Dentistry - Joel Eichen REPEATED lies, W

Author

Joel Eichen REPEATED lies, W_B repeats the lie

Jan

2005-02-03, 10:48 am

From: W_B <no_...@nowhere.net> -
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:52:31 GMT
Local: Wed, Feb 2 2005 11:52 am
Subject: Re: A Reminder of Joel Eichen's blatherings

Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived. This
message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Feb 9, 11:52 am).

Which means W_B doesn't want his lies archived.

331L or 245...
diamond amalgam removers work well too...

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:18:20 GMT, Steven Fawks <tuthjoc...@e_arthlink.net>
wrote:

>I prefer a 330 carbide.

>Fawks

[vbcol=seagreen]

Joel Eichen is a liar, just more proof.

Sad that.

Jan

John Chewter

2005-02-03, 10:48 am

Get a life Jan - the pills are simply not working.

--
John Chewter
http://www.keyneimage.co.uk
"Jan" <jdrew63929@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050202173014.16659.00000355@mb-m16.aol.com...
>
>
> From: W_B <no_...@nowhere.net> -
> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:52:31 GMT
> Local: Wed, Feb 2 2005 11:52 am
> Subject: Re: A Reminder of Joel Eichen's blatherings
>
> Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived. This
> message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Feb 9, 11:52 am).
>
> Which means W_B doesn't want his lies archived.
>
>
> 331L or 245...
> diamond amalgam removers work well too...
>
>
>
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:18:20 GMT, Steven Fawks <tuthjoc...@e_arthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joel Eichen is a liar, just more proof.
>
> Sad that.
>
> Jan
>
>
>

Joel M. Eichen

2005-02-03, 10:48 am

On 02 Feb 2005 22:30:14 GMT, jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:

>
>Joel Eichen is a liar, just more proof.
>
>Sad that.
>
>Jan

Jan, what kind of coffee would you
recommend for cooling the bur, or whatever?

Joel

Joel M. Eichen

2005-02-03, 10:48 am

Xref: newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com sci.med.dentistry:257852

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 18:09:10 -0500, "Sdores" <sdores@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Jimney cricket, I thought this was a dental group and not Jan Drew's board.
>You keep saying the same stuff over and over again. We all get it already!
>"Jan" <jdrew63929@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20050202173014.16659.00000355@mb-m16.aol.com...

Jan gets commissions for Fleet's enemas, that she claims are useful
for mercury filling removal.

Joel

Jan

2005-02-03, 10:48 am

>Subject: Re: Joel Eichen REPEATED lies, W_B repeats the lie
>From: "John Chewter" john@LESS_SPAMchewter.f9.co.uk
>Date: 2/2/2005 2:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ctrkrg$9ap$1@hercules.btinternet.com>
>
>Get a life Jan - the pills are simply not working.

Say John, do show us that Joel lies.

Have the guts??

Do show where I have ever clamed avything bout coffee emenas. therwise you are
condoning his lies.

Your credibility is on the line.

Rich.@.

2005-02-03, 10:48 am

On 03 Feb 2005 02:22:09 GMT, jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:

>
>Say John, do show us that Joel lies.
>
>Have the guts??
>
>Do show where I have ever clamed avything bout coffee emenas. therwise you are
>condoning his lies.
>
>Your credibility is on the line.

Jan is one to talk about lies. Let he who is without sin cast the
first stone:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>On 02 Apr 2004 02:45:24 GMT, jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:

Poor Jan.

Aloha,

Rich

Jan

2005-02-03, 10:48 am

>Subject: Re: Joel Eichen REPEATED lies, W_B repeats the lie
>From: "Sdores" sdores@bellsouth.net
>Date: 2/2/2005 3:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <D1dMd.6397$3W3.1401@bignews4.bellsouth.net>
>
>Jimney cricket, I thought this was a dental group and not Jan Drew's board.
>You keep saying the same stuff over and over again. We all get it already!

Simply a lie.

It is Joel who has lied over and over and over.

NOWHERE at ANYTIME did I say a single word about using coffee enemas to detox
mercury, or anything else for that matter,

So take it up with Joel, not me.

Jan

Rich.@.

