M
M.A.R.K P.R.O.B
Guest
"Carole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Michele) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> re CODEX
> >
> > > > It doesn't prohibit the use of supplements, Carole.
> > > > It regulates
it,
> > > > & pretty much only the mega doses. It won't stop
> > > > people from taking multiple tabs of a lower dose of
> > > > a vitamin. As far as herbal products, they will
> > > > still be available.
> > >
> > > Of course you're right and on face value this might
> > > seem reasonable enough. However, it is this seemingly
> > > reasonableness which gets the foot in the door and
> > > the tougher stuff comes later once everything is
> > > locked in.
> >
> > Common sense & reason is some sort of *slippery slope*
> > to you?? Keeping herbal products & supplements available
> > in GRAS doses is getting "the foot in the door"?? The
> > door to what -- letting consumers continue to purchase
> > the products they want?? It's not a matter of "face
> > value", Carole -- it's the whole thing. Mega doses of
> > vitamins could still be taken, just as many OTC pharm.
> > products are taken in prescription doses by consumers.
> > Ibuprofen & Zantac are just 2 examples of meds available
> > in lower strength OTC that users can take in
> > prescription doses just by popping a tablet or two more.
> > There is no "tougher stuff" coming later. C'est tout.
> >
> > > > Why should products making claims of disease
> > > > prevention &/or cures be exempt from regulation?
If
> > > > you claim something is just as effective or superior
> > > > to a pharmaceutical product, you should have no
> > > > problem with the scrutiny
&
> > > > regulation that goes along with such claims.
>
> Obviously Michele, cartels have the power to suppress
> information and slant information their own way. But you
> wouldn't be able to work this out because you are mind
> controlled.
Thee ya go agin, whackoing about mind control. Next thing
you'll tel lus is that youhave a mind.
The people should have access to
> nutritional remedies and not have big brother telling them
> what is best.
Listening to 'big brother' is far prefarable to listenint to
dumb little sister.
>
> > > Once again, what you say makes sense. However, there
> > > are sinister motives behind CODEX and you really need
> > > to read up on the plot of create a fascist new world
> > > order. Regulation of every form of human endeavour
> > > includes medicine.
> >
> > There you go again, Carole -- attributing sinister
> > motives to something that even you admit "makes sense".
> > The words "reasonable" & "sensible" don't go hand in
> > hand with sinister plots, diabolical motives, & evil
> > conspiracies. Not all regulations are tools for mind
> > control devised by some mysterious oligarchy. The world
> > will never be organized enough to be *controlled* by any
> > economic, political, or religious group. But laws &
> > regulations, whether to prevent motorists from driving
> > on the sidewalks or packaging pharm. & alt. products in
> > GRAS doses for OTC use are generally recognized as a
> > good idea. They prevent the bodies from piling up on the
> > sidewalks & establish guidelines WRT OTC products. They
> > don't prevent stupid behavior, whether strolling out
> > into traffic or tossing back toxic doses of Tylenol or
> > Vitamin B6. It just makes it the choice of the
> > individual to do something harmful. If anything, it
> > would make it harder to yank a product off the market, a
> > la ephedra. Truthful labeling, packaging doses GRAS
> > (leaving it up to the consumer if they still want to
> > take potentially toxic doses), & quality control about
> > the actual contents of the product are as reasonable &
> > sensible as mandating that a bottle of Tylenol contain
> > Tylenol instead of sawdust. It isn't a fascist plot,
> > there is no new world order.
>
> You really know how to waffle. Why don't you snip yourself
> and stop repeating ad finitum the bleeding obvious.
Why do you not throw you computer out the window and stop
posting your idiotic whacko conspiracy blather?
> It is a fascist plot and there is a new world order.
There are times I am certain that YOU are a plot to make
whackos look bad.
> > > > Just like many prescription meds have OTC
> > > > counterparts that are simply a lower dose of the
> > > > same med, there can be two tiers of supplement/alt.
> > > > products. That is a more accurate picture of the
> > > > CODEX ideas. Of course it doesn't create that
> > > > reactionary alarm like your "trying to stop free
> > > > access to nutritional supplements" nonsense.
> > >
> > > Emotive terms like "nonsense" demonstrate your mode of
> > > thinking, that it isn't based on logic but on
> > > conditioned emotional responses to a topic.
