Why Did "Aids Baby" Eliza Jane Really Die?

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Rich.@. wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:53:15 -0500, Mark Probert
wrote:


If you **** her off, you can expect that she'll find out where you are
training and get in touch with your residency director to tattle.

Yes, JanD(ishonst) refuses to answer that burning question of whether she
ever contacted anyone outside of usenet regarding you.

JanD(eceitful) screams and yells when someone emails her, but, when she
does it, she remains silent.


Of course she remains silent. She is no dummy.

Agreed. She is slick and crafty.

Jan Drew realizes that
it will not behoove her to admit to another stalking. She realizes
that her stalking of me is a matter of record.

All of her stalking, and her support of a stalker, are on record. She
cannot deny it without lying.

Phone records reveal
that she telephoned someone at the business address she believed to be
mine to ask about a doctor that she believed to be me. Records in this
newsgroup show that Jan repeatedly posted what she believed to be my
name, business address and phone number. And finally records in this
newsgroup reveal that Jan Drew lied about the doctor that she believed
to be me had lost his license.

Jan Drew is a hypocrite who repeatedly accuses other of what she is
guilty.

Precisely.

Jan Drew is a stalker who repeatedly tries to identify the
true identity of posters here and then tries to intrude into their
personal lives by telephoning the person or the person's employer.

Or, she sends email to someone.

Jan Drew realizes that she is a hypocrite and a liar. Her means of
dealing with this reality is to divert attention away from the truth
and falsely accusing others of lying.

She also likes to blame others by saying that we do not take
responsibility for our actions, when she has never taken responsibility
for hers.

Jan Drew will likely whine about the fact that the subject is not her.
And yet in this very thread Jan Drew posted about an attorney being
disbarred. What does that have to do with this thread.

Jan will resort to personal trashing with irrelevant information, just
like her handler taught her to do, when she realizes that she is out of
facts, and is in a logical deadend.

You are too generous. She knows no facts worthy of stating in argument, and
she is incapable of logic.

--Rich

She is utterly incapable of saying that she is wrong to anyone whom she
has called a liar.

The truth is
that Jan Drew is an egregious hypocrite and liar who accuses others of
same. Sad that.

Aloha,

Rich

PS: Jan Drew will predictably not answer any of the points in this
thread but either snip it completely and call me a stalker or start a
new thread attacking me. Jan Drew cannot deal with the truth. The
truth is that she is a liar, hypocrite and bearer of false witness and
her words prove it. That's a wrap.

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

Best defense to logic is ignorance

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
JanD wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote

[snip]

Snipping does not remove the truth:

Dumber than a box of rocks shows he is a liar again.


Since JanD(ishonest) is incapable of rational discussion and writing her
own ideas, she has this obsessive need to trash, abuse, harass and stalk
anyone with whom she disagrees.



JanD wrote:

A long with:
Orac, Coleah and Ted Nidiffer.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...


JanD wrote:


"HCN" wrote in message
news:zaudnVSr6JJaFAbenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcas t.com...



wrote in message
oglegroups.com...



S'alright, I've replied to the other post you made about this.

Bloody Google doesn't make quotes always that obvious. At least,
that's my story and I'm sticking with it. Upon-re-reading the
thread
it is clearer now I know who I should be reading!

I'll try to keep tabs on all the groups but I mostly monitor
misc.health.aids.

Cheers

Bennett


Hi,

I linked over to your report from Oracknows.


Poor, poor HCN.

Orac has been proven a BLATANT LIAR, right here on this newsgroups.

Translation. Jan did not understand what Orac said, thus he is a liar.


Poor Mark

What Orac said was trying to cover for Mark.

In article ,
Ilena Rose wrote:





On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:57:00 -0500, "Mark Probert" Mark
wrote:


Where does it use the word "quackery" Quack Flack in Drag Marla
Probert?


NO ANSWER IS NOTED

Where does it say that her products can not be sold in the US?

NO ANSWER IS NOTED


A better question is: Why are you posting and reposting the same damned
post over and over again?


THE QIESTION IS WHY DID MARK LIE?

Orac

That.s most easy to understand, Orac Knew YOU had told TWO LIES, he
didn't
want IIena to keep asking.


Next post by Orac:


In article ,
Ilena Rose wrote:




On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:40:33 -0500, Orac wrote:

A better question is: Why are you posting and reposting the same damned
post over and over again?

