Re: a's Banning -- her statement

[Guest guest]

I think the other moderators (the ones left) are also worried.

The man will be an island very soon.

>

> From a (with her permission to post here) -- she did not resign...

>

> I would like to state that I have been banned from the Marshall

> Protocol website where I used to be a moderator. I have no further

> connection with this website or with Dr. Trevor Marshall.

>

> I was banned because I expressed concern for a patient who had been

> vomiting three days, had elevated kidney tests, and needed IV fluids.

> This patient's doctor had stated these things. When I encouraged this

> patient to follow the doctor's directions, and that minocycline and

> Benicar both can affect kidney function, my post was deleted.

>

> When I protested the deletion of my cautionary message I was banned.

>

> Dr. Marshall wrote me the following warning:

> " There is no way that any of us should be talking in such a manner

> such as might induce a mother to believe that IV fluids are either

> necessary or desirable. "

>

> I replied on this:

> " I did not suggest IV fluids. Her doctor called her and left a

> message on her answering machine to BRING HIM IN FOR IV FLUIDS. I

> suggested she do that NOW. This boy had extreme vomiting for three

> days, elevated markers for kidney malfunction which had existed in

> the past, and needed electrolytes. He remained so dizzy he could not

> stand. I gave this woman NO advice her doctors had not already given

> her…Yet my post was the one deleted. "

>

> I am still on the Marshall Protocol and had encouraging conversations

> with doctors at the Chicago conference. I will be writing an article

> on this for the Wisconsin CFIDS organization that should come out in

> May of this year. I also will be posting some observations about the

> protocol that should be of use to patients on the protocol.

>

> I feel that in order to protect myself and other patients I must

> distance myself from the MP website. I find that I frequently

> disagree with the advice given there, and several of my posts have

> been deleted in the past because of this.

>

> I hear it has been posted at the MP website that they will not

> discuss why I was banned " to protect my privacy. " The information I

> have stated above is the reason I was banned. I am not trying to

> protect my privacy. They are trying to hide the reason why I was

> banned.

>

> a Carnes

>

> >

> > There is the appearance of dishonesty by " Admin "

> >

> > http://marshallprotocol.com/forum11/2426.html

> >

> > Posted: Wed Mar 16th, 2005 09:03

> > a has resigned from the MP site. 

> >

> > Out of respect for Ms. Carnes, any further information will remain

> > private.

> >

> > This topic is now being closed.

> >

> > Thank you,

> >

> > Board Staff

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I SECOND ALL OF THAT

> What's pretty funny to me is the ripple effect each one of these

> acts of censorship creates. Rather than stopping all criticism and

> open discussion, it's multiplying exponentially. Apparently, we

> American's value our right to freedom of speech.

>

> I tried to tell the mp staff from the beginning. Leave the I & I

> site alone, let people have free discussion in one place, and it

> will pretty much stay contained there. If not, it will just be

> spread around to the other sites. Now, with I & I having been

> mysteriously shut down, and the latest round of moderator bannings,

> criticism is spreading to ALL the major sites. Just as I predicted.

> Exactly the opposite effect from what was desired. No one even knew

> that the moderators were having differences; any dischord was

> apparently behind the scenes, but now EVERYONE knows, because

> they've been publicly banned (and apparently publicly insulted as

> well) and it's being announced at all the major lists. If a person

> who engages in such controlling behavior and censorship can't

> understand the ramifications of such actions, can his or her

> judgement really be trusted when it comes to guiding something as

> important as people's health care?

>

> I still have problems with the fact that these moderators stood by

> and watched the same abuses I did, and rather than even acknowledge

> what I was saying months ago, consciously decided to support and

> participate in actions that ended up with people being censored,

> accused of stupidity and non-compliance, verbally abused and

> ridiculed, their privacy violated (ethically) and of course, sued

> for libel.

>

> I'm forgiving, especially since I also fell victim for a while, and

> I'm glad these moderators have apparently begun to see the light,

> but it sure took them a long time, considering it's been going on

> all along. And they were sure less concerned about me and patients

> with problems than I was about them and patients with problems. That

> disregard really concerns me.

>

> So let's see, I think there have now been 6 of us who were former

> moderators of the " site-that-shall-not-be-named " who've all

> officially been banned or have resigned since the site opened not

> all that long ago. Numerous others who have defected, and one who

> was actually sued (UNsuccesffuly). And who knows how many others

> have been threatened with legal action as well?

>

> Wow.

>

> penny

>

> p.s. I heard something really bizarre. Did anyone notice a Teddy

> Bear at the conference?

>

>

> > I think the other moderators (the ones left) are also worried.

> >

> > The man will be an island very soon.

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I have tried to limit my public comments, but I need to say this:

<< I still have problems with the fact that these moderators stood by

and watched the same abuses I did, and rather than even acknowledge

what I was saying months ago, consciously decided to support and

participate in actions

I want to point out that, as Penny may recall, I have been critical

of Trevor's behavior since Penny was still vehemently defending him.

