Quoted message said:Subject: Re: to Jan
From: "RB" [email hidden]
Date: 3/12/2004 7:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>You were right Jan. There's Rich already.
Yep that is his pattern. Funny how he couldn't amswer
Bubba's questions, plus the fact he has nuked his posts
tells all.
Poor guy is obsessed.
Jan
From: Bubba [email hidden]
Quoted message said:Date: 5/7/02 8:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id:
<[email hidden]>Rich <,@.> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:Quoted message said:P Moran said:Who are you trying to convince, Jan? Yourself, to justify
your own excursion into amalgam removal, apparently
without any spectacular success?Bingo!!! That is likely, IMO, exactly the motivation
behind Jan obsessively posting about the dangers of
mercury amalgams. Despite the fact that I have quite
convincingly (except to Jan and Bubba) demonstrated,
based upon Jan's history, that her health improvement is
VERY VERY likely to be predominantly due to psychologic
factors and that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that her health
problems were due to mercury toxicity, Jan delusionally
continues not only to believe that she had mercury
poisoning but also believes (paranoically) that there is
a vast conspiracy by the ADA to cover it all up.Sure, Rich! You couldn't support your position in our
debate, but instead chose to run away not once, but twice.
I suspect that there are many more members of MHA other
than Jan and myself whom you have NOT convinced.Maybe you would like to take another shot at answering the
questions that you could NOT address a few months ago. Have
you learned anything new in that interval, Rich?Here, again, is the last post I made in our debate:
Subject: Re: Psychologic factors influencing physical
illness vs Amalgam Related Illness in the case of Jan Drew
From: Bubba <[email hidden]> Newsgroups:
misc.health.alternative**********************************************************-
****************
NOTE TO RICH:If you respond to this post, please be sure to identify all
sections which you snip (preferably with "[...]"😉. Thanks!
**********************************************************-
****************Rich <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:Quoted message said:I thought it would be useful for me to summarize my
opinion with respect to the likelihood of Jan Drew having
psychologic factors influencing physical illness
(peripheral neuropathy) as opposed to either Amalgam
Related Illness or Mercury Poisoning and answer some
pertinent questions raised about my opinion.I believe that the most compelling evidence that it is
psychologic factors vs ARI or MP is the following
statement by Jan Drew when she was asked how she could
explain feeling better than she had in two years within
days after having the amalgams removed when it is
extremely unlikely that her mercury levels would have
been lower and actually may have been even higher due to
the procedure to remove them.Here is the statement in its entirety followed by an
analysis of it.Quoted message said:Jan Drew says: Rich for the LAST time, I said I felt
better than I had in two years. That was very true. I had
been very very ill and my health was deteriorating fast.
After much reading and research I was convinced it was my
teeth. I wasn't absolutely positivity 100% sure, but it
all fit together and I knew I had to do something. It
wasn't easy, what if it didn't work? That was very
stressful.Finally all the work was done, the metal was out, the
bill was paid, I didn't have to sit in the dentist chairs
for hours with a rubber dam in my mouth!!!!!!!!!! Of
course I was very relieved. A big big burden was lifted.
That makes one FEEL BETTER.What's so hard to understand?
I also reported I had only begun, now on to chelating the
mercury from my body. With mercury poisoning, it comes
and goes, I had some pretty bad spells. I'm still
chelating Rich and will be for some time. I slowly am
regaining my health and my PN is much better. I don't
have the painful periods that I once had, and yes it was
after I started taking medication.You added a few words to what I said which *implied* that
I was physicially free from pain..........as in BANG I'm
home free. That is NOT what I meant.............and you
know it.Now do you better understand? I hope so because I feel no
need to explain it AGAIN. Please respect that I didn't
have to explain AGAIN this time.Jan
Rich, if you really believe that this post of Jan's
provides "the most compelling evidence that it is
psychologic factors vs ARI or MP," then you really don't
have *much* to support your position.I still don't understand why you believe that Jan's
account that she experienced some relief in the days
immediately following her amalgam removal is relevant to
the issue of whether she does or does not have "Amalgam-
Related Illness" (ARI)?Quoted message said:First let me say that I think that it important not to
take everything that Jan says at face value.Well, then you (or I) could always make claims such as
1) "although Jan said ______, she really meant ______," or
2) "when Jan said _____, she was making a false statement
(or lying)."You (and I) could make up any story we wanted and
attribute it to Jan (which I believe you have tried to do
- see below).Quoted message said:This is because she clearly has a vendetta against
conventional medicine as reflected by her frequent
kneejerk responses to most anyone who may endorse
something that is also endorsed by conventional medicine
invoking some kind of conspiracy using terms like
"organized medicine". Jan will likely deny this but as I
have said before, the proof is in the pudding.Tangential point, irrelevant to the discussion.
