Re: Fact, fantasy and psychotic delusion. They are different.

[Guest guest]

Just to add my two cents worth.

Angelman relates the following regarding his discovery of " his "

syndrome:

" The history of medicine is full of interesting stories about the

discovery of illnesses. The saga of Angelman's Syndrome is one such

story. It was purely by chance that nearly thirty years ago three

handicapped children were admitted at various times to my children's

ward in England. They had a variety of disabilities and although at

first sight they seemed to be suffering from different conditions I

felt that there was a common cause for their illness. The diagnosis

was purely a clinical one because In spite of technical

investigations, which today are more refined, I was unable to

establish scientific proof that the three children all had the same

handicap. In view of this I hesitated to write about them in the

medical journals. However, when on holiday in Italy 1 happened to

see an oil painting in the Castelvecchio museum in Verona

called . . . a Boy with a Puppet. The boy's laughing face and the

fact that my patients exhibited jerky movements gave me the idea of

writing an article about the three children with a title of Puppet

Children. It was not a name that pleased all parents but it served

as a means of combining the three little patients into a single

group. Later the name was changed to Angelman syndrome. This article

was published in 1965 and after some initial interest lay almost

forgotten until the early eighties. "

Personal correspondence, 1991

The picture referred to is by Gian Francesco Caroto (1480-1555.

The point of me sharing this with you all is because, YOU all have a

child that was poisoned by mercury, If you have a child with Autism

and you chelate this child, And he gets better from removing mercury

from his body, What does this tell you? Like the article

mentioned.. " The history of medicine is full of interesting stories

about the discovery of illnesses. " Harry Angelman didnt do any

testing...He used observation!!

When you watch a child go from being autistic to being a healthy

child from chelation this is observation. This is FACTS. Why doesnt

the FDA and the CDC see this...Im sure there not blind, I just dont

know how they can sleep at night knowing they are allowing more and

more children to suffer. Human nature is a funny thing, I believe

some are born without a concience.

Donna

> > >>>> We know that mercury does accumulate in the body and in the

> > brain.

> >

> > Okay, Jo just posted twice that it did not stay in the brain

(the new

> > information presented)...this is a contradiction that needs

> > addressing. So...does it or does it not

>

> It does. To assert otherwise requires either a complete lack of

> relevant technical knowledge which would lead a reasonable person

to

> not offer opinions, or otherwise some disturbance of consciousness

or

> cognition.

>

> >...and how is this known either way?

>

> By cutting open dead people and analyzing their brains long after

> poisoning occurred.

>

> In a scientific sense, the only facts are repeated observations

and

> this one is all over the literature as observed by many

investigators.

> One does have to actually read it rather than just abstracts on

> medline, though.

>

> > It might be unknowable either way and all of this is

> > speculation. But both views are presented as fact.

>

> One view is factual, the other depends on ignorant arrogance or

> misperception of reality. This one is not open to question for

any

> reasonable person who checks.

>

> > >>>> We know that DMSA is an anti-oxidant that removes heavy

metals

> > from the body. The thought expressed last weekend in NY, as I

> > understood it, is that other anti-oxidants will also help the

body

> > to rid itself of heavy metals,

>

> Another delusion.

>

> > especially when used as part of a

> > protocol designed to increase glutathione production.

>

> Yet another delusion, though this one is somewhat less nutso since

it

> only depends on people not knowing much physiology (e. g. as any

DAN!

> doctor who injects glutathione clearly demonstrates they do not)

and

> possibly getting confused about the details of what happens in

> experimental conditions described in journal papers versus the

actual

> conditions inside toxic people. Even those few who read the

journal

> papers are sometimes confused (those who read abstracts have no

hope of

> figuring it out) since to read a journal paper, as anything else,

> requires a lot of relevant background knowledge.

>

> > I didn't realize that there was a stance by some that anti-

oxidants

> > or any other detox mechanism could *not* remove some metals as

part

> > of all the gunk they remove.

