Rich Shewmaker and His CHILDISH Games
- From: "Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 20:15:05 GMT
And WHEN he uses them.
Subject: Re: the effect of science on medicine
*I* posted:
But what might seem simple to a woodworker is anything but in the
complicated world of health care. Consider this shocking fact "Dateline"
learned - there is no universal standard, no national requirement whatsoever
telling hospitals how to prepare the medications in their operating rooms.
Why? That's because health care is like no other industry. If a fatal
accident occurs at say an airline or a nuclear power plant, there would be
an
immediate public federal investigation, with every company and supplier
required to open its books to inspectors. Any fix uncovered by the
investigation would be adopted industry-wide as a matter of law. Don't
comply
and you're shut down.
But when fatal mistakes happen in hospitals, there are no federal
investigations. There are no federal inspectors, no government databases to
count the numbers of mistakes and types of errors. In fact, in most states
hospitals aren't even required by law to report their deadly errors at all.
"It is a piecemeal system at best," says Dr. O'Leary.
FIXING THE SYSTEM
Basically, there is no real equivalent in health care to the kind of
mandatory, instantaneous investigation and reporting system, say, in
aviation?
"There is no national system of that nature and no efforts to
disseminate lessons learned to organizations," he says.
In the absence of any government agency, Dr. O'Leary's joint
commission writes general performance standards, conducts hospital
inspections,
and issues accreditations. Without that seal of approval, a hospital can
have a
hard time keeping its doors open.
And on a national level, the joint commission is about all there is -
not much, considering that medical mistakes appear to be the eighth-leading
cause of death in this country, according to a recent report from the
Institute
of Medicine.
Anywhere from 44,000 to 98,000 people are killed in hospitals each
year
from medical mistakes says the report. But in the seven years since the
joint
commission's been collecting information on fatal medical mistakes, its
database contains less than 1,500 cases.
How can it set standards when even by its own admission, it is
receiving
such a tiny slice of the data related to medical mistakes in health care?
"The data that we do get, we believe is reasonably representative of what's
out there," says O'Leary. "We gather, unlike any other database I am
aware of, not simply the occurrence, but the underlying causes."
"There is no national system of that nature and no efforts to disseminate
lessons learned to organizations."
- DR. O'LEARY
President, Joint Commission on Accrediting Heath Care Organizations
Six years ago the commission got the call in the Ben Kolb case. Martin
Memorial
Hospital immediately disclosed its fatal mistake and described the simple
changes it made to prevent the mistake from happening again.
So did the commission actually prohibit hospitals from using that
flawed
system to prepare drugs in operating rooms? Did they issue a statement
saying
never do this in the operating room?
"We have not issued such a statement," says O'Leary.
The commission did sponsor a conference where Doni Haas and Dr.
Mclain
spoke on medical safety and they published an essay in their newsletter. But
the medical industry's own watchdog has never issued a new safety standard
based on the Ben Kolb case.
"We do not write our standards at the level of procedures," says
O'Leary. "This is the difference- "
But that's where the errors occur?
"No, I beg to differ with you," he says. "This is the difference
between swatting mosquitoes and draining the swamp. In organizations, if
there
is not an orientation to identifying, analyzing and fixing problems, then we
are going to have a big problem."
But how much analysis do you need to write two lines which would have
saved Ben Kolb down in Florida. How much analysis do you need for that?
"No, no. I understand that," says O'Leary, "but then the next
patient will die from another detail. And then the next patient, and so on."
So fix that one. "But you're swatting mosquitoes," says O'Leary.
"The issue here-"
Is that what the FAA would say about a cracked bolt? We're swatting
mosquitoes?
"No, but I think the FAA and the advice that's come out of the
airline safety reporting systems have been much more systems oriented," he
says.
So what kind of systems-oriented changes does the joint commission
make?
Take the case of concentrated potassium chloride - a lifesaving drug that's
fatal if injected without first being diluted. Every year, hospital patients
are killed because the drug is accidentally injected in its concentrated
form.
Medical experts say there's an excruciatingly simple solution to this
deadly - and entirely preventable - problem: put the drug in the hospital
pharmacy, away from the patient floors, so it can't be accidentally given
without first being diluted.
Knowing about the problem and the solution, this is what the joint
commission sent out to hospitals.
You say, "We suggest that health care organizations not make
concentrated potassium chloride available, unless specific safeguards are in
place." That's not mandatory. That's more of a suggestion.
"That's correct," says O'Leary.
Doesn't that sound a little weak, given the lethality of potassium
chloride?
"But it recognizes the reality," says O'Leary. "And there are
hospitals, actually a number of small hospitals, that do not maintain their
pharmacies open 24 hours a day."
But if there was a case of a fatality caused by something that was
immediately understood - say a cracked bolt in an airplane - if the FAA
came out the next day and said, "We've decided that we're going to
encourage most airlines to replace this bolt," that person would be laughed
off the face of the earth, don't you think? It would be either all or forget
it.
"These are not bolts," says O'Leary. "OK, this is a medication.
The parallels between the aviation industry and health care, are
substantial,
but they are not absolute."
Still, even the vaguely worded alert seems to have had an effect on
deaths from potassium chloride, according to the joint commission's modest
database... so why hasn't the commission issued more - lots more -
alerts, in other cases?
"The Ben Kolb case was widely publicized and widely known," says
O'Leary. "It is so obvious, the steps that need to be taken. It is like
issuing advisories that you shouldn't play in traffic. I mean, it's that
simple."
If it's that simple, that widely known, you might expect every
hospital in America had learned the lesson from Ben Kolb's death and
abandoned that flawed procedure. But that hasn't happened.
When "Dateline" contacted some of the nation's best hospitals,
they all told us they're still using the same set-up that Martin Memorial
hospital did, open cups and all.
Still, there are close to 5,000 hospitals in this country. To get a
better sense of how widely this procedure is used, we asked the organization
that wrote the book on nursing safety in the operating-room.
"This is a commonly-performed procedure that has inherent risks
involved in it," says Ramona Conner, a surgical-nursing specialist at the
Association of Peri-Operative Nurses - the widely recognized authority for
safe operating room practices.
She fields calls about safety issues from nurses at hospitals around
the
country. And Conner says the risk of another fatal medication mix-up hasn't
set off any alarm bells.
