Re: cathy b the Repeated BLATANT LIAR
- From: "cathyb" <cathybeesley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 Jul 2005 01:24:26 -0700
LadyLollipop wrote:
> "cathyb" <cathybeesley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1122276602.409663.147810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > LadyLollipop wrote:
> >> "cathyb" <cathybeesley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:1122193658.259071.179130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > LadyLollipop wrote:
> >> >> "cathyb" <cathybeesley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1122159871.584203.163850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > LadyLollipop wrote:
> >> >> > <snip worthless rant>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Oh dear. Lollipop has forgotten that Petey has already said that he
> >> >> > didn't mind when he noticed she'd "editorialised" his post
> >> >>
> >> >> If he said that he was confused, the fact is, I did NOT reply to HIS
> >> >> post, I
> >> >> replied to YOURS.
> >> >>
> >> >> I editorialised" nothing!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> . Now she's
> >> >> > splicing I don't know how many posts to try and prove she didn't lie
> >> >> > and someone else did. Good stuff--keep it up Jan:)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Cheers,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Cathy
> >> >> >
> >> >> The FACT is:
> >> >>
> >> >> Cathy can NOT keep her lies straight.
> >> >>
> >> >> Cathy is a BLATANT LIAR.
> >> >>
> >> >> Loopy hasn't noticed (?) that this next was part of my reply, not part
> >> >> > > of Petey's post. Oh dear. See below.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Cathy can't keep her lies straight. Oh dear.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > *As Lollipop must be aware from her creative snipping, she has
> >> >> > joined
> >> >> > >> together the two separate pieces from Petey's post where he said
> >> >> > >> two
> >> >> > >> different things*
> >> >>
> >> >> Pathetic.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jan
> >> >
> >> > Ah. All is explained. It appears Lollipop thinks if she spliced what
> >> > Peter wrote as quoted in my post to change the meaning, that's just
> >> > fine (even though she prefaced it with "Peter's words were:",
> >> > indicating that she took them from Petey's post), and not lying at all.
> >> > And then to repeat the procedure on another of my posts makes it even
> >> > better than fine presumably.
> >> >
> >> > Oh, she's a marvel.
> >> >
> >> > Cathy
> >>
> >> Just *where* did you see "Peter's words were:"
> >>
> >> You didn't, you just made it up.
> >>
> >> If he said that he was confused.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Your lies get bigger and bigger.
> >>
> >> Jan
>
> <snip>
>
> Just *where* did you see "Peter's words were:"
>
> You didn't, you just made it up.
>
> <snip
Could've sworn I just posted them. They were in Lollipop's original
post. Well I tried to spare everyone the entire post (yes, I'm aware
that 'everyone' is just one loon), but since the loon insists:
La Lollipop wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>> cathyb wrote:
>> > PeterB wrote:
>> > > Rich.@. wrote:
>> > > > Question 1: How does Jan Drew explain feeling better than she had
>> > > > in
>> > > > two years on the day she had eight of twelve amalgams removed? It
>> > > > sure
>> > > > was not because the dental work was over as Jan Drew originally
>> > > > claimed.
>> > > > >>>>>I believe the mercury is the cause of my problems. I hav felt
>> > > > >>>>>better today that
>> > > > >>>>>I have in the last 2 years, and am looking forward to getting
>> > > > >>>>>the rest of the
>> > > > >>>>>mercury out and the root canal pulled.
>> > > > >>>>>Jan
>> > > A lot of people feel better when they start a program of
>> > > self-improvement, whether it's to do with physical health or
>> > > something
>> > > else. So what if she says she "felt better that day," it doesn't
>> > > prove
>> > > that removing the amalgams wasn't beneficial to her health over time.
>> > No, but Jan attributed her feeling better that day than she had in 2
>> > years to amalgam removal in an attempt to persuade others that amalgam
>> > fillings cause illness.
My messages starts with *IF*
*IF* you have an unanswered health problem,,,,,,,,CHECK THE TEETH!
>> The BDA has acknowledged the reality of mercury toxicity from amalgams
>> for years, citing valid scientific evidence that can't be ignored.
>> That America's dentistry association has not been more balanced in
>> their evaluation of the evidence doesn't constitute proof to the
>> contrary. In testimony before the US Congress, Professor and Chair,
>> Boyd E. Haley
> Ah. Boyd Haley.
Yes, Boyd Haley, top reaseacher, In testimony before the US Congress
> It would appear Rich is correct, and Petey is just a troll.
Richard H Jacobson is a liar, just like you.
Look up the definition of a troll.
