![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 12 to 36 of 41. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 30, 2009, at 8:33:27
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see, posted by bleauberry on September 29, 2009, at 19:39:43
This is a thoughtful discussion. I appreciate the depth and diversity of thought presented.
> I used to get a flu shot religiously every year. 3 or 4 months later I always got the flu.
>
> One year I was so busy I accidentally didn't get the flu shot. That year I did not get a cold or flu.
>
> Ever since then, about 15 years now, I have not had a flu shot. I have not had a flu in 15 years. It's weird that during the 6 years I did get the shots, I got sick.I raised my concern about anecdote already. Your experience is your experience, but population statistics show significant benefit accorded by influenza vaccination programs. I'd like to suggest to you that there are numerous other variables in your life that confound your observation. Your relatively recent attention to nutritive and dietary elements, and focus on healthy behaviours are personal factors that have likely changed, but there are also changes in medical guidance (e.g. stay home if you have a fever, wash your hands regularly, etc.), and not the least of which, significant improvements in vaccine effectiveness. You benefit from everyone else who gets a vaccine, whether you can quantify that or not. I'm only saying that there are more independent variables than the one which you have selected.
One limit to influenza vaccines in general is that they are somewhat akin to handicapping horses at the race track. They're trying to pick a "winner" amongst various flu strains, based on past performance. To make it even worse, unlike horses, the flu can change into a different creature, one that wasn't even entered into the race, during the period of time it takes to mass-produce a vaccine.
> A problem with the mercury preservative in flu shots is that when Autistic mothers have their children undergo a provoked urine test, their mercury levels are extremely elevated. Those children have not been alive long enough to accumulate that much mercury from the environment. These accounts are numerous. Where did the mercury come from if not the shots?
Doesn't that entire argument presuppose that mercury is the causative agent? I can't recall which Nordic country it is, but there was a recent country-wide statistical analysis of exposure to thimerosal vs. autism. A few years ago, they banned thimerosal from vaccines, on the precautionary principle, i.e. why take the risk. They have complete health records on every person, so they could compare the incidence of autism before the ban on thimerosal to after the ban. What they found was that the incidence of autism has continued to rise unabated, despite the absence of thimerosal exposure. There wasn't so much as a blip in the incidence statistic.
If there is no correlation between thimerosal exposure and autism incidence, there cannot be causation.
Flat out, I am NOT defending thimerosal's presence in vaccines. If all vaccines were packaged in individual doses, the problem would disappear altogether. Unfortunately, supply is so limited, that we cannot practically accomplish this, yet.
There are other variables in vaccination itself. I'm trying to keep an open mind about possible associations between vaccination and autism. However, a recent study of that issue found that unvaccinated children had nearly twice the incidence of autism as those vaccinated. That was one study, of one vaccine, but I just want to say we're looking for the root cause. I see no evidence that we've yet identified it.
> I know the amount in one shot is small, but there are factors to consider such as repeated accumulation (how many shots does a kid get, at least a dozen or more yeah?), genetic variation in ability to detoxify, and susceptibility to respond negatively to even miniscule amounts.Yes, absolutely. Individual variation can dramatically alter the outcome of any medical intervention. A person who has demonstrated sensitivity to vaccinations, to mercury, is not the person I'm speaking to, however. For myself, I have severe adverse reactions to many psychotropic medications. But I most certainly do not generalize my experiences as being indicative of the drugs' general effects. Just as statistics cannot predict individual experience, individual experience cannot be used to project statistics.
> There is a lot more mercury in a shot than a tuna sandwich.
I want to be very clear just what I said. I very carefully chose my language. I said, "The dose of mercury from one vaccination is about on par with that from a tuna sandwich." I researched the concentration of mercury in a flu vaccine, determined the volume of the vaccine injected, to verify the dose of mercury from one vaccination. I determined the mean and standard deviation of mercury content in canned tuna, estimated a sandwich content of said tuna (mass), and calculated a range of mercury content from such a sandwich. Only then did I present my summary statement, quoted above. There is significant variation in mercury exposure from specific tuna samples, and from the sandwich size, but my quoted sentence is correct. The tuna could contain much more mercury, in fact, because there is substantial variability in that tuna. I don't fear tuna sandwiches.
> Furthermore, it is going straight into the blood system and the brain, bypassing any possible filtering of the digestive system.
No, it does not. It goes into a muscle compartment. And the very same blood filtering occurring following absorption from the digestive tract also occurs with all blood flowing through the body. It is not as absolute a contrast as you suggest here.
> Normal flora in the intestines, probiotics and yeast, have a high affinity for mercury. They help protect us by using, neutralizing, and excreting mercury.
Intestinal flora actually convert elemental mercury into organic mercury, enhancing its absorption into the body by over 100 times. It is precisely because they excrete it that it becomes more bioavailable.
> Mercury going straight into the blood system is a completely different far more potent scenario.
I'd like to see an actual comparison study before I come to such a conclusion.
> Mercury is in fact one of the most potent poisons to the nervous system on the entire planet. No amount of mercury is safe. Some people do have strong detox systems and strong genes to overcome the presence of mercury molecules, so not everyone gets symptoms. Who is to know in advance which child will get symptoms or not? It aint cool. Not a good risk. If someone feels at risk of the flu, safer options would include washing hands very frequently, avoiding crowds, avoiding touching the mouth, nose, and eyes, consuming healthy foods, consuming beverages or supplements high in vitamin C, E, zinc, and selenium, and taking an Olive Leaf extract capsule per day. There are several herbs that are healthy foods and at the same time prevent viral replication. There is miniscule risk of autism or any other complication from that kind of flu prevention.
That's all good advice, absolutely. Thank you. Sensitive individuals should make decisions based on their own experience. I reiterate, though, that population statistics indicate an overwhelming benefit of vaccination over pandemic disease. Smallpox is eradicated from the Earth (save stockpiles held by military entities). Polio would be gone, if it had not been for the propogation of vaccine myths. I'm old enough to remember photographs of hundreds of people in iron lungs, with withered limbs, caused by polio. And then there's post-polio syndrome that strikes later in life.
