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

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Hotmoon, Dec 16, 2003.

  1. sxpam

    sxpam Guest

    Rich ! Take a breath. I don't want to read all that past history between the two of you. If you have
    a deal to work out with Jan, work it out. If she is unwilling to see it your way, then let it go.

    People choose when to burn their bridges and alienate others, but in most cases you don't have to do
    either by respecting that other people have opinions just as strong as you do. They want others to
    accept themselves, to know they are intelligent with something useful to contribute just like you.
    Ignore that in order to condemn another person when conversation doesn't go your way and you have
    lost more than you think for a long time.

    Put some time into yourself for a while. Arguing like this on the net isn't therapy. It's practice,
    that increases discord elsewhere when you're not on the net.

    When you want to be a great man in life, you'll learn how to create more Harmony in the midst of
    potential chaos.

    Mike
     


  2. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:30:19 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

    >
    >Rich ! Take a breath. I don't want to read all that past history between the two of you.

    It has nothing to do with a personal argument or past history. I was responding to your assertion
    that Jan has provided "information" about her mercury amalgam history. It was *misinformation*,
    better characterized as lies. Jan cannot dispute any of it. Her only responses have been to try to
    discredit me by calling me a liar and a stalker.

    Did you read what I reposted about what Jan said?? If so it is clear that she lied about her
    amalgam history in order to deceive people that she had mercury poisoning. The reason I quote her
    exactly is so that there would be no confusion about what she said.

    >If you have a deal to work out with Jan, work it out. If she is unwilling to see it your way, then
    >let it go.

    I am not interested in changing Jan Drew's mind about anything. I am interested in not allowing Jan
    to falsely claim that she had mercury poisoning so that someone else does not unnecessarily have
    their amalgams out. You obviously are not interested in the truth but in protecting the liar Jan
    Drew. It says much about your own integrity.

    You snipped the proof that Jan Drew lied. Here it is again:

    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

    >When you want to be a great man in life, you'll learn how to create more Harmony in the midst of
    >potential chaos.

    I find it highly ironic that you don't confront Jan Drew about her creating chaos by her lies,
    falsely calling other liars and trying to derail almost every discussion in this newsgroup. Again it
    speaks to your agenda and/or lack of integrity.

    Aloha, Rich
    >
    >Mike

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

    The best defense to logic is ignorance.
     
  3. sxpam

    sxpam Guest

    >Aloha,
    >
    >Rich
    >
    >>When you want to be a great man in life, you'll learn how to create more Harmony in the midst of
    >>potential chaos.
    >
    >I find it highly ironic that you don't confront Jan Drew about her creating chaos by her lies,
    >falsely calling other liars and trying to derail almost every discussion in this newsgroup. Again
    >it speaks to your agenda and/or lack of integrity.
    >
    >Aloha, Rich

    Rich, If Jan lied to you or others, then she lied. Forgive her and move on. It makes no difference
    to me. I have no desire to research that issue which I wouldn't take at face value from anyone. The
    same goes if she claimed that of you.

    I appreciate that you have volumes of information to present for your case, but it just doesn't
    matter and it's not worth my effort to claim a side. It's your issue with Jan. And if she chooses,
    it can become hers with you. You both have choice in the matter.

    Please understand this..... It doesn't matter to me if Jan hasn't even touched a thermometer filled
    with mercury, or whether you have proven mercury was never an element in the first place.

    I have my acceptance of mercury almagams and there isn't anything from this newsgroup that has
    interested me enough to research my position further.

    That last statement is a real key to all your arguing, because somewhere most arguers want
    acceptance by their audience. What good is it, if people don't read what you have to say. People can
    rant in here and call each other names all day long. It seems like a waste of time to me, but in the
    long run how many people really read those posts. When I click on one like that, I may click on
    another and if it's the same, I ignore most of the entire thread.

    Think of all the times people claimed they protect others or take out the trash or clean up the
    'bullshit.' Those messages don't get heard by the majority, so what good is it if those people just
    circulate the same anger among a handful of people day in and day out for a few years! YEARS? What a
    supreme waste of life.

    To help you comprehend what you see as ironic: I don't confront Jan about what she's saying here,
    because she hasn't directed anything to me like you did. When Jan and I post to each other it's
    civil. I don't have to agree with everything she says. She doesn't have to agree with everything I
    say, but we respect each other.

    There's your choice, Rich. If you want to develop that type of repoire PRACTICE IT.

    However, if you want to learn how to raise your blood pressure and get on all those meds by the time
    you're middle aged, then keep on doing what you're doing.

    You live in an area of the world that advocates the greatest Harmony among mankind of any other
    place I've lived. Go get the Aloha Spirit and bring it with you when you choose to talk with
    people in here.

    It's just not worth busting a nut over ANYTHING in this group.