>

> Now you do. Some of us believe in portraying scientific reality

> accurately in hopes people can use it to get better rather than

> blathering out marketing blurbs that basically say everything

works as

> long as you pay a doctor a lot of money to prescribe it.

>

> > To name just one easy example: Isn't

> > that why ALA is given and ALA is referred to as the universal

> > antioxidant?

>

> No.

>

> ALA is given since it is a chelator selective for mercury, arsenic

and

> related metals, and removes them from inside cells, specifically

brain

> cells.

>

> Another entirely separate effect of ALA is that it exports

reducing

> equivalents from the mitochondria and elevates cysteine levels,

which

> is how it has its antioxidant effect.

>

> It is NOT a universal antioxidant, it is a specific and selective

one.

> Piling marketing pitches on top of each other is not helpful in

> assisting those who want to get their kids better rather than

enrich

> doctors and supplement companies.

>

> > So maybe it was just new for those folks.

>

> Reality is new for a lot of folks in medicine. Look at how many

> doctors are still in denial about thimerosal and vaccines causing

> autism.

>

> > >>>> Noone is saying this is gospel and nothing applies to

everyone

> >

> > Great. That seems very consistent with human beings and history.

>

> This is not strictly correct. Some general rules do apply. Nobody

can

> pick up a caddilac with one hand. Nobody can swallow a gram of

cyanide

> and survive. Nobody can hold their breath for a day. There are

the

> things all humans have in common (they can or can't do it) and the

> things that not everyone has in common. The issue is when someone

> idiotically insists everyone is the same and so there is nothing

> relevant that some people can do and others can't, e. g. some

people

> can be injected with lots of thimerosal and not get brain damage,

so

> thimerosal must be safe for humans, or some people can chelate

with 10

> mg/kg DMSA every 8 hours and not get worse brain damage so

everyone

> can.

>

> > But

> > it was presented as fact without this huge and very important

> > disclaimer - that it is just proposed theory and speculation at

this

> > point, right?

>

> In a scientific sense, no theories are ever facts. Only

observations

> are facts, and then only if repeatable. So the real question is

> whether the theory was presented as scientifically legitimate when

it

> is contradicted by observations the presenter just doesn't like,

or

> whether a simpler theory is adequate to explain the facts.

>

> > If not, a great deal of explanation is being left out.

>

> This is usually the case. However at some point it becomes the

> listerner's obligation to go learn it since it is unreasonable to

> expect the presnter to spoon feed everyone with remedial

knowledge.

> The presenter's obligation stops at the point where they have

clearly

> and completely explained their theory and the factual

(observational)

> basis of it.

>

> > And it makes it sound like the 'researchers' really don't know

what

> > is going on,

>

> As a rule, if people knew what was going on they wouldn't be doing

> resarch. Which is not to say anything critical of them, it is to

point

> out the tautology that research is the process of learning, and

when

> engaged in it one has not learned the answers yet. Areas of

current

> research are exactly the areas of great confusion (in medicine and

all

> other fields) and it is unreasonable to expect it to all be sorted

out.

>

> >or back-peddling, or retracting things that were

> > previously stated as facts.

>

> The confusion as to what " fact " means is important here.

>

> All scientific theories are falsifiable, the fate of most of them

is to

> be falsified promptly. The legitimate scientist is the first one

to

> point out that the theory they advanced last week has now been

> falsified by observations and needs a replacement theory.

>

> > And if those things were wrong, how do we

> > know that other things stated as fact aren't also wrong. This is

the

> > slippery slope.

>

> It helps a lot to understand the basic philosophy behind the

> discussion, e. g. that scienice does not hvae any true theories.

>

> It also helps to study and understand as best you can.

>

> There is always risk and uncertainty. Decisionmaking in the face

of

> uncertainty is always scary.

>

> My experience has been that intelligence is a lot less of an issue

than

> being intellectually calm and open minded. Figuring things out

the

> first time is very hard, but checking to see if they are right is

a lot

> easier. Kinda like solving integral or differential equations.