> > >
> > > Explain, in logical terms, without use of emotive
> > > terms, the benefits of CODEX and why it isn't a plot
> > > to restrict free access to supplements which are
> > > already expensive enough.
> >
> > I've explained it several times, Carole. Your
> > determination to declare it a plot, suppression, & other
> > rather loaded terms doesn't change a sensible,
> > reasonable, logical idea into the sinister plan you're
> > trying to spin. You've even admitted my explanations are
> > "quite right", "reasonable", etc. Either you really
> > can't understand what's been said or you would simply
> > rather deny reality.
>
> That's right, I admit your explanations are reasonable -
> as far as they go. But so are mine,
No, they are not. Not all explanations are created equal.
Michele's are reality based, while yours are whacko based.
yet they are opposing views. There is a lot
> of stuff going on which the public are kept in the
> dark about.
Carole, I bow to your expertise of being in the dark. Your
truly are a intellectual dark sucker.
> > > > > What is your theory on latent acidosis, and what
> > > > > consequences does
it
> > > > > have if left unchecked?
> > > >
> > > > The body's PH is consistent, Carole. Urine & saliva
> > > > PH are NOT indicative of the blood PH. "Left
> > > > unchecked", the PH of the body remains the same &
> > > > the PH of the urine & saliva vary without any ill
> > > > effect. The test results I see over & over again
> > > > with patients -- both healthy & not, in a variety of
> > > > settings -- shows that.
>
> Yes, but while the blood is kept in the right pH -- there
> is something which develops called latent acidosis, which
> is the main cause of toxemia.
Sure. Just like you have latent normalcy.
> > > The reason why the pH is consistent is because the
> > > acids which don't get eliminated are deposited around
> > > the body in tissues, arteries and joints. This is
> > > called latent acidosis. This is explained at the
> > > following website -
> > >
> > > The development of latent "acidosis"
> > > http://www.euroamericanhealth.com/how.html
> >
> > Once again: The body's PH is consistent, Carole. Urine
> > & saliva PH are NOT indicative of the blood PH. "Left
> > unchecked", the PH of the body remains the same & the
> > PH of the urine & saliva vary without any ill effect.
> > The test results I see over & over again with patients
> > -- both healthy & not, in a variety of settings --
> > shows that.
>
> I don't understand it exactly,
A fact that has never inhibited you from spouting rubbish.
but its something to do with latent
> acidosis. From what I can understand the body uses
> minerals which are taken from the bones and tissues, to
> keep the blood at the right pH. The loss of minerals to
> other parts of the body leads to latent acidosis and
> health problems.
Like this.
> > > > You don't really know for sure why the pamphlet was
> > > > "recalled"
unless
> > > > the health dept. admits it did so, & states why.
> > > > Just as likely is the scenario that statements in
> > > > the pamphlet were fraudulent & the health food store
> > > > proprietor decided not to put his/her neck on a
> > > > legal chopping block for it. It could also have been
> > > > a matter of customers questioning the material's
> > > > accuracy & skepticism usually isn't good for
> > > > business.
> > >
> > > The shop assistant told me the Blackmores cellsalt
> > > pamphlet was recalled.
> >
> > Once again: You don't really know for sure why the
> > pamphlet was "recalled" unless the health dept. admits
> > it did so, & states why.
> >
> > The shop assistant isn't the be-all-end-all authority
> > WRT why a pamphlet wasn't at the health food store
> > anymore. *Unless the health dept. stated it did so & why
> > -- or there is credible evidence that they did -- you
> > don't know why.*
> >
> > Just as likely is the scenario that statements in the
> > pamphlet were fraudulent & the health food store
> > proprietor decided not to put his/her neck on a legal
> > chopping block for it. It could also have been a matter
> > of customers questioning the material's accuracy &
> > skepticism usually isn't good for business.
>
> The shop assistant told me the pamphlet was recalled
> because it wasn't allowed to prescribe remedies, which it
> did. The details in the pamphlet were correct which I've
> found out from years of trial and error. Therefore the
> authorities are in the business of suppression and use the
> sacred cow of "public safety" to sell this misconception
> to the public.
Sure, Carole, sure. When did the black helicopters take
them away?
> > If I hadn't ever seen that pamphlet I never would
> > have got
> > > into cellsalts. In other words, access to information
> > > is suppressed on a pretext - "public safety", "public
> > > health", "stopping fraud" etc.