    Aloha no ka oi, Mike
     
  4. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 18:44:28 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

    >>Aloha,
    >>
    >>Rich
    >>
    >>>When you want to be a great man in life, you'll learn how to create more Harmony in the midst of
    >>>potential chaos.
    >>
    >>I find it highly ironic that you don't confront Jan Drew about her creating chaos by her lies,
    >>falsely calling other liars and trying to derail almost every discussion in this newsgroup. Again
    >>it speaks to your agenda and/or lack of integrity.
    >>
    >>Aloha, Rich
    >
    >Rich, If Jan lied to you or others, then she lied. Forgive her and move on. It makes no
    >difference to me.

    It makes no difference if Jan Drew lied about her amalgam history to deceive others that she had
    mercury poisoning? Sorry, but we must agree to disagree.

    The reason why I continue to post the truth is in the hope that someone who might otherwise believe
    Jan, be spared from unnecessarily having their amalgams removed.

    If you don't like my posts then feel free to ignore them. But if you want me to just let her
    REPEATED lies go then maybe you should just accept me as you are suggesting that I accept Jan. The
    only reason I continue to post the truth is to counter Jan when she continues to post the lie that
    she almost died of mercury poisoning. If she stops claiming she had mercury poisoning I will stop
    posting my rebuttal and proof that she lied and her claim is complete bullshit.

    If you don't understand my motivation for doing this then I don't know what to say.

    Aloha,

    Rich

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

    The best defense to logic is ignorance.
     
  5. sxpam

    sxpam Guest

    Hey Rich,
    >
    >It makes no difference if Jan Drew lied about her amalgam history to deceive others that she had
    >mercury poisoning?

    It's your interest. Not mine. Pick and choose what's important to you. Jan's amalgam switch isn't
    important to me, because I know where I stand on mercury and composite fillings. I learned that Jan
    had that procedure done while clicking on posts within an argument. I didn't read the posts because
    of the argument and I don't want to go back to them.

    >Sorry, but we must agree to disagree.

    Excellent! There's no problem with that and you really don't have to apologize first. :^)

    >
    >The reason why I continue to post the truth is in the hope that someone who might otherwise believe
    >Jan, be spared from unnecessarily having their amalgams removed.

    Awwww Rich! You just insulted every dentist. The place to really spend energy isn't on Jan's
    specifics, but on conversation regarding amalgam removal. That doesn't mean to pick the top ten
    links from a search engine and post them as authorities on the topic.

    I know many people who had that procedure done and every one of them thought the decision through
    for a long time before they did it. It's an expensive elective for many people, so these people
    didn't do it on a whim or based on a single post from a newsgroup.

    There's a lot to that topic, pro and con but I've believed that the defense stated is simple
    justification to keep pressing a point that a person has no control over.

    >
    >If you don't like my posts then feel free to ignore them. But if you want me to just let her
    >REPEATED lies go then maybe you should just accept me as you are suggesting that I accept Jan. The
    >only reason I continue to post the truth is to counter Jan when she continues to post the lie that
    >she almost died of mercury poisoning. If she stops claiming she had mercury poisoning I will stop
    >posting my rebuttal and proof that she lied and her claim is complete bullshit.

    OK

    >If you don't understand my motivation for doing this then I don't know what to say.

    I didn't say I didn't understand your motivation. I did infer that you might want to recheck
    yourself on what you're doing. You seem happy beating a horse in a newsgroup believing you're
    protecting people.

    Did you understand anything else I wrote? Was any of it worth rethinking as a way to approach this
    thing? You've got choice. It isn't my choice to spend even this much time in this group anymore,
    because the return has been so small.

    Take care Rich, Don't swim with the sharks, Mike

    >
    >Aloha,
    >
    >Rich
    >
    >
    >
    >------------------------------------------------
    >------------------------------------------------
    >
    >The best defense to logic is ignorance.
     
  6. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:56:07 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

    >
    >
    >Hey Rich,
    >>
    >>It makes no difference if Jan Drew lied about her amalgam history to deceive others that she had
    >>mercury poisoning?
    >
    >It's your interest.

    You sure seem very interested in my comments wrt Jan's lies.

    > Not mine. Pick and choose what's important to you.

    I do. What is important to you now appears to be my persistence in pointing out that Jan has lied
    about her amalgam history.

    > Jan's amalgam switch isn't important to me, because I know where I stand on mercury and composite
    > fillings. I learned that Jan had that procedure done while clicking on posts within an argument. I
    > didn't read the posts because of the argument and I don't want to go back to them.

    Fine.
    >
    >>Sorry, but we must agree to disagree.
    >
    >Excellent! There's no problem with that and you really don't have to apologize first. :^)

    That is mighty big of you:))
    >
    >>
    >>The reason why I continue to post the truth is in the hope that someone who might otherwise
    >>believe Jan, be spared from unnecessarily having their amalgams removed.
    >
    >Awwww Rich! You just insulted every dentist.

    I have. Every dentist reading this who feels insulted please speak up.

    >The place to really spend energy isn't on Jan's specifics, but on conversation regarding
    >amalgam removal.

