus.

> And the debunker wierdos are the fundamentalists of science and the scientific culture and
> society.

Wow, who spit in your cornflakes this morning?

> Like all fundamentalists, for them, the ends justify the means. They will use ANY means to
> achieve their goals.

Now, that's just stupid. Are the debunkers going to come to your house and murder you in your bed?
Plant drugs in your luggage before you go to the airport? I think not.

>They don't give a fig about anything else. They don't care how big of a lie they tell. They don't
>care who they hurt.

Sounds like more of a description of alt med to me. You know, the quacks who claim to have the cure
for all diseases, even though they don't, and take the money from sick people and let them die?

<remaining hyperbolic drivel deleted>

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
>In the world today, we have had a upsurge of fundamentalism: Muslim fundamentalism, Hindu
>nationalism, Aum ...whatever that freak in Japan, Tamil Tigers, shooting abortion doctors, etc. In
>American society, what is the dominent religion. It is not Christianity. Christianity does not
>define the nature of our dialog. It is science. And the debunker wierdos are the fundamentalists of
>science and the scientific culture and society. Like all fundamentalists, for them, the ends
>justify the means.

Those Bastards! They are willing to require objective, reproducible results instead of pandering to
bona-fide fundamentalist belief systems.

Roger, if you had any shame at all, you'd log-off.
 
"hotmoon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> In the world today, we have had a upsurge of fundamentalism: Muslim fundamentalism, Hindu
> nationalism, Aum ...whatever that freak in Japan, Tamil Tigers, shooting abortion doctors, etc. In
> American society, what is the dominent religion. It is not Christianity. Christianity does not
> define the nature of our dialog.

You better watch out. Pat Robert$on is on your doorstep.

> It is science.

You are confused. Religion is based on faith, and science is based on facts. It is Altmed which is
based on faith, thus, making it akin to a religion.

> And the debunker wierdos are the fundamentalists of science and the scientific culture and
> society.

That is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a debunker weirdo. Debunkers, by definition, are in
the real world, as they remove bunk, which is other worldly.

> Like all fundamentalists, for them, the ends justify the means.

You mean like Hulda Cluck hiring Timmy Bolen as her mouthpiece?

> They will use ANY means to achieve their goals.

The Alties do that: made up testimonials. not verifiable sources, lies, phony research, etc. Scare
mongering,. Denial of real diseases.

> They don't give a fig about anything else. They don't care how big of a lie they tell. They don't
> care who they hurt.

Excellent description of the Alties.

> Their standard of morality, like all fundamentalists, is the achievement of their goals, not
> anything else.

The goal being better health for people. To paraphrase BaAu(H2O), Fundamentalism in the name of good
health is not a bad thing.

> And like all fundamentalists, they care more about the culture, society, and symbols of science
> than they do about the spirit of inquiry and the spirit of science.

That is an oxymoron.

(Muslims
> fundamentalists are the same; the spirit of Islam is not of great interest to them; if you have
> your troops in their holy land or if you support an alleged enemy of Islam, then you are a
> target.)

Another subject you have to go back toschool to learn about.

> So, shall we call them debunker fundamentalists, or what? In this forum, I think that it is best
> to simply ignore them.

You can do what you wish. Have fun doing it. However, do not expect your actions to affect the
actions of others. You will be de-bunked, and resistance is futile.

Perhaps
> labeling them with a post as debunker fundamentalist would be good. Then people who care about
> truth and learning can ignore them.

Actually, that would direct people who care about the truth and facts directly to them.
 