Quoted message said:It is also important not to take what she says at face
value due to the numerous inconsistencies that she has
made over the years.The above statement made by Jan Drew is important
because it is likely a truthful one. I say this because
Jan clearly has a very negative reaction whenever
anyone suggests that she may be having a placebo
response. She is extremely sensitive to even the
suggestion that she may have had a placebo response so
that an acknowledgement on her part (as she did above)
that psychologic factors were responsible for her
feeling better, at least initially is both amazing and
likely true.So, Rich, it appears that you believe Jan *only* when her
account supports your position. Am I correct?The explanation that Jan has provided (in the above
statement) for her sense of relief is NOT the same as your
"psychological factors" explanation. Therefore, her account
does NOT support your claim!Although you state above that this "statement made by Jan
Drew is important because it is likely a truthful one," you
really don't even believe *all* of this statement, because
part of it does NOT support your position (see below).Quoted message said:So let us look at her statement more closely.
In response to my question about how she could feel
better than she had for two years so quickly after having
the amalgams removed, Jan first admitted that she indeed
did feel better than she had in two years.She then admits that after being told by Hulda Clark to
check the teeth that she did some research which resulted
in her being quite convinced (not 100%) that her problem
was with the amalgams in her teeth. This is very
important information because it reflects Jan's state of
mind. Based upon her research she concluded that the
mercury from her amalgams had been leeching into her
system and causing her major health problems. She even
believed that she was going to die as a result of this.What credible evidence do you have that either of these
beliefs were unfounded?Quoted message said:It is perfectly understandable why Jan would feel a great
sense of relief following the removal of the amalgams
given her state of mind. And as a result of this relief
Jan felt better than she had in two years.This alone, to me, is very convincing evidence that Jan's
initial improvement was very likely psychological. Jan
could not have given a much more convincing statement to
make my point.What evidence do you have to support *your opinion* that it
is more likely that the relief Jan experienced was due to
the fact that Jan believed she was no longer being exposed
to the mercury from her amalgams rather than *Jan's
explanation* that she was relieved because the painful,
uncomfortable, and stressful amalgam removal procedure had
been completed?Even after the amalgam removal procedure, Jan still had a
body burden of mercury that would likely be responsible for
continuing health problems for years to come. Why should
she have felt relief knowing that MOST of the mercury was
*still* in her body?Quoted message said:A question was raised as to whether Jan's symptoms
preceded her worrying about the amalgams. Certainly some
of them did. After all she has peripheral neuropathy, a
very painful and uncomfortable disease.Please list all of Jan's signs and symptoms (and their
severity - on a scale of 1-10) ...1) *before* she knew that dental amalgams might be
responsible for her health problems, and2) *after* she knew that dental amalgams might be
responsible for her health problems.Quoted message said:Fortunately for Jan the one treatment that even she
admits is responsible for reducing much of her pain are
the meds (Elavil and Neurontin) manufactured by those
evil pharmaceutical companies that are part of organized
medicine.This is a tangential comment, completely unrelated to this
discussion.Quoted message said:However following Hulda telling Jan about the dangers of
amalgams Jan began to believe that she was dying. Her
health really deteriorated after Hulda told Jan about
the dangers of amalgams and after Jan did her research.Please provide the URL(s) to any post(s) in the Google
archives where Jan wrote THAT![...]
Quoted message said:There also has been a question about the characterization
of her improvement as being psychosomatic or psych
factors influencing a physical condition. Let me explain
the difference between these two conditions and how it is
not very relevant to the question of whether Jan's
improvement was psychologic or due to the amalgams.Psychologic factors influencing physical illness is where
psychologic factors are important in a preexisting
physical condition.You *still* have not defined what you mean by "psychologic
factors." I have asked you repeatedly to do so.******************************************
Rich, PLEASE DEFINE "psychologic factors."