> >
> > YET AGAIN: You don't know why the pamphlet is no longer
> > there. You are chomping at the bit to attribute it to
> > *something* sinister, but you don't have one iota of
> > evidence about it. The fact that the pamphlet was
> > publicly displayed disproves your "suppression" theory.
> > Space isn't unlimited on the health food shelf ya
> > know....
>
> The pamphlet was on the counter, and was publicly
> displayed briefly until it was removed.
By the "Men in Black", no doubt.
> > > > > Like where is your response to the suppression of
> > > > > ESSIAC?
> > > >
> > > > You must have a serious reading comprehension
> > > > problem. I already stated I've read about the
> > > > efficacy of Essaic -- & I don't find much in the way
> > > > of evidence to show much to get excited about in
> > > > that department.
> > >
> > > And why is that? If people get cured from it why don't
> > > doctors prescribe it? Its cheap enough and non-toxic.
> >
> > "Cheap enough & non-toxic" describes water, bananas, &
> > other items that ALSO don't cure cancer. The efficacy of
> > Essaic in treating cancer is no better than water.
> > People *don't* "get cured" of cancer by using it.
> > [Cancer isn't ONE disease, either.] I don't see much
> > evidence to utilize it.
>
> How do you know ESSIAC isn't an effective treatment for
> many types of cancer? Because the health authorities
> told you?
That is always a good start. However, if the essaic
swindlers wanted to prove that it works, there i s$$
available in the US to run clinical trials. What are they
afraid of?
> > > > I read about MANY ideas I don't agree with --
> > > > sometimes there is enough evidence to make me
> > > > reconsider my previous POV, sometimes not. Essaic
> > > > currently doesn't have much indicating it can cure
> > > > anything.
> > >
> > > According to who?
> >
> > According to people who are doggedly pursuing cancer
> > treatments. Even those touting it as a cure don't offer
> > much sound research or evidence that I would take as
> > scientifically credible.
>
> Perhaps people who find ESSIAC works aren't allowed to
> talk about it. Maybe if medical researchers don't follow
> the "proper" lines of research they are replaced with
> people who will.
This is going to be covered in a soon to be released movie,
"Invasion of the Researcher Snatchers."
> > > > Nobody's suppressing the research into the product
> > > > or it's availability. You really enjoy "everything's
> > > > a conspiracy"
****,
> > > > but there's no suppression of info on Essaic, cell
> > > > salts, amalgam removal, vitamins, etc. Disagreement
> > > > about an opinion ISN'T suppression, Carole -- as
> > > > much as you'd like it to mean that, it
isn't
> > > > even close.
>
> Conspiracies do exist. There are plots, counter
> plots, agents, double agents, psyops, psywars,
> propaganda and spin.
And Carole, who knows about them all.
Do you know the UK
> government has 72 advisers?
Only that many? There should be more!
The public are marketed to in order to
> keep them compliant and go along with various views,
> its a real science keeping the public misinformed and
> dumbed down.
Well, if you claimed to be proof of that assertion, I would
be hard pressed to find a way to rebut your claim.
> > > Wrong. If a normal GP tries to peddle alternative
> > > remedies he risks ruining his career.
> >
> > That has nothing to do with regulation, Carole. If an MD
> > peddling (interesting verbage there <G>) alt. remedies
> > "ruins" his career, that would be because potential
> > patients viewed him as a quack, not because he was
> > stopped from "peddling" those wares. Surely, you don't
> > think it should be mandatory for *any* doc to be
> > ENDORSED by a regulatory body???? Besides, Hulda Clark's
> > been hawking her brand of incompetence for years & she
> > hasn't been stopped, at least in certain developing
> > nations. She proves that anybody can sell anything.....
>
> And how to you know Hulda Clark hasn't had success with
> her treatments?
Because they are based on absurdities. Pure woo-woo.
> Because the health authorities told you? I don't know
> anything about her treatments either, but wouldn't be
> prepared to say they didn't work because I've read how any
> treatments which go against conventional medicine are
> suppressed.
So you say, and say, and say, and say, and say...
So, since you say it so much, how can you claim it is
suppressed?
> Carole
> http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/conspiracy.htm
Hey, that does have an interesting link:
http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/christ_cons-
piracy.htm
so, you deny Jesus existed, eh? Boy, is Jan Drew going to be
****** at you!
Are you a $cientologi$t?