However, here he has missed the point, which is not mercury, but
Lollipop
An obsession of the *gang*. They don't like hearing the truth.
>>, Dept. of Chemistry at University of Kentucky, states the
>> ADA is closing its eyes to valid and substantical data which
>> demonstrates the hazards of putting mercury into the human mouth.
>> Go figure.
>> > > > Question 2: How does Jan Drew explain being able to go out line
>> > > > dancing a week after she had eight amalgams removed when her
>> > > > mercury
>> > > > level was higher by Jan's OWN WORDS?
>> > > If you had YOUR amalgams taken out, your own mercury levels would
>> > > rise,
>> > > as well. Would that stop you from going to work or playing a game of
>> > > tennis or taking a stroll in the park? WHo knows? Maybe it would,
>> > > maybe it wouldn't.
>> > Unfortunately, Jan was giving this as proof that removal of a mercury
>> > source in her body had done her good. I would agree with Petey that it
>> > would probably make no difference in the short term (I would say
>> > probably in the long term either, but that's not relevant here). But
>> > the point of Rich's post is what Jan said.
The point is, YOU don't know what Rich said. WHY do you suppose he
nuked his
posts????
Another issue, not discussed.
>> You admit you don't care what the *long term* health effects of this
>> procedure are, which tells me everything about you I need to know.
> Note Peter putting words into people's mouths. Ten points to anyone who
> can find where I wrote I don't care what the long term health effects
> are.
Ahhh. 15000000 points for anyone where I wote what cathy *claims* I
wrote.
As for putting things in people's mouth, you don't supppse, that is why
Rich
nuked his posts do you????
>> Your purpose here is to fan a flame war between Jan and Rich and
>> between other well-meaning posters and your fellow Pharma Bloggers.
> Actually, I'm here to see what bizarro notion the boy comes up with
> next. The implication that Lollipop is well meaning when he must have
> read at least a few of her posts is amazing.
Actually, he is not one of the *gang*. He can see see right through you
and
Rich. There is nothing well meaning about either of you.
>> The real point is that Jan continues to feel better after a
>> considerable period of time following amalgam removal. We should be
>> celebrating a positive outcome for someone whose health issues have
>> been largely resolved, even if we can't know all the medical factors
>> involved with total certainty.
> Well, while we can all be glad that Jan is feeling better, Petey
> appears to have missed the point. Again.
> Rich posts about Jan's amalgam removal to expose her hypocrisy in
> calling others liars, not to discuss amalgams per se. Note that Petey
> has nothing to say on this issue.
Rich's posts and pattern have been shown along with his lies. His
hypocrisy
has been shown.
Nothing has been said about that issue.
>> > > None of this proves nothing except that you, as a
>> > > PHarma BLogger, have an agenda.
>> > The boy Petey brings his delusions into play again:)
>> You are deluded, but I can't manage to make you disappear. Is there a
>> pill for that?
> Seems to have lost track of his thoughts here...
Seems to have hit the nail right smack dab on the head.
>> > > > >>On 30 Aug 2004 06:44:36 GMT, jdrew63...@xxxxxxx (Jan) wrote:
>> > > > >>>There's never been any arguement about the fact that removing
>> > > > >>>amalgams puts
>> > > > >>>more mercury in the body.
>> > > > Question 3: Why did Jan Drew say that the reason she knows it was
>> > > > the
>> > > > mercury because she did not begin to regain her health until after
>> > > > her
>> > > > mercury level dropped when the truth is that a week after eight
>> > > > amalgams were removed when her mercury level was higher she went
>> > > > from
>> > > > bedridden to line dancing??? That sounds like she was BEGINNING to
>> > > > regain her health well BEFORE her mercury level dropped. In fact
>> > > > she
>> > > > began to regain her health when her mercury level was likely
>> > > > HIGHER!!
>> > > Do you know what her treatment protocol was? She may have been
>> > > taking
>> > > a chelator (some work with mercury better than others),
>> > Certainly, Jan, being very keen on chelation, would have said so.
The FACT is, I DID!!!!!
Removing the amalgams was just the first step, then it's on to ridding
the
body
of the mercury and repairing the damage done.
You are way off base here. I didn't say I was instantly cured. The
detoxing
>>>that I have done is a major factor in my recovery. Yes, I will continue
>>>to do
>>>it for quite some time to remove the mercury from my body.
As you know removing the metal stirs up the mercury. In
many cases one should do some detoxing before having the dental work
done. I
was tested and I was ready because I had already been detoxing for six
months.
We need to remember that the mercury stored in our bodies is like a
bomb.