"In operating rooms, as with airline flights, a small error can have
a
disastrous consequence," she says.
The procedure that took Ben's life is not only commonly performed,
says nurse Connor, it's entirely unnecessary.
"There's no need to pull the lidocaine from the container and pour
it into a secondary container," she says. "When that is done, there is an
inherent risk of confusion occurring."
But even the well-respected A.O.R.N., which has published articles
warning about medication errors in operating rooms, even they don't address
the issue in their own official standards and practices.
"I'm afraid I don't know why it hasn't made it into our
recommended practices," says Conner. "I can't answer that."
For now, sounding the alarm is up to the joint commission, which says
it's serious about medical safety.
Is Dr. O'Leary surprised to learn that the same procedure that Martin
Memorial Hospital discovered in the Ben Kolb case is being used at other
hospitals, after the death of a little boy?
"Well, I am surprised and concerned that the same setup is being
used," he says. "And I think that makes a perfectly reasonable case that we
should issue an advisory on that."
The Ben Kolb case was some years ago. This is not just occurring to
O'Leary now that "Dateline" is talking to him, right?
"No," he says, "but I have- That is new information to me,"
says O'Leary. "But it is also information of great concern and is more than
sufficient to cause me to believe that we should issue an appropriate
advisory."
And about three months after our interview, they did. But in six
years
since a little boy died this is the most urgent message to come from the
agency
for monitoring medical mistakes.
Hospitals "may choose" the message says to "evaluate the process
for preparing medications" for use in operating rooms.
Not a bad idea. But if you were having surgery tomorrow how would you
feel knowing this is as loud as the alarm ever gets?
"If an airline crashed we, as a public, would never stand for the
airline not sharing the information that they learned from that crash," says
Dr. Mclain. "It's public knowledge so that that crash can be avoided on
some other airline or some other airplane. In medicine, we don't do that."
The Joint Commission says that despite an alert it issued in 1998,
reports of another type of medical mistake - operating on the wrong part of
a
patient's body - have more than tripled in the past three years. And like
the mistake that killed Ben Kolb, these wrong-site surgeries are all too
preventable.
*Years earlier, a scientist just a few miles away from the Gelsinger's
home
in
Tucson had raised serious questions about whether the experiment was
safe.*
Documents
. Feb. 8, 2002: FDA letter, attempt to ban Dr. Wilson from other
experiments.
. March 3, 2000: FDA Warning Letter, original findings about the gene
therapy experiment.
(No coverups there,,,,,,,,,,,,,)
The trouble is, Paul Gelsinger says, Dr. Wilson's team had never told him
that anyone had ever raised questions about safety
(That's fine and dandy according to organized medicine member, Peter
Moran.)
ADVERSE REACTIONS WERE NOT REPORTED
And that was just the beginning. Federal investigators, pouring
through
Penn's records, announced at the conference that they had made a series of
startling discoveries, raising questions about whether the doctors had
covered
up problems and broken basic test rules.
In fact, just a few months before Jesse had signed up for the experiment,
several monkeys given viruses similar to Jesse's got sick. And two of them
died.
(No coverup there)
The rules for the experiment said: Even if volunteers didn't get visibly
ill,
if tests showed that any of them had a significant reaction called "grade
3," the experiment was supposed to be "halted" immediately.
Records show there were "grade 3" reactions in more than one
patient. The first time, doctors stopped, called the government and got
permission to continue, saying an unusual condition with the patient might
have
been the cause.
The second time, they stopped, called and got permission again,
citing
another unusual condition.
But when it happened a third time, they didn't stop, didn't call.
Then, a fourth time. They didn't stop or call then either
(No coverups there).
For their own safety, volunteers weren't supposed to have a blood
ammonia level higher than 50. But people were coming in with higher levels
and
without proper approval. The limit was raised to 70.
When Jesse signed up over the summer, he was within the limits, but
records show that when Penn doctors tested him, just days before the
experiment, his reading was 114 - more than double the original safety
limit.
(That's way cool huh Peter???)
HIGH FINANCIAL STAKES
With so many red flags from the monkey deaths to the reactions in
other
volunteers, even to Jesse's own ammonia levels, Why had Dr. Wilson's team
allowed the experiment to continue?
(Wonder if Peter can answer this question?)
At the University of Pennsylvania, the conflict committee approved
Dr.
Wilson's arrangement with Genovo.
In fact, the university itself owned a piece of his company and
stood to
profit, too.
(Hmmmmmmmmm).
In a statement, the university acknowledged that some information
"should have been shared with the FDA sooner."
(Just a minor little slip,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,)
There was no information given to Jesse or his family about the monkey
deaths.
There was no information given to Jesse or his family about toxic results
in
prior patients. There was no information that would allow Jesse and his
family
to make any kind of informed decision."
(Peter STILL can't see any coverup!!!! NO dishonesty!)
CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS
He told congress that other private companies in the race for cures
had
also been doing gene therapy experiments and had also gotten adverse
reactions.
But instead of sharing the information, government rules allowed them to
stamp
those reactions "confidential," classifying them as trade secrets to
protect their research investments.
So, while the government knew about them, other researchers like Dr.
Wilson and volunteers like Jesse Gelsinger were never allowed to see them.
(TRust the government!!!)
"I was outraged," says Paul. "I had a right to know. Jesse had a right to
know.
(Oh my,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,emotions).
***In February, the Food and Drug Administration said that because Dr.
Wilson
filed "false and misleading" reports and "repeatedly and deliberately
violated regulations ****
REPEAT FOR THE HARD HEADED!!!
***Dr. Wilson filed "false and misleading" reports and "repeatedly and
deliberately violated regulations ***
(No coverups,,,,,,,,,,no fraud,,,,,,,,,,no deliberate
violations,,,,,,,,,,,,)
This week marks the third anniversary of Jesse Gelsinger's death. At
the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Wilson
****is still on the faculty****
(Soooooooooo in organized medicine,,,,,,,,,,,)
****Filing *false and misleading reports* is A OK,,,,,,,,,,,,****
****REPEATED and DELIBERATE violations,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,is A OK.***
but no longer in charge of its gene therapy program. And, in Congress,
lawmakers are still debating legislation to provide more protection for
medical
volunteers.
******in the end, whether Jesse was betrayed by the doctors he and his
family
thought they could trust.*********
Unlike alternative medicine, many of whose therapies are oddly proud of
the fact they have been failing to prevent sickness and early death
for centuries, and even millenia, without changing.