Disagree ...



Disagree all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you've been
making repetitive posts. Do I really need to list the Google references
to all you repetitive posts?



your Rag Tag Posse Buddy claimed that Dr Clark's products were banned
from being sold in the US and of course ... he lied and you backed him up
as always.



Who lied? Prove it.



God help your patients ... you are blind, deaf and dumb to anything that
doesn't suit the backers of your Ragtag Posse of Quacks.



YAWN I guess I'll return the favor of your same tired old attempts to
**** me off by questioning my ability as a surgeon:

God help the women you claim to advocate for. You are blind, deaf, and
dumb to anything that doesn't support your hatred of conventional
medicine.


That's easy to understand, Orac's diverting away from YOUR LIES and
focusing
on IIena.


Next post by Orac:


WITH HELP FROM LIAR COLEAH, TED NIDIFFER & YOURSELF ALL DIVERTING TO
IIENA


n article ,




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

"Coleah" wrote:

"Nana Weedkiller" wrote in message
news:6zqxd.584$Y57.419@trnddc08...

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
m...

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:41:35 -0500, "Mark Probert" Mark
wrote:

G-d help you if you ever need a doctor who knows how to Google.

God knows I know lots and lots of doctors ... Google proficient and
otherwise ... They back my campaign against your Team of SLAPP suers
... and others aganst medical freedom.

Interesting comments, don't you think? Ilena admits that lots of doctors
back her campaign. Ilena admits that she has a campaign against a "Team"
and others. Given that Ilena has a long history associated with the
voodoo medicine world, one wonders ,,, how much are you being paid for
your campaign?

Well damn, here I thought Ilena was Director of the Humantics Foundation
devoted to educating and supporting women damaged by silicone breast
implants. So now she says she is focused on campaigning against others
who are against medical freedom? Does that compute to: If women want
implants they should have the medical freedom to do so?



Indeed. Ilena can't seem to give a straight answer to that question,
even if one puts the condition on it that the women are told all the
risks. She usually comes up with a cutesy answer to avoid a simple yes
or no.

===========




Jan, being the ever helpful elf, posted proof of that even before I said
it:




http://tinyurl.com/cxbh5


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -


And, I KNOW HCN saw it.



Mark Probert posted it!!!



Newsgroups: sci.med, misc.health.alternative, uk.people.health,
talk.politics.medicine From: Mark Probert
- Find messages by this author Date:
Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:51:29 -0500 Local: Sat, Dec 10 2005 6:51 pm
Subject: WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain
Their Monopolies Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual
Message | Show original | Report Abuse



JanD wrote:



"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...



JanD wrote:



The onus of proof is on those who claim that her program works.
Remember, last year Hulda's Henchmen agreed that they could not
prove her claims.



I see Mark is repeating this LIE.



He can NOT show where they did any such thing.



Because he made up this LIE.



http://tinyurl.com/cxbh5



ORAC'S LIES ARE ALL THERE FOR ALL TO SEE.



THAT'S ONLY ONE EXAMPLE!



Actually, Janny, that link takes you to this link:



http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/02230...tip0223051.pdf



which is the *stipulation*.



The word stipulation does nothing to prove your case or clear your lie.



It proves that they agreed that they could not prove her claims. After
they agreed to that, they also agreed to pay back the money and never
sell her junk with those claims ever again.



That is good enough for me.



It's no wonder, you were disbarred.



stip·u·late 1 (stpy-lt) KEY



VERB: stip·u·lat·ed , stip·u·lat·ing , stip·u·lates VERB: tr.



To lay down as a condition of an agreement; require by contract. To
specify or arrange in an agreement: stipulate a date of payment and a
price. To guarantee or promise (something) in an agreement.



VERB: intr.



To make an express demand or provision in an agreement. To form an
agreement.



Note the word "agreement".



Sorry, Janny, but you are still wrong.



NO, I am NOT wrong, YOU LIED.



No, you did not understand.



The word *quackery* is NOT used.



So what? I used it. What they agreed to was that they were making claims
that they could not substantiate, and that is quackery when it is in
medicine.



LIE #1.



In the US. is NOT listed.



LIE #2.



