J
Jan
Guest
>Subject: Re: to Jan
>From: "RB" [email protected]
>Date: 3/12/2004 7:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>You were right Jan. There's Rich already.
Yep that is his pattern. Funny how he couldn't amswer
Bubba's questions, plus the fact he has nuked his posts
tells all.
Poor guy is obsessed.
Jan
From: Bubba [email protected]
>Date: 5/7/02 8:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id:
><[email protected]>
>
>Rich <,@.> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Tue, 7 May 2002 10:11:19 +1000, "P Moran"
>> <[email protected]> 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.
>
>
>Sure, Rich! You couldn't support your position in our
>debate, but instead chose to run away not once, but twice.
>I suspect that there are many more members of MHA other
>than Jan and myself whom you have NOT convinced.
>
>
>Maybe you would like to take another shot at answering the
>questions that you could NOT address a few months ago. Have
>you learned anything new in that interval, Rich?
>
>
>Here, again, is the last post I made in our debate:
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Psychologic factors influencing physical
>illness vs Amalgam Related Illness in the case of Jan Drew
>From: Bubba <[email protected]> Newsgroups:
>misc.health.alternative
>
>
>**********************************************************-
>****************
>NOTE TO RICH:
>
>If you respond to this post, please be sure to identify all
>sections which you snip (preferably with "[...]"). Thanks!
>**********************************************************-
>****************
>
>Rich <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> 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
>
>
>Rich, if you really believe that this post of Jan's
>provides "the most compelling evidence that it is
>psychologic factors vs ARI or MP," then you really don't
>have *much* to support your position.
>
>I still don't understand why you believe that Jan's
>account that she experienced some relief in the days
>immediately following her amalgam removal is relevant to
>the issue of whether she does or does not have "Amalgam-
>Related Illness" (ARI)?
>
>
>> First let me say that I think that it important not to
>> take everything that Jan says at face value.
>
>
>Well, then you (or I) could always make claims such as
>
>1) "although Jan said ______, she really meant ______," or
>
>2) "when Jan said _____, she was making a false statement
> (or lying)."
>
>
>You (and I) could make up any story we wanted and
>attribute it to Jan (which I believe you have tried to do
>- see below).
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Tangential point, irrelevant to the discussion.
>
>
>> 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, Rich, it appears that you believe Jan *only* when her
>account supports your position. Am I correct?
>
>The explanation that Jan has provided (in the above
>statement) for her sense of relief is NOT the same as your
>"psychological factors" explanation. Therefore, her account
>does NOT support your claim!
>
>Although you state above that this "statement made by Jan
>Drew is important because it is likely a truthful one," you
>really don't even believe *all* of this statement, because
>part of it does NOT support your position (see below).
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>What credible evidence do you have that either of these
>beliefs were unfounded?
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>What evidence do you have to support *your opinion* that it
>is more likely that the relief Jan experienced was due to
>the fact that Jan believed she was no longer being exposed
>to the mercury from her amalgams rather than *Jan's
>explanation* that she was relieved because the painful,
>uncomfortable, and stressful amalgam removal procedure had
>been completed?
>
>Even after the amalgam removal procedure, Jan still had a
>body burden of mercury that would likely be responsible for
>continuing health problems for years to come. Why should
>she have felt relief knowing that MOST of the mercury was
>*still* in her body?
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Please list all of Jan's signs and symptoms (and their
>severity - on a scale of 1-10) ...
>
>1) *before* she knew that dental amalgams might be
> responsible for her health problems, and
>
>2) *after* she knew that dental amalgams might be
> responsible for her health problems.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>This is a tangential comment, completely unrelated to this
>discussion.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Please provide the URL(s) to any post(s) in the Google
>archives where Jan wrote THAT!
>
>
>[...]
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>You *still* have not defined what you mean by "psychologic
>factors." I have asked you repeatedly to do so.
>
>
>******************************************
>
>Rich, PLEASE DEFINE "psychologic factors."
>
>Rich, PLEASE DEFINE "psychologic factors."
>
>Rich, PLEASE DEFINE "psychologic factors."
>
>Rich, PLEASE DEFINE "psychologic factors."
>
>******************************************
>
>
>> This would be a more appropriate characterization for
>> Jan's situation with respect to amalgams.