[email protected] (hotmoon) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In the world today, we have had a upsurge of fundamentalism: Muslim fundamentalism, Hindu
> nationalism, Aum ...whatever that freak in Japan, Tamil Tigers, shooting abortion doctors, etc. In
> American society, what is the dominent religion. It is not Christianity. Christianity does not
> define the nature of our dialog. It is science. And the debunker wierdos are the fundamentalists
> of science and the scientific culture and society. Like all fundamentalists, for them, the ends
> justify the means. They will use ANY means to achieve their goals. They don't give a fig about
> anything else. They don't care how big of a lie they tell. They don't care who they hurt. Their
> standard of morality, like all fundamentalists, is the achievement of their goals, not anything
> else. And like all fundamentalists, they care more about the culture, society, and symbols of
> science than they do about the spirit of inquiry and the spirit of science. (Muslims
> fundamentalists are the same; the spirit of Islam is not of great interest to them; if you have
> your troops in their holy land or if you support an alleged enemy of Islam, then you are a
> target.)
>
> So, shall we call them debunker fundamentalists, or what? In this forum, I think that it is best
> to simply ignore them. Perhaps labeling them with a post as debunker fundamentalist would be good.
> Then people who care about truth and learning can ignore them.

Yeah, just the other day there was that story on CNN about a bunch of research biochemists and geeks
with pocket protectors who took over a building and blew themselves up in the name of "Science"...

...dope.

Mark, MD
 
hotmoon wrote: <snip>

> So, shall we call them debunker fundamentalists, or what? In this forum, I think that it is best
> to simply ignore them. Perhaps labeling them with a post as debunker fundamentalist would be good.
> Then people who care about truth and learning can ignore them.

So "people who care about truth and learning" would in effect *only* "listen" if that "truth and
learning" came from the mouths of alties???????? Sounds like the stifling of free speech to
me..........something a fundamentalist might attempt to enforce.
 
Nice description, Roger. Look how well it was proved. Your observations may be right on, but the
fundamentalists you describe don't need to put effort into understanding what you wrote since this
is a public forum where the self-righteous hide behind keyboards.

It's our false assumption that misc.health.alternative can be used for constructive conversation
among people with a variety of understandings, intellectual levels and interests. A group can agree
on rules in person that prevent what goes on in here. However, each person is left to his own
restraints and wisdom whether it be mature or not when he types onto the internet.

I believe some of these people are aware that adding to a thread of antagonistic comments is not
only off-topic, but it is also a part of the addiction they have been unable to stop.

The long, pugnacious arguments seen in your other post are primary converstations in this group.
Much of the effort spent in here is positioning. That doesn't leave a comfortable environment for
learning anything new without all i's dotted and t's crossed which translates to major scientific
studies before basic conversations can begin. Those studies won't happen. They know it, which gives
them a reference point to appear important.

What the fundamentalists don't have presented to them is what they say they want to learn. However,
their actions are the reason so little substantive alternative health talk appears in here and why
the fundamentalists are here at all.

They feed on feelings from a simple-minded kill generated from a cleverly placed spiteful remark.

That in itself won't save the world from any poorly studied alternative, but it won't discourage
anyone from investigating it either. Maybe that's the best place to leave those people. Out in the
open, on the internet, where we can easily identity them.

Take it easy, Mike
 
I beg to differ science is a 'religion' in the sense that it's based on assumptions. It's the best
we have though. There's also bad science and good science. Good science is the one that will prevail
in the end.. Anth

"Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "hotmoon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In the world today, we have had a upsurge of fundamentalism: Muslim fundamentalism, Hindu
> > nationalism, Aum ...whatever that freak in Japan, Tamil Tigers, shooting abortion doctors, etc.
> > In American society, what is the dominent religion. It is not Christianity. Christianity does
> > not define the nature of our dialog. It is science. And the debunker wierdos are the
> > fundamentalists of science and the scientific culture and society. Like all fundamentalists, for
> > them, the ends justify the means. They will use ANY means to achieve their goals. They don't
> > give a fig about anything else. They don't care how big of a lie they tell. They don't care who
> > they hurt. Their standard of morality, like all fundamentalists, is the achievement of their
> > goals, not anything else. And like all fundamentalists, they care more about the culture,
> > society, and symbols of science than they do about the spirit of inquiry and the spirit of
> > science. (Muslims fundamentalists are the same; the spirit of Islam is not of great interest to
> > them; if you have your troops in their holy land or if you support an alleged enemy of Islam,
> > then you are a target.)
> >
> > So, shall we call them debunker fundamentalists, or what? In this forum, I think that it is best
> > to simply ignore them. Perhaps labeling them with a post as debunker fundamentalist would be
> > good. Then people who care about truth and learning can ignore them.
>
> You figured that out with your own little brain? Try to figure out that
this
> is a public forum that is open to discussion. Accept that if you post pseudoscientific nonsense,
> anti-science propaganda, or attacks on conventional healthcare, you will be challenged by people
> who know better. If you find that hurtful, that's too bad.
>
> --Rich -->Science is not a religion. It is a system of knowing, and has contributed more to human
> knowledge than any other organized philosophy.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Nice description, Roger. Look how well it was proved.