There was NO agreement that anyone could not prove any claim



Yes, there was. They were given the opportunity to prove the claims, and
when they could not, they agreed to stop making them, and give back the
money they took. While the precise words are not there, they did agree
that they could not prove their claims, BECAUSE IF THEY COULD, there was
NO reason to enter into the stipulation. They would have fully defended
the action brought by the FTC. When they didn't, they agreed.



LIE #3.



Furthermore.



That URL proved your buddy Orac LIED.



ORAC IS A LIAR.



TED Nidiffer LIED.



TED NIDIFFER IS A LIAR



Coleah joined in.



COLEAH IS A LIAR



THEY ALL DIVERTED.



THEY ARE ALL DESPICABLE LIARS, LIKE YOU



THE ONLY TWO HONEST PEOPLE IN THE THREAD WERE IIENA AND MYSELF.



I thought it was very



interesting. (and I did find some of your posts on the google archive
of misc.health.aids )



I did a check on www.amazon.com for Maggiore's book... and noticed that
SHE has posted a review refuting the posts that claim her beliefs
killed her daughter. She claims they were getting an "independent"
review of the report. I am amused at what is considered "independent"
from the "Alive and Well" group.... like members of its advisory board.

It is NOTED NO reply from HCN.

Caught at his own DISHONEST game.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
JanD wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...

JanD(ishonest) wrote:

"HCN" wrote in message
news:XpednePbmomLkQDenZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast. com...


"cathyb" wrote in message
glegroups.com...


JanD wrote:

...snip....


Since testing positive in 1992, Christine has lived without illness
or

AIDS


medications and is the mother of two exceptionally healthy children,

both


born with no medical interventions.


Poor Rosalind.


Gee... why does this look familiar? Oh, wait.. I know! I posted it a
almost a week ago! Check it out:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....e1e2810972d8c7



Obviously JanD dismissed it as a "lie", only to post it HERSELF!!!!!!
(is
that enough exclamation marks?)

But when I posted I was called a "liar"...


OOOPPPPSSSS. Now, how do you suppose HCN would know that, since he
claims to have me killfiled?!?!

Maybe because HCN reads others posts who quote you.

NOT. OPEN MOUTH INSET FOOT


snip

As a matter of FACT, *I* did NOT call YOU a liar, HCN!!!!!! (is that
enough exclamation marks?)

NOW, who is lying?!?! (is that enough question marks + exclamation
marks?)

until SHE posts it on Usenet... calling herself one of the of only two
who tell the truth....

Now, now, HCN, do tell the *whole* truth*

http://tinyurl.com/cxbh5

THE ONLY TWO HONEST PEOPLE IN THE THREAD WERE IIENA AND MYSELF.



Ain't hypocrisy grand?


Ain't it awful when LIARS are caught!!!!

[snip Rosalind crap]

Perhaps HCN isn't aware, I don't read her crap.

One of the reasons I killfiled Jan Drew


(2222 funny, he claims too, and then claims, I called him a liar, of
course that was a made up LIE)

and Ilena Rose is because of this.

Ho hum.


For some reason Jan thinks that a child who is dead is "exceptionally
healthy".


What a load of crap.

[snip more of same]

"Rich" wrote in message
...

"Eric Bohlman" wrote in message
...
"JanD" wrote in
news:3uinf.622157$_o.620836@attbi_s71:

Then Mark MD told of a man who changed his diet, added exercise

His diabetes DISAPPEARED.

I think you meant "his blood sugar went into the normal range." Many
diabetics are capable of doing that. But they have to work at keeping it
there. If somebody's diabetes truly disappeared, he/she would
subsequently
be able to maintain normal blood sugar *without* having to pay special
attention to his/her diet and exercise levels.

Note that diet and exercise are *conventional*,
*scientifically-validated*
treatments for diabetes. They are in no way "alternative." They're
evidence-based, not belief-based. They work (that is to say, produce
*objectively measurable* improvements in health) whether or not you
believe
in them. The fact that they don't involved pharmaceutical corporations
in
no way makes them "alternative."


Thank you. I was about to post similar observations. Jan's fantasy that
the patient's diabetes "disappeared" is typical of her magical thinking.

Poor Rich.

As I said it was Mark MD's posts.

His words:

He started eating right, he started a moderate exercise routine, he
ultimately lost about 70 lbs, and guess what? Away went his diabetes,
CHF, hypertension and high cholesterol.


Not a cure, but certainly an effective treatment.





