MCS Patients React To Chemicals Only When They Can Be Smelled

On Mar 12, 4:18*am, Mark Probert wrote:


It does exist, as a psychosomatic disorder.

Here is a website that doesn't agree with your opinion. Were you at
this conference too?
Everyone seems to have their own opinion, and apparently this girl/guy
doesn't share your
opinion.

http://www.kospublishing.com/html/quack_busters.html

On Mar 13, 10:23*pm, Bee wrote:
On Mar 12, 4:18*am, Mark Probert wrote:



It does exist, as a psychosomatic disorder.

Here is a website that doesn't agree with your opinion. *Were you at
this conference too?

Nope. The writer is a dope.

Everyone seems to have their own opinion, and apparently this girl/guy
doesn't share your
opinion.

They should. Sadly, though, they are in denial of their psychosomatic
disorder, which is a severely disabling problem.

"Mark Probert" wrote:
On Mar 13, 10:23 pm, Bee wrote:
On Mar 12, 4:18 am, Mark Probert wrote:



It does exist, as a psychosomatic disorder.

Here is a website that doesn't agree with your opinion. Were you at
this conference too?

MP Nope. The writer is a dope.

Nice personal attack from the disbarred attorney, hypocrite, and proven
liar.

Helke Ferrie is an anthropologist by training; she runs a publishing company
devoted to environmental and nutritional medicine, Kos Publishing Inc.
She is a medical science writer whose
articles on the politics of health are published in Alive Magazine, Vitality
Magazine, Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, the medical
journal Medical Veritas, and other venues. She is author of Dispatches
from the War Zone of Environmental Health and Hippocrates in the Land
of Oz: A Survival Guide to Our Golden Age of Medicine and a Blueprint for
Patient Insurrection (2007



Everyone seems to have their own opinion, and apparently this girl/guy
doesn't share your
opinion.

They should. Sadly, though, they are in denial of their psychosomatic
disorder, which is a severely disabling problem.

Psycholobabble...

The entity *somatization disorder* is psychobabble and is obtained from the
DSM-IV manual and is used by psychologists and psychiatrists.MD's have
borrowed
the entity for their own uses. It is a spurious diagnosis with no
laboratory
indicators.


that somatization disorder is a kind of junk category into which physicians
dump patients presenting with mind/behaviorialsymptoms and/or a history of
such
which the physician does not fancy or understand, especially if the patient
does not present with symptoms or symptoms which are not separate diagnoses
(also anon-scientific way of separating symptoms and causality) . I
mentiont
his because mercury and lead are both known to cause primarily "psychiatric"
symptoms, with a history of emotional instability, etc.in patients.


So a "scientist" is someone who makes "a priori" judgements about what
neurological symptoms a heavy metal poisoned patient can and cannot have. A
"scientist" demands laboratory indicators whenever his fraternity does so.
When the fraternity does not do so, the esteemed scientist Rx's Prozac like
*mad*. But if the patient's complaints appear in some kind of package
which
don't meet the prejudices of the male clinician/voodoo doctor, then it's
necessary to pull out theDSM-IV manual and wax on about scientific
discipline
and create from thin air a "somatization disorder".


It's just another way of saying that one can create a loose definition of a
nebulous condition and then stretch it to label anything which appears
bizarre,
so that rather than actually diagnose and solve problems you can dump the
ones
you don't like into the recycle bin andlet the DSM-IV manual thumpers profit
from the stash. That way everybody is happy. The male voodoo doctor gets
to
see himself as a scientist and the psych therapist gets another client.


I believe that SD is used by doctors who do not like the idea that
conditiions
which affect the brain cause certain mental states and behaviors which are
not
in keeping with their own requirements for how disease is supposed to
manifest
in the human body. I believe the medical profession has an alliance with
the
psych profession because they share a common belief system.


No, the starting point is to go back to college and unlearn the psychobabble
taught to physicians in med school. But that cannot be done--with all the
psychological investments involved in the career and selfhood and one's
supremecy of being--so instead one wages war on the Chronic Fatigue,
Fibromyalgia, and Multiple Chemical Sensitivitysyndromes, since these
syndromes
are diseases of both body and brain,in which affective disorders are
documented
in all three. But since the Freudian-psychobabble-educated physician
suffers
cognitivedissonance when presented with these, the syndromes must be
attacked.
Continuing education is not an option. Instead, reality must be shaped to
fit
the psychological needs of the profession, and the patients need to be
hazed.


So rather than counsel with a psychotherapist over issues of selfhood and
megalomania and deep insecurity which interfere with the process of
continuing
education--which is also the scientific process itself--it is necessary to
reformulate these disease syndromes so that they fit into the 20th-century
mind-body conceptual dualism taught to physicians, in which brain diseases
are
separate from diseases of thebody and mind states are separate from both.
This
needs to be done despite the fact that poisons such as lead and mercury have
been known for 100 years to poison the brain, body, and mind all at the same
time. So Science needs to be bent and manipulated to serve a profession
which
maintains a conceputal framework which is not rooted in Science, and those
teachings must be maintained for those sychologically inclined to
conservatism
and intellectual dominance,all properly wrapped in the impressive rhetoric
of
scientific and clinical objectivity.