> Humankind putting mercury in anything, be it shots or tooth fillings or whatever, has got to be one of the most arrogant and ignorant behaviors of all history. The smarter mankind thinks he is, the more foolish he is proven to be.I agree with you there.
> I have little faith, and there is no way anyone will ever know, that a vaccine would have prevented any of the major epidemics of history such as the Spanish flu. It is hopeful thinking.
Of course we cannot predict such a thing. I can give you 100% assurance with respect to smallpox, however. Even after exposure, we can prevent rabies. Tetanus. Polio. Tuberculosis (partial, for sure, maybe total in some). Etc.
If you want to consider the risk of going unvaccinated, check out the consequences for a pregnant woman contracting measles. The vaccine was developed to close off the vector provided by infected young children potentially going home to a potentially pregnant mother with one of the most highly contagious diseases in existence. IMHO, vaccines are a social responsibility.
> A Lyme vaccine was recalled and taken off the market because of the outcry of people witnessing that they got persistent Lyme symptoms from the vaccine. Enough so that at a public hearing in front of the CDC panel there was no choice but to recall the vaccine. To save face and embarrassment, the recall was said to have been due to "lack of profit", not that in fact it made people sick.
When I said, "Every vaccine in existence has a far, far lower risk profile than does the disease for which it was developed.", I again very carefully chose my words. I did not intend to suggest that there have never been vaccines that had adverse effects. But those vaccines are not presently used, right? They're not still in existence. And whether current vaccines will later show unintended consequences will only be determined retrospectively. Risk analysis is predictive, not absolute.
> The vaccine had dead bacteria in it, so there is no way the many people got Lyme from the shot. I think it showed that perhaps Lyme symptoms are not just direct insults by the bacteria themselves, but rather the body's immune reaction to them. The mere presence of them, dead or alive, throws the body into a chaotic cascade of malignant events. My LLMD said the same thing. He said my symptoms were not from the Lyme bacteria themselves so much, but from the way Lyme twisted my immune system and inflammation cascade systems, which ultimately impact everything attached to the nervous system. Apparently dead pieces of the bacteria do the same thing.
There may be homology (similar structures) between some Lyme's proteins and essential human proteins. Cross-reactivity could lead to auto-immune responses. It's most certainly a possibility, but we couldn't have known that before a vaccine trial. Obviously, they'd have to identify the offending proteins, and develop a vaccine that still had specificity for the Lyme's spirochete, but without the cross-reactive components.
> Why do researchers not work on curing immune system dysfunctions that kill thousands more people than the flu? Fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, arthritis, MS, Lyme. These diseases do not kill in days or weeks like the flu, but they certainly send people to an early premature grave they didn't deserve. Not to mention the tons of suffering along the way. But no one ever died of Lyme disease. Until you take a look at their heart and brain under a microscope.
They are working on that. I understand your frustration. I have two disorders that would fall within your parameters.
> I think it is gross arrogance for mankind to believe he has geniusly figured out how the immune system works, with the result of that great wisdom being a flu vaccine. I have not looked into to it, but my initial hunch is that a vaccine prevents the flu at about the same percentage difference as an antidepressant outperforms a placebo, which is statistically significant but in the real world not much.
No, vaccination is absolute, but if and only if the match is perfect. The difficulty is that influenza is off mutating for the six months or a year that it takes to develop a vaccine which is based on what it used to be like. The effectiveness is in direct proportion to the retained characteristics of the mutated virus, whatever they may be.
> In the break room at work today I listened as people were talking about the free flu shots. Everyone was saying no way. The reasons were: every year they get a shot they get sick, every year they don't get a shot they don't get sick; they have seen enough in newspapers, magazines, and TV reports to know that the mercury in shots is enough of a risk to avoid. Plainjane laypeople have somehow caught even wisdom as to feel that messing with the immune system in an unknown way just doesn't sit well with them. Might be perfectly harmless, but there is enough doubt as to not take the leap.
Plain jane people are constantly being barraged with false estimates of risk. Risk perception is not supported by risk analysis. If every person in the United States took Serzone, each individual would be more likely to die from lightning strike than from liver failure due to drug exposure. Years ago, the agricultural chemical Alar was detected in apple juice. In order to even have a physiological effect, a person would have had to drink something like 118,000 litres of apple juice a day. The water intake (from the juice) would be fatal at far less than 1,000th of that dose, but nobody got bent out of shape over that. The thing is, we can detect stuff now that used to show up as being absent during chemical analyses only a few years ago. The risk hasn't changed one iota.
> Flu shots are available without mercury. The problem I have found is that when you ask the person giving the shot, they typically don't know if it is mercury free or not. One has to shop around for a knowledgable source.
Look for single-dose ampoules. That's the key factor. If it's not single-dose, it's more likely, if not probable, that it contains thimerosal.
> I don't think anyone has or can prove that mercury in shots did not or does not cause Autism. It depends on too many variables for a human being, who is born flawed to the bone, to account for. The body is exceedingly complex and mysterious for a mere human to gain expertise over. Actually, if someone wanted me to make the case that it does, it could be done "seemingly" conmvincely. If someone wanted to make the case that it doesn't, it could be done "seemingly" convincingly. There are so many ways to gather data, problems in patient sample selection methods, sorting data, biased data, filled in gaps, things left out, interpretations, ignorance, arrogance, preconceived desired results, exaggerated or diluted highlights, etc, one can pretty much make a seemingly indisputable case no matter what side.
>
> I find it interesting that there are now researchers gathering information from mothers on what is working well with their autistic children in order to give the researchers areas to explore. Think about that. IAN is one of the organizations gathering data to help researchers. The brightest supposedly geniuses are asking advice of mere mothers of children, as those mothers have become experts by no choice of their own, but by necessity. The mothers have discovered by heartfelt trial and error...hardcore research...what works and what doesn't. By the time the scientists and statisticians come to the same level of knowledge, it will be 20 years later.I've said it myself many times, what matters is how the patient feels. You have to do the experiment.
Virtually any medical advance you can name (other than things like heart surgery) arose from anecdotal observations. That's the nature of the beast. The problem is that we don't know what causes autism. If the cause is ultimately genetic, then all we ever have are coping strategies. I accord great influence to the effect of having a caring and supportive parent, no matter what overt intervention has been chosen.