Oh, you mean "not at all?" All Roger did was rant. Now you're congratulating him on his rant.

>It's our false assumption that misc.health.alternative can be used for constructive conversation
>among people with a variety of understandings, intellectual levels and interests. A group can agree
>on rules in person that prevent what goes on in here. However, each person is left to his own
>restraints and wisdom whether it be mature or not when he types onto the internet.

But that's true of any unmoderated forum. There's no reason to single out m.h.a. I'd have to concede
that sci.med has better discussion (as opposed to mostly-flamage) threads, though.

>I believe some of these people are aware that adding to a thread of antagonistic comments is not
>only off-topic, but it is also a part of the addiction they have been unable to stop.

Who are "these people?" The injection of obnoxious or antagonistic comments is not restricted to
either the pro or anti camps. Unfortunately.

>The long, pugnacious arguments seen in your other post are primary converstations in this group.
>Much of the effort spent in here is positioning. That doesn't leave a comfortable environment for
>learning anything new without all i's dotted and t's crossed which translates to major scientific
>studies before basic conversations can begin. Those studies won't happen. They know it, which gives
>them a reference point to appear important.

Actually, the studies *could* happen and occasionally they do. But it's unlikely that anyone in this
n.g. is going to be doing them.

>What the fundamentalists don't have presented to them is what they say they want to learn. However,
>their actions are the reason so little substantive alternative health talk appears in here and why
>the fundamentalists are here at all.
>
>They feed on feelings from a simple-minded kill generated from a cleverly placed spiteful remark.
>
>That in itself won't save the world from any poorly studied alternative, but it won't discourage
>anyone from investigating it either. Maybe that's the best place to leave those people. Out in the
>open, on the internet, where we can easily identity them.

Say what? Are you seriously contending that remarks on m.h.a are some sort of contributing factor to
the dearth of good alt med studies??

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
> Nice description, Roger. Look how well it was proved. Your observations may be right on, but the
> fundamentalists you describe don't need to put effort into understanding what you wrote since this
> is a public forum where the self-righteous hide behind keyboards.

They explained, in detail, the error in Rogers claim. I note that you are not responding with any
on-topic information. Do you agree with Roger's claims about science WRT religious beliefs? Can you
discuss the topic rationally. If you really want to help Roger, give it a go. Because he can't.
Watch for any rebuttal from him. Bring lots to read while you're waiting. Lots.

le moo
 
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 19:30:35 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I beg to differ science is a 'religion' in the sense that it's based on assumptions.

What assumption(s) is science based on?? Be specific.

I suspect that your answer will demonstrate your *own* erroneous assumptions but I will wait until
you respond before expressing certainty.

Aloha,

Rich
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance.
 
>Who are "these people?" The injection of obnoxious or antagonistic comments is not restricted to
>either the pro or anti camps. Unfortunately.

I don't know if you are one of 'these people' David, but I suspect you are, because in my post you
commented on each thought except this --
>What the fundamentalists don't have presented to them is what they say they want to learn. However,
>their actions are the reason so little substantive alternative health talk appears in here and why
>the fundamentalists are here at all.
>
>They feed on feelings from a simple-minded kill generated from a cleverly placed spiteful remark.