DrC PhD
The TRUTH hurts!
Enter Rich Shewmaker with Ye ole *plagiaring game*
You plagiarized. You are a liar and a thief. There is no argument. There is
no defense. Obviously you, duh, don't get it. So you are an idiot, too.
Rich
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05241/561879.stm
Certainly chelation doesn't help all kids, but there's evidence that it
helps some children tremendously," said Chrisoula Perdziola, who said she
knows of several families who have not experienced any complications with
the therapy.
Many local families are receiving this treatment as well, she said. In
surveys conducted by the Autism Research Institute, 76 percent of parents
say their children have been helped by chelation; only 2 percent said they
got worse.
http://www.evidenceofharm.com/wsj.htm
http://www.bridges4kids.org/articles/4-03/HaiDang4-03.html
http://www.thehealthierlife.co.uk/article/3384/chelation-therapy.html
http://curezone.com/forums/m.asp?f=237&i=2432
The TRUTH hurts!
Enter Rich Shewmaker with ye ole plagiarism liar and thief game.
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: "Rich" <jos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:25:16 GMT
Local: Tues, Sep 20 2005 2:25 pm
Subject: Jan is a LIAR and a THIEF!
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse
"LadyLollipop" <LadyLolli...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ngNXe.381294$xm3.177473@xxxxxxxxxxxx
"Rich" <jos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
<ALL diversion for the subject snipped>
Okay Jan, how is it that you feel the need to point out the "lies" of
others, even when those "lies" exist only in your own imagination, but when
you blatantly lie and steal, pointing it out is a mere "diversion"? YOU ARE
A LIAR AND A THIEF, and snipping it and calling it diversion will not change
that fact. You STEAL other peoples words, and then you tell a LIE by
presenting them as something that you wrote yourself.
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: "LadyLollipop" <LadyLolli...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - Find messages by
this author
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:28:50 GMT
Local: Thurs, Sep 15 2005 10:28 pm
Subject: Are ADHD Drugs Safe? Report Finds Little Proof
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/v-printer/story/5174797p-470...
Are ADHD drugs safe? Report finds little proof
M. ALEXANDER OTTO; The News Tribune
Last updated: September 13th, 2005 11:35 AM (PDT)
====
Amazingly, Lady Lollipop does not believe me when I explain to her that
plagiarism is lying and thievery. Perhaps it's a good thing that she never
went to college, because she would certainly have been expelled for the
plagiarism in her required term papers. In fact, it's good for her that she
attended high school those many years ago instead of recently. With the
plagiarism-detecting software that's available to teachers now, she would
not get away with the theft and lies even at that level. Lollipoop hides
behind that old excuse that, "Lots of people do it." Undoubtedly she
shoplifts on the same principle.
--Rich
===
Subject: Peer-reviewed
The TRUTH hurts!
Enter Rich Shewmaker with Ye ole plagiarism games.
Actually trying to cover his own LIES!
Subject: A child's return from autism Couple eager to share their conviction
that mercury poisoning was the culprit
*I* wrote AND posted the URL
That's what they told Semmelweis.
The medical establishment, because of HARD HEADS like you, hasn't learned
a thing, AFTER destroying this man's life.
He lectured publicly about his results in 1850, however, the reception by
the medical community was cold, if not hostile. His observations went
against the current scientific opinion of the time, which blamed diseases
on an imbalance of the basical "humours" in the body. It was also argued
that even if his findings were correct, washing one's hands each time
before treating a pregnant woman, as Semmelweis advised, would be too much
work. Nor were doctors eager to admit that they had caused so many deaths.
Semmelweis spent 14 years developing his ideas and lobbying for their
acceptance, culminating in a book he wrote in 1861. The book received poor
reviews, and he responded with polemic. In 1865, he suffered a nervous
breakdown and was committed to an insane asylum where he soon died from
blood poisoning.
"He lectured publicly about his results in 1850, however, the reception by
the medical community was cold, if not hostile. His observations went
against the current scientific opinion of the time, which blamed diseases on
an imbalance of the basical "humours" in the body. It was also argued that
even if his findings . . ."
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blantisceptics.htm
Rich wrote:
Plagiarism is a LIE, Jan. It is also stealing. Does your Christian religion
teach you to lie and steal?
Rich
==
Ooops! fair use rules change, poor Rich,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
==
Subject: Still Waiting For Peter Bowditch to Answer The Quesiton
(which was NEVER answered, btw)
Enter Rich Shewmaker with his diversion and LIE.
YOU DID, just a few minutes ago by committing plagiarism. You are a liar and
a thief. See John 8:7.
Rich
Subject: August 24 DC Protest - Vaccine-Autism Activists Join In
I posted:
When Terry was nine weeks old, his doctor gave him his first DPT shot and
oral polio vaccinations. In the 48 hours after his vaccinations, Terry
started to sleep more than usual and his mother couldn't wake him up to eat.
Terry's breathing became shallow and the pretty pink glow of his skin turned
grey and mottled. When Terry's mother called the doctor's office, she was
told to wait until the morning to bring him in. But Terry's mother was so
worried she decided not to wait until morning and took her baby into the
doctor's office without an appointment.
When the nurse saw the color of Terry's skin, she immediately grabbed him
and started oxygen therapy. An ambulance was called to take him to the
hospital. When the doctor asked Terry's Mom what had happened to him, she
reminded the doctor that Terry had just gotten vaccinated but the doctor
said he did not think the vaccines had anything to do with Terry's
condition. Still, the doctor wrote on the medical chart that Terry should
not receive any more DPT vaccine.
At the hospital, Terry was put on a respirator. For the next two months,
Terry was fed through a tube in his nose and had to remain on the respirator
24 hours a day while one lab test after another was performed to try to find
out what had happened to him. All the tests came back negative. Terry's
parents kept talking about the vaccines he had been given but nobody would
listen.
Nine days after her shot, Anna had a runny nose and a low grade fever. Her
mother was not concerned about those symptoms but she was concerned that
Anna was very irritable. Although her cold symptoms eventually disappeared,
Anna did not return to the happy, playful toddler she had once been. Instead
she continued her strange behavior, crying and wanting to be held
constantly. Then Anna started tripping and falling down.
