Guest guest Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 Hello Marc, but that I do not understand. The screen reolution has nothing to do with frequency. You may run 800x600 or 1024x768, as long as your refreh rate is the same. With a good monitor, it can be adjusted to 85 Hz. So, than 800x600 or 1024x768 is still running at 85 Hz. or higher, as you videocard allows it. Greetings, Claessens member Verband Baubiologie http://members.rott.chello.nl/cclaessens/ http://www.hese-project.org checked by Norton Antivirus Re: More Questions > Certainly frequency is a factor -- for example, I have a different > reaction to my computer monitor running at 800x600 resolution than 1024x > 768 resolution. The only change there is the frequency... > > Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 > The screen reolution has nothing to do with frequency. Hmmm, nevertheless, I react more negatively to a CRT computer monitor if I either increase the resolution or increase the refresh rate. It seems to me that a monitor operating at 1024x768 is sending more information than a monitor operating at 800x600. That may not be a change in " frequency " as it is commonly defined, but it is certainly a change in *something*. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 Hello Marc, which refresh rates do you use? When I buy a Flight Simulator, there is a card in the package that warns me for *epilepsy*. It is the flickering of the images on the monitor that are the cause for it. When I play a game, where I have to move through long tunnels, I get also feelings of nausea, when I play too long. The very fast moving pixels, with their contrasting colors, do have that effect. In Japan, a number of children watching TV fell sideways because of this epilepsy. There was a special film, with a lot of flickering images. So, it is quite understandable, that you may feel uncomfortable with certain refresh rates. Normally, it is, that as high as possible gives the best relaxing view. But it is possible, that you, as an people, just gets irritated at certain refresh rates. Perhaps you should test all of them, just to know which ones you can not bear. Greetings, Claessens member Verband Baubiologie http://members.rott.chello.nl/cclaessens/ http://www.hese-project.org checked by Norton Antivirus Re: More Questions > > The screen reolution has nothing to do with frequency. > > Hmmm, nevertheless, I react more negatively to a CRT computer monitor if > I either increase the resolution or increase the refresh rate. It seems > to me that a monitor operating at 1024x768 is sending more information > than a monitor operating at 800x600. That may not be a change in > " frequency " as it is commonly defined, but it is certainly a change in > *something*. > > Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 > which refresh rates do you use? I use 75 Hz. And I don't play videogames. :-) But for me, it's the resolution of the monitor that's the bigger factor, not the refresh rate. Certainly you must have a meter which registers differently with different CRT monitor resolutions? :-) Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 Lachlan, Your question about frequency is related to a very complicated issue of what really causes adverse reactions to EMF... Up to now, one thing is for sure - there is still no simple answer (if any)... All we know is that ES and other reactions to proximity of EM fields *are somehow related* to (measurable) physical characteristics of the filled. (There is no evident and stable cause - reaction relationship.) Just one of the measurable characteristics is frequency. And regarding frequency, potential resonance with the body as whole or with smaller parts like cells are, is just one of the factors involved, there are other mechanisms of influence of various fields and frequencies. I, for example, keep using my simple cordless home telephone that operates exactly at the frequency you pointed out as potentially resonant to the body, and although I am highly sensitive, it gives me less unpleasant feeling than a regular table telephone (not to mention the cellular). Drasko More Questions > Conventional aerials used to receive EM radiation are optimised based on > geometry.... As far as I understand, a general rule for conventional aerials > is that their length should be at least one quarter of the wavelength of the > radiation they are trying to receive. Based on this assumption, the average > human body would act as an aerial for radiation with a wavelength of four times > the size of the body. Assuming that the average human body was 1.8 metres > high, the largest wavelength that could be significantly received by the body > would theoretically be 7.2metres (41.67MHz), though this is dependant on the > orientation of the body with respect to the direction of polarisation of the > radiation. I have