>
>
>What were Jan's preexisting physical conditions with
>respect to amalgams?
>
>
>> Psychosomatic disorder refers to a physical condition
>> which arises to significant degree by psychologic factors
>> such as anxiety, paranoia, etc.
>
>
>FYI, the current DSM-IV-TR classification that has replaced
>"psychosomatic disorder" is Somatoform Disorders.
>
>"Psychosomatic disorder" is NOT a valid psychiatric
>diagnosis.
>
>
>> I have expressed my opinion that Jan's problems are
>> psychosomatic as well as due to psychologic factors
>> influencing a physical condition.
>
>
>Are you changing your position AGAIN?
>
>
>> They are not mutually exclusive. I believe there is good
>> evidence that she has BOTH.
>
>
>Is it possible that Jan has *all* of the following
>conditions?:
>
>1) ARI
>2) "psychosomatic factors" (whatever they are)
>3) one of Somatoform Disorders
>
>Isn't the probability that an individual has all three
>"conditions" almost the same as the probability that that
>same individual has only the last two?
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Does Jan meet the criteria of any of the DSM-IV-TR
>Somatoform Disorders?
>
>If she does NOT, then she does NOT have a Somatoform
>Disorder. (Please use the correct terminology in the
>future.)
>
>Jan does NOT have a "psychosomatic condition"! That is NO
>longer a valid psychiatric diagnosis!
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>This statement of yours is completely tangential to this
>discussion.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>There are other equally likely explanations. Check out the
>following link for some clues:
>
>Why Bogus Therapies Seem to Work, by Barry L. Beyerstein
>
>http://www.csicop.org/si/9709/beyer.html
>
>Several of these explanations do NOT require a
>psychological mechanism. What evidence do you have that
>your explanation is more likely than these other non-
>psychological mechanisms?
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Just because Jan has had some treatments that might have
>not have had *any* efficacy in treating her conditions (but
>from which she believes she has derived some benefit) does
>NOT mean that she does not have ARI and has not had a
>significant improvement in her health as a result of the
>amalgam removal.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Well then, Rich, maybe I should just "reinterpret" Jan's
>comments, too, to bolster *my* position. Right!!!
>
>
>> Another point raised was my certainty of her having a
>> particular psychiatric diagnosis.
>
>
>You have NOT supported your claim with a valid psychiatric
>diagnosis. Please do so.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>You have NOT answered these questions I posted previously:
>
>
>So, you *do* agree that it is *possible* for Jan's health
>problems to be the result of her mercury exposures from her
>amalgams?
>
>1) How would someone rule out that possibility?
>
>2) How would *you* rule out that possibility?
>
>3) In what ways would Jan's account have to differ for you
> to find it credible?
>
>
>Do you know that one of the exclusionary criteria for the
>Somatoform Disorders is that the patient's symptoms cannot
>be explained by the "direct effects of a substance" (e.g,
>mercury)?
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Rich, in a previous post, you implied that the probability
>that Jan experienced relief immediately following her
>amalgam removal was about the same as the probability that
>her relief was due to some "interplanetary influence." Is
>that your position? If so, it is a claim, which you have
>the responsibility to support. I have made NO claim!
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Irrelevant, tangential, self-serving, smug statement.
>
>
>[...]
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>No, it isn't! If you were confident enough in your opinion
>to make a number of posts that Jan's account (i.e., that
>she believed that mercury exposures had an adverse
>physiological effect on her health, and NOT just through
>some purely psychological mechanism) was a "bogus claim,"
>then you should have *plenty* of evidence to convince even
>the most die-hard skeptic that you are right!
>
>Rich, this debate should be a slam-dunk for you!
>
>I don't have to prove a thing! You are trying to deflect
>this discussion from the claims you have made, which you
>have the responsibility to support with credible evidence!
>I have made NO claims!
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>You have *not* answered all of the relevant questions.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Why don't we both agree NOT to engage in *any* sidebar
>discussions on MHA regarding anything discussed in this
>thread or anything concerning this thread (e.g., who made
>the best point in the most recent post)?
>
>And how would you characterize what you have written in the
>preceding two paragraph, if not an insult?
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Fine. I'm still not going to respond to any posts about
>this topic (in a substantive manner) other than yours.