A lot of your responses are flak garbage which you use to exhaust
pariticpants.
I made my position perfectly clear. Decades of psychobiological research,
including century-long scientfically acquired knowledge on the effect of
poisons such as heavy metals on the brain, show that mood and mental states
can
and do derive fromorganic origins. Meanwhile state-credentialed MD's are
writing books and articles about how biological psychiatry is
"pseudoscience",
a"myth", and a "fraud". On *this* subject the present generation is
corrupt,
and is not going to give up its intellectual commitment to the psychobabble
it
received in med school.


On the issue of MCS, ascribing "affective disorders" to "psychologicalf
actors"
is an opinion which is rammed through as Science. It is accompanied by
dismissive descriptions of mind states and behavior of the patients, with
all
kinds of unscientific judgements andassumptions as to 1) whether those mind
states and behavior arelegitimate (e.g. fear of chemicals, stress of chronic
illness), and 2)whether the mind states and behavior have an organic or
non-organic origin.


MCS *will* receive a fair hearing only when the medical profession gives up
its
intellecutal commitment to the teachings of psychology as the only
explanation
for how mind states and behavior alter with disease.


You asked me for evidence of "mind-body conceptual dualism" and I just gave
an
example from a psychobabbling physician in this thread. Your technique is
to
bait and throw out idiotic flak, so that now we can have a separate
existential
debate as to whether there really is adualistic mind-body conception in
modern
medicine.


Yes, physicians do recognize a connection between the two--they call it
somatization disorder. That is, your boyfriend broke up with you and you
are
self-pitiful due to your past child raising and have along history of
maladaptive behaviors and you have sunken into depression and can't
concentrate
and now your immunity has sunk and now you have an infection etc etc. They
may
*also* talk about a"psychological component" as being the result of chronic
stress from the illness.


But the medical profession is selective about when the connection operates
in
one direction vs. the other.


The fact is, there isn't an economy for the problem of chronic mercury and
lead
exposure causing maladaptive dysfunctional unhealthy minds and behaviors.
Not
because the science doesn't exist to support it. But because the economy
doesn't exist to produce the professional intellect to study, talk about,
and
treat it. The psychotherapists and psychologists would be in less demand.
There would be no drugs to patent. Hence the facts are dropped from
consciousness. That mercury and lead f**k up people's emotions and minds
(in
addition to a hundred other symptoms) is so dropped out of consciousness
that
MD's can write books that argue that Biological Psychiatry is a fraud.


As a result, one must conclude that MCS is not caused by poisons--which just
about everyone who has the illness and has clinical experience treating it
argues--but rather is a somatization disorder.


This is how economy and professional cultures distort reality and allow
ingrained assumptions and bias to manipulate and distort the process of
scientific inquiry.


No, many physicians recognize that they are often dealing with illnesses
that
involve both the mind & the body. It would seem as if you are attributing
their admission of this fact to some sort of denial instead. Incorrect. But
commonly the same conclusion that some patients erroneously arrive at if the
doc declines to attribute the illness to physical factors alone.


This thread is in the context of MCS. Within the context of this subject
physicians *do not* generally conceive or discuss depression*or* anxiety in
any
terms other than the psychologist's, regardless *how* the psychologist
constructs the relationship, it is the*psychologist's* constructiona and the
psychologist's ideology. The very own terminology employed by the author of
the medical textbook cited, who is at the pro-MCS end of the debate *within*
the mainstream, is that it is an illness with "psychological factors".


Since you mention arthritis in the context of this thread on MCS (which is a
disease its propopents argue is the result of*poisoning*), I will say that
poisons such as lead and mercury commonly causes brain symptoms *first*,
because these poisons are emically attracted to brain tissue. The first
stage
of these poisonings is commonly brain symptoms only. Patients may suffer
depression or anxiety for *years* before the symptoms originating in organs
*below neck* emerge in sufficient degree to cause the patient to seek care.
So
the depression in these cases does *not* follow arthritis and the depression
is
not something "psychological" *asdistinct* from the physical. The
depression
is not of the"psychological" domain. It is a physical symptom no less than
arthritis. It is not a "component" and it is not a "factor". It is
a*symptom*.


The problem is conceptualizing depression and anxiety as being in adifferent
category than "physical" symptoms. This division in thought is reflected by
your own use of language and the very manner in which you discuss depression
in
relation to other symptoms. Depression commonly bears no relation to the
other
symptoms except they both share a similar cause in some *poison* which has
attacked the brain together with other organs in the body.This
conceptualizing
is largely responsible for the opposition to these diseases by the medical
profession.


Depression is not a *component* by "a priori" assumption. If doctors want
to
assume the nature of the pathology in a conceptual framework and language
*originated by psychologists*, then they should seek psychology as a career
and
*not* human physiology. If doctors want to educate us about how depression
affects human health--but *not* how mercury and lead affect affect brain and
emotional and mental health--then they should be psychologists and lecture
on
Ophrah Winfrey, but *not* manipulate the research and interpretation of MCS
research by projecting their own indoctrination onto reality.