heard this value quoted by others as the wavelength with > which the entire body will resonate. Could someone please correct me if I'm > wrong on any of this as I am very keen to gain a correct understanding of all > this and hope to use this understanding productively. The conclusion I drew > from all this was that radiation above 41.67MHz has the potential to induce > resonance in certain body parts, depending on their size and orientation to the > direction of polarisation of the radiation. I would be interested to know if > anyone has ever calculated what frequency of radiation would best be received > by particularly susceptible body parts, such as the pineal gland. > > This discussion also deliberately brings me to another recent topic of > conversation on the list, namely the bioprotect card and other such devices. > Could Dietrich, or someone else please clarify the mechanism by which > they operate? Do these devices 'attract' a certain frequency of radiation, > based on their geometry, so that the device resonates rather than any part of > the human anatomy? Furthermore, would this mean that the effectiveness of such > devices is frequency dependant and could this therefore explain why they don't > work for different people experiencing health problems due to different > frequencies of radiation? I hope someone can help me out with these questions. > Thanks > Lachlan > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 Marc. You use a cordless telephone without any problems? You don´t mind use a computer with a CRT - screen. Have you ever considered the fact that You are actually NOT electrosensitive ? Wille Borlin SWEDEN Marc wrote: >>The screen reolution has nothing to do with frequency. >> >> > >Hmmm, nevertheless, I react more negatively to a CRT computer monitor if >I either increase the resolution or increase the refresh rate. It seems >to me that a monitor operating at 1024x768 is sending more information >than a monitor operating at 800x600. That may not be a change in > " frequency " as it is commonly defined, but it is certainly a change in >*something*. > >Marc > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 Drasco. I sent almost the same text to Marc a few minutes ago. What makes you electrosensitive? You use a cordless telephone and obviously do a lot with computers. I think you have other problems than electrosensitiver ones. Wille Borlin SWEDEN Drasko Cvijovic wrote: >Lachlan, >Your question about frequency is related to a very complicated issue of what >really causes adverse reactions to EMF... Up to now, one thing is for sure - >there is still no simple answer (if any)... > >All we know is that ES and other reactions to proximity of EM fields *are >somehow related* to (measurable) physical characteristics of the filled. >(There is no evident and stable cause - reaction relationship.) > >Just one of the measurable characteristics is frequency. And regarding >frequency, potential resonance with the body as whole or with smaller parts >like cells are, is just one of the factors involved, there are other >mechanisms of influence of various fields and frequencies. > >I, for example, keep using my simple cordless home telephone that operates >exactly at the frequency you pointed out as potentially resonant to the >body, and although I am highly sensitive, it gives me less unpleasant >feeling than a regular table telephone (not to mention the cellular). > > >Drasko > > More Questions > > > > >>Conventional aerials used to receive EM radiation are optimised based on >>geometry.... As far as I understand, a general rule for conventional >> >> >aerials > > >>is that their length should be at least one quarter of the wavelength of >> >> >the > > >>radiation they are trying to receive. Based on this assumption, the >> >> >average > > >>human body would act as an aerial for radiation with a wavelength of four >> >> >times > > >>the size of the body. Assuming that the average human body was 1.8 metres >>high, the largest wavelength that could be significantly received by the >> >> >body > > >>would theoretically be 7.2metres (41.67MHz), though this is dependant on >> >> >the > > >>orientation of the body with respect to the direction of polarisation of >> >> >the > > >>radiation. I have heard this value quoted by others as the wavelength >> >> >with > > >>which the entire body will resonate. Could someone please correct me if >> >> >I'm > > >>wrong on any of this as I am very keen to gain a correct understanding of >> >> >all > > >>this and hope to use this understanding productively. The conclusion I >> >> >drew > > >>from all this was that radiation above 41.67MHz has the potential to >> >> >induce > > >>resonance in certain body parts, depending on their size and orientation >> >> >to the > > >>direction of polarisation of the radiation. I would be interested to know >> >> >if > > >>anyone has ever calculated what frequency of radiation would best be >> >> >received > > >>by particularly susceptible body parts, such as the pineal gland. >> >>This discussion also deliberately brings me to another recent topic of >>conversation on the list, namely the bioprotect card and other such >> >> >devices. > > >>Could Dietrich, or someone else please clarify the mechanism by >> >> >which > > >>they operate? Do these devices 'attract' a certain frequency of >> >> >radiation, > > >>based on their geometry, so that the device resonates rather than any part >> >> >of > > >>the human anatomy? Furthermore, would this mean that the effectiveness of >> >> >such > > >>devices is frequency dependant and could this therefore explain why they >> >> >don't > > >>work for different people experiencing health problems due to different >>frequencies of radiation? I hope someone can help me out with these >> >> >questions. > > >>Thanks >>Lachlan >> >> >> >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 > You use a cordless telephone without any problems? I've never used a cordless telephone. I don't know where you got that idea. > Have you ever considered the fact that You are actually NOT > electrosensitive ? Ha! You obviously haven't read my introductory message to the mailing list. Three years ago I could not use a regular CORDED telephone, watch TV, stand near power lines, use a computer (CRT or LCD), use a cellphone, use audio headphones, or go into the store because of the fluorescent lights. I could even feel the electricity in the walls when I standing next to them. I was on medical disability from work for many months because I could not tolerate being in the building for longer than 20 minutes. In other words, I was VERY electrically sensitive. Today, with the help of food, supplements, " new age devices " , and having my mercury fillings removed, I can now use a corded telephone, I can watch TV, I can stand near power lines, I can use a computer for 8 hours/day, I can go to the store, and I'm working full time. I don't use cellphones or audio earphones, but the last time I checked they still caused pain in my head. So technically, while I'm still electrically sensitive, in practical terms I've found solutions so that the it has no impact on the things I want to do. And I plan on getting over the ES entirely, so that I do not need to depend on the food, supplements, and devices. But at my rate of improvement, I'd say that this is at least or year or more away. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 > You use a cordless telephone and obviously do a lot with computers. > I think you have other problems than electrosensitiver ones. Drasko has already posted on this group several times that he has to stay a long distance away from his computer monitor, and uses binoculars to read the screen (I think he also has a metal barrier as well). On the other hand, I don't recall *you* ever posting what makes *you* electrosensitive. Perhaps you could share with us some accurate information about yourself, rather than make inaccurate statements about others? Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2004 Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 Marc. I am sorry for the false accusations ! I obviously read your answer sloppy, i interpreted this text as coming from you; " I, for example, keep using my simple cordless home telephone that > operates exactly at the frequency you pointed out as potentially > resonant to the body, and although I am highly sensitive, it gives > me less unpleasant feeling than a regular table telephone (not to > mention the cellular). " When checking back i see that the text is mixed question / answer, which i always find a bit confusing. Yours Wille Borlin SWEDEN Marc wrote: >>You use a cordless telephone without any problems? >> >> > >I've never used a cordless telephone. I don't know where >you got that idea. > > > >>Have you ever considered the fact that You are actually NOT >>electrosensitive ? >> >> > >Ha! You obviously haven't read my introductory message >to the mailing list. Three years ago I could not use >a regular CORDED telephone, watch TV, stand near power lines, >use a computer (CRT or LCD), use a cellphone, use audio >headphones, or go into the store because of the fluorescent >lights. I could even feel the electricity in the walls >when I standing next to them. I was on medical disability >from work for many months because I could not tolerate >being in the building for longer than 20 minutes. > >In other words, I was VERY electrically sensitive. > >Today, with the help of food, supplements, " new age >devices " , and having my mercury fillings removed, I can >now use a corded telephone, I can watch TV, I can stand >near power lines, I can use a computer for 8 hours/day, >I can go to the store, and I'm working full time. >I