Most

> anyone with a year or two of calculus can check and tell the

solution

> is correct, yet many seemingly simple ones stay unsolved for

centuries

> awaiting a stroke of genius. Once it hits, lots of people can

check.

>

> People who focus on what is going on, what is real observation,

does it

> make sense, can get this figured out adequately in most cases to

make a

> lot of progress. It all starts with the realization that

obsrvations

> are facts, theories are not.

>

> > .

>

> Andy . . .. . . . . . .

[Guest guest]

> The point of me sharing this with you all is because, YOU all have a

> child that was poisoned by mercury, If you have a child with Autism

> and you chelate this child, And he gets better from removing mercury

> from his body, What does this tell you? Like the article

> mentioned.. " The history of medicine is full of interesting stories

> about the discovery of illnesses. " Harry Angelman didnt do any

> testing...He used observation!!

He practiced scientific medicine.

> When you watch a child go from being autistic to being a healthy

> child from chelation this is observation. This is FACTS. Why doesnt

> the FDA and the CDC see this...Im sure there not blind,

Choices:

They are satanically evil (I don't for a moment believe this);

They have a religious belief in their " system, " which makes the

psychotic delusion that what they see in front of them didn't actually

happen socially acceptable and lets them ignore the stories of

nonbelievers.

> I just dont

> know how they can sleep at night knowing they are allowing more and

> more children to suffer.

Denial is quite powerful. Delusions even more so.

> Human nature is a funny thing,

Yes, and due to it those who don't know history are doomed to repeat

it. Unfortunately the rest of us are along for the ride if they passed

laws in their favor, as happened in medicine.

> I believe some are born without a concience.

The problem with evil is its sheer banality. It mostly consists of

going along with what is happening, working togehter with your

colleagues, and not making everyone uncomfortable with tough questions

and moral discussions of whether what you are doing really is right.

It is the same way DAN! continues to support their insane chelation

protocol even though most members of the protocol committee who

developed it have since abandoned it. They just go through the motions

and act out of respect and concern for each other's feelings. They're

not hurting kids because they are bad people any more than the

pediatricians who vaccinated them or the FDA and CDC people who got the

vaccines approved and mandated did it because of being bad people.

In order to make progress (moral or technical) hard questions have to

be asked that usually result in the answer of " I shouldn't have been

doing it that way. " Most people aren't comfortable thinking about that

kind of thing. They'd rather just have rules and procedures to follow.

Which is how we got in this mess in the first place, and how a lot of

doctors are perpetuating it, on both sides of the maintstream-

alternative divide.

> Donna

Andy . . . . .. . . . .

[Guest guest]

My impression was that DMSA is not an antioxidant, that it actually

causes oxidative stress and this is why it should be taken in

conjunction with antioxidants and other supps.

Many mercury-toxic adults believe mercury stayed in their brains and

chelation is removing it. My observations of chelation on my son are

that it is a very different process than dosing with antioxidants. I

know a blind alley when I see one and I'm not going to waste time on

these ideas, even though I believe the Jill protocol itself is

worth investigating.

No doubt antioxidants that boost glutathione would help a long and

slow detox that might eventually, one day, lead to the excretion of

heavy metals. But do you really want to take decades to treat a very

nasty problem? Even chelation in conjunction with antioxidants can

take years to reach its full effect. Adults can make their own

decisions, but childhood is too short and too precious to waste with

dithering. I know what's working and I'm going to stick with it. I'm

always looking for ways to fine-tune my son's treatment but I'm not

going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Steve

[Guest guest]

Hi Donna,

what exactly is Angelmans syndrome and does anyone know its cause?

[ ] Re: Fact, fantasy and psychotic delusion. They are

different.

Just to add my two cents worth.