> One of the biggest ones that comes up again and again is mercury chelation. Where did it come from?
Chelation therapy influences far more minerals than simply mercury, and far more powerfully, also. There are confounds coming out the yin-yang on chelation. If mercury is the culprit, then selenium supplementation should be of great benefit. When selenium is incorporated into e.g. methionine, in place of the sulfur atom in the sulfhydryl group, it becomes extremely reactive to mercury. The resultant selenium-mercury compound is so stable and unreactive that less than one molecule will dissolve in a liter of water......it's one of the most insoluble compounds in existence. If mercury is sequestered, it cannot do any damage.
> Sometimes anecdotal evidence is so huge as to quickly overwhelm commonly held scientific so-called facts.
I disagree entirely. The plural of anecdote is not data.
> In any case, I'm not taking sides. I'm just sharing my experience that I do a whole lot better without flu shots or mercury of any amount.
You've certainly provided food for thought. Thank you.
Lar
Posted by 10derHeart on September 30, 2009, at 13:05:25
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see » bleauberry, posted by Larry Hoover on September 30, 2009, at 8:33:27
Anecdotal experiences are so powerful to us humans, you know?
Take me as a contrast to blueauberry.
I served in the US Air Force and/or AF Reserve for over 25 years, from age 19 to age 45. I was required to take the seasonal influenza shot every year. No choice.
I have never had the flu in my life. I remember so very many of my colleagues on active duty reporting the same as well.
Is this due to the vaccine? To hand washing and avoidance of sick people? To dumb luck? To my living/working primarily among a subpopulation (is that a word? well, I'm using it anyway...) of folks who were very healthy and all immunized like me? To my genetic makeup, i.e., natural immunity (I also get maybe one cold every 2 years, and am rarely, if ever ill with anything and was not as a child, my daughter, the same, my granddaughter at age 2.5, has never had an ear infection and 3 minor colds in her whole life so far....etc.,.etc.)
Who knows? We can't know, as I understand things. But wow, do I have faith in the annual flu shot. Now, since retiring 5 years ago, I have only had the shot 2 out of those 5 years (lazy, busy, forgot...). Still have not had the flu, but I still wish to have the vaccine.
Nothing scientific here, just reading this thread with great interest.
Posted by bleauberry on September 30, 2009, at 16:59:43
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see » bleauberry, posted by Larry Hoover on September 30, 2009, at 8:33:27
Hi Larry, thanks for the time you put into this discussion. I am privileged to speak with you.
> This is a thoughtful discussion. I appreciate the depth and diversity of thought presented.
Me too.
> One limit to influenza vaccines in general is that they are somewhat akin to handicapping horses at the race track. They're trying to pick a "winner" amongst various flu strains, based on past performance. To make it even worse, unlike horses, the flu can change into a different creature, one that wasn't even entered into the race, during the period of time it takes to mass-produce a vaccine.Yeah, Lyme is looking more and more to be that way too.
> > A problem with the mercury preservative in flu shots is that when Autistic mothers have their children undergo a provoked urine test, their mercury levels are extremely elevated. Those children have not been alive long enough to accumulate that much mercury from the environment. These accounts are numerous. Where did the mercury come from if not the shots?I certainly did leave out a lot of other anecdotal findings mothers have discovered. Other things they have found helpful are antibiotics (makes one wonder about inherited malignant organisms or immune dysfunction) and special diets, with the most satisfying one being dairy avoidance. Mercury is not the only one. I can't recall where the study was done, but with DMSA chelation most of the children showed significant improvement something roughly like this...10% no change, 15% slight change, 30% significant change, 15% very significant change. So while one cannot absolutely point the finger at vaccines, one can deduce that removing some metals (DMSA also pulls lead very strongly) improves most but not all autistic children to some degree. I still have to wonder, where did the metals come from, or what else is going on here? Why would chelation at such a young age make a difference? I wonder if there might be some other completely separate mechanism of DMSA sometimes. It sure felt like it when I was on rounds. The reason the finger was pointed at vaccines is because no one could come up with a better explanation of where the elevated mercury in urine tests came from.
>
> Doesn't that entire argument presuppose that mercury is the causative agent? I can't recall which Nordic country it is, but there was a recent country-wide statistical analysis of exposure to thimerosal vs. autism. A few years ago, they banned thimerosal from vaccines, on the precautionary principle, i.e. why take the risk. They have complete health records on every person, so they could compare the incidence of autism before the ban on thimerosal to after the ban. What they found was that the incidence of autism has continued to rise unabated, despite the absence of thimerosal exposure. There wasn't so much as a blip in the incidence statistic.Yes I recall that study. I remember when I read it I thought, hmmm, something's not adding up. Children get somewhat better with DMSA chelation, but the mercury might not be from vaccines. What the heck?
> > I know the amount in one shot is small, but there are factors to consider such as repeated accumulation (how many shots does a kid get, at least a dozen or more yeah?), genetic variation in ability to detoxify, and susceptibility to respond negatively to even miniscule amounts.
>
> Yes, absolutely. Individual variation can dramatically alter the outcome of any medical intervention. A person who has demonstrated sensitivity to vaccinations, to mercury, is not the person I'm speaking to, however. For myself, I have severe adverse reactions to many psychotropic medications. But I most certainly do not generalize my experiences as being indicative of the drugs' general effects. Just as statistics cannot predict individual experience, individual experience cannot be used to project statistics.
>
> > There is a lot more mercury in a shot than a tuna sandwich.
>
> I want to be very clear just what I said. I very carefully chose my language. I said, "The dose of mercury from one vaccination is about on par with that from a tuna sandwich." I researched the concentration of mercury in a flu vaccine, determined the volume of the vaccine injected, to verify the dose of mercury from one vaccination. I determined the mean and standard deviation of mercury content in canned tuna, estimated a sandwich content of said tuna (mass), and calculated a range of mercury content from such a sandwich. Only then did I present my summary statement, quoted above. There is significant variation in mercury exposure from specific tuna samples, and from the sandwich size, but my quoted sentence is correct. The tuna could contain much more mercury, in fact, because there is substantial variability in that tuna. I don't fear tuna sandwiches.I do. :-) But I have one once every couple months or so. I'm glad you did the math, because I was going to sit down and do that myself tonight. I was curious enough to take a closer look.