don't use cellphones or audio earphones, but the >last time I checked they still caused pain in my head. > >So technically, while I'm still electrically sensitive, >in practical terms I've found solutions so that the >it has no impact on the things I want to do. > >And I plan on getting over the ES entirely, so that >I do not need to depend on the food, supplements, >and devices. But at my rate of improvement, I'd >say that this is at least or year or more away. > >Marc > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 Hi , Marc, I guess that this issue is solved already, but if not: Marc is compleatly correct when he say that the frequency alter with altered resolution! If you have a resolution of 800x600 at 85Hz, then you have to update 800x600=480.000 pixels 85 times each second, that gives a bit-rate of 40800000 per sec. The line scan frequency is 600x85=51000Hz (51kHz). As for 1025x768 you get a bit-rate of 1024x768x85=66846720 per sec. The line scan frequency is 768x85=65280Hz (65.28kHz). greetings Anders sson charles wrote: > Hello Marc, > > but that I do not understand. > > The screen reolution has nothing to do with frequency. > You may run 800x600 or 1024x768, as long as your refreh rate is the same. > With a good monitor, it can be adjusted to 85 Hz. > So, than 800x600 or 1024x768 is still running at 85 Hz. or higher, as you > videocard allows it. > > Greetings, > Claessens > member Verband Baubiologie > http://members.rott.chello.nl/cclaessens/ > http://www.hese-project.org > checked by Norton Antivirus > > > > Re: More Questions > > > >>Certainly frequency is a factor -- for example, I have a different >>reaction to my computer monitor running at 800x600 resolution than 1024x >>768 resolution. The only change there is the frequency... >> >>Marc >> > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 Hi Tig, I have read that the symptom of hyper comes gradually and as such, the patient will only notice of the illness when the hyper is already at an intermediate or advance stage. I would suggest that you go for blood test every month after consuming the drugs ( for the first 3 months), to know if everything is under control. Please read all information regarding the effects of the hyperthyroid drug. Certain antibiotics may not be suitable while consuming hyperthyroid drug. Take care. Best rgds, Pang --- tiggertyme2002 <tiggertyme2002@...> wrote: > Ok guys, > more questions. my blood tests all point to Graves > disease. But I > continues to be cold most of the time (warm is very > foreign to me) If > I work out hard...I may sweat a bit, which is new to > me. I am also > exhausted on the weekends, I feel like I could sleep > all weekend. It > sounds like hyperthyroid would bring extra energy?? > My heart beat is > typically in the 50's, but the last dr's appt was > 100 resting. I > would say consistantly maybe 70's. So my symptoms > are very mild. I am > happy people answer my sulfa allergy question, and I > can feel > comfortable is he wants to put me on the > hyperthyroid meds. > > Thanks all, > Tig > > > ________________________________________________________________________ Messenger - Communicate instantly... " Ping " your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger./download/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 Hi Tig, Please look around Elaine 's site... with I sent you in the scan question. The first two things I notice you need to understand are: 1. T3 lab tests are NOT the ones you want to have done to judge thyroid function. ONLY FreeT3 shows thyroid hormone alone. Same with T4 and FT4. 2. There are many thyroid antibodies. You must find out which antibodies you had tested. No, your Aunt having TED does not put you at greater risk for the eye disease...but it does raise your risk for all autoimmune diseases, and both hypo and hyper thyroid autoimmune disease. You need paper copies of all labs done thus far to attempt to understand possible diagnosis. This is a normal request, and should be automatic. You want lab results... not medical records... there is a difference. -Pam L- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Debbie, I can't speak from personal experience, but my husband had a femoral block with his knee replacement surgery last year. He said it really worked and he did not have any pain from the incesion site for a day. Best wishes on your surgery. Will be thinking and praying for you on Wednesday. > > This is the second time I've sent this, or at least tried about 4 days > ago and for some reason it didn't go through. Anyway, I went for my > preliminary visit, blood tests, ekg, chest x-ray, etc last wed and was > told they would probably do a femoral block and light general. Has > anyone had the femoral block? Your opions? I know its the artery in > the groin area, other than that I don't know much. They did say there > should be no pain from the surg for 8 to 12 hours, which sounds good. > If any one has had this done please let me know what you think. My > total knee is this coming Wed! It's getting here so > fast.... Debbie > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 What's a femoral block? From: lakotaunci [mailto: unci_eagle@...] Joint Replacement Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 02:48:45 -0000 Subject: Re: more questions Debbie, I can't speak from personal experience, but my husband had a femoral block with his knee replacement surgery last year. He said it really worked and he did not have any pain from the incesion site for a day. Best wishes on your surgery. Will be thinking and praying for you on Wednesday. > > This is the second time I've sent this, or at least tried about 4 days > ago and for some reason it didn't go through. Anyway, I went for my > preliminary visit, blood tests, ekg, chest x-ray, etc last wed and was > told they would probably do a femoral block and light general. Has > anyone had the femoral block? Your opions? I know its the artery in > the groin area, other than that I don't know much. They did say there > should be no pain from the surg for 8 to 12 hours, which sounds good. > If any one has had this done please let me know what you think. My > total knee is this coming Wed! It's getting here so > fast.... Debbie > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 My surgeon recommended the femoral nerve block for my TKR last Nov. The anesthesiologist told me that most senstion in the leg travels down that nerve, so blocking it blocks the pain very well. I found that to be true; in fact, there are still a couple of small numb places! I don't know HOW the med " blocks " the nerve, though. Advantage to me over having a general or a spinal: I didn't need a breathing tube, & I woke up easily. Barb in MI Barbara Ward Macomb County, Michigan __________________________________________ DSL – Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Debbie: Here is a link http://depts.washington.edu/anesth/regional/femoraltext.html Googling is Great. Don > Has anyone had the femoral block? . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 Try this site it may answer your question or do a search on Google for fermoral block. http://www.nysora.com/techniques/femoral_nerve_block/ > > > > > What's a femoral block? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2006 Report Share Posted November 27, 2006 Dawn, My name is I will have my band on December 8th I have done so much research looking for the good and the bad the band has such a high success rate that you will not find much negative there will be some that have trouble in the beginning I think the main thing is be very faithful to your Pre Op diet so that your liver shrinks that way the doctor has less trouble getting the band on. Everyone is different some may be very faithful to there diet and still have some trouble after the swelling goes down they all seem to do great!!! I live in Phoenix, Az. So my girl friend and I took a drive to see the facilities my girlfriend works phlebotomy and she was so impressed of how clean and helpful everyone is Dr Campo took the time to give us a tour of the whole Hospital. I feel safe and in good hands I will be there on the 7th and surgery on the 8th I feel that I'm in better hands with this group than any were I have looked so far. If it would make you feel more at ease keep in contact I will let you know how it goes.. bgaroo@... dawn <dawn9368@...> wrote: im really trying to research this whole idea of banding to death. here is my question(s)how do you research a doctor??? i come to this site which is obviously full of happy patients.. which is a great thing, but where do you find out things, has anyone ever had a problem, regret......i have also checked out another group mexicanbandsters here on and they mostly used another doctor and at that site its all pro that doctor,,,, where do you look to find out more.i really dont mean this in a bad/neg way what so ever.... i just want to be sure that i am as happy as all the rest of you and feel like i did my homework into the ground. ya know.one of my biggest things that is scaring me is what happens when you come home and something goes wrong?????? i feel like im shopping around... and its kinda scary when you dont hear anything but happy happy, im really not out looking for trouble, but i wanna be sure that trouble isnt hidden from me either.anyone wanna help me out alittle here. really, happy for all you , you all sound pleased with your choices.dawn Check out the all-new beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Hi Suzanne, Bee doesn't recommend MMS. Her program is all you need to heal your candida. More is NOT better! I think I read that you've only been on Bee's diet a week or so (is that right?). Give