Angelman relates the following regarding his discovery of " his "

syndrome:

" The history of medicine is full of interesting stories about the

discovery of illnesses. The saga of Angelman's Syndrome is one such

story. It was purely by chance that nearly thirty years ago three

handicapped children were admitted at various times to my children's

ward in England. They had a variety of disabilities and although at

first sight they seemed to be suffering from different conditions I

felt that there was a common cause for their illness. The diagnosis

was purely a clinical one because In spite of technical

investigations, which today are more refined, I was unable to

establish scientific proof that the three children all had the same

handicap. In view of this I hesitated to write about them in the

medical journals. However, when on holiday in Italy 1 happened to

see an oil painting in the Castelvecchio museum in Verona

called . . . a Boy with a Puppet. The boy's laughing face and the

fact that my patients exhibited jerky movements gave me the idea of

writing an article about the three children with a title of Puppet

Children. It was not a name that pleased all parents but it served

as a means of combining the three little patients into a single

group. Later the name was changed to Angelman syndrome. This article

was published in 1965 and after some initial interest lay almost

forgotten until the early eighties. "

Personal correspondence, 1991

The picture referred to is by Gian Francesco Caroto (1480-1555.

The point of me sharing this with you all is because, YOU all have a

child that was poisoned by mercury, If you have a child with Autism

and you chelate this child, And he gets better from removing mercury

from his body, What does this tell you? Like the article

mentioned.. " The history of medicine is full of interesting stories

about the discovery of illnesses. " Harry Angelman didnt do any

testing...He used observation!!

When you watch a child go from being autistic to being a healthy

child from chelation this is observation. This is FACTS. Why doesnt

the FDA and the CDC see this...Im sure there not blind, I just dont

know how they can sleep at night knowing they are allowing more and

more children to suffer. Human nature is a funny thing, I believe

some are born without a concience.

Donna

> > >>>> We know that mercury does accumulate in the body and in the

> > brain.

> >

> > Okay, Jo just posted twice that it did not stay in the brain

(the new

> > information presented)...this is a contradiction that needs

> > addressing. So...does it or does it not

>

> It does. To assert otherwise requires either a complete lack of

> relevant technical knowledge which would lead a reasonable person

to

> not offer opinions, or otherwise some disturbance of consciousness

or

> cognition.

>

> >...and how is this known either way?

>

> By cutting open dead people and analyzing their brains long after

> poisoning occurred.

>

> In a scientific sense, the only facts are repeated observations

and

> this one is all over the literature as observed by many

investigators.

> One does have to actually read it rather than just abstracts on

> medline, though.

>

> > It might be unknowable either way and all of this is

> > speculation. But both views are presented as fact.

>

> One view is factual, the other depends on ignorant arrogance or

> misperception of reality. This one is not open to question for

any

> reasonable person who checks.

>

> > >>>> We know that DMSA is an anti-oxidant that removes heavy

metals

> > from the body. The thought expressed last weekend in NY, as I

> > understood it, is that other anti-oxidants will also help the

body

> > to rid itself of heavy metals,

>

> Another delusion.

>

> > especially when used as part of a

> > protocol designed to increase glutathione production.

>

> Yet another delusion, though this one is somewhat less nutso since

it

> only depends on people not knowing much physiology (e. g. as any

DAN!

> doctor who injects glutathione clearly demonstrates they do not)

and

> possibly getting confused about the details of what happens in

> experimental conditions described in journal papers versus the

actual

> conditions inside toxic people. Even those few who read the

journal

> papers are sometimes confused (those who read abstracts have no

hope of

> figuring it out) since to read a journal paper, as anything else,

> requires a lot of relevant background knowledge.

>

> > I didn't realize that there was a stance by some that anti-

oxidants

> > or any other detox mechanism could *not* remove some metals as

part

> > of all the gunk they remove.

>

> Now you do. Some of us believe in portraying scientific reality

> accurately in hopes people can use it to get better rather than

> blathering out marketing blurbs that basically say everything

works as

> long as you pay a doctor a lot of money to prescribe it.

>

> > To name just one easy example: Isn't

> > that why ALA is given and ALA is referred to as the universal

> > antioxidant?

>

> No.

>

> ALA is given since it is a chelator selective for mercury, arsenic

and

> related metals, and removes them from inside cells, specifically

brain

> cells.