Depression needn't be a *component* and it needn't be a *factor *simply
because
psychologists (and physicians loyal to their ideology) insist that it be so.


I do not agree that I am arguing with myself and I do not agree we are
simply
talking about terminology. I have a good first-hand understanding of the
disease, I have a good understanding of non-mainstream discussions of the
disease, and I have good understanding of mainstream discussions of the
disease. Within the mainstream the depression/anxiety is presently
discussed
as being a"factor" or "component"--*not* a symptom. Ten years ago the
depression/anxiety was discussed as being *causative*. There has beena
gradual
shift in language as the disorder has been *grudgingly*accepted as being
somatic, but the acceptance has been gradual, in which the
depression/anxiety
has altered from being "primary" to being a "factor" or a "component". No
this
is not simply terminology but reflects changing conceptions of the disease
as
the medical society isslowly accepting that chemical intolerance exists, but
cannot shake lose its belief system for how depression and anxiety play a
role
in these diseases.


You say that much is not understood about the disease. Then I expect that
the
medical society which you defend *suspend* its assumptiosn about
depression/anxeity being primary *or* a "component" or "factor"in any
causative
way regarding chemical intolerance, and to cease using language which
communicates that very conception.


A neurologist who has decribed what actually happens in MCS is that the
brain
is abnormally stimulated by the chemical and an electrochemical reaction
occurs
in the brain in which the neurotoxicant glutamate is released and brain
cells
swell and the patients suffers debiliitating symptoms. He further states
that
this process is a process of ongoing injury to brain cells, a disease of
pre-existing brain cell injury with continuing brain cell injury
uponchemical
exposures. He reached these conclusions after studying changes in EEG
measurements in which patients were exposed tochemicals such as paint,
gasoline, perfume, lacquer, etc. He found wildly altering EEG measurements
upon chemical exposure and found evidence of dementia in the patient in
various
areas of the brain, with brain function deteriorating upon exposure. This
neurologist'sattempt 10 years ago to gather a scientific audience for his
findingsresearch was frustrated and obstructed while at the same time
descriptions by mainstream medical scientists and professionals of
"affective
disorders" being primary or a causitive "factor" or"component" are accepted
without question. I think that if one examines the *neurological*
observations
made and explanations advanced for what is happening in the brain upon
chemical
exposures, one would find the descriptions of "affective disorders" and
"somatization disorders" as being causitive "components"/"factors" to be
asinine in their utter vacuity with regard to the subject.


So I do not even agree with the primacy which is given to anxiety/depression
in
these diseases because examinations of the disease which actually have some
neurobiological depth find that anxeity/depression have little to do with
the
disease process. It is a sideshow produced by persons who know nothing of
the
disease and are prefectly content to send both the patients and neurological
investigations into their disease into the garbage chute. What has been
occuring has been a type of medical and sociological final solution to a
disease and its sufferers which appear to be bizarre to many uninformed.


But because the numbers of affected is so high, the culture and the society
is
forced to make some kind of adjustments in its willingness to admit the
reality
of the disease, but because it resists explanations outside of the
intellectual
box it has been taught, it still cannot accept chemical intolerance because
it
cannot fit the emical intolerance together with the affective disorders,
because it is not willing to alter its dogma regarding how affective
disorders
present themselves with other brain symptoms in body-brain diseases.


No I'm sorry but this is not simply about terminology.


Don't kid yourselves. If you think the debate is resolved by physicians who
like to throw around big terms like "somatization" as if they are experts on
the topic, don't kid yourselves. Go get your Shrink's license and do the
kind
psycho babbling and psycho labelling instead of passing yourselves off as
honest scientists. In that role, rather than as the frustrated shrinks you
presently are, you can get all the hard-ons you want writing profiles for
Abnormal Psychology journals.


By the way, I just recently spoke to a mother of an autistic child who said
her
child has "raging" chemical sensitivities. This I think will demand some
more
inventive, delusional, and self-elevating psychobabble from frustrated
psychologists in the physicians lounge. Autistic children make good meat for
physicians contemptuous of new diseases which stretch their education.


Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
syndromes are beyond the medical education and intellect of the present
generation. The medical textbooks which properly deal with these diseases
medically and scientifically will be written by the next generation. The
present generation of sci/med professionals generally will protect its
intellectual turf until it retires, and hese patients will be scoffed at,
ridiculed, marginalized etc. until fresh yound minds, which will not find
these
diseases to be strange, will give these diseases the study and respect they
deserve

On Mar 12, 4:18*am, Mark Probert wrote:


It does exist, as a psychosomatic disorder.

Why would I believe you over known experts in the field of
environmental health? According to a letter I just read about you on
the internet, that was posted, allegedly written by your wife, that
"after college he worked for one of the U.S. Government's agencies
where he spent long periods overseas."

And after retiring apparently from that government agency......"Mark
then met an old college friend and they formed a company which
provides security and investigation services."