>
>
>> Rich
>
>--
>Bubba
>From: "RB" [email protected]
>Date: 3/12/2004 7:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>You were right Jan. There's Rich already.
Yep that is his pattern. Funny how he couldn't amswer
Bubba's questions, plus the fact he has nuked his posts
tells all.
Poor guy is obsessed.
Jan
From: Bubba [email protected]
>Date: 5/7/02 8:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id:
><[email protected]>
>
>Rich <,@.> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Tue, 7 May 2002 10:11:19 +1000, "P Moran"
>> <[email protected]> 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.
>
>
>Sure, Rich! You couldn't support your position in our
>debate, but instead chose to run away not once, but twice.
>I suspect that there are many more members of MHA other
>than Jan and myself whom you have NOT convinced.
>
>
>Maybe you would like to take another shot at answering the
>questions that you could NOT address a few months ago. Have
>you learned anything new in that interval, Rich?
>
>
>Here, again, is the last post I made in our debate:
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Psychologic factors influencing physical
>illness vs Amalgam Related Illness in the case of Jan Drew
>From: Bubba <[email protected]> Newsgroups:
>misc.health.alternative
>
>
>**********************************************************-
>****************
>NOTE TO RICH:
>
>If you respond to this post, please be sure to identify all
>sections which you snip (preferably with "[...]"). Thanks!
>**********************************************************-
>****************
>
>Rich <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> 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
>
>
>Rich, if you really believe that this post of Jan's
>provides "the most compelling evidence that it is
>psychologic factors vs ARI or MP," then you really don't
>have *much* to support your position.
>
>I still don't understand why you believe that Jan's
>account that she experienced some relief in the days
>immediately following her amalgam removal is relevant to
>the issue of whether she does or does not have "Amalgam-
>Related Illness" (ARI)?
>
>
>> First let me say that I think that it important not to
>> take everything that Jan says at face value.
>
>
>Well, then you (or I) could always make claims such as
>
>1) "although Jan said ______, she really meant ______," or
>
>2) "when Jan said _____, she was making a false statement
> (or lying)."
>
>
>You (and I) could make up any story we wanted and
>attribute it to Jan (which I believe you have tried to do
>- see below).
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Tangential point, irrelevant to the discussion.
>
>
>> 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, Rich, it appears that you believe Jan *only* when her
>account supports your position. Am I correct?
>
>The explanation that Jan has provided (in the above
>statement) for her sense of relief is NOT the same as your
>"psychological factors" explanation. Therefore, her account
>does NOT support your claim!
>
>Although you state above that this "statement made by Jan
>Drew is important because it is likely a truthful one," you
>really don't even believe *all* of this statement, because
>part of it does NOT support your position (see below).
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>What credible evidence do you have that either of these
>beliefs were unfounded?
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>What evidence do you have to support *your opinion* that it
>is more likely that the relief Jan experienced was due to
>the fact that Jan believed she was no longer being exposed
>to the mercury from her amalgams rather than *Jan's
>explanation* that she was relieved because the painful,
>uncomfortable, and stressful amalgam removal procedure had
>been completed?
>
>Even after the amalgam removal procedure, Jan still had a
>body burden of mercury that would likely be responsible for
>continuing health problems for years to come. Why should
>she have felt relief knowing that MOST of the mercury was
>*still* in her body?
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Please list all of Jan's signs and symptoms (and their
>severity - on a scale of 1-10) ...
>
>1) *before* she knew that dental amalgams might be
> responsible for her health problems, and
>
>2) *after* she knew that dental amalgams might be
> responsible for her health problems.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>This is a tangential comment, completely unrelated to this
>discussion.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Please provide the URL(s) to any post(s) in the Google
>archives where Jan wrote THAT!
>
>
>[...]
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>You *still* have not defined what you mean by "psychologic
>factors." I have asked you repeatedly to do so.
>
>
>******************************************
>
>Rich, PLEASE DEFINE "psychologic factors."
>
>Rich, PLEASE DEFINE "psychologic factors."
>
>Rich, PLEASE DEFINE "psychologic factors."
>
>Rich, PLEASE DEFINE "psychologic factors."
>
>******************************************
>
>
>> This would be a more appropriate characterization for
>> Jan's situation with respect to amalgams.