When Anna's mother called the pediatrician, he told her to put ice on the
leg where he had given Anna the injection and give her Tylenol. Fourteen
days after the MMR shot, Anna's mother took her child back to the
pediatrician. Although Anna had always loved to play and laugh with her
pediatrician, this time she screamed every time he tried to come near her.
Over the next six weeks, Anna lost the ability to sit or walk. One doctor
suggested that she be seen by a psychologist to determine why Anna was
refusing to walk. When Anna's mother consulted a neurologist, the
neurologist immediately hospitalized Anna with a suspected diagnosis of
tumor on her spinal cord. The MRI scan of her brain showed there were
lesions in the white matter of her brain. All other tests came back
negative.
Anna continued to deteriorate and lost all control of her trunk and legs.
When she tried to sit up, she would flop over like a rag doll. Nearly every
week she would run a fever for two to three days. Lab test after lab test
was performed to try to find out what had happened to her. In a four week
period, she endured seven spinal taps. During one hospitalization, Anna
turned completely limp and doctors feared she would lose her ability to
breathe on her own and would have to be put on a respirator.
Eventually Anna was put on steroid therapy, which helped her to regain her
personality and stop her brain from further deteriorating. However, she
remained paralyzed in the lower body, with some upper body involvement and
was left with processing delays.
Today Anna attends third grade in a wheelchair. As she grows and becomes
taller and heavier, it is hard for her to keep the trunk of her body
upright. Anna loves to swim underwater because she says it makes her feel
free.
In 1993, the U.S. Court of Claims in Washington, D.C. officially
acknowledged that Anna suffered post vaccination encephalopathy following
her MMR vaccination as a toddler.
Richie was a thriving two month old baby boy, the second son born to a
family in upstate New York when he got his first DPT shot in the winter of
1983. Richie's older brother had had severe reactions to his DPT shots,
including high fevers, redness and swelling at the site of the injection,
uncontrollable screaming, diarrhea and vomiting but the pediatrician had
reassured Richie's Mom that these were "normal" reactions to DPT vaccine and
not to worry. So Richie's Mom, who was a nurse, was prepared for Richie to
be uncomfortable following his first DPT shot.
By the evening of the day Richie got his first DPT shot, the area around the
site of the injection began to swell. Richie's Mom remembered how Richie's
brother's leg had swelled up after his DPT shots. But then Richie's hip
turned red and purple and soon the purple started to spread out from the
injection site in round patches. Still, Richie didn't have a fever and
continued to drink from his bottle so Richie's Mom didn't worry.
In the middle of the night, Richie woke up crying, then went back to sleep.
But in the morning he woke up screaming "like a cat in pain." Richie's Mom
thought his hip was bothering him.
After a brief nap Richie woke up crying again but his cry was weaker. After
taking a bottle, he fell back to sleep. An hour later he had severe diarrhea
with gas and mucous in his diapers. Then he fell asleep again until he again
woke up crying.
This time when Richie's Mom went to pick him up, she found him soaked
through two receiving blankets with a musty, pungent odor. While she washed
him, she noticed he was limp and staring at her with "dark eyes." Instead of
having a fever, he felt cool with ice cold hands. Thankful that her baby
didn't have a fever, she didn't worry. She thought the house might be too
cold and dressed him warmly, putting socks on his little hands.
Richie slowly drank eight ounces of water from his bottle and later that day
had three more diapers with diarrhea in them. His leg still seemed to be
sore. When he slept, his fingers twitched slightly. Later he gagged on the
nipple of his bottle and vomited a little. Richie's Mom remembered how
Richie's brother had had diarrhea and vomiting after his shots and so she
didn't worry.
That evening while Richie's Mom was giving him a bottle, suddenly he stopped
sucking. Then he started to sigh. Alarmed, she called the doctor and
described the symptoms and asked him to meet them at the emergency room. The
doctor told her it wasn't necessary for him to meet her at the emergency
room. The doctor didn't seem worried. Within minutes, Richie died in his
mother's arms as his father and six year old brother watched. It had been 33
hours since a doctor had injected him with his first DPT shot.
Fourteen weeks after his death, Richie's parents received the autopsy report
findings describing an enlarged thymus gland (the gland that helps regulate
the immune response in the body) as well as congestion and edema in the
lungs and brain.
Not satisfied with the autopsy findings, Richie's parents made an
appointment to talk with the coroner. As soon as they walked into his
office, the coroner handed them an article entitled "The Pathologist and the
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome."
But Richie's Mom knew that her baby did not die from SIDS. Armed with the
Physician's Desk Reference and studies on DPT vaccine, she described in
detail exactly what happened to Richie following his vaccinations. The
coroner listened to her and wrote on the death certificate that the cause of
Richie's death was "Irreversible shock due to a probable reaction to DPT."
For the first 13 days of his life, Nicholas was no different than any other
baby. He ate well. When he slept, he slept well. He acted just like my first
son acted when he came home from the hospital." Nicholas was given a
hepatitis B shot at his regular check up at the pediatrician's office on the
13th day of his life. That night when I got home from work, I noticed that
Nicholas was crying a lot more than usual. In fact, he was screaming some of
the time. He was acting differently, but because we had just taken him to
the doctor for a checkup and they told us he was a big healthy boy, we
thought everything was OK. When he was just acting fussy, like babies
sometimes do, we didn't know anything about vaccines or that they can cause
problems for some babies.
Nicholas cried on and off for most of the night. When I got up and went to
work the next day, he was still crying on and off. He continued during most
of the day and into the evening. The next morning, his mother found him dead
in his crib. From the way he looked, he had been dead for several hours."
An autopsy was done the next day. A couple of weeks later, our pediatrician
told us over the phone that the autopsy showed Nicholas had died of sudden
infant death syndrome. He told us Nicholas was one of the healthiest babies
he had ever seen.. What I didn't know then but I know now is that the
pediatrician had made a report within 17 days of Nicholas' death to the
government's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, VAERS. In VAERS,
Nicholas' death is listed as SIDS. Even though I didn't know anything about
vaccines or SIDS, something told me that there was a reason why Nicholas
died, and I had to find out why.