>After the mercury amalgam removal, it needs to be handled carefully or it
>will explode in our faces. Take it apart as slow as possible. After all, it
>took 20-30 years for the body to store it as "safe as possible" within our
>tissues, one microgram at a time ..... we need to reverse the process.
>Has anybody had a good experience with DMPS?
There is a man by the name of Ray who did DMPS a long time ago. He now
has
irreversible damage.
I am see a Contact Reflex Analysis (muscle testing) and am chelating
with
Standard Process supplements. As the mercury leaves the body these
supplements
are changed. No one should ever try to chelate on their own.
>> Professional amalgam removal requires a chelating agent, in case you
>> didn't know.
>> > > so her physical
>> > > symptoms may have been ameliorated.
>> > Unlikely.
How VERY wrong you are.
>> We respect your opinion, doctor. Will your brain surgery for tomorrow
>> go forward as planned?
>> > > Either way, physical symptoms
>> > > during such a short time-frame after this process began would not
>> > > disprove the long-term benefits of removing a source of mercury from
>> > > the human body.
>> > Indeed not. But Jan used them as proof of such benefits.
http://www.wholisticresearch.com/info/artshow.php3?artid=7
<snip>I would like to share with you some of my case histories.
I can tell you about the MS patients who could hardly walk down my
corridor,
and who can now run down it.
I can tell you about the pianist whom I thought, when I looked at her
the
first
time, that she was going to die on me, and who was completely
transformed
into
a new being after amalgam removal. She wrote me a letter saying that,
for
the
first time since a very long time, she was able to "connect" to her
music.
I can tell you of the lady who had her amalgam removed somewhere but
felt no
better, so she was sent to me. When I examined her I found a speck of
amalgam
still there by the side of one white filling. I told her that I did not
think
that that speck would have caused her symptoms, but I will remove it
anyway.
A
week after the removal of this tiny mercury speck her husband came with
her
and
asked me, what did you do to my wife! Her depression has gone, and she
is
now
back to the woman I married 30 years ago.
I can tell you of the person who had traveled the world looking for a
cure
from
his continuous headaches. He had every conceivable test, x-ray, scan...
you
name it he had it. When he heard me speak about amalgam on TV, he
thought, I
tried everything, so let me try this one. I removed his amalgam with
immediate
cessation of his headaches.
>> What is this obsession with every iota of Jan's being? She is a lay
>> person who reported what she felt following a medical procedure, and
>> there are thousands more just like her. No one claims she is a medical
>> researcher or scientist, she's a real person who wants to share what
>> happened to her for the benefit of others. As far as I know, the ADA
>> has not accused Jan Drew of being public enemy number one. I realize
>> that you as a Pharma Blogger must studiously contest every minor aspect
>> of a lay person's thoughts and observations, forever and a day. That's
>> how people know you are the one who is either mentally deranged or
>> professionally employed to be here.
> Oh dear. Peter has run out of arguments, or indeed reasons for this
> post. He can't deny that Jan has lied, so instead he decides to roll
> out his 'you're being paid to disagree with me' fantasy again. Poor
> little Petey.
A *gang* tactic, if they can't answer, insult.
>>You can't afford to take this into
>> the realm of science, because then you would have to be honest and
>> admit that lots of things are possible when it comes to human health.
>> Bottom line, amalgam removal has been a health-positive for Jan and
>> you'll just have to live with it.
> See how Petey has changed Lollipop from being "someone whose health
> issues have
> been largely resolved,
Now, who is putting words in whose mouth??
Peter's words were:
Bottom line, amalgam removal has been a health-positive for Jan
even if we can't know all the medical factors
> involved with total certainty." to someone for whom "amalgam removal
> has been a health-positive".
>> <remainder of Pharma Blogging snipped>
> Restored:
> And that Petey failed to notice that Rich's point was about Lollipop's
> lies, not amalgam, speaks volumes.
<snip crap where Lolliop denies she's ever accused me of being someone
else>
It's in there, if anyone can be bothered.
At least she was right about Petey's ongoing confusion.
Cathy:)
.
- References:
- Re: cathy b the Repeated BLATANT LIAR
- From: cathyb
- Re: cathy b the Repeated BLATANT LIAR
- From: LadyLollipop
- Re: cathy b the Repeated BLATANT LIAR
- Prev by Date: Re: cathy b the Repeated BLATANT LIAR
- Next by Date: Re: I wonder Why cathy b Can't Answer This?
- Previous by thread: Re: cathy b the Repeated BLATANT LIAR
- Next by thread: Cathy b the Repeated BLATANT LIAR
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