That's harsh reality for the arrogant who believe targeted one-liners are intelligent, clever
reasoning. That type of person will find it difficult comprehending that addiction.

What you really want to learn in here is a mystery, but it isn't a fresh view on alternative health
methods. Your need to pounce on what you don't understand or what appears unusual to you supersedes
useful conversation of discovery. That's ego.

How much lack of maturity is considered appropriate before people like you learn that pointing a
finger at others as a defense for your own immature actions is childish.

I've seen a handful of your posts. You appear to teach people that sarcasm and pompous rhetoric are
the way to explain yourself when you disagree with someone.

Some of the comments you've made in here would possibly get your ass on the floor if you made them
to others in person. That's not a tribute to your ability to manage constructive conversation.

I find it awesome that those like you don't have the decency to respect another person's beliefs and
information, whether that person is informed properly by your standards or not. And when you bump up
against someone with your same level of emotional immaturity, neither of you have learned self-
control or how to shut up.

You and the people like you spend much, much time in this room spitting egocentric one-liners at
each other. You don't delve into even the simplest alternative thought that comes in, because you're
now in a routine. When someone like Roger makes an observation, you look for holes to justify a
position and ignore the valuable point he presented.

You use this room to massage your ego, David, while losing out on valuable information that won't
present itself, because you refuse to intelligently pick and choose what's worth taking a monumental
stance for or against.

It's certainly not a healthy way to live life whether that's alternative health or not.

Mike
 
Not on topic? You misunderstood what he wrote, but you underscored it.
 
Baised assumptions and things getting brushed under the carpet. Anth

"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 19:30:35 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I beg to differ science is a 'religion' in the sense that it's based on assumptions.
>
>
> What assumption(s) is science based on?? Be specific.
>
> I suspect that your answer will demonstrate your *own* erroneous assumptions but I will wait until
> you respond before expressing certainty.
>
> Aloha,
>
>
> Rich
> ------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> The best defense to logic is ignorance.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> ....while losing out on valuable information that won't present itself, because you refuse to
> intelligently pick and choose what's worth taking a monumental stance for or against.

So, what is all this "valuable information"? That ginseng "strengthens the immune system"? That my
dental fillings are poisoning me with mercury? That drinking milk causes "excess mucus"? That
everybody who Jan doesn't like is a "LIAR"? To "intelligently pick and choose" what's valuable here
is like looking for a dime in a cattle yard. We're not looking for the dime; we're just doing what
we can to clear away the ********.

--Rich
 
In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Who are "these people?" The injection of obnoxious or antagonistic comments is not restricted to
>>either the pro or anti camps. Unfortunately.
>
>I don't know if you are one of 'these people' David, but I suspect you are, because in my post you
>commented on each thought except this --

>>What the fundamentalists don't have presented to them is what they say they want to learn.
>>However, their actions are the reason so little substantive alternative health talk appears in
>>here and why the fundamentalists are here at all.
>>
>>They feed on feelings from a simple-minded kill generated from a cleverly placed spiteful remark.

That sounds pretty spiteful its ownself, I'd say. I didn't comment on it because it's no better than
the things you're complaining about.

Meanwhile, the pro-alt side of the table is quite capable of seizing on some trivial point and
making much of it, too. It's not a disease of one camp or another.

>What you really want to learn in here is a mystery, but it isn't a fresh view on alternative health
>methods. Your need to pounce on what you don't understand or what appears unusual to you supersedes
>useful conversation of discovery. That's ego.

Who the hell *are* you, anyway, and how much of the traffic that goes by have you actually read? You
can do your little parlor analysis, as in the foregoing paragraph, but I don't have to agree with
it. And I don't.

>How much lack of maturity is considered appropriate before people like you learn that pointing a
>finger at others as a defense for your own immature actions is childish.

I just had to laugh when I read that. Most times, people who whine about others being childish can
also benefit from a look in the mirror.

