He is exposed for the liar and cyberstalker that he is.
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, and
2) *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