And then, "They have been at it since then. Mark, with this training
and experience, is an incredibly effective investigator and security
consultant."

So, how do you explain suddenly that you are into the insurance world
of worker's compensation claims?

No where at all does your wife even mention insurance, worker's
compensation or the medical field. Now, the credibility of your
claims about MCS just went into the trash in my humble opinion.

On Mar 14, 10:19*pm, Bee wrote:
On Mar 12, 4:18*am, Mark Probert wrote:



It does exist, as a psychosomatic disorder.

Why would I believe you over known experts in the field of
environmental health? *According to a letter I just read about you on
the internet, that was posted, allegedly written by your wife, that
"after college he worked for one of the U.S. Government's agencies
where he spent long periods overseas."

Hmmm...did you bother to comment about the inappropriateness of
posting private email? I see you have never done it, so, I assume that
this is your standard?

BTW, did you notice that Ilenanever explained her motives why she
wrote to my wife in the first place? I have always said that her
purpose was to attempt tostifle my free speech. Since you are so
sensitive on this subject, perhaps you can come up with a reason other
than that?

As for your comment, it is a non sequitur.

And after retiring apparently from that government agency......"Mark
then met an old college friend and they formed a company which
provides security and investigation services."

And then, "They have been at it since then. *Mark, with this training
and experience, is an incredibly effective investigator and security
consultant."

So, how do you explain suddenly that you are into the insurance world
of worker's compensation claims?

To answer that, I would have to discuss what I did for Uncle Sam, and
you, and Ilena, and everyone else.

No where at all does your wife even mention insurance, worker's
compensation or the medical field. * Now, the credibility of your
claims about MCS just went into the trash in my humble opinion.

So? You never believed me before. I really do not give a rats ass. The
fact is, I support my comments with facts. You support your comments
with touchy-feely.

On Mar 14, 8:58*pm, Mark Probert wrote:

Bee: Why would I believe you over known experts in the field of
environmental health? *According to a letter I just read about you on
the internet, that was posted, allegedly written by your wife, that
"after college he worked for one of the U.S. Government's agencies
where he spent long periods overseas."

Probert: Hmmm...did you bother to comment about the inappropriateness of
posting private email? I see you have never done it, so, I assume that
this is your standard?

That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my questions, or comments.
It does not the content of the letters any less either. Ofcourse I do
not post
email letters to a newsgroup.


BTW, did you notice that Ilenanever explained her motives why she
wrote to my wife in the first place? I have always said that her
purpose was to attempt tostifle my free speech. Since you are so
sensitive on this subject, perhaps you can come up with a reason other
than that?

Interesting diversion. My comments have nothing to do with Ilena, or
Jan,
but the content of the emails. They were posted to the newsgroups.
And
I will not comment about your comments. I didn't really read the
emails to tell you the truth until
yesterday.

As for your comment, it is a non sequitur.

That's also an interesting comment.

Bee: (referencing Mrs. Probert's alleged comments) And after retiring apparently from that government agency......"Mark
then met an old college friend and they formed a company which
provides security and investigation services."

Bee (referencing Mrs. Probert's alleged comments) And then, "They have been at it since then. *Mark, with this training and experience, is an incredibly effective investigator and security
consultant."

Bee: So, how do you explain suddenly that you are into the insurance world
of worker's compensation claims?

Probert: To answer that, I would have to discuss what I did for Uncle Sam, and
you, and Ilena, and everyone else.

Go for it, I'd like to see the answer. If you were working for Uncle
Sam, then the taxpayers
in this country have the right to know how our taxpayer dollars were
being spent.

Bee: No where at all does your wife even mention insurance, worker's
compensation or the medical field. * Now, the credibility of your
claims about MCS just went into the trash in my humble opinion.

Probert: So? You never believed me before. I really do not give a rats ass. The
fact is, I support my comments with facts. You support your comments
with touchy-feely.

Again, being an effective investigator, and security consultant how do
you get by without
having to have a private investigator's license in the State of New
York or Florida if you have
your own business and do not work for an insurance company?

All of this is very interesting to me. Everyone I know that dared to
file a claim either in a
worker's compensation system or a tort claim either had their
telephone lines tapped, or
computer hacked into, I always thought it was pretty amazing, that
every time I attempted
to get to a doctor someone had already gotten to that doctor and
talked about what I did in
the work place environment, and made a "big deal" how I worked in the
office, and since when
do chemicals know how to stop at the office door? Interestingly,
there was always the same
big deal about the ventiliation that I, and the former partner did not
know existed when I worked
there, and regular visitors to the work place. The lies that are
spread against people with chemical
injuries are amazing, anything to pass the buck and make it look like
it is "all in their head," when in
fact other parts of the body are effected as well. Each one of the
people that I have known that have
dared file a claim, have very similar horror stories to tell that
their lives have been turned upside down
and when I spoke with the Dow Chemical company's doctor, I was told if
the chemicals had been used
improperly, it would cause an array of physical problems, and they had
nothing to do with being "in one's head."
It would appear it is the insurance companies not wanting to pay for
damages based on the neglience of
their insurers.