>
> > Furthermore, it is going straight into the blood system and the brain, bypassing any possible filtering of the digestive system.
>
> No, it does not. It goes into a muscle compartment. And the very same blood filtering occurring following absorption from the digestive tract also occurs with all blood flowing through the body. It is not as absolute a contrast as you suggest here.What I meant was that any mercury injected directly into a muscle is going to enter a bloodstream soon. When it does, some it will go to the liver. Some of it may get into the nervous system first. Some of it may make a stop at a gland along the way and make home there. Not all of it is going to make it to the kidney or liver.
> > Mercury going straight into the blood system is a completely different far more potent scenario.I just simply based that comment on things like injected antipsychotics or injected antibiotics. If you need something to go bodywide real fast and powerful, inject it.
>
> I'd like to see an actual comparison study before I come to such a conclusion.>
> > Mercury is in fact one of the most potent poisons to the nervous system on the entire planet. No amount of mercury is safe. Some people do have strong detox systems and strong genes to overcome the presence of mercury molecules, so not everyone gets symptoms. Who is to know in advance which child will get symptoms or not? It aint cool. Not a good risk. If someone feels at risk of the flu, safer options would include washing hands very frequently, avoiding crowds, avoiding touching the mouth, nose, and eyes, consuming healthy foods, consuming beverages or supplements high in vitamin C, E, zinc, and selenium, and taking an Olive Leaf extract capsule per day. There are several herbs that are healthy foods and at the same time prevent viral replication. There is miniscule risk of autism or any other complication from that kind of flu prevention.
>
> That's all good advice, absolutely. Thank you. Sensitive individuals should make decisions based on their own experience. I reiterate, though, that population statistics indicate an overwhelming benefit of vaccination over pandemic disease. Smallpox is eradicated from the Earth (save stockpiles held by military entities). Polio would be gone, if it had not been for the propogation of vaccine myths. I'm old enough to remember photographs of hundreds of people in iron lungs, with withered limbs, caused by polio. And then there's post-polio syndrome that strikes later in life.
>
> > Humankind putting mercury in anything, be it shots or tooth fillings or whatever, has got to be one of the most arrogant and ignorant behaviors of all history. The smarter mankind thinks he is, the more foolish he is proven to be.
>
> I agree with you there.
>
> > I have little faith, and there is no way anyone will ever know, that a vaccine would have prevented any of the major epidemics of history such as the Spanish flu. It is hopeful thinking.
>
> Of course we cannot predict such a thing. I can give you 100% assurance with respect to smallpox, however. Even after exposure, we can prevent rabies. Tetanus. Polio. Tuberculosis (partial, for sure, maybe total in some). Etc.True and well said. I guess maybe the hesitance on any vaccine skeptics out there might be, which scenario will this turn out to be? Will it be a tremendous success as in the diseases you mentioned, or will it be a horrifying disaster as in the Lyme vaccine.
> When I said, "Every vaccine in existence has a far, far lower risk profile than does the disease
themselves so much, but from the way Lyme twisted my immune system and inflammation cascade systems, which ultimately impact everything attached to the nervous system. Apparently dead pieces of the bacteria do the same thing.
> There may be homology (similar structures) between some Lyme's proteins and essential human proteins. Cross-reactivity could lead to auto-immune responses. It's most certainly a possibility, but we couldn't have known that before a vaccine trial. Obviously, they'd have to identify the offending proteins, and develop a vaccine that still had specificity for the Lyme's spirochete, but without the cross-reactive components.
> > Why do researchers not work on curing immune system dysfunctions that kill thousands more people than the flu? Fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, arthritis, MS, Lyme. These diseases do not kill in days or weeks like the flu, but they certainly send people to an early premature grave they didn't deserve. Not to mention the tons of suffering along the way. But no one ever died of Lyme disease. Until you take a look at their heart and brain under a microscope.
> They are working on that. I understand your frustration. I have two disorders that would fall within your parameters.
> > I think it is gross arrogance for mankind to believe he has geniusly figured out how the immune system works, with the result of that great wisdom being a flu vaccine. I have not looked into to it, but my initial hunch is that a vaccine prevents the flu at about the same percentage difference as an antidepressant outperforms a placebo, which is statistically significant but in the real world not much.
>
> No, vaccination is absolute, but if and only if the match is perfect. The difficulty is that influenza is off mutating for the six months or a year that it takes to develop a vaccine which is based on what it used to be like. The effectiveness is in direct proportion to the retained characteristics of the mutated virus, whatever they may be.
>> > Flu shots are available without mercury. The problem I have found is that when you ask the person giving the shot, they typically don't know if it is mercury free or not. One has to shop around for a knowledgable source.
>
> Look for single-dose ampoules. That's the key factor. If it's not single-dose, it's more likely, if not probable, that it contains thimerosal.
no matter what side.> > I find it interesting that there are now researchers gathering information from mothers on what is working well with their autistic children in order to give the researchers areas to explore. Think about that. IAN is one of the organizations gathering data to help researchers. The brightest supposedly geniuses are asking advice of mere mothers of children, as those mothers have become experts by no choice of their own, but by necessity. The mothers have discovered by heartfelt trial and error...hardcore research...what works and what doesn't. By the time the scientists and statisticians come to the same level of knowledge, it will be 20 years later.
> I've said it myself many times, what matters is how the patient feels. You have to do the experiment.
> Virtually any medical advance you can name (other than things like heart surgery) arose from anecdotal observations. That's the nature of the beast. The problem is that we don't know what causes autism. If the cause is ultimately genetic, then all we ever have are coping strategies. I accord great influence to the effect of having a caring and supportive parent, no matter what overt intervention has been chosen.
> > One of the biggest ones that comes up again and again is mercury chelation. Where did it come from?