After seeing an article in the Washington Post about the Institute of
Medicine report on adverse events associated with childhood vaccines,
Nicholas's father called the National Vaccine Information Center and began
talking to experts and researching infant death and vaccines. Eventually a
clinical professor of pathology, who had reviewed Nicholas' medical records,
autopsy and slides, stated in writing that Nicholas did not die of SIDS but
died a cardiac death, caused by passive congestive changes with pulmonary
edema and hemorrhage caused by the active immunization with hepatitis B
vaccine. The pathologist stated "I do not believe this was a sudden infant
death syndrome death. Sudden infant death syndrome is the most abused
diagnosis in pediatric pathology. In this particular case, the infant was
two weeks old. Sudden infant death at two weeks old is so rare as to be
virtually unheard of."
The pathologist went on to say that Nicholas was at high risk for congestive
heart failure because his mother had gestational diabetes, but that he would
definitely have survived were it not for the stress induced by the hepatitis
B vaccination.
=============
THAT IS ONLY FOUR, HAVE MANY MORE ARE THERE?!?!
If vaccine companies
have to pay for these cases that did not cause, then the vaccine companies
will go out of business for no reason, a lot of kids will have adverse
events that have nothing to do with vaccines, and a lot of kids will die
from chicken pox, measales, mumps, rubella, menigitis, invasive Hib
disease and other vaccine-preventable diseases.
The bottom line is that if only kids who have real vaccine injuries
recieve funds from the vaccine injury funds, then everyone is served. The
few kids who get vaccine injuries get some compensation and vaccine
companies are able to make vaccines without going bankrupt, so many kids
won't die or get sick from vaccine-preventable illnesses.
Unfortunately, a lot of kids who have gotton sick around the time of the
vaccinations for reasons that have nothing to do with the vaccine won't
get money from vaccine companies, but their illness has nothing to do with
vaccines in the first place.
Do tell that to these parents!!!!!!!
http://www.909shot.com/Kids/terry.htm
http://www.909shot.com/Kids/anna.htm
http://www.909shot.com/Kids/richie.htm
http://www.909shot.com/Kids/nicky.htm
May God forgive you!!!!!
As sorry as I feel for these kids and their families, the bottom line is
these are anecdotes. The plural of anecdote is not data.
THESE ARE NOT ANECDOTES!!!!!!!
As proven above!!!!
Now, I am calling you a L I A R!
During the 1990s, some 40 million children were vaccinated. Since the
government literally forced children to be vaccinated with thimerosal
for decades, it now has an obligation to find a cure for the epidemic
of autism and other related disorders and to hold the vaccine-makers
financially responsible for the damage caused by their products.
Let's see. You cliam the government forced vaccination. Why should the
vaccine makers be held accountable? If your claim that the government
forced vacicnations is correct, then shouldn't the government pay?
Simple, it is worded well above.
Read it again.
I did. You claimed that the government "forced vaccination" and "has an
obligation to ... holde the vaccine-makers [sic] financially responsible
for damage caused by their products." This doesn't explain why the
government should pay. In theory, the federal government is required to
pay for mandates that the NCLB requires. why shouldn't the government be
required to pay for damages required by what you claim is a government
mandate?
*I* didn't claim anything. Both the government and the vaccine makers
should be held responsible!!!
The government KNEW. The FDA and CDC have vested interest and it's ALL
about money!!!
And so is the parents suing the vaccine companies.
They have every right to sue.
The government, the FDA, the CDC are at fault!
<snip>
When you have something intelligent to say, I will respond to you in this
thread. Until then, bye.
Jeff
I have had many things to say that were intelligent.
Exposes many lies:
http://www.909shot.com/PressReleases/pr83001.htm
Yet, there is no evidence that the thimerasol, at the doses used, harmed
anyone.
YES, there is:
http://www.flu.org.cn/news/2004986362.htm
==
The guidelines were based on guidelines for methylmercury, which is more
toxic than ethylmercury. And, no one has shown that cuethylmerry is toxic
in the doses used.
OH YES THEY HAVE!!!!!!!
****This animal model, the first to show that the administration of low-dose
ethylmercury can lead to behavioral and neurological changes in the
developing brain, reinforces previous studies showing that a genetic
predisposition affects risk in combination with certain environmental
triggers*****.
===
http://poisonevercure.150m.com/autism.htm
Autistic children are shown to retain abnormally high concentrations of
mercury from environmental sources such as vaccines.
********* (Until recently, the FDA administration concealed their knowledge
that thimerosal has been known to cross through the blood-brain barrier and
concentrate in the brain).***********
http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm
====
Why didn't anyone else? Does the FDA possess the only calculator in the
world?
I'll tell you WHY.
THEY DID!!!!!
It's right there on the website, I gave you. The one you tried to
discredit by trying to trash Dan Burton.
http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/congressacts.htm
http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/governmentknew.htm
Dan Burton doesn't need me to trash him. His comments do it for him.
God Bless Dan Burton!!!!
=========
But the analogy is correct. you have to look at doses.
of low-dose ethylmercury can lead to behavioral and neurological changes in
the developing brain, reinforces previous studies showing that a genetic
predisposition affects risk in combination with certain environmental
triggers
http://tinyurl.com/ct3m8
Toxicology. 1975;3(2):171-6. Related Articles, Links
Tissue concentrations of mercury after chronic dosing of squirrel monkeys
with thiomersal.
Blair AMJN, Clark B, Clarke AJ, Wood P.
Squirrel monkeys were dosed intranasally with saline or thiomersal (sodium
ethylmercurithiosalicylate, 0.002 percent w/v) daily for six months. The
total amounts of thiomersal given during the six months period were 418 mug
(low dose group) and 2280 mug (high dose group). This was equivalent to 207
and 1125 mug mercury. The dose differential was achieved by more frequent
administration to the high dose group. Mercury concentrations were
significantly raised over control values in brain (high dose group only),
liver, muscle and kidney, but not in blood. Concentrations were highest in
the kidney, moderate in liver and lowest in brain and muscle. Much of the
mercury was present in the inorganic form (37-91 percent). No evidence of
toxicity due to thiomersal was seen in any animal. Nevertheless accumulation
of mercury from chronic use of thiomersal-preserved medicines is viewed as a
potential health hazard for man.