Even with the discussion of vaccines, whether there is mercury that
has caused autism or not, or if it was
the aluminum that causes it as well, it would appear that if this is
the case, it would boil down to insurance
companies having to pay out some pretty hefty insurance claims,
whether from the manufacturers or medical
insurance, and it would appear that this is something the insurance
companies are not interested in doing.

It always boils down to the insurance claims...if the word gets
out...the payouts are going to be too big to handle.
Just like with the mortgage industry, the word got out, and what a
mess that has turned out to be. Ameriquest Mortgage
got their butts wiped, and had to pay out some big bucks....and it
appears that Countrywide is in trouble too. With the AG's office in
NY going after the insurance companies---you can only imagine that
other States are going to follow suit. We, the people can only
hope.....as they said with the Govenor of NY, "follow the money."

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
On Mar 14, 10:19 pm, Bee wrote:
On Mar 12, 4:18 am, Mark Probert wrote:



It does exist, as a psychosomatic disorder.

Why would I believe you over known experts in the field of
environmental health? According to a letter I just read about you on
the internet, that was posted, allegedly written by your wife, that
"after college he worked for one of the U.S. Government's agencies
where he spent long periods overseas."

Hmmm...did you bother to comment about the inappropriateness of
posting private email? I see you have never done it, so, I assume that
this is your standard?

Simply unbelievable.

Like this private email, that YOU make up!

Mark Probert" wrote in message
news:vfZah.18334$mM1.5367@trndny08...
I received this email this morning. Since the sender used anonymous
email, I have no way of verifying it or knowing whether it is true or
not. I post the full header for reference. ---------begin quoted
material--------
Delivered-To: Received: by 10.66.239.8 with SMTP
id m8cs80233ugh; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by
10.90.119.15 with SMTP id r15mr923548agc.1164730133350; Tue, 28 Nov 2006
08:08:53 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from
smtp3.hushmail.com (smtp3.hushmail.com [65.39.178.135]) by mx.google.com
with ESMTP id f12si25098590qba.2006.11.28.08.08.52; Tue, 28 Nov 2006
08:08:53 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of
designates 65.39.178.135 as permitted sender)
Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com (localhost.hushmail.com [127.0.0.1]) by
smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4229BA327A for
; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:39 -0800 (PST) Received:
from mailserver8.hushmail.com (mailserver8.hushmail.com [65.39.178.61])
by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ;
Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by
mailserver8.hushmail.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 3E378DA84A; Tue,
28 Nov 2006 08:08:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:08:37 -0500
To: "Mark Probert" Cc: Subject: Jan Drew
From: Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: m
To:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:03:56 -0500 Mark Probert
wrote:
On 11/28/06, wrote:
Dear Mr. Probert:
You do not know me, but I live in Indiana. I am writing to you, since
you are being attacked by Jan Drew. I know you will understand.
Years ago my parents placed me in a child care center run by Jan Drew.
It was a nightmare.
I was physically and verbally abused by her and other people
there.
When I did not immediately do what they wanted, I was punished.
Sometimes I was made to stay in a dark closet, other times I was not
allowed to eat or go to the bathroom. I soiled myself
several
times and was punished, again, for that.
The worst part were the spankings with a big paddle They would
make
me take my pants down and hit my rear with this. Some people
seemed
to enjoy watching this. On several occasions, someone would
touch
me, you know where.
They told me not to tell anyone, or they would report my parents for
child abuse and have me taken from my home. I was scared to death this
would happen and stayed silent.
Finally, after years of this abuse, I told my parents what was
happening, and they filed a complaint with the State of Indiana. The
State investigated and closed her down.
Even to this day, I am still afraid of her, and what she can do
to
me. She is a mean, hurtful person who should never have been allowed to
be near children.
Jack
Dear Jack:
I am sorry to hear about what happened to you. Can I post your email to
Usenet if I do not display your email address?
Mark Probert
Dear Mr. Probert:
Yes, you can post this to Usenet, or send it to her ISP, or whatever else
you want to do with it. Hushmail will protect my identity.

Mark, don't you get tired of making a complete fool of yourself repeatedly??

BTW, did you notice that Ilenanever [sic] explained her motives why she
wrote to my wife in the first place? I have always said that her
purpose was to attempt tostifle my free speech. Since you are so
sensitive on this subject, perhaps you can come up with a reason other
than that?

Another BLATANT LIE!!!!!!