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Michele) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> re CODEX
> >
> > > > It doesn't prohibit the use of supplements, Carole.
> > > > It regulates
it,
> > > > & pretty much only the mega doses. It won't stop
> > > > people from taking multiple tabs of a lower dose of
> > > > a vitamin. As far as herbal products, they will
> > > > still be available.
> > >
> > > Of course you're right and on face value this might
> > > seem reasonable enough. However, it is this seemingly
> > > reasonableness which gets the foot in the door and
> > > the tougher stuff comes later once everything is
> > > locked in.
> >
> > Common sense & reason is some sort of *slippery slope*
> > to you?? Keeping herbal products & supplements available
> > in GRAS doses is getting "the foot in the door"?? The
> > door to what -- letting consumers continue to purchase
> > the products they want?? It's not a matter of "face
> > value", Carole -- it's the whole thing. Mega doses of
> > vitamins could still be taken, just as many OTC pharm.
> > products are taken in prescription doses by consumers.
> > Ibuprofen & Zantac are just 2 examples of meds available
> > in lower strength OTC that users can take in
> > prescription doses just by popping a tablet or two more.
> > There is no "tougher stuff" coming later. C'est tout.
> >
> > > > Why should products making claims of disease
> > > > prevention &/or cures be exempt from regulation?
If
> > > > you claim something is just as effective or superior
> > > > to a pharmaceutical product, you should have no
> > > > problem with the scrutiny
&
> > > > regulation that goes along with such claims.
>
> Obviously Michele, cartels have the power to suppress
> information and slant information their own way. But you
> wouldn't be able to work this out because you are mind
> controlled.
Thee ya go agin, whackoing about mind control. Next thing
you'll tel lus is that youhave a mind.
The people should have access to
> nutritional remedies and not have big brother telling them
> what is best.
Listening to 'big brother' is far prefarable to listenint to
dumb little sister.
>
> > > Once again, what you say makes sense. However, there
> > > are sinister motives behind CODEX and you really need
> > > to read up on the plot of create a fascist new world
> > > order. Regulation of every form of human endeavour
> > > includes medicine.
> >
> > There you go again, Carole -- attributing sinister
> > motives to something that even you admit "makes sense".
> > The words "reasonable" & "sensible" don't go hand in
> > hand with sinister plots, diabolical motives, & evil
> > conspiracies. Not all regulations are tools for mind
> > control devised by some mysterious oligarchy. The world
> > will never be organized enough to be *controlled* by any
> > economic, political, or religious group. But laws &
> > regulations, whether to prevent motorists from driving
> > on the sidewalks or packaging pharm. & alt. products in
> > GRAS doses for OTC use are generally recognized as a
> > good idea. They prevent the bodies from piling up on the
> > sidewalks & establish guidelines WRT OTC products. They
> > don't prevent stupid behavior, whether strolling out
> > into traffic or tossing back toxic doses of Tylenol or
> > Vitamin B6. It just makes it the choice of the
> > individual to do something harmful. If anything, it
> > would make it harder to yank a product off the market, a
> > la ephedra. Truthful labeling, packaging doses GRAS
> > (leaving it up to the consumer if they still want to
> > take potentially toxic doses), & quality control about
> > the actual contents of the product are as reasonable &
> > sensible as mandating that a bottle of Tylenol contain
> > Tylenol instead of sawdust. It isn't a fascist plot,
> > there is no new world order.
>
> You really know how to waffle. Why don't you snip yourself
> and stop repeating ad finitum the bleeding obvious.
Why do you not throw you computer out the window and stop
posting your idiotic whacko conspiracy blather?
> It is a fascist plot and there is a new world order.
There are times I am certain that YOU are a plot to make
whackos look bad.
> > > > Just like many prescription meds have OTC
> > > > counterparts that are simply a lower dose of the
> > > > same med, there can be two tiers of supplement/alt.
> > > > products. That is a more accurate picture of the
> > > > CODEX ideas. Of course it doesn't create that
> > > > reactionary alarm like your "trying to stop free
> > > > access to nutritional supplements" nonsense.
> > >
> > > Emotive terms like "nonsense" demonstrate your mode of
> > > thinking, that it isn't based on logic but on
> > > conditioned emotional responses to a topic.