>
> Chelation therapy influences far more minerals than simply mercury, and far more powerfully, also. There are confounds coming out the yin-yang on chelation. If mercury is the culprit, then selenium supplementation should be of great benefit. When selenium is incorporated into e.g. methionine, in place of the sulfur atom in the sulfhydryl group, it becomes extremely reactive to mercury. The resultant selenium-mercury compound is so stable and unreactive that less than one molecule will dissolve in a liter of water......it's one of the most insoluble compounds in existence. If mercury is sequestered, it cannot do any damage.With chelation in general I would agree. With DMSA specifically, it primary has affinity for lead and mercury, secondarily things like cadmium. I do not believe it has much affinity for common minerals. I say that based on the writings of Andrew Cutler's Amalgam Illness and on my own sample of 1. On my last round of DMSA chelation, I had blood drawn 2 days later. Essential metals were either in the middle of the normal range or at the high end (I eat good stuff no doubt), but mercury and lead were practically non-existent. Two weeks later the essential metals were still unchanged, but the heavy metals were now evident, probably due to leaching from deeper stores. In any case, DMSA did not pull out essential metals in my sample of 1.
> > Sometimes anecdotal evidence is so huge as to quickly overwhelm commonly held scientific so-called facts.
>
> I disagree entirely. The plural of anecdote is not data.We will politely disagree on this one. That's mainly because I am all over the Lyme wars, an expert on both sides of it. In that arena, anecdotal evidence is blowing the medical profession in the weeds.
> > In any case, I'm not taking sides. I'm just sharing my experience that I do a whole lot better without flu shots or mercury of any amount.
>
> You've certainly provided food for thought. Thank you.You too and it is a pleasure to speak with a very wise gentleman.
>
> Lar
>Blue
Posted by sowhysosad on September 30, 2009, at 19:32:19
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see » bleauberry, posted by Larry Hoover on September 30, 2009, at 8:33:27
Here in the UK there's been a deluge of pseudoscience in the media attempting to link the MMR jab to autism, even long after the original study was thoroughly discredited.
Ben Goldacre is a British scientist who is dedicated to debunking "bad science". Here's his take on the MMR/autism scare:
http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/
> > A problem with the mercury preservative in flu shots is that when Autistic mothers have their children undergo a provoked urine test, their mercury levels are extremely elevated. Those children have not been alive long enough to accumulate that much mercury from the environment. These accounts are numerous. Where did the mercury come from if not the shots?
>
> Doesn't that entire argument presuppose that mercury is the causative agent? I can't recall which Nordic country it is, but there was a recent country-wide statistical analysis of exposure to thimerosal vs. autism. A few years ago, they banned thimerosal from vaccines, on the precautionary principle, i.e. why take the risk. They have complete health records on every person, so they could compare the incidence of autism before the ban on thimerosal to after the ban. What they found was that the incidence of autism has continued to rise unabated, despite the absence of thimerosal exposure. There wasn't so much as a blip in the incidence statistic.
>
> If there is no correlation between thimerosal exposure and autism incidence, there cannot be causation.
>
> Flat out, I am NOT defending thimerosal's presence in vaccines. If all vaccines were packaged in individual doses, the problem would disappear altogether. Unfortunately, supply is so limited, that we cannot practically accomplish this, yet.
>
> There are other variables in vaccination itself. I'm trying to keep an open mind about possible associations between vaccination and autism. However, a recent study of that issue found that unvaccinated children had nearly twice the incidence of autism as those vaccinated. That was one study, of one vaccine, but I just want to say we're looking for the root cause. I see no evidence that we've yet identified it.
Posted by psych chat on September 30, 2009, at 20:26:22
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see, posted by sowhysosad on September 30, 2009, at 19:32:19
re: measles/mumps..
There are many cases of these diseases in developing countries where some rural dwellers don't have access to immunizations.
I'd guess that as long as people don't have access to adequate health care, such diseases will not be eradicated.
Posted by Phillipa on September 30, 2009, at 20:44:34
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see, posted by psych chat on September 30, 2009, at 20:26:22
The absolute key to the mercury preservative is the single dose vial which can be requested by Mothers for their children. As the doc I saw said that's what his kids receive.
When nursing had to have flu shot or highly recommended and did no flu or shot symptoms. But no more flu shots for me as the last time got one two years ago both me and husband sick. Last year out more in busy stores and no flu. Now they say over 60 get shingles vaccine. That I also decline as before when nursing only the ladies that had had chicken pox allowed to care for shingles patients so I got them no shingles. Of course wasn't over 60 but that innoculation on good to age 69 and half way there almost. Those are my well thought out decisions. Thanks for all the responses. Love Phillipa think I'll pass on the fish heard a guy on a diet of fish almost died lately on the news.
Posted by yxibow on October 1, 2009, at 4:28:09
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see, posted by Phillipa on September 30, 2009, at 20:44:34
> The absolute key to the mercury preservative is the single dose vial which can be requested by Mothers for their children. As the doc I saw said that's what his kids receive.
There will never be an end to the theories of minute amounts of MICROGRAMS of thimerosal in vaccines.... which the WHO has repeatedly said poses no health risk. It is not methyl mercury.
Additionally though there may be other future possibilities, it is one of the few preservatives that does not pose risk to the effectiveness of the vaccine itself.
> When nursing had to have flu shot or highly recommended and did no flu or shot symptoms. But no more flu shots for me as the last time got one two years ago both me and husband sick.
Probably because your husband and you LIVE TOGETHER, the vaccine didn't work or was attenuated in you, and both of you passed it on to yourselves.This is the CLASSIC case of correlation does imply causation.
Last year out more in busy stores and no flu.
No flu? Or no vaccine ? If you didn't get it, you were just lucky of the hundreds of thousands of people who get it every year and the 45,000 people who die of it.
Now they say over 60 get shingles vaccine. That I also decline as before when nursing only the ladies that had had chicken pox allowed to care for shingles patients so I got them no shingles.
Of course wasn't over 60 but that innoculation on good to age 69 and half way there almost.Shingles is a painful and potentially debilitating condition especially in the elderly, causing neurological damage in severe cases.
It can strike at any adult age and it's certainly something I wouldn't wish on anyone...
Those are my well thought out decisions.
I'll let it speak for itself, one may decide as they wish...
Thanks for all the responses. Love Phillipa think I'll pass on the fish heard a guy on a diet of fish almost died lately on the news.
I don't mean to single you out Jan, but think about this for a minute -- if someone who mostly ate fish died of it, there would be no people in Southeast Asia or Inuit or First Nations, or New Englanders for that matter in the US.At any rate this FOX News (um... well if one doesn't know by now how 'reliable' they are... I can't go further.... it's politics.)