November 2, 2004
Dearest Mrs. Probert,
I am writing to you because I believe you are the wife of Mark S. Probert of
Merrick, NY, and active Publicist of the Quackwatch.com "Ragtag Posse" and
the Healthfraud group on the internet.
Mark has denied this ...and if in fact this is true, would you please accept
my apology. You can just drop me a quick note to let me know that you are
not his wife nor the Mother of Noah and Josh that he has spoken about on
Usenet for years.
If you are she ... then Mark has probably let you know that I have warned
him several times over the last few years to leave me alone and that I would
contact you should his harassment continue.
Recently, I have told him multiple times that if he continued lying about me
and the Humantics Foundation, I would ask your assistance to get him to stop
libeling me.
His refuses.
In fact, last nite he sent me several personal email messages in direct
disregard of my telling him to never email me.
The best way to introduce myself to you is through our Foundation
ebpage -- www.BreastImplantAwareness.org.
The lies and fantasies that Mark is currently spreading about me ... I no
longer have any patience for.
Since Mark is such an active and aggressive participant in the Posse
mentioned above, I am certain you have heard of the lawsuit against Dr.
Hulda Clark and several other defendants. I am one of the defendants ... the
reason I fully and firmly believe your husband has made me one of his Usenet
targets for over three years. Details on the losses of two of the three
Plaintiffs against me are here.
The third Plaintiff, Terry A. Polevoy, also from Mark's group, and I are
currently in battle in the Supreme Court of California. Their Posse has
waged a disgusting Smear Campaign against all of the Defendants ... your
husband being one of the most constant and brutal.
If you read this page I created in response to his attacks, you will see
that he attempted to infiltrate my email support group for women sick from
their breast implants, and when caught, made up a tale that was totally
fictitious, and very revealing about himself. NO ONE from my group knew
anything about him ... the story he made up about "27 emails" was entirely
from his brain.
Barrett & Polevoy's "Ragtag Posse" expanded after their initial loss to me
in Superior Court in 2001 and their attacks against me became more vicious.
The head of "Quackwatch" Dr. Stephen Barrett, hides behind scenes and uses
people like your husband and "Willa "Nana Weedkiller" Nidiffer" and others
to relentlessly attack publicly his critics and those he is suing. Terry
Polevoy ... the third plaintiff, was recently unveiled on Usenet posing as a
woman to attack me and the other defendants and advertise his own Hate
Website, healthwatcher.net. Here are 50 posts of his "in drag" ... a common
Smear Campaign technique. He attacked me and others he is suing, and
advertised for himself. Just this week, Mark was doing PR for him.
Mark's Posse (Barrett called them "guerrillas" in the past) has rules for
everyone but themselves. Your husband has called me at my home office and
threatened me ... he has attempted to infiltrate my support group for women
harmed by breast implants and when caught, made up a whopper as his
"reason."
After this happened, I made a webpage in response to his continal harassment
.... under his own and various aliases he has taken. It is called:
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/P...stProbert.html
There is nothing either too personal or too untrue that Mark publishes about
me.
Recently he has been calling me a "dominatrix" and lied that our Humantics
Foundation is "defunct" and "bankrupt."
This is a fond desire and goal of the Ragtag Posse ... as I have already
beaten two of the three plaintiffs both at the Superior Court and the
Appeals Court levels. However, despite years of their barrages,
infiltrations, and attacks, we are NOT defunct, as Mark continues to repeat
to this day.

If you are interested in seeing these comments your husband has written very
recently about us, here are just 24 ... out of hundreds if not thousands by
now.

Results 1 - 24 of 24 for group:misc.health.alternative dominatrix
author:mark
Sample: One example from above:
wrote:
"Ilena Rose" in her official capacity as the Dominatrix
of the Humantics Foundation, which is delicensed and currently defunct ..."


Here is the defintion (though I doubt I need to let an English Teacher know
this) of dominatrix:
a dominating woman, especially one
who takes the sadistic role in
sadomasochistic sexual activities.
As far as "defunct" ... we are not ... although I believe that my losing
Plaintiffs and their Ragtag Posse Team would stop at nothing to make it so
.... here is the State of California Data on us.
We maintain an active online support group and were recently quoted in the
LA Times. Although this SLAPP suit has been devastating to us financially,
we continue to provide support and information via our email group, website
and newsgroup.
Mark has some very strange beliefs. He seems to have some twisted "truth"
that this newsgroup is some island with no worldly connection.
He appears to believe that he can post anything he chooses that defames me
.... attempt to infiltrate my support group, call my home/office with
threats, but that my right to contact you is no longer "free speech."
Yesterday he opined:
"Ilena is not stupid, though. She knows that I consider contacting anyone
outside of the newsgroup not to be free speech."
I disagree.
My family has been horrifically affected by this SLAPP suit against me ...
in more ways than you could imagine.
Barrett very humbly calls himself "The Media" and indeed, uses every
Propagandist trick in the book to advertise for himself and attempt to
destroy his targets.
Just last evening, one of Mark's fellow Ragtag Posse Members who calls
himself or "Cathy Credulous" or "Nana Weedkiller" and claims to be a nearly
80 year old woman named "Willa Nidiffer" ... again posted ugly sexual
references to who he believes is my husband. After announcing the Appeals
Court decision one year ago, this same Publicist for Barrett & Polevoy
published a web claiming I was "arrested for crack cocaine." Mark works
closely with this Publicist, often teaming up with him (his real name is Ted
Nidiffer) to bash and insult and lie about me.
I will tell you ... especially last nite and the several emails he sent me
personally ... that I believe your husband is terrified of you finding out
how he spends hours every day bashing me and other targets of the "Ragtag
Posse."
While he applauds his teammates posting filthy, libelous messages about me
and others close to me ... he considers a contact with you, other than "free
speech" and has posted many weakly veiled threats should I contact you. I no
longer will be intimidated by him. Were he my husband and so obsessed with
another woman, I would want to know.
If you wish any additional information from me ... please let me know. Mark
will undoubtedly claim he is my victim, I am a stalker, and that I am a very
ill woman. He has made these claims about me MANY times.
I assure you, I am none of the above.
I am a 56 year old woman who is a dedicated activist and advocate for women
harmed by breast implants ... and those who believe in Medical Freedom.
We have a young son named Noah ... and no more than Mark wants you to read
what I am sending you ... do I want my son or anyone else to read the
continual stream of lies he publicly posts about me.
I have no doubt that you are a wonderful loving woman ... and I wish you no
harm whatsoever.
My very best regards to you.
Ilena Rosenthal
Director, Humantics Foundation