2005-02-03, 10:48 am

On 03 Feb 2005 02:46:44 GMT, jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:

>Simply a lie.
>
>It is Joel who has lied over and over and over.

On 02 Apr 2004 02:45:24 GMT, jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
Jan says that she NEVER said she had eight amalgams. Above she says
that removing 8 amalgams made a big difference.

Oh wait a minute. Jan said she had 8 amalgams, not eight amalgams.
Years is not two years. Lord have mercy.
>
>
>

Joel M. Eichen

2005-02-03, 10:48 am

On 03 Feb 2005 02:46:44 GMT, jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:

>It is Joel who has lied over and over and over.
>
>NOWHERE at ANYTIME did I say a single word about using coffee enemas to detox
>mercury, or anything else for that matter,

This part is true. You never said anything else for that matter,
anything else worthwhile that is.

Joel

>
>So take it up with Joel, not me.
>
>Jan

John Chewter

2005-02-07, 8:26 am

If you are ever trapped a newgroup with only Jan & a Cobra for company -
trust the Cobra.

--
John Chewter
http://www.keyneimage.co.uk
<Rich.@.> wrote in message
news:ul330158nkasg8fq5o7ja1569lrkgulk79@4ax.com...
> On 03 Feb 2005 02:22:09 GMT, jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>
>
> Jan is one to talk about lies. Let he who is without sin cast the
> first stone:
>
>
> Poor Jan.
>
> Aloha,
>
> Rich
>

MC60614

2005-02-07, 8:26 am

Oh, coffee sounds good right now. Piping Hot. MC

Jan

2005-02-07, 8:26 am

>Subject: Re: Joel Eichen REPEATED lies, W_B repeats the lie
>From: "John Chewter" john@LESS_SPAMchewter.f9.co.uk
>Date: 2/3/2005 12:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ctu1e4$8n2$1@titan.btinternet.com>
>
>If you are ever trapped a newgroup with only Jan & a Cobra for company -
>trust the Cobra.

While John sucks up to liars with full approval.

>Say John, do show us that Joel lies.

Have the guts??

>Do show where I have ever clamed avything bout coffee emenas. therwise you are
condoning his lies.

Your credibility is on the line.

====

You jusT showed us you have NONE.

Joel's brother/??

><Rich.@.> wrote

Richard H Jacobson is a provn liar wih a pattern of abuse.

John eats it up.

============

Jan Feb 3, 12:14 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: jdrew63...@aol.com (Jan) - Find messages by this author
Date: 03 Feb 2005 08:14:15 GMT
Local: Thurs, Feb 3 2005 12:14 am
Subject: Why Rick's nuked his posts
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse

Bit of history about Aloha Rich. All readers can judge for themselves.

Check out the about my parents part. He tried to use my ill parents to belittle

me and thiscontinued even AFTER my father's death.

Jan

From: jbai...@aol.com (John Bain)>Date: 7/6/01 7:12 AM US Eastern
StandardTime>Message-id: <20010706081244.03870.00000...@nso-cp.aol.com>>>

Rich<k...@hawaii.rr.com> writes:> >"diane" <dmk...@earthlink.net>>

what>does Rich base his apparent belief that her improvement is only due to her

relief of getting her teeth removed?

[vbcol=seagreen]

than she had in two years. At thetime that she felt better than she had in two
years it is very likely that her mercury level was higher than it was before
she had the amalgams removed since the process of removing the amalgams causes
a large release of mercury vapor that will be absorbed into the system. At the
very least the mercury level inher body within days of having the amalgams
removed will be roughly the same as it was before she had them removed. Since
the mercury level was either higher or the same, her improvement could not
possibly be due to the mercury level decreasing.

Jan, by her very own admission, stated that she believes that her improvement
was due to her relief that she finally had the amalgamsremoved from her mouth.

[vbcol=seagreen]

misinterpretations.Garbage in, garbage out. Rich only wants to stalk, as he has

continually done to others in the past. He is stuck on the phrase, I feel
better than I have in two years.