> > >
> > > Explain, in logical terms, without use of emotive
> > > terms, the benefits of CODEX and why it isn't a plot
> > > to restrict free access to supplements which are
> > > already expensive enough.
> >
> > I've explained it several times, Carole. Your
> > determination to declare it a plot, suppression, & other
> > rather loaded terms doesn't change a sensible,
> > reasonable, logical idea into the sinister plan you're
> > trying to spin. You've even admitted my explanations are
> > "quite right", "reasonable", etc. Either you really
> > can't understand what's been said or you would simply
> > rather deny reality.
>
> That's right, I admit your explanations are reasonable -
> as far as they go. But so are mine,
No, they are not. Not all explanations are created equal.
Michele's are reality based, while yours are whacko based.
yet they are opposing views. There is a lot
> of stuff going on which the public are kept in the
> dark about.
Carole, I bow to your expertise of being in the dark. Your
truly are a intellectual dark sucker.
> > > > > What is your theory on latent acidosis, and what
> > > > > consequences does
it
> > > > > have if left unchecked?
> > > >
> > > > The body's PH is consistent, Carole. Urine & saliva
> > > > PH are NOT indicative of the blood PH. "Left
> > > > unchecked", the PH of the body remains the same &
> > > > the PH of the urine & saliva vary without any ill
> > > > effect. The test results I see over & over again
> > > > with patients -- both healthy & not, in a variety of
> > > > settings -- shows that.
>
> Yes, but while the blood is kept in the right pH -- there
> is something which develops called latent acidosis, which
> is the main cause of toxemia.
Sure. Just like you have latent normalcy.
> > > The reason why the pH is consistent is because the
> > > acids which don't get eliminated are deposited around
> > > the body in tissues, arteries and joints. This is
> > > called latent acidosis. This is explained at the
> > > following website -
> > >
> > > The development of latent "acidosis"
> > > http://www.euroamericanhealth.com/how.html
> >
> > Once again: The body's PH is consistent, Carole. Urine
> > & saliva PH are NOT indicative of the blood PH. "Left
> > unchecked", the PH of the body remains the same & the
> > PH of the urine & saliva vary without any ill effect.
> > The test results I see over & over again with patients
> > -- both healthy & not, in a variety of settings --
> > shows that.
>
> I don't understand it exactly,
A fact that has never inhibited you from spouting rubbish.
but its something to do with latent
> acidosis. From what I can understand the body uses
> minerals which are taken from the bones and tissues, to
> keep the blood at the right pH. The loss of minerals to
> other parts of the body leads to latent acidosis and
> health problems.
Like this.
> > > > You don't really know for sure why the pamphlet was
> > > > "recalled"
unless
> > > > the health dept. admits it did so, & states why.
> > > > Just as likely is the scenario that statements in
> > > > the pamphlet were fraudulent & the health food store
> > > > proprietor decided not to put his/her neck on a
> > > > legal chopping block for it. It could also have been
> > > > a matter of customers questioning the material's
> > > > accuracy & skepticism usually isn't good for
> > > > business.
> > >
> > > The shop assistant told me the Blackmores cellsalt
> > > pamphlet was recalled.
> >
> > Once again: You don't really know for sure why the
> > pamphlet was "recalled" unless the health dept. admits
> > it did so, & states why.
> >
> > The shop assistant isn't the be-all-end-all authority
> > WRT why a pamphlet wasn't at the health food store
> > anymore. *Unless the health dept. stated it did so & why
> > -- or there is credible evidence that they did -- you
> > don't know why.*
> >
> > Just as likely is the scenario that statements in the
> > pamphlet were fraudulent & the health food store
> > proprietor decided not to put his/her neck on a legal
> > chopping block for it. It could also have been a matter
> > of customers questioning the material's accuracy &
> > skepticism usually isn't good for business.
>
> The shop assistant told me the pamphlet was recalled
> because it wasn't allowed to prescribe remedies, which it
> did. The details in the pamphlet were correct which I've
> found out from years of trial and error. Therefore the
> authorities are in the business of suppression and use the
> sacred cow of "public safety" to sell this misconception
> to the public.
Sure, Carole, sure. When did the black helicopters take
them away?
> > If I hadn't ever seen that pamphlet I never would
> > have got
> > > into cellsalts. In other words, access to information
> > > is suppressed on a pretext - "public safety", "public
> > > health", "stopping fraud" etc.