PMID: 804725 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://tinyurl.com/9snsz
Second, the EPA equation, which uses data of fetal toxicity from 81
mother/infant pairs poisoned by methylmercury in seed grain, is based on
factors which would result in a lower relative risk than those involved in
an infant vaccine exposure scenario. Higher risk factors include bolus doses
vs chronic daily doses, injected vs ingested delivery, ethylmercury toxicity
vs methylmercury toxicity, direct exposure to the infant vs indirect to the
fetus through the mother, lack of adequate excretion by infants resulting in
high brain mercury accumulation vs adequate maternal excretion and
relatively low brain acummulations in mother and fetus, more rapid
metabolism in infants resulting in greater conversion of ethylmercury to its
toxic inorganic form vs slower metabolism in the mothers, and the
involvement of mercury sensitive individuals rather than the average person.
Third, the population distribution for mercury sensitivity, like that
for nearly all toxins, is log normal; thus, statistically, a small
percentage of the exposed population, if large enough, will be impaired at
the lowest doses. The fact that some small percentage will be impaired at a
very low dose is not just theoretical. It has been found true for certain
strains of mice and rats, and it was also true for the form of mercury
poisoning called acrodynia, which impaired approximately 1 in 500 children
early in this century even at low doses. Clarkson describes acrodynia as
being independent of dose and arising more from age and individual
sensitivity.
And finally, the risk assessment for vaccines does not take into
consideration that infants may receive mercury from maternal sources,
including maternal dental fillings and Rhogam shots which Rh negative women
receive multiple times during pregnancy, each of which contains 30
micrograms of ethylmercury.
http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/neurodevelopment.htm
Want more, Jeff?
Web Results 11 - 20 of about 553 for low-dose ethylmercury. (0.12
seconds)
===
Supposed ties.Yet you cannot show me any cases where their supposed ties to the drug
companies resulted in any changes in how they vote.
NOT supposed!!!!!!
Now, he wants to know if the other 40% of members vote for or against theActually, they voted for the continued health of kids.
vaccines?
Unreal.
John has had it posted for years
http://www.whale.to/v/staff.html
Just a samll example.
( In conclusion, Jeff is a VERY VERY Dishonest person!)
http://www.house.gov/reform/hearings/healthcare/00.06.15/opening_stat...
Opening Statement
Chairman Dan Burton
Committee on Government Reform
"FACA: Conflicts of Interest and Vaccine Development:
Preserving the Integrity of the Process"
Thursday, June 15, 2000
1:00 pm
2154 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Today, we are going to continue our series of hearings on vaccine policy.
For
the last few months, we've been focusing on two important advisory
committees. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) rely on these advisory committees to
help
them make vaccine policies that affect every child in this country. We've
looked very carefully at conflicts of interest. We've taken a good hard
look
at whether the pharmaceutical industry has too much influence over these
committees. From the evidence we found, I think they do.
The first committee is the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products
Advisory Committee (VRBPAC). This Committee makes recommendations on
whether
new vaccines should be licensed. The second committee is the CDC's Advisory
Committee on Immunizations Practices (ACIP). This committee recommends
which
vaccines should be included on the Childhood Immunization Schedule.
To make these issues easier to understand, we're going to focus on one issue
handled by these two committees - the Rotavirus vaccine. It was approved
for
use by the FDA in August 1998. It was recommended for universal use by the
CDC
in March 1999. Serious problems cropped up shortly after it was introduced.
Children started developing serious bowel obstructions. The vaccine was
pulled
from the U.S. market in October 1999.
So the question is, was there evidence to indicate that the vaccine was not
safe and if so, why was it licensed in the first place? How good a job did
the
advisory committees do? We've reviewed the minutes of the meetings. At the
FDA's committee, there were discussions about adverse events. They were
aware of potential problems. Five children out of 10,000 developed bowel
obstructions. There were also concerns about children failing to thrive and
developing high fevers, which as we know from other vaccine hearings, can
lead
to brain injury. Even with all of these concerns, the committee voted
unanimously to approve it.
At the CDC's committee, there was a lot of discussion about whether the
benefits of the vaccine really justified the costs. Even though the
cost-benefit ratio was questioned, the Committee voted unanimously to
approve
it.
Were they vigilant enough? Were they influenced by the pharmaceutical
industry? Was there appropriate balance of expertise and perspectives on
vaccine issues? We've been reviewing their financial disclosure statements.
We've interviewed staff from the FDA and the CDC. The staff has prepared a
staff report summarizing what we've found. At the end of my statement,
I'll ask unanimous consent to enter this report into the record. We've
identified a number of problems that need to be brought to light and
discussed.
Families need to have confidence that the vaccines that their children take
are
safe, effective, and truly necessary. Doctors need to feel confident that
when
the FDA licenses a drug, that it is really safe, and that the pharmaceutical
industry has not influenced the decision-making process. Doctors place
trust
in the FDA and assume that if the FDA has licensed a drug, it's safe to use.
Has that trust been violated?
How confident in the safety and need for specific vaccines would doctors and
parents be if they learned the following:
1. That members, including the Chair, of the FDA and CDC
advisory committees who make these decisions own stock in drug companies
that
make vaccines.
2. That individuals on both advisory committees own patents
for
vaccines under consideration or affected by the decisions of the committee.
3. That three out of five of the members of the FDA's
advisory committee who voted for the rotavirus vaccine had conflicts of
interest that were waived.
4. That seven individuals of the 15 member FDA advisory
committee were not present at the meeting, two others were excluded from the
vote, and the remaining five were joined by five temporary voting members
who
all voted to license the product.
5. That the CDC grants conflict-of-interest waivers to every
member of their advisory committee a year at a time, and allows full
participation in the discussions leading up to a vote by every member,
whether
they have a financial stake in the decision or not.
6. That the CDC's advisory committee has no public members
- no parents have a vote in whether or not a vaccine belongs on the
childhood
immunization schedule. The FDA's committee only has one public member.
These are just a few of the problems we found. Specific examples of this
include:
Dr. John Modlin-He served for four years on the CDC advisory committee and
became the Chair in February 1998. He participated in the FDA's committee
as
well owned stock in Merck, one of the largest manufacturers of vaccines,
valued
at $26,000. He also serves on Merck's Immunization Advisory Board. Dr.
Modlin was the Chairman of the Rotavirus working group. He voted yes on
eight
different matters pertaining to the ACIP's rotavirus statement, including
recommending for routine use and for inclusion in the Vaccines for Children
program. It was not until this past year, that Dr. Modlin decided to divest
himself of his vaccine manufacturer stock.