The
fact is that even those type-II diabetics who are initially able to
control their blood sugar levels with exercise and obsessive attention to
diet will eventually require medications when their pancreases gradually
lose the ability to produce enough natural insulin to provide the
mechanism of control. Most will be able to get along with oral
hypoglycemic meds for awhile, then most will require insulin injections in
the end.

NO!

He started eating right, he started a moderate exercise routine, he
ultimately lost about 70 lbs, and guess what? Away went his diabetes,
CHF, hypertension and high cholesterol.


Not a cure, but certainly an effective treatment




Actually, there is a cure for diabetes . . . a pancreas transplant. But
that comes with a lifetime of immunosuppressant drugs, hardly a great
trade-off unless the diabetes is brittle and life-threatening (usually
type-I).


NO!

He started eating right, he started a moderate exercise routine, he
ultimately lost about 70 lbs, and guess what? Away went his diabetes,
CHF, hypertension and high cholesterol.


Not a cure, but certainly an effective treatment




--Rich

I see my response to Bennet's answer about the PG's "lies" did not
appear, so I will recreate it as best I can.

To Bennet:

I read through the BMJ debate pages a long time ago. Those who argued
with the PG look very silly, some refusing to cite sources or citing
sources that were irrelevant. To answer the question: "where did the
PG lie?" with such a response as "go read the BMJ pages" demonstrates
either a disingenuous attitude or a lack of understanding of the
scientific method, perhaps both. I will give you one more chance.
Explain to me in your own words and in detail exactly how the PG
"lied," or I will have to assume that you are either conflicted,
deluded, or lacking in mental capacity.

I also examined Chris Noble's first link in this post, so I will do so
here again:

He stated: "The Perth Group has claimed in may of their writings that
the genomes
of all RNA viruses vary by less than 1%. They have used this claim as
an argument for the nonexistence of HIV.


For example
"By comparison, two RNA containing viruses (polio and influenza, the
latter after 27 years of dormancy,) vary by less than 1%...""

but he left out the rest of the sentence:

"as do RNA molecules self-assembled in test tubes, denied the
organising influence of living cells.167, 168"

You then state:
"The reference that the Perth group provide for this claim is
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&..."

Clicking on that link brings up the following:

Annu Rev Microbiol. 1987;41:409-33.

Rapid evolution of RNA viruses.

Steinhauer DA, Holland JJ.

Department of Biology, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla
92093.

The high error rate inherent in all RNA synthesis provides RNA virus
genomes with extremely high mutation rates. Thus nearly all large RNA
virus clonal populations are quasispecies collections of differing,
related genomes (14, 49). These rapidly mutating populations can remain
remarkably stable under certain conditions of replication. Under other
conditions, virus-population equilibria become disturbed, and extremely
rapid evolution can result. This extreme variability and rapid
evolution can cause severe problems with previously unknown virus
diseases (such as AIDS). It also presents daunting challenges for the
design of effective vaccines for the control of diseases caused by
rapidly evolving RNA virus populations.

I'm not sure what point you are making here with regard to the
scientific method being properly applied to the "HIV/AIDS" claim, which
is really all that matters, so you will have to explain exactly what
it is you think this study says. In it, there is no reference to an
actual experiment being done. For all we know, the authors just
paraphrased some textbook passages in order to get someithing
published. If you are going to listen to a "scientist" who talks about
"certain conditions" and "other conditions" without explaining exactly
what he means, you are clueless about the scientific method. However,
if they are correct, it appears to add credence to what the PG and
others say about all the "junk" that bands at the retroviral density,
and the difficulty in knowing what is really there. I won't go any
further because the PG cover this in microscopic detail and it is the
cornerstone of their argument. If you have not read it or refuse to
address it, then there is no reason to continue with this element of
the discussion.

The "lie" issue is important to come back to here. The references the
PG used were not what you said, but instead the following:

167. Eigen, M., Schuster, P. (1977), "The hypercycle", Die
Naturwissenschaften 64:541-565.
168. Eigen, M., Gardiner, W., Schuster, P., Winkler-Oswatitsch, R.
(1981), "The origin of genetic information", Sci. Am. 224:78-94.

According to the apparent definition of the word "lie" used by you and
Bennett, this is an outrageous lie on your part. If you want to
nitpick and not address the crucial issue, you deserve to be foisted on
your own petard, as you were here.