Rich, PLEASE DEFINE "psychologic factors."
Rich, PLEASE DEFINE "psychologic factors."
Rich, PLEASE DEFINE "psychologic factors."
******************************************
Quoted message said:This would be a more appropriate characterization for
Jan's situation with respect to amalgams.What were Jan's preexisting physical conditions with
respect to amalgams?Quoted message said:Psychosomatic disorder refers to a physical condition
which arises to significant degree by psychologic factors
such as anxiety, paranoia, etc.FYI, the current DSM-IV-TR classification that has replaced
"psychosomatic disorder" is Somatoform Disorders."Psychosomatic disorder" is NOT a valid psychiatric
diagnosis.Quoted message said:I have expressed my opinion that Jan's problems are
psychosomatic as well as due to psychologic factors
influencing a physical condition.Are you changing your position AGAIN?
Quoted message said:They are not mutually exclusive. I believe there is good
evidence that she has BOTH.Is it possible that Jan has *all* of the following
conditions?:1) ARI
2) "psychosomatic factors" (whatever they are)
3) one of Somatoform DisordersIsn't the probability that an individual has all three
"conditions" almost the same as the probability that that
same individual has only the last two?Quoted message said:In the case of the PN it is latter. Her belief that she
was infested with multiple parasites was, for example,
likely the latter. This is my opinion. I am not 100%
sure of it.Does Jan meet the criteria of any of the DSM-IV-TR
Somatoform Disorders?If she does NOT, then she does NOT have a Somatoform
Disorder. (Please use the correct terminology in the
future.)Jan does NOT have a "psychosomatic condition"! That is NO
longer a valid psychiatric diagnosis!Quoted message said:Jan Drew's animosity toward conventional medicine is a
matter of record that she will likely deny. I can only
suggest that people read her posts to see what I mean.
The proof is in the pudding as it were.This statement of yours is completely tangential to this
discussion.Quoted message said:Jan has reported improvement with so many different
unproven alternative methods over the years that makes it
quite likely that her improvements are due to psychologic
factors. The other explanation is that all these alt
treatments were effective for her serious ailments. I
will allow others to come to their own determination.There are other equally likely explanations. Check out the
following link for some clues:Why Bogus Therapies Seem to Work, by Barry L. Beyerstein
Several of these explanations do NOT require a
psychological mechanism. What evidence do you have that
your explanation is more likely than these other non-
psychological mechanisms?Quoted message said:While I personally don't think that all alt treatments
are complete quackery, I am doubtful that so many of them
(as reported by Jan) can be helpful other than for
psychologic reasons. This is just my opinion. I am not
100% certain of it.Just because Jan has had some treatments that might have
not have had *any* efficacy in treating her conditions (but
from which she believes she has derived some benefit) does
NOT mean that she does not have ARI and has not had a
significant improvement in her health as a result of the
amalgam removal.Quoted message said:Another points raised was the Jan's comments should be
taken at face value or else we will be shooting at a
moving target. With all due respect, anyone who thinks
that it is reasonable to take her comments at face value
is deluding himself. And with respect to shooting at a
moving target, perhaps you have not been reading Jan's
many comments over the years because her numerous
contradictions define a moving target. Anyone who is
familiar with Jan's history knows exactly what I am
talking about. For example when I posted the exact
statement that Jan made regarding feeling better than she
had in two years , she said that I lied. But I did not. I
quote exactly. Once I left out "two years" and just said
"years" because I did not recall how many and Jan accused
me of lying then too. Jan has an interesting way of
defining "lying" as most of you are quite aware by her
numerous accusations while ridiculing OTHERS for calling
people liars.Well then, Rich, maybe I should just "reinterpret" Jan's
comments, too, to bolster *my* position. Right!!!Quoted message said:Another point raised was my certainty of her having a
particular psychiatric diagnosis.You have NOT supported your claim with a valid psychiatric
diagnosis. Please do so.Quoted message said:While I often weigh in with my opinion I ALSO
specifically advise people to seek out qualified
professional help to reach diagnoses and that no one
should accept anyone's opinion (including mine) in this
newsgroup. This is a discussion newsgroup for expressing
opinions. I advise NO ONE to accept my diagnoses as
definitive and have frequently stated this.And with respect to the question of how one can rule out
amalgam related illness or mercury related illness in
this case we cannot.You have NOT answered these questions I posted previously:
So, you *do* agree that it is *possible* for Jan's health
problems to be the result of her mercury exposures from her
amalgams?1) How would someone rule out that possibility?