> >
> > YET AGAIN: You don't know why the pamphlet is no longer
> > there. You are chomping at the bit to attribute it to
> > *something* sinister, but you don't have one iota of
> > evidence about it. The fact that the pamphlet was
> > publicly displayed disproves your "suppression" theory.
> > Space isn't unlimited on the health food shelf ya
> > know....
>
> The pamphlet was on the counter, and was publicly
> displayed briefly until it was removed.
By the "Men in Black", no doubt.
> > > > > Like where is your response to the suppression of
> > > > > ESSIAC?
> > > >
> > > > You must have a serious reading comprehension
> > > > problem. I already stated I've read about the
> > > > efficacy of Essaic -- & I don't find much in the way
> > > > of evidence to show much to get excited about in
> > > > that department.
> > >
> > > And why is that? If people get cured from it why don't
> > > doctors prescribe it? Its cheap enough and non-toxic.
> >
> > "Cheap enough & non-toxic" describes water, bananas, &
> > other items that ALSO don't cure cancer. The efficacy of
> > Essaic in treating cancer is no better than water.
> > People *don't* "get cured" of cancer by using it.
> > [Cancer isn't ONE disease, either.] I don't see much
> > evidence to utilize it.
>
> How do you know ESSIAC isn't an effective treatment for
> many types of cancer? Because the health authorities
> told you?
That is always a good start. However, if the essaic
swindlers wanted to prove that it works, there i s$$
available in the US to run clinical trials. What are they
afraid of?
> > > > I read about MANY ideas I don't agree with --
> > > > sometimes there is enough evidence to make me
> > > > reconsider my previous POV, sometimes not. Essaic
> > > > currently doesn't have much indicating it can cure
> > > > anything.
> > >
> > > According to who?
> >
> > According to people who are doggedly pursuing cancer
> > treatments. Even those touting it as a cure don't offer
> > much sound research or evidence that I would take as
> > scientifically credible.
>
> Perhaps people who find ESSIAC works aren't allowed to
> talk about it. Maybe if medical researchers don't follow
> the "proper" lines of research they are replaced with
> people who will.
This is going to be covered in a soon to be released movie,
"Invasion of the Researcher Snatchers."
> > > > Nobody's suppressing the research into the product
> > > > or it's availability. You really enjoy "everything's
> > > > a conspiracy"
****,
> > > > but there's no suppression of info on Essaic, cell
> > > > salts, amalgam removal, vitamins, etc. Disagreement
> > > > about an opinion ISN'T suppression, Carole -- as
> > > > much as you'd like it to mean that, it
isn't
> > > > even close.
>
> Conspiracies do exist. There are plots, counter
> plots, agents, double agents, psyops, psywars,
> propaganda and spin.
And Carole, who knows about them all.
Do you know the UK
> government has 72 advisers?
Only that many? There should be more!
The public are marketed to in order to
> keep them compliant and go along with various views,
> its a real science keeping the public misinformed and
> dumbed down.
Well, if you claimed to be proof of that assertion, I would
be hard pressed to find a way to rebut your claim.
> > > Wrong. If a normal GP tries to peddle alternative
> > > remedies he risks ruining his career.
> >
> > That has nothing to do with regulation, Carole. If an MD
> > peddling (interesting verbage there <G>) alt. remedies
> > "ruins" his career, that would be because potential
> > patients viewed him as a quack, not because he was
> > stopped from "peddling" those wares. Surely, you don't
> > think it should be mandatory for *any* doc to be
> > ENDORSED by a regulatory body???? Besides, Hulda Clark's
> > been hawking her brand of incompetence for years & she
> > hasn't been stopped, at least in certain developing
> > nations. She proves that anybody can sell anything.....
>
> And how to you know Hulda Clark hasn't had success with
> her treatments?
Because they are based on absurdities. Pure woo-woo.
> Because the health authorities told you? I don't know
> anything about her treatments either, but wouldn't be
> prepared to say they didn't work because I've read how any
> treatments which go against conventional medicine are
> suppressed.
So you say, and say, and say, and say, and say...
So, since you say it so much, how can you claim it is
suppressed?
> Carole
> http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/conspiracy.htm
Hey, that does have an interesting link:
http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/christ_cons-
piracy.htm
so, you deny Jesus existed, eh? Boy, is Jan Drew going to be
****** at you!
Are you a $cientologi$t?
)