I'd like to point out something that I have taught students for more
than a few years concerning the scientific method:

Let's go back several hundred years. Some say the world is "round" -
spherical, while others say it is "flat." At this level, there is no
scientific hypothesis, just ideas that need to be formulated into
hypotheses. Now let's say a person decided to walk around the earth or
come to the edge, which he feels will demonstrate what the reality is.
He lives on the shore of the Atlantic and around him on land are all
mountains, so he climbs up to a mountain and in misty weather, thinks
he has come to the edge of a flat earth when he reaches the top, then
he goes back to report what he has found to his fellow villagers. He
says this confirms what happens when a ship with no people is sent out
and disappears beyond the horizon, never to be seen again. He has done
an experiment, confirming earlier experiments, but he has not done so
in a way that follows the scientific method, and his conclusion that
the earth is "flat" is contradicted by the height of the mountain he
climbed. He dismisses those who point this out as "kooks." We know he
is wrong, but we understand how he could have made the mistake. If we
tell him that we will put him in a rocket ship and fly him around the
earth so that he can see that he is wrong, yet he refuses, saying that
he did the right kind of experiment and he does not need any more
evidence, what are we to do? He obviously does not understand science,
though he thinks that he does. This seems to be very similar to the
attitudes of people like Bennet and Chris Noble.

I have taught the scientific method and the history of science for many
years at the university level. I don't care "who is right." I just
want to make sure the game is not rigged and that the scientific method
is being followed. The PG document everything to the finest detail,
and while just about anyone who has ever wrote anything could always be
clearer or more concise in one or another passage, there is a world of
difference between the PG's writings and what passes for a hypothesis
for "HIV/AIDS." I have even offered to take a version of the "Duesberg
Challange" because of the wide gulf that exists between the PG and
others writings and those of the "HIV/AIDS establish."

Let's get back to the example to illustrate the points I am making
further. Ssuppose your relatives believe the "round" earth notion and
sail off, looking for gold in faraway lands, and disappear below the
horizon. The flat earth people then take charge of the goverment and
forbid you to follow, saying that suicide is not allowed and that you
will kill yourself if you sail off behind the horizon. They cite the
guy who climbed the mountain, as well as the unmanned boat experiments,
as their "scientific sources."

You then do some experiments on your own, essentially discovering what
Newton, Galileo, and others did centuries later. You write it all
down, you have the mathematical formulae, you've done preliminary
experiments, etc., but the establishment refuses to listen to you, or
to fund any of your experimental proposals. You are at a "dead end" at
this point, even though you are correct.

This brings up another point about the scientific method. A hypothesis
is not just an observation that appears to fit pre-existing
conceptions, but is an explanatory framework that has mechanisms to
explain the "how" and "why." The ancient Greeks speculated about
evolution, for example, but Darwin and later those involved in
discovering genetics provided the "how" and "why" that allowed the
evolution hypothesis to become a theory, once adequate study and
experimentation had been done.

The "HIV/AIDS" claimants do not seem to care about the "how" and "why"
at all, even though, as the PG and others point out, almost nothing
they have claimed as "panned out" or even makes sense with respect to
what was considered established in virology up to that point in
history.

Let's take the following example: no scientist has seen a planet form,
but there is little "controversy" on how this occurs, at least on a
general level. We know how great a force gravity is with very large
objects, and we know that no other force could be signficant at this
level. We know about the "big bang" though not every last detail is
known. From what is known, there is only one explanation,
scientifically, that makes sense, though some of the details might be
wrong. As Duesberg and others have pointed out, the "HIV/AIDS" claims
violate what were considered basic tenets of virology, and the PG and
other have pointed out that the isolation procedures used are
inconsistent with what was considered standard practice up to that
time. I will cite Etienne de Harven,. who worked in electron
microscopy (EM) primarily on the ultrastructure of retroviruses
throughout his professional career of 25 years at the Sloan Kettering
Institute in New York and 13 years at the University of Toronto:

"When retrovirus particles are legion, the study of molecular markers
can be useful, and provide an approach to quantification probably
better than direct particle counting under the EM (which I always found
very difficult). But when, using EM, retrovirus particles are absent
relying exclusively on 'markers' is a methodological nonsense.
'Markers' of what?"

You can read the rest at:
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/ehremarks.htm

Lastly, Noble's criticism of a publication may or may not be accurate,
but it has nothing to do with the scientific content of an article
published in it, and appears to be a "cheap shot" on Noble's part,
which again, is counter to the scientific method.