2) How would *you* rule out that possibility?
3) In what ways would Jan's account have to differ for you
to find it credible?Do you know that one of the exclusionary criteria for the
Somatoform Disorders is that the patient's symptoms cannot
be explained by the "direct effects of a substance" (e.g,
mercury)?Quoted message said:Of course I cannot also rule out interplanetary alien
influence either. It has been suggested that my comment
about interplanetary alien influence is a stupid skeptic
trick. My response is two fold. One: Please provide
specific evidence that ARI or MP is more likely than IAI.
How would you go about ruling out IAI?? Please be
specific since you claimed that my analogy was a stupid
skeptic trick.Rich, in a previous post, you implied that the probability
that Jan experienced relief immediately following her
amalgam removal was about the same as the probability that
her relief was due to some "interplanetary influence." Is
that your position? If so, it is a claim, which you have
the responsibility to support. I have made NO claim!Quoted message said:Btw, I know of several individuals who thought that they
had electronic devices planted in their amalgams by
interplanetary aliens and following the removal all the
symptoms that they experienced disappeared with removal
of the amalgams. Note that this is PURELY anecdotal, and
I don't personally believe the conclusions arrived at by
these individuals is true. I only bring it up to
illustrate a point. That point is that one cannot rule
out with 100% certainty anything.Irrelevant, tangential, self-serving, smug statement.
[...]
Quoted message said:Another point is that I asked for a scenario that would
indicate that Jan's problem was likely psychologic and
was told that if she had white amalgams replacing the
silver ones that would be the case. It was later pointed
out that white amalgams don't exist. I was given a
completely specious criterium for the belief that the
cause was likely psychologic. Of course without knowing a
person's baseline for believing in a psychologic etiology
or exacerbation from psych problems it is very difficult
to have a meaningful discussion.No, it isn't! If you were confident enough in your opinion
to make a number of posts that Jan's account (i.e., that
she believed that mercury exposures had an adverse
physiological effect on her health, and NOT just through
some purely psychological mechanism) was a "bogus claim,"
then you should have *plenty* of evidence to convince even
the most die-hard skeptic that you are right!Rich, this debate should be a slam-dunk for you!
I don't have to prove a thing! You are trying to deflect
this discussion from the claims you have made, which you
have the responsibility to support with credible evidence!
I have made NO claims!Quoted message said:I hope that I have been clear in my opinion and reasons
for my opinion. I elected to make all these comments in a
single post rather than to answer specific questions in
another post so my reasoning and rationale for my
opinions would be clear. I hope that I have answered all
questions that are *relevant* to the issue at hand. I
prefer not to get side tracked with tangential issues.You have *not* answered all of the relevant questions.
Quoted message said:I would be happy to answer any substantive questions
related to this discussion but will likely decline to
answer any tangential or irrelevant questions that are
designed to deflect from the issue at hand realizing
that that may trigger someone to impulsively kill file
me again.I also hope that this discussion can be continued without
the hurling of insults. I am trying my best to raise the
level of discussion here, recognizing that I am not
always successful in achieving that goal.Why don't we both agree NOT to engage in *any* sidebar
discussions on MHA regarding anything discussed in this
thread or anything concerning this thread (e.g., who made
the best point in the most recent post)?And how would you characterize what you have written in the
preceding two paragraph, if not an insult?Quoted message said:Another point is that this is an open discussion group
and NOT for one on one discussion. It is not appropriate
in my opinion to discourage others from participating in
the discussion. If people want to have a one on one
discussion it would be better handled through e-mail.Fine. I'm still not going to respond to any posts about
this topic (in a substantive manner) other than yours.Quoted message said:Rich
--
Bubba