At our April 6 autism hearing, Dr. Paul Offit disclosed that he
holds
a patent on a rotavirus vaccine and receives grant money from Merck to
develop
this vaccine. He also disclosed that he is paid by the pharmaceutical
industry
to travel around the country and teach doctors that vaccines are safe. Dr.
Offit is a member of the CDC's advisory committee and voted on three
rotavirus issues - including making the recommendation of adding the
rotavirus vaccine to the Vaccines for Children's program.
Dr. Patricia Ferrieri, during her tenure as Chair of the FDA's advisory
committee, owned stock in Merck valued at $20,000 and was granted a full
waiver.
Dr. Neal Halsey, who serves as a liaison member to the CDC committee on
behalf
of the American Association of Pediatrics, and as a consultant to the FDA's
committee, has extensive ties to the pharmaceutical industry, including
having
solicited and received start up funds from industry for his Vaccine Center.
As
a liaison member to the CDC committee, Dr. Halsey is there to represent the
opinions of the organization he represents, but was found in the transcripts
to
be offering his personal opinion as well.
Dr. Harry Greenberg, who serves as Chair of the FDA committee, owns $120,000
of
stock in Aviron, a vaccine manufacturer. He also is a paid member of the
board
of advisors of Chiron, another vaccine manufacturer and owns $40,000 of
stock.
This stock ownership was deemed not to be a conflict and a waiver was
granted.
To the FDA's credit, he was excluded from the rotavirus discussion because
he
holds the patent on the rotashield vaccine.
How confident can we be in the process when we learned that most of the work
of
the CDC advisory committee is done in "working groups" that meet behind
closed doors, out of the public eye? Members who can't vote in the full
committee because of conflicts of interest are allowed to work on the same
issues in working groups, and there is no public scrutiny. I was appalled
to
learn that at least six of the ten individuals who participated in the
working
group for the rotavirus vaccine had financial ties to pharmaceutical
companies
developing rotavirus vaccines.
How confident can we be in the recommendations with the Food and Drug
Administration when the chairman and other individuals on their advisory
committee own stock in major manufacturers of vaccines?
How confident can we be in a system when the agency seems to feel that the
number of experts is so few that everyone has a conflict and thus waivers
must
be granted. It almost appears that there is a "old boys network" of
vaccine advisors that rotate between the CDC and FDA - at times serving
simultaneously. Some of these individuals serve for more than four years.
We
found one instance where an individual served for sixteen years continually
on
the CDC committee. With over 700,000 physicians in this country, how can
one
person be so indispensable that they stay on a committee for 11 years?
It is important to determine if the Department of Health and Human Services
has
become complacent in their implementation of the legal requirements on
conflicts of interest and committee management. If the law is too loose,
we
need to change it. If the agencies aren't doing their job, they need to be
held accountable. That's the purpose of this hearing, to try to determine
what needs to be done.
Why is this review necessary? Vaccines are the only substances that a
government agency mandates a United States citizen receive. State
governments
have the authority to mandate vaccines be given to children prior to
admission
to day care centers and schools. State governments rely on the
recommendations
of the CDC and the FDA to determine the type and schedule of vaccines.
I am not alone in my concern about the increasing influence of
industry on medicine. Last year, the New England Journal of Medicine
learned
that 18 individuals who wrote drug therapy review articles had financial
ties
to the manufacturer of the drugs discussed. The Journal, which has the most
stringent conflict of interest disclosures of medical journals, had a recent
editorial discussing the increasing level of academic research funded by the
industry. The editor stated, "What is at issue is not whether researchers
can be 'bought' in the sense of a quid pro quo, it is that close and
remunerative collaboration with a company naturally creates goodwill on the
part of researchers and the hope that the largesse will continue. This
attitude
can subtly influence scientific judgment."
Can the FDA and the CDC really believe that scientists are more immune to
self-interest than other people?
Maintaining the highest level of integrity over the entire spectrum of
vaccine
development and implementation is essential. The Department of Health and
Human
Services has a responsibility to the American public to ensure the integrity
of
this process by working diligently to appoint individuals that are totally
without financial ties to the vaccine industry to serve on these and all
vaccine-related panels.
No individual who stands to gain financially from the decisions regarding
vaccines that may be mandated for use should be participating in the
discussion
or policy making for vaccines. We have repeatedly heard in our hearings
that
vaccines are safe and needed to protect the public. If the panels that have
made the decisions on all vaccines on the Childhood Immunization Schedule
had
as many conflicts as we found with rotavirus, then the entire process has
been
polluted and the public trust has been violated. I intend to find out if
the
individuals who have made these recommendations that effect every child in
this
country and around the world, stood to gain financially and professionally
from
the decisions of the committees they served on.
The hearing record will remain open until June 28 for those who would like
to
submit a statement into the hearing record.
Committee on Government Reform
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-5074
Many of the documents on this web site are stored in PDF Format. To view
them
you must have Adobe's Acrobat PDF Reader. If you do not have this software
you
may download and install it from Adobe's website.
If you have any comments, questions, or corrections please send them to the
committee's web administrator. (note: Email to this address will not be
seen
by members of Congress. This address is for comments and technical inquiries
about this web site only. Therefore, email on other matters will be
discarded.
For a response from a member of Congress, please write your representative.)
The TRUTH hurts!
Enter Rich Shewmaker with his plagiarism games.
There you go, again, bigot. Where is that definition, Jan?
When Terry was nine weeks old, his doctor gave him his first DPT shot and
oral polio vaccinations. In the 48 hours after . . . <snip plagiarized
material>
Isn't stealing a sin in your religion, Jan? Plagiarism is stealing and
lying. You are a liar and a thief.
Rich.
==
Subject: Re: FDA panel wants clearer ADHD labels
I posted:
Ritalin 'may cause damage to brains'
By Pravin Char, Metro
17 December 2003
Children given Ritalin to control hyperactivity could be permanently brain
damaged, it was claimed yesterday.
Research suggests the controversial 'chemical cosh' drug raises the risk of
depression and anxiety in adulthood.
Ritalin alters the brain's chemical composition so that it has a lasting
effect
on mental health, US scientists believe. Because these changes take place
while
a child's brain is growing, they could cause irreversiblle damage
The findings will alarm parents using the drug to control a child's
attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
British GPs dispensed a record 254,000 Ritalin prescriptions last year, up
from
208,500 in 2001. One in 20 children is said to have ADHD, which makes them
boisterous and unfocused.