Having no "horse in this race," but being a scholar of the history of
science, I am interested in hearing about the science of those who
support or reject the "HIV/AIDS" claims, but what I have gotten from
Bennett and Noble only gives support to those who reject the "HIV/AIDS"
claims. I look forward to actual, on point scientific evidence to be
presented by them at this juncture, but I am not hopeful about this,
considering what they have put forth to this point.

"Mark Probert" wrote
Rich.@. wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:53:15 -0500, Mark Probert
wrote:
--snip--

Is this thread about Jan Drew?

Poor Despicable hyprocrite, Richard H Jacobson.

Far be it from him to stalk, badger, or lie.

Nor attack Jan.

Nor overlook Mark Probert's many lies or his disbarrment.

He is Mark's enabler in sin.

I guarantee he will always pass up the opportunity to ever try to trash Jan.

His nose is not ever glued to the computer to see if he can say something
about Jan.

OH NO!

Perish the thought.

http://tinyurl.com/39u2g

http://tinyurl.com/2vxcl

http://tinyurl.com/2nbzc

http://tinyurl.com/3gzhf

Are you sure my name is Richard Jacobson?? ilenaIs it or isn't it?
Negative. Does this mean that I don't have to agree to Jan's request to
cease and desist?? Of course her request presumes that I have been stalking
and harassing her.

I am grateful for one thing; that Richard Jacobson is not my real name.

Unfortunately the Richard Jacobson that DOES live in Hawaii may not be too
happy with my assuming his name for purposes of the internet especially
given
the recent events. He happens to live on a different island from me. I do
plan
to contact him to let him know that someone may try to harass him since he
is
listed in the phone book.
===============================
Hiking The Kalalau Trail

Richard Jacobson )
Sat, 16 Mar 1996 00:27:34 -0500 (EST)


Hawaii's premier backpacking trail, the Kalalau Trail on the island of
Kauai still remains closed past Hanakoa due to the reconstruction of
the trail near "crawler's ridge". Estimated date of completion is Mid May.
Until then, camping will only be permitted in Hanakapiai and Hanakoa
Valleys. I for one am anxious to have Kalalau open again. It has to
be one of the finest trails in the world.

Aloha,
Rich
------------------------
------------------------
Richard H. Jacobson
Always remember to put Horace before Descarte

"JanD" wrote in message
news:fUnnf.622634$_o.125740@attbi_s71...

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
JanD wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote

[snip]

Snipping does not remove the truth:

Dumber than a box of rocks shows he is a liar again.


ROTFL! If YOU were smarter than a box of rocks, you would realize that you
just made the argument that snipping DOES remove the truth.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

"JanD" wrote in message
news:y8onf.615995$x96.484416@attbi_s72...

"Rich" wrote in message
...

"Eric Bohlman" wrote in message
...
"JanD" wrote in
news:3uinf.622157$_o.620836@attbi_s71:

Then Mark MD told of a man who changed his diet, added exercise

His diabetes DISAPPEARED.

I think you meant "his blood sugar went into the normal range." Many
diabetics are capable of doing that. But they have to work at keeping
it
there. If somebody's diabetes truly disappeared, he/she would
subsequently
be able to maintain normal blood sugar *without* having to pay special
attention to his/her diet and exercise levels.

Note that diet and exercise are *conventional*,
*scientifically-validated*
treatments for diabetes. They are in no way "alternative." They're
evidence-based, not belief-based. They work (that is to say, produce
*objectively measurable* improvements in health) whether or not you
believe
in them. The fact that they don't involved pharmaceutical corporations
in
no way makes them "alternative."


Thank you. I was about to post similar observations. Jan's fantasy that
the patient's diabetes "disappeared" is typical of her magical thinking.

Poor Rich.

As I said it was Mark MD's posts.

His words:

He started eating right, he started a moderate exercise routine, he
ultimately lost about 70 lbs, and guess what? Away went his diabetes,
CHF, hypertension and high cholesterol.


Not a cure, but certainly an effective treatment.





The
fact is that even those type-II diabetics who are initially able to
control their blood sugar levels with exercise and obsessive attention to
diet will eventually require medications when their pancreases gradually
lose the ability to produce enough natural insulin to provide the
mechanism of control. Most will be able to get along with oral
hypoglycemic meds for awhile, then most will require insulin injections
in the end.