[vbcol=seagreen]
> Evidently Rich has never searched for two years for an answer. *HE* was NOT

the one who did it! While this seems to be a big deal to Rich, he also has NO
idea of how Ifelt during those two years.Therefore he can't and doesn't know
how I felt. He also can't relate to feeling of great relief that the dental
work was over .Rich's sole purpose here is to analyze anyone who disagrees with

him. He overlooks all studies and evident that many people do get mercury
poisoning from mercury amalgams. Who does this sound like? He also is obsessed
with who is telling lies, but said NOT one word when Andrew lied over and
over.Rich is a fake. I truly pity him. Something somewhere in either his
childhood or personal experience has made him bitter and he can''t control his
obsessions. So rather than look for help with his own behaiors, he chooses to
belittle others.You can easily see what Rich's weakness are. They are EXACTLY
what he accuses others of.

[vbcol=seagreen]

information from Jan. And it is Jan's experience, Jan's report of her state of
health AND Jan's own belief that I am using to draw my conclusions.You see it
isJan HERSELF who believes that she felt better than she had intwo>>years
because of RELIEF that the amalgams were out of her mouth. Itis NOT just my
belief. But it is not the whole story.

[vbcol=seagreen]
>But Rich does't care Bingo! Jan, it gives him his reasons to stalk Jan just as

he has stalked others here. "Proof" is apparently in the eye of the
beholder....since different people have different standards of proof. Of
course. Jan's standard of proof is simply what she believes to be true
regardless of what the evidence may demonstrate.

Best wishes>

--John Bains

Rich <k...@hawaii.rr.com> writes:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Kaalga believes that this misattribution was deliberately made inorder to

malign the reputation of Jan. But since it was Kaalga that made the comment I
guess that means that Kaalga thinks that the comment was somehow inappropriate
and would malign her own reputation,as if it could be maligned any more than it

already is. Ms hypocrisy>strikes again:-)))

>Rich avoids the issue yet again.DC either made an error or he deliberately

misrepresented the posts.But then Rich also does this.I also find it EXTREMELY
humorous that both Jan and Kaalga are calling for an apology for this comment
while they say absolutely nothing about John Bain calling me a stalker for
*once* crossposting a discussion in mha about ADHD to an ADHD group.

typical. He has said he intends to post a similar rant on a regular basis,
claiming to be 'policing' the group. He is undoubtedly a cyber stalker and Jan
is his current target.

[vbcol=seagreen]
> Not only is it not wrong to crosspost in that instance, it is

highlyAPPROPRIATE to do so.This is part of the interchange I had with Rich last

year over this issue.----------------

Subject: Re: RitalinFrom: J BainSITo:
misc.health.alternativeDate: 09/06/2000Rich <kala...@hawaii.rr.com writes:

<snip>

>I am truly sorry that I made her aware of this support group You didn't 'make

her aware of it' until confusion set in, you crossposted her to it,
deliberately.

>The last thing thatyou need is Jan Drew mail bombing your group with her

nonsense.

>How can she do this, she is only posting to MHA, like me.If anyone thinks

ASA-D should read this, please repost it to them

>Again>I apologize to ADAD and encourage all of you to keep up the good work.
>You should apologise, but for your own behavior.
>I will continue to try to keep posters on mha honest and challenge thevery

dubious claims

>And you do not consider Andrew's, acupuncture 'disharmonies' are

legallydefined in the Florida statutes, is a dubious claim. No, you pick on
people and if they challenge you, killfile them.

> I sure wish some of you ADAP guys would help me out over at mha. It sure is

difficult doing this short handed and I bet you guys have more energy than I
do:-))-----------------------------------------------

>Jan did not mailbomb or post to ADA-D at all. Rich did it all and

deliberately tried to deceive the posters there.

>Rich is a cyberstalker and he has been stalking Jan for a long time.

Best wishes

- John Bain

>Rich doesn't like Jan because she stands up to him.He will be killfiling her

next.
===

What is sadder is that Jan has two parents with Alzheimers disease who live

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

>with her brother who she has accused in the past of being abusive
>to her father. Why is Jan not spending more time with her ailing parents and
>less time posting her drivel??

>Jan says that this is the "happiest time of my life". How is that possible
>with two parents with Alzheimers Disease?? Something just does not add up.