    I appreciate your suggestion. I believe that the energy spent in debunking Jan's bullshit claim is
    worthwhile. You don't.

    >I know many people who had that procedure done and every one of them thought the decision through
    >for a long time before they did it. It's an expensive elective for many people, so these people
    >didn't do it on a whim or based on a single post from a newsgroup.

    I think that my debunking Jan's bullshit claim will help those who might be considering the
    procedure especially if they are basing their decision on anecdotal evidence such as Jan's. You see
    Jan comes across as absolutely sure she had mercury poisoning and obsessively posts such. I give her
    detailed history which indicates she did not have mercury poisoning.

    >>
    >>If you don't like my posts then feel free to ignore them. But if you want me to just let her
    >>REPEATED lies go then maybe you should just accept me as you are suggesting that I accept Jan. The
    >>only reason I continue to post the truth is to counter Jan when she continues to post the lie that
    >>she almost died of mercury poisoning. If she stops claiming she had mercury poisoning I will stop
    >>posting my rebuttal and proof that she lied and her claim is complete bullshit.
    >
    >OK

    Great.
    >
    >>If you don't understand my motivation for doing this then I don't know what to say.
    >
    >I didn't say I didn't understand your motivation. I did infer that you might want to recheck
    >yourself on what you're doing. You seem happy beating a horse in a newsgroup believing you're
    >protecting people.

    Beating a dead horse?? How so?? The horse is hardly dead. Jan keep repeating the lie about her
    having mercury poisoning so her claim is alive and well. I will continue to debunk her claim so that
    those who might be considering the procedure will have more data from which to make their decision
    and make them leary of unverifiable anecdotes which is most of the information out there.
    >
    >Did you understand anything else I wrote? Was any of it worth rethinking as a way to approach
    >this thing?

    No. But don't feel bad. I realize that your primary motivation is to protect Jan Drew against my
    refutal of her claims.

    >You've got choice. It isn't my choice to spend even this much time in this group anymore, because
    >the return has been so small.

    Fine. Good luck to you.
    >
    >Take care Rich, Don't swim with the sharks, Mike

    Thanx for your warm wishes.

    Aloha,

    Rich
    >
    >
    >>
    >>Aloha,
    >>
    >>Rich
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>------------------------------------------------
    >>------------------------------------------------
    >>
    >>The best defense to logic is ignorance.

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

    The best defense to logic is ignorance.
     
  7. Happy Oyster

    Happy Oyster Guest

    On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:56:07 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

    >Jan's amalgam switch isn't important to me, because I know where I stand on mercury and composite
    >fillings.

    This is one of the typical diatribes to seed hatred.

    One part of the message being : "I DO KNOW!"

    The not spoken words : "DO STOP IT ! I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR IT!"

    This is THE kind of psycho-slime to foul up discussions.

    [...]

    Now comes the next rhetorical trick :

    >I didn't say I didn't understand your motivation. I did infer that you might want to recheck
    >yourself on what you're doing. You seem happy beating a horse in a newsgroup believing you're
    >protecting people.

    Seemingly, the aggressor UNDERSTANDS the facts and the motives. And the facts are good and the
    motives are good.

    BUT!!!: "IT IS SO VERY STUPID WHAT YOU DO!"

    Again, we see the typical pscho-slime of rhetoric warfare.

    >Did you understand anything else I wrote? Was any of it worth rethinking as a way to approach
    >this thing?

    One more blow, getting more aggressive : "DID YOU!?"

    >You've got choice.

    And still ONE MORE blow. One more hit to stamp a person into the niche of having to defend himself,
    although, as stated above, his motives are good and the facts are good.

    Do not fall for rhetorical warfare of the psycho-slimers !

    Analyze their words, and you will see what they really have in their minds.

    And do never forget : they show up in herds, and they are comrades in the war-teams of the
    naturopath mafia. It is the same everywhere in the net. Their methods and their targets are the
    same, everywhere. And they are after you and your money.

    Be carefull !

    Regards,

    Aribert Deckers
    --
    Wie man sich mit Homöopathie umbringt: http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_ho11.htm
    http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_home.htm http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_kind.htm
    http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_hom2.htm http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_hom4.htm
    http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_hom5.htm http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_hom6.htm
     
  8. sxpam

    sxpam Guest

    Alright, Rich... My mistake.

    I see the arguments in this group in a completely different light than you do.

    You're doing what you need to do and in the way you need to do it. You're not alone in this, but
    it's just not the way I would go about it.

    My primary motivation isn't to protect anyone. At the same time, I don't have to get enravled in
    every argument that each person in here thinks is important. If the issue with Jan is your reason
    for waking up in the morning, then you're doing what's most important for you.

    I think my primary motivations were very clear, but they also have unrealistic expectations.

    Mike
     
  9. sxpam

    sxpam Guest

    This is lunacy!

    Scherzen Sie? Mike
     
Loading...