Fox is owned by Rupert Murdock, who among people features Glenn Beck, et alia who have promoted, as a Jew myself, what I consider the truly stomach turning "death panel" idiocy and the "Hitler Obama".There's no verifying of the credentials of this "Kent Holtorf", and in fact I don't even recall seeing his name in lower thirds (on the screen) by Fox.
Believe as one wishes... but the very "sent to me" implies a viral video... and disinformation in health is potentially dangerous as far as I'm concerned.
-- what can I say.
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 1, 2009, at 9:29:43
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see » Larry Hoover, posted by bleauberry on September 30, 2009, at 16:59:43
> > Chelation therapy influences far more minerals than simply mercury, and far more powerfully, also. There are confounds coming out the yin-yang on chelation. If mercury is the culprit, then selenium supplementation should be of great benefit. When selenium is incorporated into e.g. methionine, in place of the sulfur atom in the sulfhydryl group, it becomes extremely reactive to mercury. The resultant selenium-mercury compound is so stable and unreactive that less than one molecule will dissolve in a liter of water......it's one of the most insoluble compounds in existence. If mercury is sequestered, it cannot do any damage.
>
> With chelation in general I would agree. With DMSA specifically, it primary has affinity for lead and mercury, secondarily things like cadmium. I do not believe it has much affinity for common minerals.Just on that one point, DMSA pulls zinc and copper into the urine. I was thinking more in terms of physiological metals, rather than in terms of toxic metals.
DMSA is probably the safest chelator, but it's far from being the only one.
Lar
Posted by Phillipa on October 1, 2009, at 19:28:53
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see » Phillipa, posted by yxibow on October 1, 2009, at 4:28:09
Sent by nursing newsletter and you receive CEU's for answering questions that follow on content. Phillipa
Posted by 10derHeart on October 1, 2009, at 21:58:24
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see » Phillipa, posted by yxibow on October 1, 2009, at 4:28:09
I think this is the doctor you mentioned. I have seen him appear on Fox and other cable networks, from time to time. I think most recently about swine flu, but I do seem to remember stuff about bioidentical hormones, too. I also used to live in Torrance CA, where one of his centers is located. Maybe I used to see his name on a sign or soemthing...can't recall.
http://www.holtorfmed.com/doctors/kent-holtorf-md/
I imagine one could attempt to verify his credentials somehow, in the same way it's done for any other MD. I've never done that, any further than quick online searches for any malpractice actions, etc.
I hadn't seen or heard any stories about fish, eating, men, dying or so forth, but I thought I recognized his name.
Is he connected to the story Phillipa mentioned about eating fish? Or is it H1N1?
Posted by seldomseen on October 2, 2009, at 4:55:06
In reply to Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see, posted by Phillipa on September 26, 2009, at 12:51:59
It may interest you folks to know that neither I nor any of the scientists who work in my lab are opting to receive the H1N1 vaccine.
It has nothing to do with the mercury preservative, but rather with the speed with which the vaccine was forced to market.
It may interest you to know that the companies producing the vaccine were granted a waiver of liability should any harm be caused by the vaccine.
IMO there is inadequate testing of it.
However, in all fairness, none of us are in a high risk group and would likely weather H1N1 with little to no complications, so the risk/benefit conclusion was fairly straightforward.
Posted by Phillipa on October 2, 2009, at 20:20:45
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see, posted by seldomseen on October 2, 2009, at 4:55:06
Seldom thanks so very much for posting true scientific facts. I knew it was rushed to market didn't know about the waiver so no lawsuits. To me this means it's really serious the vaccine. Please since you command more respecto on meds would you post it in a new thread? Thanks so much. I figure 63 in good health isn't a risk factor either. Love Phillipa
Posted by yxibow on October 2, 2009, at 23:19:53
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see, posted by seldomseen on October 2, 2009, at 4:55:06
> It may interest you folks to know that neither I nor any of the scientists who work in my lab are opting to receive the H1N1 vaccine.
>
> It has nothing to do with the mercury preservative, but rather with the speed with which the vaccine was forced to market.
>
> It may interest you to know that the companies producing the vaccine were granted a waiver of liability should any harm be caused by the vaccine.There is always an assumed liability... torts are extraordinarily common in the US... I don't know that's worth much on paper.
> IMO there is inadequate testing of it.
>
> However, in all fairness, none of us are in a high risk group and would likely weather H1N1 with little to no complications, so the risk/benefit conclusion was fairly straightforward.
Well that's an informed choice and its sort of one that I'm wavering on.
I also believe the links of microscopic quantities of mercury, what is actually up until maybe future preservatives, one that doesn't interfere with the vaccine itself.......and the links to autism while I feel for people looking for answer, I find over the top. But everyone is entitled to their opinion
They have invested much more carefulness than the 1976 rushed swine flu vaccine which had more Guillain-Barré complications than normal... but still, as I have said before, I don't know that I want to be the first.
Still in my 30s (woohoo), I am barely in the risk group for it but with all my medications and problems that I have, it doesn't help.
So I get the regular annual flu vaccine... I don't need 104 degree temperatures on top of the fact that my body doesn't regulate temperature well.........I feel "hotter" than most even though my temperature measured is "normal"... and that's partially somatic, partially Seroquel/Anafranil, and my weight and who knows what. So an acute 102 degrees would feel like expiring in the desert. It ain't fun.
My ideal temperature without layers is about 68 degrees -- but down here its (sigh) much warmer.I miss the Northwest.
Anyhow, random.
-- tidings
Posted by Sigismund on October 3, 2009, at 2:32:12
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see » seldomseen, posted by yxibow on October 2, 2009, at 23:19:53
I know someone who died from swine flu after a period in an induced coma.
It is perhaps not quick?
Some narcotics at home could be useful; I'd prefer to avoid vaccination and treatment.
Ah, small disinhibitions (first drink)...the best we can look forward to.
How much time is enough? Or too much?
Posted by Sigismund on October 3, 2009, at 2:58:36
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see, posted by Sigismund on October 3, 2009, at 2:32:12
Time is like alcohol.