>But maybe her parents are better off not having Jan take care of them. Her
>intolerance and lack of understanding are not good qualities for someone
>taking care of someone with Alzheimers Disease. Maybe they are better off
>with her brother.
>Let us all pray that Jan's parents pass quietly and peacefully. Lord knows
>what they must be enduring.
>You don't know how much longer your parents will be on this earth.

>You waste so much time in this newsgroup when you have two parents who may be

close to death.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

>You say this is the "happiest time of your life" when you have two parents
>in end stage Alzheimers who do not even recognize you, by your own
>admission. Happiest time of your life with two parents dying a horrible
>death???? And you call yourself a loving child. And you think that your
>parents would be proud of you NOW??? Have you lost touch with reality??
>Unfortunately they had no control over how their children would turn out and
>whether they would be there in their time of need. They may not know who
>you are but God sure knows that you are not spending as much time with them
>as you should.
>You are just a very selfish person who thinks about her own happiness at the
>expense of her parents who are dying a horrible disease.

>Having loving children spend as much time as they can with them IS something
>that they could really use. The choice is yours. Think about it. After they
>pass you will no longer be able to spend time with them. Time is limited.
>They are your parents after all.
>God is watching. You cannot fool him with your rationalizations about why
>you spend so much time on usenet when the time could better be spent with
>your parents.
>Go visit your parents.
>Just like Jan is happier than she has ever been even though she has two
>parents dying of Alzheimers

(this one from Andrew Kingoff, Rich's enabler)

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

>Please get into therapy!!!!!!! Denying that your parents are dying is not
>a healthy thing. It is terribly hard to accept the impending loss of loved
>ones, but denial is NOT the answer. As much as it may hurt your pride to
>accept Rich's words & advice, he is correct. You are spending your time
>away from them (here on usenet) AND are even denying that at their age and
>in their condition that they are, in fact, dying.
>Please find a good therapist (none of that TFT bullshit) and spend time with
>your parents while you still can. Usenet will be hear when you have gotten
>your priorities in order. Honor your mother & father, Jan, they won't be
>here forever.
>Remember when I told you that you should visit your parents more often
>because they may not have much more time left in this world and you
>told me that I had no idea what I was talking about because your parents
>were NOT dying. Within weeks of my comment your father died.
>Perhaps without even seeing your parents I know more about their illness
>than you do.
>And your loving nature is equally evident. OTOH maybe it is better that you
>DON'T visit your mother. She has enough problems as it is.
>And since your mother is now staying with you it might be helpful to spend
>quality time with her rather than working yourself up in this newsgroup.
>You have clearly gone on record saying that you worked hard all your life
>and now that you are retired you want to enjoy the good life which is why
>you choose to not spend that much time with your mother. Hopefully you will
>not resent your mother when her Alzheimer's Disease makes her difficult and
>frustrating to care for.
> l(ess than one month after my Dad's death,,,,,,,God rest his soul)

>I am glad that you have finished grieving over the tragic loss of your father.

>It took me a lot longer than that to finish grieving over the loss of my
>parents. It looks like *you* have not missed a beat.

===

*She read research, ***but doesn't mail it to me*** so she didn't do the
research either.*

*I heard Kelly say a lot of things. And IMO she, and I
am being VERY kind, is not being

**completely honest**

about it. Or did not YOU read THOSE things??? Seems like you have selective
reading.*

***It does more to indicate what kind of person you are than anything.**

***It is true that I accused Kelly of lying about having breast cancer and
being cured by chelation and pycnogenol.*****

*This is a quite remarkable claim and her response were vague, evasive, and
contradictory. If it is difficult for you to believe that someone died as a
result of rejecting conventional care since it seems like such

***an outrageous claim***

(I mean NO ONE dies from doing this do they)then I don'tknow what to tell you.I

mean... you don't believe Kelly had breast cancer, or I am married,

No I believe you are married. I also believe that your husband has
hypertension.