it some time. You'll see - it really works just the way it is without adding anything extra. Yes, cancer has been found to be a fungus just like candida. We are not freaking out because by dealing the candida, we are also dealing with the possibility of cancer since they are caused by the same thing - improper diet containing too many toxic elements. I can't comment on your doctor's oxygen machine, but I'm sure Bee will. > > My dr wants me to take miracle mineral solution. Do you know if it is safe? > > My dr also bought an oxygen machine. I forget the technical term for it. WOuld that help my candida? > > I just read a bunch of the candida article linking candida to cancer. That is scary. How do you not freak out thinking you could get that? > > Thanks for your help. > > Suzanne > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 I have been fighting this candida since June. I have been on nystatin and now diflucan. I have been watching my diet very closely the past 3 months. Suzanne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 > <snip> > My dr also bought an oxygen machine. I forget the technical term for it. WOuld that help my candida? +++Hi Suzanne. You do not need anything other than this program to cure your candida. You cannot speed up the healing processes since it still takes 1 month of healing for every year you've been unhealthy and it mainly " proper nutrients " that do the job. +++No, an oxygen machine isn't going to help, and my program contains plenty of oxgenating substances anyway, i.e. vitamin E, niacin (B3), other B vitamins, and vitamin C. The best, Bee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 > > I have been fighting this candida since June. I have been on nystatin and now diflucan. I have been watching my diet very closely the past 3 months. > Hi Suzanne. What is your question? I advise you not to take diflucan since it is extremely hard on your liver. That's why you start taking unrefined coconut oil on my program as your only antifungal, since it also provides so many other health benefits. Besides the fact that Candida cannot be cured by " killing it off. " It just doesn't work that way. Candida is only cured by building up the immune system, which is done by: 1) Consuming " proper nutrients " (diet plus supplements), 2) Eliminating toxins and foods that feed candida (they also feed bacteria and cancer), 3) Eliminating damaging foods, and 4) Eliminating toxins in general. That's why this program works when many other fail. Please ensure you read two important articles so you understand candida, and know what you need to do and why: 1) How to Successfully Overcome Candida http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/intro2.php 2) Curing Candida, How to Get Started http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/intro1.php For encouragement and inspiration see these wonderful Success Stories by members of this group: http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/success/index.php The best, Bee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 I asked if you knew about miracle mineral solution. My dr wants me to try that. Someone else posted their response about it. I responded to that. I guess that is where my question about it got lost. Is there space on this board where we can talk about issues we face with each other? Like how does our spouse feel about it? WOrk issues? how we deal with it emotionally? I feel so alone. > > > <snip> > > My dr also bought an oxygen machine. I forget the technical term for it. WOuld that help my candida? > > +++Hi Suzanne. You do not need anything other than this program to cure your candida. You cannot speed up the healing processes since it still takes 1 month of healing for every year you've been unhealthy and it mainly " proper nutrients " that do the job. > > +++No, an oxygen machine isn't going to help, and my program contains plenty of oxgenating substances anyway, i.e. vitamin E, niacin (B3), other B vitamins, and vitamin C. > > The best, Bee > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 > > I asked if you knew about miracle mineral solution. My dr wants me to try that. Someone else posted their response about it. I responded to that. I guess that is where my question about it got lost. +++Hi Suzanne. Yes, one of my moderators, , answered your question about MMS just fine. > > Is there space on this board where we can talk about issues we face with each other? Like how does our spouse feel about it? WOrk issues? how we deal with it emotionally? I feel so alone. +++You can talk about any issues like that on this group. If you look back on the messages you'll see many posted about people's feelings, dealing with spouses, relatives, friends, and about work. That is why this is called a Support Group. The best, Bee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.