NO!

He started eating right, he started a moderate exercise routine, he
ultimately lost about 70 lbs, and guess what? Away went his diabetes,
CHF, hypertension and high cholesterol.


Not a cure, but certainly an effective treatment




Actually, there is a cure for diabetes . . . a pancreas transplant. But
that comes with a lifetime of immunosuppressant drugs, hardly a great
trade-off unless the diabetes is brittle and life-threatening (usually
type-I).


NO!

He started eating right, he started a moderate exercise routine, he
ultimately lost about 70 lbs, and guess what? Away went his diabetes,
CHF, hypertension and high cholesterol.


Not a cure, but certainly an effective treatment



Jan, you idiot, you obviously do not know that diabetes type-II is a
progressive disease. It manifests itself in adulthood, and gradually gets
worse as the patient ages. It can be effectively managed by matching the
treatment to the severity of the disease. In the early stages, exercise and
diet may be all that is necessary for management, but that condition does
not continue indefinately. If the patient in question assumed that his
diabetes were cured, and did not continue to monitor his blood sugar, he
would definitely be susceptable to eye and kidney damage and peripheral
neuropathy as the disease progressed. Your cut-and-paste does not change
that whether you do it three times or a thousand.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

JanD wrote:
"Rich" wrote in message
...

"Eric Bohlman" wrote in message
...
"JanD" wrote in
news:3uinf.622157$_o.620836@attbi_s71:

Then Mark MD told of a man who changed his diet, added exercise

His diabetes DISAPPEARED.

I think you meant "his blood sugar went into the normal range." Many
diabetics are capable of doing that. But they have to work at keeping it
there. If somebody's diabetes truly disappeared, he/she would
subsequently
be able to maintain normal blood sugar *without* having to pay special
attention to his/her diet and exercise levels.

Note that diet and exercise are *conventional*,
*scientifically-validated*
treatments for diabetes. They are in no way "alternative." They're
evidence-based, not belief-based. They work (that is to say, produce
*objectively measurable* improvements in health) whether or not you
believe
in them. The fact that they don't involved pharmaceutical corporations
in
no way makes them "alternative."


Thank you. I was about to post similar observations. Jan's fantasy that
the patient's diabetes "disappeared" is typical of her magical thinking.

Poor Rich.

As I said it was Mark MD's posts.

His words:

He started eating right, he started a moderate exercise routine, he
ultimately lost about 70 lbs, and guess what? Away went his diabetes,
CHF, hypertension and high cholesterol.


I'm rubbing my forehead in what amounts to mild dismay at your
depressingly obtuse approach to discussion.

Yes, I said the above, but did you notice the very next sentence?



Not a cure, but certainly an effective treatment.


NOT a cure. You are using my statement that it *isn't* a cure to
somehow bolster your argument that there *is* a cure for diabetes.

Am I the only one mystified by this bizarre doublespeak?



The
fact is that even those type-II diabetics who are initially able to
control their blood sugar levels with exercise and obsessive attention to
diet will eventually require medications when their pancreases gradually
lose the ability to produce enough natural insulin to provide the
mechanism of control. Most will be able to get along with oral
hypoglycemic meds for awhile, then most will require insulin injections in
the end.


I have to disagree. If an obese, sedentary Type II diabetic changes
those factors for good, they will probably not progress to insulin
dependence. But the changes have to be permanent or, like my
acquaintance, the diabetes will recur.


NO!

He started eating right, he started a moderate exercise routine, he
ultimately lost about 70 lbs, and guess what? Away went his diabetes,
CHF, hypertension and high cholesterol.


Not a cure, but certainly an effective treatment




Actually, there is a cure for diabetes . . . a pancreas transplant. But
that comes with a lifetime of immunosuppressant drugs, hardly a great
trade-off unless the diabetes is brittle and life-threatening (usually
type-I).


NO!


Actually, YES! Pancreatic transplants have occurred, and they "cure"
diabetes, but at the expense of lifelong dependence on anti-rejection
drugs.

Mark, MD

"Mark" wrote in message
oups.com...

JanD wrote:

snip

Mark MD should really worry about his own VERY unprofessional behavior.

snip


Jan, when have I ever engaged you in a professional setting?

You miss the point, doc.

You answer people on medical subjects, and sign your name MD.

That's profession behavior.