***And I also think I have some insigh tinto why he has hypertension. High
stress can cause high blood pressure. Somehow I have af eeling that your
husband has stress in his life. I don't know from where because

****it is clear that it is not coming from you since you have demonstrated such

empathy, compassion and caring for your fellow human being. His stress must be
from elsewhere.***

It does seem as if you are coming apart at the seams:-)))

*Did she ALSO tell you that she
qualified showing t to me depending on what she thought of me when he met me.
Based on her numerous contradictions and evasiveness as manifested on this
newsgroup I determined that her

***credibility approaches zero***

*** I don't trust Kelly AT ALL and I offered MUCH evidence for this
perception.***
==
*I have decided it is a waste of time trying to discuss things with Connie.
Several times I have confronted her with information that contradicts what she
says and she just ignores it. It is very difficult for Connie to be direct when

she realizes that she is wrong. When she realizes she is wrong she goes into
her sarcastic, avoidant or play mode. We have seen her behavior over and over
again. But what fascinates me the most is how no one calls Connie to task over
this stuff except me. For the first time Karuna is encouraging>Connie to answer

me but Karuna fails to tell Connie that it is WRONG to claim someone had skin
cancer without biopsy and WRONG to avoid saying it is wrong even when
confronted with the facts.

But Connie is Connie. What can I say.

I simpy asked the question of what makes you think that you have problem with
digestive enzymes (and instead of answering you just launched an ad hominem).

You consider THAT interrogation??? Perhaps your psychologic problems are
deeper than I thought.

Or are we just supposed to accept every anecdote that you present here at face
value and not ask ANY questions that might help to evaluate the anecdote for
its reliability and validity??

With all due respect Connie, you seem VERY defensive.

You see Connie it is YOU who you are really trying to convince that these
alternative treatments are working. If you stopped believing them then your
anxiety about getting ill in the future would likely be so overwhelming as to
be intolerable.

> So what was your point Connie?? I asked a question and you state that you are

not used to interrogation and then add a smiley. So perhaps you could seriously

explain why you chose not to answer simple question which was very reasonable
and instead give an ad hominem.

> Perhaps you can answer it seriously without the smiley. Or are you really

NOT interested in a discussion about alternative health and just into posting
anecdotes and then dancing around attempts to further explore the anecdote
through questions that could clarify points that were not clear.

to come to conclusions such as:

[vbcol=seagreen]

life threatening pancreatic disorder

[vbcol=seagreen]

insufficiency.>>

In both of the above anecdotal experiences that you personally had, you did NOT

have enough information to really assert either of those statements. And yet
you did. But when I attempt through questions to> get more information about
the situations I am met with resistance, defensiveness and sarcasm or outright
lies. You say that you would like to discuss but your behavior is not
consistent with this statement.

It does not have to lead to liar chants. Of course when it is obvious that you
are lying then it is difficult to resist.

[vbcol=seagreen]
> You see Connie I realize that you clearly are anxious about your health and

want to believe that these alternative treatments are going to help prevent
serious illnesses in the future.

> In order to convince yourself that your hope is true you seem to add bits of

information that will support your contention. However your bits of information

often indicate that you are not telling the truth.

No. You just made up the part about the blood test to make your anecdote more
credible. But it backfired since the whole story is preposterous.

> And this is why you are reluctant to NOW give details when I ask. I have

already exposed your lies. Perhaps now you realize that it is>better to just
attack conventional medicine and make ad hominem arguements instead of
answering simple questions that would help to understand what we are dealing
with. You probably realize that if you give honest answers to my questions that

I will be able to> successfully debunk your claims. And because it is so
important for you to have hope that these treatments work in order to reduce
your anxiety about your future health, you must at all costs stop me from
debunking you successfully.

> That is where the lying, ad hominems or unreasonable attacks on conventional

medicine come in.

> Just as you made up the story about your 14 year old nephew who was

asymptomatic and was diagnosed as having an ulcer which was then confirmed by
an MD. Another example of how you want to convince others that these
alternative therapies are on the up and up by adding confirmatory claims.

If you don't want to be called a liar then I suggest that you stop lying.

> And what is that point. If you present an anecdote and I ask if you> have

confirmatory information for the diagnosis such as a blood test> or xray or
biopsy then simply answer yes or no. Don't try to make up stuff to make your
story more credible. It does not work because you are clearly no sophisticated
enough to make up a good story. This is>quite clear from the many stories that
you have already told.