www.BreastImplantAwareness.org

Who he represents:
http://www.ratbags.com/posse/index.html
See Mark Probert
Their web sites:
www.quackwatch.com
www.healthwatcher.net
A very small example of Mark's recent "work" on Usenet, click here.
He uses so many various aliases, it is difficult to track his thousands and
thousands of posts.
P.S. Since I had to make a webpage to get this to you, if you would like me
to remove it from the World Wide Web, just drop me a note from your school
address. It seems Mark has control of your Hotmail account.
==

From: ilena rose ]
Sent: Wed 11/17/2004 5:38 PM
To: Probert Sandra (26Q495)
Subject: Mark S. Probert





From: "Probert Sandra (26Q495)"
To: "ilena rose"
CC:
Subject: Mark S. Probert
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:32:27 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
I expect nothing at all from you ...

I merely wanted to communicate my experiences with him and how it has
negatively intruded into my life and my familie's life ...

I will take the page down now as I told you I would ...

I did laugh at your Costa Rica comment ... I head a support group with
thousands of ill women... as well as defending myself in this libel suit ...
while being libeled continuallly ...

It is far from your description of my life ...

Shalom.




What is your purpose in writing to me and what do you expect me to do?

________________________________

From: ilena rose ]
Sent: Tue 11/16/2004 5:19 PM
To: Probert Sandra (26Q495)
Subject: Mark S. Probert



Sent to:

11.15.04

Dearest Mrs. Probert,

This is my third attempt to communicate directly with you.

The first mail I sent to this address, was returned to me unsent. This was a
few weeks ago. There was a note about too many links and to please send to
.

So I did, and yesterday received a message , which it appears, was from your
husband coming from your hotmail account. I wonder if you are aware of this.

My only solution is to make a webpage and send you this link with my
original letter (from several weeks ago now). Nothing has improved in his
behavior towards me in the interim. After receiving the message from him
from your Hotmail account, there seems to be no doubt anymore than I have
located the correct Mrs. Mark S. Probert.

May God bless you.

The website is:

www.humanticsfoundation.com/SandraProbert.htm

In a message dated 3/12/2005 3:48:07 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
writes:

Someone is running scared, it's Mark, have you posted it, the very idea in
saying, you were warned not to e-mail her, but you did it anyway, what a
hoot, that's exacrly he did to me, he is a mess..

Barf.

Jan
If I read correctly, you are claiming here, in writing, that your husband,
Mark S. Probert, was never a lawyer and was never disbarred?

Is that accurate?

Ilena

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/SandraProbert.htm



From: "Sandra Probert"
To:
CC:
Subject: Was surprised that you are posting about me on Usenet ...
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:29:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Originating-IP: [68.194.64.219]
X-Originating-Email: ]
X-Sender:
Received: from 68.194.64.219 by by14fd.bay14.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;Sat,
12 Mar 2005 20:29:51 GMT



From: "ilena rose"
To:
Subject: Was surprised that you are posting about me on Usenet ...
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 20:55:41 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Originating-IP: [196.40.43.218]
X-Originating-Email: ]
X-Sender:
Received: from 196.40.43.218 by by1fd.bay1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;Fri,
04 Mar 2005 20:55:41 GMT

C'est la guerre.

www.humanticsfoundation.com/sandraprobert.htm

Dear Rosenthal:

Let us take a moment to review the history of this matter.

YOU initiated this situation when you invaded my privacy by emailing me
after my husband warned you not to do so. Your attitude was that you can do
whatever you want, and you went ahead and emailed me.

When I did not respond as quickly as you liked, you posted the email to a
website which you wisely removed. That is extremely childish and controlling
behavior, and I would not tolerate it in my presence, or from anyone who I
had to deal with. From some of the posts you have made, specifically those
where you complain when someone insists on a direct answer, it is clear that
you would not tolerate it either.

Thus, it is obvious that YOU, and not me, initiated this situation.

Since those emails, you have continued to accuse my husband of all sorts of
horrible things without the slightest proof on your part. For your
information, you are absolutely incorrect about his career. We met in
college, after he left military service, and I have known him since then.