'It is vitally important we evaluate the long-term effects of these drugs,'
said Dr Nora Volkow, director of the US National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Although American studies involved laboratory rats, the doses given were
comparable to those used on children.
In one test, giving Ritalin to young, healthy rats increased the presence of
certain chemicals linked to depression in adults. Asecond study found higher
levels of stress hormones and anxietylike behaviours.
Last night, Shadow children's minister Tim Loughton urged the Government to
investigate Ritalin use.
The Royal College of Paediatrics said: 'Ritalin has been used for 40 years.
If
there was a long-term side-effect, it would have been discovered by now.'
Novartis, the company which makes Ritalin, insisted there was no clinical
link
to depression or anxiety disorders.
Now back to the subject.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifeandstyle/health/articles/8211049?ve...
Again, I deleted the article. It is copyrighted; I don't have permission
to copy it.
Our brains change during development. Change is not the same as damage.
IMHO, it has not been shown that methylphenidate and other drugs that help
people with ADHD damage the brain.
That leads us right back where we started!
http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/01/news/fortune500/fda_panel.dj/>>
Agency asked to proceed with plans for warnings about hallucinations,Good. I am glad that the FDA is paying attention to side effects.
suicide risk.
Such a pity they did NOT do it BEFORE *organized medicine* decided to start
giving it to BABIES!!!!!!!!
I do concur that investigations of the long-term effects of the drugs
should be done.
Jeff
And, I do say:
Such a pity they did NOT do it BEFORE *organized medicine* decided to start
giving it to BABIES!!!!!!!!
GOOD GRIEF!
Then I back it up!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/thisweek/story/0,12977,1004390,00.html
Is it safe for children to take Ritalin?
David Adam
Thursday July 24, 2003
The Guardian
If not, then we're storing up a whole heap of trouble. New figures this week
show that use of the drug given to calm hyperactive children has soared
100-fold in Britain in the past decade. Doctors dispensed 254,000
prescriptions
of it last year, up from 2,000 or so given annually in the early 1990s.
Ritalin has been approved for use in children over five years old who suffer
from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), but many doctors
prescribe the drug - also known as methylphenidate - for children as young
as
18 months.
The drug is widely considered safe, but few long-term studies have been done
because of the ethical difficulties of experimenting with children. And some
scientists are concerned how the drug - a powerful stimulant shown to have a
similar effect to cocaine - could affect developing brains. One high profile
investigation in 2001 did suggest that Ritalin triggered changes to brain
function. But Joan Baizer, who led the research at Buffalo University, New
York
says its results were largely exaggerated. "It was a preliminary report on
basic research in rats _ it doesn't imply anything about a long-term health
effect," she says.
Dave Woodhouse, who runs an ADHD clinic at the University of Teesside says
some
evidence is emerging that children taking Ritalin for several years show
reduced cognitive ability, but this work is also at an early stage and has
not
yet been published.
A controversial three-year clinical trial of Ritalin use among hundreds of
preschool US youngsters diagnosed with ADHD is due to report next year. The
study is led by Laurence Greenhill of the New York State Psychiatric
Institute
and is the first to look at the effects of a drug on children as young as
three.
==
You also might be interested in the fact, preschoolers were sought for drug
studies, back in 2001.
http://tinyurl.com/2g575
As a ped doc, I am surprised you do NOT know this. Good thing I am here.
Jan
(this is a repost, if this links do not work, from here, they still do, as I
tried everyone of them, bleow is the tiny url where they were first posted)
http://tinyurl.com/b7qhf
http://www.bio-medical.com/adhd_0001.htm
http://familyeducation.com/article/0,1120,23-12687,00.html
http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-12-01/study.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/medicating/drugs/dontkn...
http://www.mindfreedom.org/mindfreedom/levine_c.shtml
Jan
The TRUTH hurts!
Enter Rich Shewmaker with his ZZzz games. and LIES!
As the MHA queen of plagiarism, you have a warped view of copyright law. Any
original literary, artistic, or musical work bears a copyright, and may not
be republished without the permission of the copyright holder. While
copyright may be sold or otherwise transferred, the providing of a
"printable version" does not confer the right to publish the material in any
other form than what comes off your printer. Yes, you get away with your
plagiarism here, but that does not mean it is legal or ethical. It is
stealing, plain and simple, particularly when, as you often do, you omit the
referrence to the source and post it as if you had written it yourself.
(ALL can see that a BLATANT LIE!!)
When you post it as if it were your own, you are not only stealing, you are
lying. But you wouldn't care about that.
Rich
==
Subject: Re: Mark Probert LIES and LIES AGAIN!!!!!
"LadyLollipop" <LadyLolli...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:P8QDe.192532$xm3.152945@xxxxxxxxxxxx
*Agreed. I wil lbe adjusting my style.*
That was a lie also.
Mark could neither put up, nor SHUT UP!
All additional lies snipped.
A perfect description of Mark Probert.
<usual blather form liar Rich Shewmaker snipped>
descripition restored:
Bullies others and can be quite a manipulator. Is frequently involved
in name calling and likes to make fun of others. Antagonize others,
involves himself in fighting or instigating fights or arguments and
belittling
others. The bully is described as being 'insensitive' to others. He likes to
solve problems by winning fights and arguments. Aggressive bullies often
threaten others. The bully loves power, is dominant and is usually
'guiltless'. The bully tends to be lacking in empathy and compassion
Truth, of Rich Shewmaker added.
*I don't give a damn if Peter lies to you this newsgroup, his mother or the
pope*
Jan
Enter Ye ole games again in order to cover for Mark's lies.
Plagiarism is not only a lie, Jan; it is a crime. It is stealing the
property of others. Whatever happened to "Thou shalt not steal"?
Rich
Then he REPEATEDLY LIES with his proven LYING websties.
Poor Rich.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Poor Jan can't communicate in her own words.
- From: Rich
- Poor Jan can't communicate in her own words.
- Prev by Date: Re: Bowditch served again!
- Next by Date: Re: Bowditch served again!
- Previous by thread: Which herbs and oils are safe with Zoloft?
- Next by thread: Poor Jan can't communicate in her own words.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