> But I really do understand your anxiety about your future health and your

need to really believe all these alternative remedies that you take are going
to protect you. And I understand your need to convince yourself it is true even

if it means making up stories that will confirm your beliefs. And now that I
am thinking about it, it may be true that you are not really lying. You may be
so well defended and so anxious that you may not even be aware that you are
making up these stories in order to convince YOURSELF that these alternative
treatments really work.

> You see Connie it is YOU who you are really trying to convince that these

alternative treatments are working. If you stopped believing them then your
anxiety about getting ill in the future would likely be so overwhelming as to
be intolerable.

> I am not sure which you have: a severe memory disturbance or pathologic

lying. In either case your credibility is totally lacking

> I express skepticism about certain claims that you make. That does NOT mean

that I think preventative health care is a ridiculous idea OR that we are much
better off with full scale conventional medicine blast way treatments. You
continue to make strawman arguments which>do little for your credibility.

> I believe I have demonstrated that you either have a severe memory

disturbance or are a pathologic liar and that your anecdotes should be taken
with a grain of salt.

> I believe that I have also demonstrated that it is important for readers of

this newsgroup to tread with caution before believing any anecdotes posted
here.

> I have demonstrated the importance of attempting to get

confirmatory information before even believing that the anecdote presented is
valid.

> First you say that he did. Then you say that you never said he did. Then you

say that you never heard of an infant glucose tolerance test.

> And NOW you say that maybe he did and maybe he did not. Are you SURE that you

are not running for political office?:-))))

Of course you should Huggy. You are a Christian and love everyone. You> also
confess your sins (such as lying): been busy at confessional latel?:-))

> Perhaps it is YOU who has the pathologic paranoia. Perhaps it is YOU who is

so paranoid about getting ill that you will take any quack remedy that comes
down the pike because you don't have time to wait for science to "prove" it.

> Yes. Exposing misinformation/distortion/lies about health claims.
> You were saying something about pathologic paranoia?? Just because I question

your claims you think that I am motivated by financial incentive. Oh, I am
sorry. You had a smiley. Does that mean that you> did not really mean
that???:-)))

> I am skeptical of whether either of you HAD either of these conditions. In

the case of your son, there is no blood test to make such a diagnosis (other
than gtt) and in your case you did not have such a blood test.

> So perhaps you were both "cured" of conditions that neither of you> had:-)))

I am not saying that your infant son was not quite ill and that you were
appropriately concerned about him. I AM suggesting that he did NOT have the
lifethreatening pancreatic problem that you claim that he did. I am simply
skeptical. That does NOT mean that I am pathologically paranoid.

I am attempting to get at the truth about anecdotes and to remove the
distortions and misrepresentations and lies that you tell.

Remember Connie that lying is a sin.

Perhaps your chiropractors knows more about diagnosing adrenal insufficiency
than endocrinologists:-)))

Unfortunately alternative health providers prey upon the somatically
hypervigilant convincing them that they have caught a problem early and are
providing treatment to prevent the problem from getting worse.

> When I asked you what condition you would CHOOSE to treat with alternatives

instead of conventional you replied that you used acupuncture and
supplements to treat strep throat.

> . Soon after that, you stated that you believed that strep throat was a

serious illness that warranted treatment with antibiotics.

> When I confronted you about this contradiction you stated that your husband

reminded you of how sick you were when you chose not to take antibiotics..

HOWEVER you ALSO claim that as a result of being so extremely ill not taking
antibiotics that the next time that you had strep throat that> you chose to
take antibiotics.

> If you were so ill when you did not take antibiotics that you chose to take

them just a few years ago how is it possible that you forgot that acupuncture
and supplements did not work when you replied to my question about what illness

you would treat with alternatives??

In order for you to have that serious a memory disorder you would not be able
to function in day to day living.

I don't believe that you are being truthful about this. Others can make their
own decision about your honesty.

With your "apparent" memory disturbance it is doubtful that you can learn from
your past mistakes and are doomed to repeat them.

You see Connie sometimes it is not necessary for someone to have been there to
know that what you are saying is not true. It is only necessary for someone to
be knowledgeable enough about blood tests to know that what you are claiming is

impossible. If you have information that contradicts what I say then please
post it.

Others might be concerned about your credibility.

With you it is easy Connie. Just look at my critical analysis of your claims
and your contradictory posts which strongly suggest that you are not being
honest.