Please don't anyone assume that because I cchose not to comment

publicly that I in any way was supportive of the way people are

treated or information is suppressed at mp.com. I also did not in

any way support the lawsuit against Penny. In fact, when Trevor

requested a phone conference with me to discuss it, I declined.

I stayed with mp.com for as long as I did because I thought that I

had a better chance of improving things from the inside. I exerted

tremendous energy in that regard to the point where I was surprised

that I was not forced to resign, and to the detriment of my own

health, believing that I might actually make a difference. I

resigned when I realized that that belief was actually just a

delusion.

Because I set up mp.com early last summer believing that that format

might better help with data collection, I felt a certain

responsibility for continuing my efforts to make it the board I had

set out to create. Had I known how things would evolve, I never

would have offered to set it up in the first place, and I do not

condone the way it is operated, a process over which I had absolutely

no control in spite of my " Admin " title.

I would just ask that no one make any assumptions or inferences about

my role at mp.com without asking me, privately.

Suzanne

> > I think the other moderators (the ones left) are also worried.

> >

> > The man will be an island very soon.

> >

[Guest guest]

Suzanne, I wasn't really thinking about you in that comment, as you

were always pretty quiet (and even showed concern at what was going

on and privately expressed your reservations). I was really

surprised you hung in there as long as you did, once things became

so blatantly screwed up, but I do recall at a certain point that it

became very clear which side you had chosen. Not mine.

I'm not holding any grudges, I definitely appreciate your not

participating in the legal actions against me, but I would think

that you might understand the anger so many people feel about that,

let alone some residual irritation on my part, consdidering what

I've been through, with no help at all from those who are now saying

many of the same things. None of you coming to my defense when I was

sued on the most ludicrous grounds. Not a peep out of old " friends "

who in fact taunted and ridiculed and accused me of " hurting "

people, just because I supported free speech and asked questions

about the protocol. Who, even after I changed the name of the group

to Infection & Inflammation, continued to badger me about the

content of the discussion, demanding it be shut down while plotting

legal action against me. No apologies, no remorse (except one). I DO

feel tremendous remorse for the part I played in opening this

Pandora's box and letting it loose on a bunch of sick people, and

for being so desperate to get us all well that I bought it, hook,

line and sinker. Not for long though.

Put yourself in my shoes. I've certainly made mistakes and I've

tried to be understanding of the mistakes of others. Some things I

can understand, others not so well.

penny

> > > I think the other moderators (the ones left) are also worried.

> > >

> > > The man will be an island very soon.

> > >

[Guest guest]

Penny:

I may not have communicated directly with you, but I put up a

tremendous defense of you (and others) behind the scenes. By the

time he was planning a lawsuit, I knew that train was out of the

station and nothing I could do would bring it back.

Believe me when I say that I understand all the anger out there,

especially yours. I hope you can understand and respect why I might

not want to get in the middle of it.

Suzanne

> > > > I think the other moderators (the ones left) are also worried.

> > > >

> > > > The man will be an island very soon.

> > > >

[Guest guest]

I appreciate that. I knew you'd get fed up, just as I did. I also

knew that you were in a bit of a bind, wanting to do the protocol,

knowing that any dissension on your part could cause you to lose

access to information on the protocol. I didnt' care because I'd

already lost confidence in the protocol dogma. I also realize that

people don't get banned for keeping their mouths shut, or resign if

things are peachy.

I'm glad you're being upfront about your resignation now. Hopefully,

this will be a big learning experience for our entire community. I

know there have been some strange conflicts in the past, but I don't

think I've ever seen such a public brouhaha in all my years in the

PWC community.

penny

" dogdazedntx " <dogdazedntx@y...> wrote:

>

> Penny:

>

> I may not have communicated directly with you, but I put up a

> tremendous defense of you (and others) behind the scenes.

[Guest guest]

Hi Penny:

I've never really been concerned about losing access to information

on the protocol. I'm not sure that that is very smart of me, but (1)

though I do believe I am herxing (increased fatigue and pain), I

haven't had a rough time of it and figure I can follow the current

guidelines without difficulty; and (2) I have not tried many/most of

the other options available to Lyme patients and my attitude is that

if this doesn't work, well, ok, cross that one off at least for now

and it's on to the next trick.

For many people, though, the Marshall Protocol comes after they have

tried many other treatments and represents a (perceived, if not real)

last hope. Since I had created the board, I felt a certain sense of

obligation and it was for those people that I continued on as long as

I did. I did try to make amends for public lashings by others with

private communications, but ultimately was not able to effect any

meaningful changes in how people are treated which is ultimately what

needs to change in order for people to get the support they need.

At the time, I chose not to speak publicly believing that it would

undermine my internal efforts. I stayed quiet until now because,

until a Carnes and Tx Lyme Mom were forced out, I still had some

hope, if small, that their efforts might lead to changes.

I really am not comfortable discussing this publicly now, but

especially with recent events, it became important to me to set the

record straight as regards my own involvement.

Suzanne

> >

> > Penny:

> >

> > I may not have communicated directly with you, but I put up a

> > tremendous defense of you (and others) behind the scenes.