>

> Another entirely separate effect of ALA is that it exports

reducing

> equivalents from the mitochondria and elevates cysteine levels,

which

> is how it has its antioxidant effect.

>

> It is NOT a universal antioxidant, it is a specific and selective

one.

> Piling marketing pitches on top of each other is not helpful in

> assisting those who want to get their kids better rather than

enrich

> doctors and supplement companies.

>

> > So maybe it was just new for those folks.

>

> Reality is new for a lot of folks in medicine. Look at how many

> doctors are still in denial about thimerosal and vaccines causing

> autism.

>

> > >>>> Noone is saying this is gospel and nothing applies to

everyone

> >

> > Great. That seems very consistent with human beings and history.

>

> This is not strictly correct. Some general rules do apply. Nobody

can

> pick up a caddilac with one hand. Nobody can swallow a gram of

cyanide

> and survive. Nobody can hold their breath for a day. There are

the

> things all humans have in common (they can or can't do it) and the

> things that not everyone has in common. The issue is when someone

> idiotically insists everyone is the same and so there is nothing

> relevant that some people can do and others can't, e. g. some

people

> can be injected with lots of thimerosal and not get brain damage,

so

> thimerosal must be safe for humans, or some people can chelate

with 10

> mg/kg DMSA every 8 hours and not get worse brain damage so

everyone

> can.

>

> > But

> > it was presented as fact without this huge and very important

> > disclaimer - that it is just proposed theory and speculation at

this

> > point, right?

>

> In a scientific sense, no theories are ever facts. Only

observations

> are facts, and then only if repeatable. So the real question is

> whether the theory was presented as scientifically legitimate when

it

> is contradicted by observations the presenter just doesn't like,

or

> whether a simpler theory is adequate to explain the facts.

>

> > If not, a great deal of explanation is being left out.

>

> This is usually the case. However at some point it becomes the

> listerner's obligation to go learn it since it is unreasonable to

> expect the presnter to spoon feed everyone with remedial

knowledge.

> The presenter's obligation stops at the point where they have

clearly

> and completely explained their theory and the factual

(observational)

> basis of it.

>

> > And it makes it sound like the 'researchers' really don't know

what

> > is going on,

>

> As a rule, if people knew what was going on they wouldn't be doing

> resarch. Which is not to say anything critical of them, it is to

point

> out the tautology that research is the process of learning, and

when

> engaged in it one has not learned the answers yet. Areas of

current

> research are exactly the areas of great confusion (in medicine and

all

> other fields) and it is unreasonable to expect it to all be sorted

out.

>

> >or back-peddling, or retracting things that were

> > previously stated as facts.

>

> The confusion as to what " fact " means is important here.

>

> All scientific theories are falsifiable, the fate of most of them

is to

> be falsified promptly. The legitimate scientist is the first one

to

> point out that the theory they advanced last week has now been

> falsified by observations and needs a replacement theory.

>

> > And if those things were wrong, how do we

> > know that other things stated as fact aren't also wrong. This is

the

> > slippery slope.

>

> It helps a lot to understand the basic philosophy behind the

> discussion, e. g. that scienice does not hvae any true theories.

>

> It also helps to study and understand as best you can.

>

> There is always risk and uncertainty. Decisionmaking in the face

of

> uncertainty is always scary.

>

> My experience has been that intelligence is a lot less of an issue

than

> being intellectually calm and open minded. Figuring things out

the

> first time is very hard, but checking to see if they are right is

a lot

> easier. Kinda like solving integral or differential equations.

Most

> anyone with a year or two of calculus can check and tell the

solution

> is correct, yet many seemingly simple ones stay unsolved for

centuries

> awaiting a stroke of genius. Once it hits, lots of people can

check.

>

> People who focus on what is going on, what is real observation,

does it

> make sense, can get this figured out adequately in most cases to

make a

> lot of progress. It all starts with the realization that

obsrvations

> are facts, theories are not.

>

> > .

>

> Andy . . .. . . . . . .

=======================================================