>I've seen a handful of your posts. You appear to teach people that sarcasm and pompous rhetoric are
>the way to explain yourself when you disagree with someone.

All that from a handful of my posts? You also seem to be assuming that the persons to whom I am
responding are some little innocents. Guess again. Most of them are long-time contributors here. I
like to think that I'm pretty patient with newcomers, as long as they don't walk in with some
gigantic chip on their shoulders.

You know, like that chip on your shoulder.

>Some of the comments you've made in here would possibly get your ass on the floor if you made them
>to others in person.

It's doubtful that I'd be the one winding up on the floor, but thank you for your concern.

>That's not a tribute to your ability to manage constructive conversation.

And this is exclusively my fault for what reason?

>I find it awesome that those like you don't have the decency to respect another person's beliefs
>and information, whether that person is informed properly by your standards or not.

Why should I respect someone's beliefs or information if it's nonsense, or false, or even dangerous?

>And when you bump up against someone with your same level of emotional immaturity, neither of you
>have learned self-control or how to shut up.

I love the way you can make these sweeping generalizations after having read a "handful" of
my postings.

>You and the people like you spend much, much time in this room spitting egocentric one-liners at
>each other. You don't delve into even the simplest alternative thought that comes in, because
>you're now in a routine. When someone like Roger makes an observation, you look for holes to
>justify a position and ignore the valuable point he presented.

What was so valuable about it?

>You use this room to massage your ego, David, while losing out on valuable information that won't
>present itself, because you refuse to intelligently pick and choose what's worth taking a
>monumental stance for or against.
>
>It's certainly not a healthy way to live life whether that's alternative health or not.

What I find particularly funny here is that I do actually practice alternative methods and have
tried others. And I'm quite healthy, in fact, whether you want to believe it or not.

I have, at times, picked up useful information in this newsgroup. But so much of what's presented
here is commercial crud, or wild-eyed nonsense (some of it very old, much of it demonstrably false).
Sorting through the mix can be tedious, but can be worth it.

Meanwhile, what useful information are you going to contribute? At least set an example for my
benighted self!

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:17:55 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Baised assumptions and things getting brushed under the carpet.

Name a single biased assumption that *science* makes. Watch how Anth will fail to give ONE
assumption that she thinks science makes. There will be more vague allegations with no specifics.

Science brushes nothing under the carpet. Humans brush things under the carpet. It has nothing to do
with science.

Science is a methodology in order to get to the truth realizing that one can only approach the truth
and have a degree of certainty about things. You see science is not wed to one theory or another.
Beliefs change base upon most recent scientific findings. Religion OTOH is wed to one belief and it
is not given up regardless of contradictory information. With science there is change. For example
gastric ulcers used to uniformly be believed to be due to high acid. Now with scientific studies
they are believed to be often due to a bacteria.

Aloha,

Rich

>Anth
>
>"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 19:30:35 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >I beg to differ science is a 'religion' in the sense that it's based on assumptions.
>>
>>
>> What assumption(s) is science based on?? Be specific.
>>
>> I suspect that your answer will demonstrate your *own* erroneous assumptions but I will wait
>> until you respond before expressing certainty.
>>
>> Aloha,
>>
>>
>> Rich
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------------------------------------
>>
>> The best defense to logic is ignorance.
>

------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance.
 
>> ....while losing out on valuable information that won't present itself, because you refuse to
>> intelligently pick and choose what's worth taking a monumental stance for or against.
>
>So, what is all this "valuable information"? That ginseng "strengthens the immune system"? That my
>dental fillings are poisoning me with mercury? That drinking milk causes "excess mucus"? That
>everybody who Jan doesn't like is a "LIAR"? To "intelligently pick and choose" what's valuable here
>is like looking for a dime in a cattle yard. We're not looking for the dime; we're just doing what
>we can to clear away the ********.
>
>--Rich

You ask what all the 'valuable information' is and then aggressively list what you don't accept as
though just those items are the most valued options in alternative therapies?

That appears very naive.