No. BELIEVING that you have caught symptoms early that will get worse later is
the rule. Just because you believe it to be true does not make it so.

My ONLY point is that your anecdote is NOT evidence that he had a life
threatening pancreatic disorder as you CLAIMED in your original anecdote. That

has been my ONLY objection.

Lack of energy in a very nonspecific symptom that may very well be amenable to
placebo responses.

>So it is perfectly reasonable to speculate that Connie made up the part about

having a confirmatory blood test in order to add credibility to the
chiropractor's Dx. If she did not lie then how else can you explain her
assertion especially the "necessary and >beneficial" characterization. She
claims that she had some test that was *necessary* that does not even EXIST.
Does that not at least make you wonder if she was lying?? Or are you 100% sure
of your assertion.

So let me get this right. It is my fault that I asked you a questionabout
whether your infant child had a GTT?? Are you not capable of thinking Connie???

Ahola

Rich

There are some people who just are totally unable to communicate.
I think that the least that they could do is to shut the hell up.
Tom Lehrer
(LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!)

===============

==========================================================
And the readers opinions.

I think you are very unfair, Connie, you must leave Rich so frustrated.<g>>
He's probably off on one of his clifftop walks muttering and slashing at the
vegetation trying to vent his ire. Your form of mental jiu jitsu just leaves
him floundering. Unfortunately, he thinks he must have explained it wrongly
and comes back for another go. He doesn't seem to realise it doesn't matter
and he's the only one hot and bothered about it.

Rich wrote: a bunch of the same stuff. why are you SOOOO taken up by this,

richie???if connie is so beneath you and such a dishonest poster, why bother
withher????you keep on and on and on....

Rich you believe that everything you do is reasonable. Others can decide if
you have been reasonable in badgering Connie.

>One thing that it is impossible to say with any reasonable certainty is that

she did NOT lie.

That's only your opinion. *WE* do not believe she lied. I can see you in a
room with her backing her into the corner, she sits with her arms covering her
head while you go at her. Sorta like some police scenes.......trying to break
down a suspected criminal. This is all so very ridiculous. People should be
able to share with others without being put on trial.

Have you ever made a mistake in your life Rich?

Is this how you treat your family and friends?

You have already proved what kind of person you are with your consistent
obsession with Connie.

> Rich, I've read enough of Connie's postings to see that she is not a liar.

She doesn't care enough for your opinion to lie to you. I've seen others who
will lie rather than admit they have made mistakes but not Connie. She may
make mistakes, but we all do. She doesn't hide her mistakes, if you point
them out she will check and agree. But she will not lie to you and say she
has made a mistake when she hasn't. As to this test that was done by the
doctor, did you consider he did something which she misunderstood? All
Connie did was report what she believed happened. I've heard nothing from her

that makes me consider she is lying. Except for the suggestion that she copes
with the workload she has described. I can't believe that is possibly true.

No Connie. Richie was being manipulative and misleading with his post

Read the above, you omitted your quote in the post which misleads the
readers. Richie the master manipulator debungler.

You know very well that Jan will not see those questions and therefore cannot
answer.
You are a deliberate trouble-maker who targets posters here.
Without doubt you are a newsgroup stalker, Rich.

You should apologise, but for your own behavior.

Nope, for his behavior to Jan and to Connie.
His recent rant against Jan was typical.
He has said he intends to post a similar rant on a regular basis, claiming to
be 'policing' the group.
He is undoubtedly a cyber stalker and Jan is his current target.

Jan did not mailbomb or post to ADA-D at all. Rich did it all and
deliberately tried to deceive the posters there.

Rich is a cyberstalker and he has been stalking Jan for a long time.

==
MHA is a discussion group to discuss alternative health modalities. I choose to

discuss Jan

MC60614

2005-02-07, 8:27 am

Who gets commition on the Generic brands ? They make more money..MC

MC60614

2005-02-07, 8:28 am

IM throwing them, Catch...MC

Jan

2005-02-12, 1:30 pm

Rich.@.

2005-02-12, 1:30 pm

Jan

2005-02-12, 1:30 pm

Rich.@.

2005-02-12, 1:30 pm

Joel M. Eichen

2005-02-12, 1:30 pm