Always too much and never enough.
Posted by bleauberry on October 3, 2009, at 8:01:27
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see » Phillipa, posted by yxibow on October 1, 2009, at 4:28:09
>
> At any rate this FOX News (um... well if one doesn't know by now how 'reliable' they are... I can't go further.... it's politics.)Kind of off topic, but since you mentioned I got curious. Can you help me out? I don't watch news much. But when I do I find Fox the most reliable. Here's why. They obviously are on the "right" side, while the others networks are on the "left" side. But what I see at Fox is they always have opposing views given equal time by guests. I don't see that hardly ever on the left networks. The left anchors hardly ever give mention of opposing views, their facts are usually cherry picked or bent a bit out of shape to give a certain appearance, and their usage of opposing-view guest speakers is nill. So in terms of reliability, I think Fox gives the viewer a broader picture to form their own opinion with?
>
>
> Fox is owned by Rupert Murdock, who among people features Glenn Beck, et alia who have promoted, as a Jew myself, what I consider the truly stomach turning "death panel" idiocy and the "Hitler Obama".Glen Beck happened to be on the radio when I was taking my break at work and I heard the parts of the show you refered to above. Those things were not said. The way they were said in the quotes above have been twisted out of proportion from what was actually said, twisted into a distortion completely left field of what was actually said. I'm puzzled why people do that? I'm puzzled why people take their cues from someone else's misinterpretation but never heard the actual presentation themselves? I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I don't trust any comments about any news deliverer or talk show host unless I've heard their exact words with my own ears or eyes. The phrases quoted above have dramatic effect when shown all by themselves. But when put into context with the surrounding ten minutes prior and ten minutes after, it becomes evident they are gross misinterpretations when presented all by themselves. That's what I don't like about the "left" networks. They do that all the time?
Maybe I'm wrong. Like I said, I don't watch news much. But when I do, I know what I see. When Fox says "fair and balanced", well, it actually is. The opposition is given fair and balanced time to make their case.
Fox I believe has offered something to the competitive marketplace that was missing for decades. That is, the other side of the story. Usually a less biased side. Biased sure, all humans have that, but a generous proportion of time is given to debaters of both sides of any issue. I don't see that anywhere else? I don't know, I think that's a good thing? What do you think?
>
> There's no verifying of the credentials of this "Kent Holtorf", and in fact I don't even recall seeing his name in lower thirds (on the screen) by Fox.
>I don't know who this person is or how he fits into the swine issue. I'm not even interested in that. I do know that Fox is highly aware they can easily lose their marketshare by parading scanty evidence, so I doubt that was the case? The organization is a business, and the goal is profit, and no business will thrive when the product is jaded. Maybe that's why Fox marketshare has risen while the others have fallen?
I usually don't believe as I wish or go by what someone else tells me. I prefer to go by the facts and judgements gathered by my own eyes and ears.
Posted by NKP on October 3, 2009, at 14:29:27
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see » yxibow, posted by bleauberry on October 3, 2009, at 8:01:27
I'm curious to know what you guys think of the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j2X6HZrfdE
The person claims that only mercury salts are toxic, not elemental mercury. Is that true?
Posted by NKP on October 3, 2009, at 14:34:31
In reply to Elemental mercury vs. mercury salts, posted by NKP on October 3, 2009, at 14:29:27
Posted by bleauberry on October 3, 2009, at 18:08:48
In reply to Elemental mercury vs. mercury salts, posted by NKP on October 3, 2009, at 14:29:27
> I'm curious to know what you guys think of the following video:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j2X6HZrfdE
>
> The person claims that only mercury salts are toxic, not elemental mercury. Is that true?I'm not even going to bother watching the video.
What would get my attention?
Well, if he were to eat a spoonful of elemental mercury on video, I would watch that. If it is so safe, show me.
Posted by NKP on October 3, 2009, at 18:37:05
In reply to Re: Elemental mercury vs. mercury salts » NKP, posted by bleauberry on October 3, 2009, at 18:08:48
> > I'm curious to know what you guys think of the following video:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j2X6HZrfdE
> >
> > The person claims that only mercury salts are toxic, not elemental mercury. Is that true?
>
> I'm not even going to bother watching the video.
>
> What would get my attention?
>
> Well, if he were to eat a spoonful of elemental mercury on video, I would watch that. If it is so safe, show me.
>
>The person (who I'm not sure is a "he") plays with elemental mercury in their bare hands.
I was asking a real question about the toxicity of elemental mercury, since I used to play with the stuff as well when I was a child (I obtained it from thermometers which I broke open to remove the mercury).
I was hoping that somebody knowledgable on the subject might confirm or refute the person's claims. From what I've read on the internet, I am under the impression that elemental mercury is at least *less* toxic than mercury salts - but I am not very knowedgeable on these matters, which is why I was hoping that a more knowledgeable person might be able to shed some light.
Posted by desolationrower on October 3, 2009, at 19:21:31
In reply to Re: Elemental mercury vs. mercury salts, posted by NKP on October 3, 2009, at 18:37:05
well its not safe, but you are going to be absorbing less through your skin than through your GI track. salt vs. metal probably depends on the environment, what salt, etc.
-d/r
Posted by Phillipa on October 3, 2009, at 20:10:38
In reply to Re: Elemental mercury vs. mercury salts, posted by desolationrower on October 3, 2009, at 19:21:31
Okay guys as a kid at the dentists he'd give me a bead of mercury to play with in my hand. Not liquid not totally solid. Was used for filling teeth. So what was that? Phillipa
Posted by yxibow on October 3, 2009, at 22:50:45
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see, posted by Sigismund on October 3, 2009, at 2:32:12
> I know someone who died from swine flu after a period in an induced coma.
People do come out of induced comas..> It is perhaps not quick?
>
> Some narcotics at home could be useful; I'd prefer to avoid vaccination and treatment.
>
> Ah, small disinhibitions (first drink)...the best we can look forward to.
>
> How much time is enough? Or too much?
Narcotics are not going to help you, in fact the respiratory depression that they could cause would counteract the heroic life saving ventilators.Or are you saying you just want to exit life ??