>
>
>What were Jan's preexisting physical conditions with
>respect to amalgams?
>
>
>> Psychosomatic disorder refers to a physical condition
>> which arises to significant degree by psychologic factors
>> such as anxiety, paranoia, etc.
>
>
>FYI, the current DSM-IV-TR classification that has replaced
>"psychosomatic disorder" is Somatoform Disorders.
>
>"Psychosomatic disorder" is NOT a valid psychiatric
>diagnosis.
>
>
>> I have expressed my opinion that Jan's problems are
>> psychosomatic as well as due to psychologic factors
>> influencing a physical condition.
>
>
>Are you changing your position AGAIN?
>
>
>> They are not mutually exclusive. I believe there is good
>> evidence that she has BOTH.
>
>
>Is it possible that Jan has *all* of the following
>conditions?:
>
>1) ARI
>2) "psychosomatic factors" (whatever they are)
>3) one of Somatoform Disorders
>
>Isn't the probability that an individual has all three
>"conditions" almost the same as the probability that that
>same individual has only the last two?
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Does Jan meet the criteria of any of the DSM-IV-TR
>Somatoform Disorders?
>
>If she does NOT, then she does NOT have a Somatoform
>Disorder. (Please use the correct terminology in the
>future.)
>
>Jan does NOT have a "psychosomatic condition"! That is NO
>longer a valid psychiatric diagnosis!
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>This statement of yours is completely tangential to this
>discussion.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>There are other equally likely explanations. Check out the
>following link for some clues:
>
>Why Bogus Therapies Seem to Work, by Barry L. Beyerstein
>
>http://www.csicop.org/si/9709/beyer.html
>
>Several of these explanations do NOT require a
>psychological mechanism. What evidence do you have that
>your explanation is more likely than these other non-
>psychological mechanisms?
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Just because Jan has had some treatments that might have
>not have had *any* efficacy in treating her conditions (but
>from which she believes she has derived some benefit) does
>NOT mean that she does not have ARI and has not had a
>significant improvement in her health as a result of the
>amalgam removal.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Well then, Rich, maybe I should just "reinterpret" Jan's
>comments, too, to bolster *my* position. Right!!!
>
>
>> Another point raised was my certainty of her having a
>> particular psychiatric diagnosis.
>
>
>You have NOT supported your claim with a valid psychiatric
>diagnosis. Please do so.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>You have NOT answered these questions I posted previously:
>
>
>So, you *do* agree that it is *possible* for Jan's health
>problems to be the result of her mercury exposures from her
>amalgams?
>
>1) How would someone rule out that possibility?
>
>2) How would *you* rule out that possibility?
>
>3) In what ways would Jan's account have to differ for you
> to find it credible?
>
>
>Do you know that one of the exclusionary criteria for the
>Somatoform Disorders is that the patient's symptoms cannot
>be explained by the "direct effects of a substance" (e.g,
>mercury)?
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Rich, in a previous post, you implied that the probability
>that Jan experienced relief immediately following her
>amalgam removal was about the same as the probability that
>her relief was due to some "interplanetary influence." Is
>that your position? If so, it is a claim, which you have
>the responsibility to support. I have made NO claim!
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Irrelevant, tangential, self-serving, smug statement.
>
>
>[...]
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>No, it isn't! If you were confident enough in your opinion
>to make a number of posts that Jan's account (i.e., that
>she believed that mercury exposures had an adverse
>physiological effect on her health, and NOT just through
>some purely psychological mechanism) was a "bogus claim,"
>then you should have *plenty* of evidence to convince even
>the most die-hard skeptic that you are right!
>
>Rich, this debate should be a slam-dunk for you!
>
>I don't have to prove a thing! You are trying to deflect
>this discussion from the claims you have made, which you
>have the responsibility to support with credible evidence!
>I have made NO claims!
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>You have *not* answered all of the relevant questions.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Why don't we both agree NOT to engage in *any* sidebar
>discussions on MHA regarding anything discussed in this
>thread or anything concerning this thread (e.g., who made
>the best point in the most recent post)?
>
>And how would you characterize what you have written in the
>preceding two paragraph, if not an insult?
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Fine. I'm still not going to respond to any posts about
>this topic (in a substantive manner) other than yours.
>
>
>> Rich
>
>--
>Bubba