As a matter of fact, just a few week back, you lost your cool. AGAIN and cut
loose with one of your fits of temper, and were ashamed of yourself!

The below also shows a discussion of Hep. C where no one was mad and nothing
whatsoever was said to make you come across the way you did!

You have a TEMPER and a foul mouth, that you have NOT learned to control!

This is NOT profession behavior, and YOU know it.

YOU are just to STUBBORN to correct it.

YOU still need to GROW UP!

PUNKY!

[snip usual]

Mark, MD

P.S. Successfully treating diabetes isn't the same thing as "curing"
diabetes.

Nobody said it was!

The gentleman in my example has blood glucose control
problems when he lets his weight creep back up; if he had been
"cured", this wouldn't be the case. So, yes, Peter Bowditch has an
incurable -- but treatable -- disease. It's an important distinction.

Not the issue. Nobody said otherwise.

Speaking of *cures* that is EXACTLY where your resentments come from.

You told the below LIE long ago, I tolde you it was a LIE.

YOU REPEATED IT ANYWAY.

THAT IT YOUR PROBLEM WITH ME!

YOU LIED AND LIED AND LIED AND LIED.

Hulda DOES claim to be able to cure cancer with her Zapper.

Hulda does NO SUCH THING.

NO WHERE DOES SHE CLAIM TO CURE ANYTHING WITH THE ZAPPER!




Restored:

Resentments that YOU still harbor, because YOU know YOU lied and I called
your hand!

The *truth* is:


Mark MD is holding resentments from way back, when HE made HIS mistake.


Subject: Whole Foods vs. Individual Substances From:



(Mark) Date: 3/11/02 12:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: "Wyle E.
Coyote" wrote in message news:uoTi8.11100
What does this have to do with health? According the the article, these
foods have not even been shown to the helpful. Talk about putting the
cart before the horse. All the best, Wyle
Maybe tomatoes and broccoli won't turn out to be some kind of miracle
cancer cure, but I still think it's a good idea to eat 'em. Roughage,
baby, roughage! If you have a nice, satisfying, regular poop, you don't
find yourself mentally bound up and focusing on


The focus is on you Doc. Is that why you are so angry?

==============================
***Please forgive the profanity to follow, but I feel it is
well-deserved***


Jan, you sweet nincompoop, what the **** is your problem? You have
made an insane mission out of the semantic difference between the
words "procedure" and "practice". What the HELL does it matter
whether Peter B. used one or the other??!! The principle is the same,
and you have this blithering, idiotic fixation on his "LIE" in using
one versus the other...


Again, what the **** is your problem with using one word over the
other?


Argue over concepts and principles, not this stupid banter over the
miniscule and completely unimportant difference between the word
"procedure" and the word "practice".


To put it another way, what is the substantive difference between the
following two statements:


1) "It is common practice to brush one's teeth before bedtime."


2) "It is the common procedure to brush one's teeth before bedtime."


Gosh Almighty, woman! Do you have nothing more important to talk
about than to jabber incessantly about whether Peter B used the
"right" word to describe the procedure/practice? Give it a ****ing
REST, already!


Mark, MD (Not feeling particularly "pediatrician-y" this evening...)


===============================
Or Hulda Clark, or Jan Drew.


As far as the teeth. I focused on them, got the metal removed and it saved
my life.


You should focus on cleaning up your messes Doc. You need to correct your
mistakes and then apologize.


Those are the FACTS.


So far, you haven't been man enough to do the right thing.


Jan


The entire thread is he


http://tinyurl.com/exvan

Mark MD should really worry about his own VERY unprofessional behavior.

Such as:

In response to:

Rich" wrote in message

...



"Roman Bystrianyk" wrote in message
"Hepatitis C Can Be Sexually Transmitted", Reuters UK, April 25, 2005,
So can syphillis, gonorrhea, herpes, HIV, trichomonas, et.al. Now tell us
something we didn't know. --Rich



Um, sorry to disappoint you, Rich, but hep C is NOT a sexually transmitted
disease.


Waterspider

Mark MD having one of his hissy fits wrote:


Then **** at will, moron. Don't come whining to me for interferon
alpha when your liver starts to rebel because you had the errant
thought that your dick wouldn't get you into trouble.


Mark, MD


(Seen it, treated it, wish the foolish ****-alls would just reel it in
and give me a rest...)