Posted by yxibow on October 3, 2009, at 22:54:26
In reply to Re: Elemental mercury vs. mercury salts, posted by Phillipa on October 3, 2009, at 20:10:38
> Okay guys as a kid at the dentists he'd give me a bead of mercury to play with in my hand. Not liquid not totally solid. Was used for filling teeth. So what was that? Phillipa
Not the safest idea in the world... but you know, many generations of people did the same thing in chemistry class, or found them near mines in creeks, and they're still here today.
I'm not advocating such a stunt, but it isn't necessarily going to kill you, and a one-off experience probably wouldn't even register on a test on the body. That is if you didn't swallow it (we're not talking amalgams here..)
-- tidings.
Posted by yxibow on October 3, 2009, at 23:18:45
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see » yxibow, posted by bleauberry on October 3, 2009, at 8:01:27
> >
> > At any rate this FOX News (um... well if one doesn't know by now how 'reliable' they are... I can't go further.... it's politics.)
>
> Kind of off topic, but since you mentioned I got curious. Can you help me out? I don't watch news much. But when I do I find Fox the most reliable. Here's why. They obviously are on the "right" side, while the others networks are on the "left" side. But what I see at Fox is they always have opposing views given equal time by guests. I don't see that hardly ever on the left networks. The left anchors hardly ever give mention of opposing views, their facts are usually cherry picked or bent a bit out of shape to give a certain appearance, and their usage of opposing-view guest speakers is nill. So in terms of reliability, I think Fox gives the viewer a broader picture to form their own opinion with?They don't give "opposing" time to things, and they're very slanted towards giving the most time to right wing views and basically having "fluff" news.
And its gotten more and more the case -- they're owned by Rupert Murdoch who is a conservative Aussie. And the programming shows it. But if you want more right wing political views with distortions and less fact checking, be my guest.
But then, the nightly news has become more fluff these days.. there's nothing like (whatever you may think of him) Dan Rather or the late Walter Cronkite. The true legends of journalism are falling away.
People these days get more news from the Internet than television in general, or at least I do. I have almost never watched the evening news, except maybe at a hotel.> >
> >
> > Fox is owned by Rupert Murdock, who among people features Glenn Beck, et alia who have promoted, as a Jew myself, what I consider the truly stomach turning "death panel" idiocy and the "Hitler Obama".
>
> Glen Beck happened to be on the radio when I was taking my break at work and I heard the parts of the show you refered to above. Those things were not said. The way they were said in the quotes above have been twisted out of proportion from what was actually said, twisted into a distortion completely left field of what was actually said. I'm puzzled why people do that? I'm puzzled why people take their cues from someone else's misinterpretation but never heard the actual presentation themselves? I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I don't trust any comments about any news deliverer or talk show host unless I've heard their exact words with my own ears or eyes. The phrases quoted above have dramatic effect when shown all by themselves. But when put into context with the surrounding ten minutes prior and ten minutes after, it becomes evident they are gross misinterpretations when presented all by themselves. That's what I don't like about the "left" networks. They do that all the time?There ARE NO "left" network news. At best you could say they're centrist. As I mentioned people before... you couldn't really tell, but Rather, even a Texan, was and is probably a Democrat. But at best CBS news is centrist.
I don't care if Glenn Beck said or did not say things, he and his ilk (Rush Limbaugh, etc) created a disinformation about "death panels", a word and concept that never existed anywhere outside of the bizarre circle of "spontaneous protests" where people held what would have been considered atrocious and vile years ago, left or right, defacing a picture of Obama to look like Hitler.
But in today's world, there's no lower bounds of decency sometimes.
Yes, I believe in the freedom of the press, and the freedom to protest and express yourself, I wouldn't have the values I learned and generally view, but if you put yourself out there, you take the consequences of what you do. And there are limits, you can't yell fire in a crowded room.
If you want real quality journalism (with some of its own anti-Israel and other left-wing bias) you're going to have to read (or watch) the BBC.Or the CBC (Canada) at least at one point has reasonable journalism.
The Guardian is decidedly more left-leaning, but then as I said, newspapers in Europe are different.
Reuters and the Associated Press are reasonable conglomerated news sources.
UPI is owned by the same people who own the Washington Times, Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, or sometimes referred to as "the moonies".
There's no real quality journalism there at all. In my view.
And just like New York, there's the tabloids like The Sun, except they have the "b*mb*" and her t*ts of the day on page 3 (pardon my slur, but its true).> Maybe I'm wrong. Like I said, I don't watch news much. But when I do, I know what I see. When Fox says "fair and balanced", well, it actually is. The opposition is given fair and balanced time to make their case.
As a graduate of communications I can tell you there is no such thing as balanced news. There is always bias, but consistently conservative think tanks blame the "liberal bias" in the news, when in fact news outlets (Fox as an extreme example) have become much more conservative. The Tribune Group (if they exist as an entity I think ?) is also one.
In Europe, especially places like France, etc, you read what paper you politically subscribe to by view. If you want a stalwart center-right paper, read Le Monde. If you want a left-wing, somewhat socialist paper, you read Libération... When my french was pretty good, I could read Le Monde. Its not an easy read, it has complex language... Libération was a bit easier.
> Fox I believe has offered something to the competitive marketplace that was missing for decades. That is, the other side of the story. Usually a less biased side. Biased sure, all humans have that, but a generous proportion of time is given to debaters of both sides of any issue. I don't see that anywhere else? I don't know, I think that's a good thing? What do you think?
>
> >
> > There's no verifying of the credentials of this "Kent Holtorf", and in fact I don't even recall seeing his name in lower thirds (on the screen) by Fox.
> >
>
> I don't know who this person is or how he fits into the swine issue. I'm not even interested in that. I do know that Fox is highly aware they can easily lose their marketshare by parading scanty evidence, so I doubt that was the case?Fox doesnt care about their market share like that... They wouldn't be surviving around if they did... besides they're so financially backed by Murdoch anyhow.
The organization is a business, and the goal is profit, and no business will thrive when the product is jaded. Maybe that's why Fox marketshare has risen while the others have fallen?
>
> I usually don't believe as I wish or go by what someone else tells me. I prefer to go by the facts and judgements gathered by my own eyes and ears.
Then be my guest. I'll run screaming from them.-- tidings
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.