After college he worked for one of the US Government's agencies where he
spent long periods overseas. During many of these periods, he was not able
to contact me, nor I him. Our marriage, which has lasted just over 31 years
as of this month, is strong, and testifies to the devotion we have toward
each other.

In the mid-late 1980's we came to realize that there had to be two full time
parents for our two special needs children. Accordingly, Mark left field
work, something that he loved, and settled into an office type position with
that agency. When an early retirement package was offered, with enhancements
for those who had line of duty injuries, like Mark, he took the package and
retired.

Fortuitously, Mark then met an old college friend and they formed a company
which provides security and investigation services. They have been at it
since then. Mark, with his training and experience, is an incredibly
effective investigator and security consultant.

Mark's devotion to our family is equaled only by his strong beliefs in
protecting our country and individual rights. I have asked him numerous
times to complain to GoDaddy, the company that hosts your website,
RoadRunner and Hotmail. He refuses to do so, since he is not a hypocrite.

Because of the nature of Mark's former employment, we are circumspect in
divulging any personal information that can put our family at risk. For us,
the risk is real, as in Mark's work for the US Government, there were "bad
people" who use violence to settle matters. Mark made some enemies while
working for the government, in countries where they seek revenge for life.

Since you had posted my place of employment, I have been followed from
school. Fortunately, Mark trained me on how to shake a tail, amongst other
protective measures he has taken.

Additionally, there have been calls to my school from people who refuse to
give their names. This has never had this happen before, and YOU have put my
family at risk.

If you are the kind compassionate person that you claim to be, you will
immediately remove that webpage, and any webpage referring my husband, to
prevent further damage. You have stated that the purpose of the webpages is
to have a conveniently means of replying to your critics.

If you remove these webpages, I assure you the following will immediately
happen:

1. The "Fan Club" will disappear, and never return.

2. Mark will respond to your posts on usenet only in a substantive manner,
and will no longer address your actions, words and deeds.

You will no longer have a need to have a convenient way of replying to him.

By your action, the war will be over. The future is yours to choose.

Sandra Probert

As for your comment, it is a non sequitur.


Groups View all web results » Results 1 - 10 of 231 for Mark Probert
non sequitur

Read all about it.

And after retiring apparently from that government agency......"Mark
then met an old college friend and they formed a company which
provides security and investigation services."

And then, "They have been at it since then. Mark, with this training
and experience, is an incredibly effective investigator and security
consultant."

So, how do you explain suddenly that you are into the insurance world
of worker's compensation claims?

To answer that, I would have to discuss what I did for Uncle Sam, and
you, and Ilena, and everyone else.

Translation:
Mark refuses to answer. Furthermore, he seems to think HE was the only
one who severed this country. Others do NOT constantly brag about it.
It is a sign of insecurity

No where at all does your wife even mention insurance, worker's
compensation or the medical field. Now, the credibility of your
claims about MCS just went into the trash in my humble opinion.

So? You never believed me before. I really do not give a rats ass. The
fact is, I support my comments with facts. You support your comments
with touchy-feely.

Poor pathetic Mark S Probert.
He does NOT back up his claims.
He even wrote to google to take his FAKE Jack Reid LIE off.

Get help, Mark, you have lost it!

In misc.health.alternative Bee wrote:

: That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my questions, or comments.
: It does not the content of the letters any less either. Ofcourse I do
: not post email letters to a newsgroup.

But you just did.

: BTW, did you notice that Ilenanever explained her motives why she
: wrote to my wife in the first place? I have always said that her
: purpose was to attempt tostifle my free speech. Since you are so
: sensitive on this subject, perhaps you can come up with a reason other
: than that?

: Interesting diversion. My comments have nothing to do with Ilena, or
: Jan, but the content of the emails. They were posted to the newsgroups.

Doesn't it bother you that someone might have been trying to stifle
his free speech? Of course it doesn't.

: Go for it, I'd like to see the answer. If you were working for Uncle
: Sam, then the taxpayers in this country have the right to know how our
: taxpayer dollars were being spent.

Then file an FOIA request with the appropriate agency.

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."

On Mar 17, 3:52*am, (Richard Schultz) wrote:
In misc.health.alternative Bee wrote:

: That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my questions, or comments.
: It does not the content of the letters any less either. *Ofcourse I do
: not post email letters to a newsgroup.

But you just did.

: BTW, did you notice that Ilenanever explained her motives why she
: wrote to my wife in the first place? I have always said that her
: purpose was to attempt tostifle my free speech. Since you are so
: sensitive on this subject, perhaps you can come up with a reason other
: than that?

: Interesting diversion. *My comments have nothing to do with Ilena, or
: Jan, but the content of the emails. *They were posted to the newsgroups.

Doesn't it bother you that someone might have been trying to stifle
his free speech? *Of course it doesn't.

: Go for it, I'd like to see the answer. *If you were working for Uncle
: Sam, then the taxpayers in this country have the right to know how our
: taxpayer dollars were being spent.

Then file an FOIA request with the appropriate agency.

Totally santized response.