With ginseng you're bucking acceptance by millions of people. Make your point and move on. The guy
you're fighting has a personal crusade with anecdotal evidence proving the product to him. If you're
interested in what he has to say, investigate it. If you take it on face value, you deserve the
lessons that come with that trust.

Mercury dental filling toxicity has so much conflicting 'science' saying yes and no, it's your call
as to what you choose to accept, but give it a rest. Jan had a good experience. Blessings to Jan.
She provides information. That doesn't make her anything but a researcher with a personal story. You
want to throw other research at her. Have fun, but LIGHTEN UP!

Drinking milk and excess mucous.....man...that's an easy test on your own body. Are you fighting
that one, too?

I haven't witnessed Jan calling everyone she doesn't like a LIAR and even if she did, is your lesson
here to teach us 'Sticks and Stones' or that 'Names Do Hurt You?'

It's your call, Rich, but in a room of scholars these are petty arguments. You might want to ease up
some to discover what's better than what you've been getting over these years.

> To "intelligently pick and choose" what's valuable here is like looking for a dime in a
> cattle yard.

I agree. However, the arguing is the cause that keeps fewer dimes from showing up.

Most discussions in here aren't to further what works over what may not. That means learning
together why something could be worthwhile even though it doesn't meet all classical requirements is
probably the way to go. Will that happen here? Probably not.

It's just too easy to demand studies that will never exist before learning to talk outside the box.

Without a doubt! If you knew what you weren't getting in here, you would realize just how stupid
that activity is. <--Read that again! You're pushing things away from you that you supposedly
think you want.

> We're not looking for the dime;
You should be, because that's the prize in alternative therapies. It's also the prize in
modern medicine.

> we're just doing what we can to clear away the ********.
Could you ease up and see just how pompous and arrogant that is? How do you know what is ********
for me and how do you know what I should be protected from.

It's what you're keeping out of this group I want more than what I've seen you argue about that
interests me.

When you learn to put your ego aside and speak with someone to discover what truth he may have
discovered among the incorrect information riding with it, maybe you'll see the valuable
information.

It's always going to be your choice, Rich. You've been riding this horse for a very long time.

Mike
 
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 15:39:55 -0600, [email protected] wrote: e with that trust.
>
>Mercury dental filling toxicity has so much conflicting 'science' saying yes and no, it's your call
>as to what you choose to accept, but give it a rest. Jan had a good experience. Blessings to Jan.
>She provides information.

Wrong. Jan Drew provides lies. She lied about her amalgam history in order to convince others that
she really had mercury poisoning. Here is the proof in Jan's own words that she lied repeatedly to
deceive others that she had mercury poisoning:

Jan lied several times regarding her amalgam history in order to deceive others that she really had
mercury poisoning when what she actually had was a deterioration in her preexisting illness
(peripheral neuropathy) secondary to psychologic factors (worrying obsessively about having mercury
poisoning due to reading about it in Hulda Clark book). She also had a dramatic improvement due to
psychologic factors (relief that the removal of amalgams eliminated the mercury poisoning).

Now Jan drew ADMITTED in HER OWN WORDS that the reason she went from thinking that she was dying of
mercury poisoning one day and feeling better than she had the next day within hours of having some
amalgams removed was completely due to relief. Now I will allow Jan Drew to tell you her in own
words that her improvement was due to relief:

Here are her exact words posted on June 18th, 1999 to usenet
>
>>I have been reading this thread. I have peripheral neuropathy. I have found a dentist
>>(alternative) who knows that mercury amalgams are very dangerous. They can cause all manner of
>>things. He will remove them and put in composities. I have just had 3/4 of mine remover. The
>>others will come out in a few weeks, along with the one root canal, which will be extracted.
>
>>If an individual has read on this subject and is knowledgable, he will take care of you.
>
>>He has written "Tooth Truth and tells it like it is. He tells how the ADA has covered up this
>>problem.
>
>>So, it is just a matter of finding the right dentist. He has people flying in from all over to get
>>the work done.
>
>>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

And now the admission that this improvement was due to relief:

Here are her exact words:

>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?

All the work was done??? A lie. The work was not completed until weeks later. Jan Drew even posted
that her dental work was not done until July 11, 1999.

And now for more lies. Jan Drew told two egregious lies that were told solely to deceive people into
thinking that she really had mercury poisoning.

The first is on June 26 ,1999 just a week after she had eight amalgams removed. She claimed that ALL
her feet pain went away and she was able to go out line dancing because she was no longer getting a
daily dose of mercury. This is a complete lie and Jan knew it. On June 26, 1999 Jan still had more
amalgams to be removed and they would not be removed until July 11, 1999 by Jan's own admission. You
see Jan has difficulty keeping her lies straight.

But let us have Jan Drew tell us in her own words:

>On 26 Jun 1999, JDrew63929 wrote:

>> >AF says *** More childish nonsense from poor, sick old Jan.
>>
>>
>> Well, Jan is doing fine, even went line dancing tonight! Guess that tells you something about
>> my feet..
>> >
>
>
>
>This simply proves that your "neuralgia" is significantly the product of a somatization disorder.
>Mercury accumulates in the body, and there is no way having your fillings removed a week or two
>back could have instantly eliminated all mercury toxicity effects. It would take months or even
>years for the benefits to occur, if the problem really was mercury toxicity. So if pulling your
>fillings instantly cured your feet, we have a very solid case here that your "neuralgia" was
>psychosomatic.

>>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. I am feeling much better, because I am not receiving a new dose of mercury
>>each day. The elimination of 8 mercury amalgams has made a difference. Nothing psychosomatic
>>about it.

Nothing psychosomatic about it?!!?!?!?!?!?!? It was completely psychosomatic. Jan Drew's mercury
level at the time she made this statement was the highest in her life since she had eight amalgams
removed over a two day period only a week before.

The second lie is when she posted to sci.med.dentisty that the reason she knows that it was the
mercury in her mouth that caused her health problems was because she did not *begin* to regain her
health until *after* the mercury level dropped. Not only is this a complete lie and Jan knows it but
the complete opposite is true.

Jan Drew began to regain her health when her mercury level was the highest in her entire life. That
is right. When Jan Drew reported dramatic improvement in her health (ie better than she felt in two
years, and being able to line dance due to all the pain gone) her mercury level had not dropped and
was likely the highest in her life because this improvement occurred from hours to a week after her
amalgams were removed.

The reason that alternative dentists recommend slow removal of amalgams (some as posted by Jan Drew
suggest removing no more than one amalgam every three months) is because the removal of the amalgams
results in vaporization of mercury which even with perfect protocol will result in absorption into
the body of large amounts of mercury.

So on June 18 and 19, 1999 Jan had eight amalgams removed. On June 19, 1999 Jan said she felt better
than she had in two years.

On June 26, 1999 Jan said that she was able to go out line dancing because all her foot pain was
gone. Of course the pain only was gone for a short time because it was likely a placebo effect
due to her RELIEF that the mercury was coming out of her mouth. Just like she felt better than
she did in two years due to relief (by her OWN admission) she was able to go out line dancing a
week later when the absorption of mercury into her tissues from blood likely resulted in the
highest level in her life.

But Jan said that she knows it was the metal in her mouth because she did not BEGIN to regain her
health until AFTER her mercury level dropped. A complete lie and the pathologic liar Jan Drew knows
it. This is why she kill filed me. This is why she lies about me being a liar and a stalker. Jan
Drew knows that I exposed her lies and she refuses to admit it. She is a despicable human being
whose sole purpose in life is to shill for alternative dentists and to perpetuate the lie that she
had mercury poisoning from amalgams. She did not and the proof is in her own words.

Jan Drew will not respond to any of the points in this post. Instead she will pretend she is not
reading them and then personally attack me in order to discredit me. Just watch.

That's a wrap.

Aloha,

Rich
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back