Re: Re: Medical Research on Cilantro

March 14, 2005

On this list. Otherwise about 99.9% of the people in the world who

even think about it assume autism is a rare genetic disorder.

Well we were talking on list. Can I assume you have actually gone out and

counted these people and numbers? Last I heard there was no such thing as a

genetic pandemic and in the news lately, the movement has been away, from what I

have seen at least, from this propaganda and spin. Also the word rare and

pandemic seem somewhat in conflict...........

You sound like something best not mentioned in polite company.

Well I see you have gained some control over your mouth congradulations.

Mark, actually

sound a lot more knowledgeable and coherent than Omura does in this

paper.

Well thanks I will take my bow Andy. Or perhaps you should take a bow for

managing to use me to trash someone else.

This is another example of " PubMed abuse, " or " mental masturbation "

conducted using pubmed on the internet rather than a chat room.

Andy it just becomes clearer and clearer that you have this desperate need to

trash everyone and anything that does not fit your view of the chelation

universe. Its kind of sad to see this happening in front of so many people who

come to the group in desperate need of enlightened communication on the subject.

It was just clear the Omura found cilantro useful...........very simple.....and

even went into your ballpark by having a pharmaceutical company it seems make up

tablets which inferred some kind of standardized dose and probably frequence of

administration as well. I thought you would have liked that part.

it is quite surprising how seldom

they bear any real relationship to the abstract!

I have not been surprised at all in this area Andy. Most of the research I have

read and researchers I have talked to seem pretty straight with their

presentations. Yes I agree some have trouble with clear language and

communication making it difficult to read and get to the main point.

Andy this is what I just received, in part, in a private email, from someone in

the group.

This is a closed group, it is not about chelating mercury, it is about Andy

Cutler's DMSA protocol and how to follow his plans. They are not open to

disputing his plan, and his followers will always try to trash any foreign

thought. Isn't it funny to hear Steve, first demand unconditional proof and

peer reviewed studies on Rashid's work and then in the next breath here comes

Andy stating how ridiculous it is to look to Pubmed for studies on anything

related to discussions, and that chat rooms are better for finding info. Of

course, both are needed, and valuable, with reservation . But it proves that

you just can't win with this group, and that they are not going to listen to

anything you say.

I found that a reasonable assessment. Now what are we going to do about this

Andy? Personally I am conserving my time and energy by skipping through most of

the mail and feeling out which ones might be verbal landminds and not even

bothering stepping into them. That works for me but it does not work for the

group I imagine. I have no ready answer or plan of action except a withdrawl

from reading and responding to certain people. I think our consciousness should

be put on the thousands of people here and the many newcomers.......certainly

they do not deserve this verbal tennis match.....

I will, at least for now continue to read your mail and see what is interesting

to see in the archives and perhaps even respond in the group to you about it. If

there is nothing interesting and productive along those lines then perhaps I

will just continue to publish my writings and read and respond to the 99 percent

in the group who are not part of your intimate circle of supporters. Perhaps

that number is an understatement, I doubt that there are 40 people in the group

who qualify like Moria and TK and Steve do. I do respect that there are a lot

of people who have been helped by you or are, most importantly, in the process.

I do not believe that those who are giving your protocol a chance need you or

the others fighting defensively for what is yours already.

I do think it is significant what is happening in this group though. I am like

an investigative reporter in part of my work and communicate through the IMVA to

many health care practitioners and doctors around the world and through many

groups to lots of people. And since I am writing and will be publishing a lot

about the world of detox and chelation it is both useful and intersting to see

what is happening in the largest virtual group dedicated to the subject and also

what one of the main players, meaning you, is up to. To your credit I will do

the best I can to highlight your work with ALA at least and try to ignore as

much I can what is best to be ignored.

By the way I was delighted to see when I went in to look at the past archives

for this group on the search engine recommended to do that http://onibasu.com/

to see my essay on using the skin for detoxification featured there.

Mark

March 14, 2005

A truer comment has not been said on this newsgroup. I have read so many

abstracts and been stunned to see how different the paper is itself. This

is why I never cite papers without reading the entire article instead of

just the abstract as many researchers do. I have seen people in the lab

business cite a paper to prove one of their " products " and when you read the

paper it shows that the opposite of what they thought it did.

Mark Schauss, MBA, DB

www.carbonbased.com

[ ] Re: Medical Research on Cilantro

And for those who do read the papers it is quite surprising how seldom

they bear any real relationship to the abstract!

March 14, 2005

Mark,

In all due respect for your idealism, realists among us have learned

from the CDC, FDA, USDA, IOM, and AAP. If data aren't consistent with

an organization's or corporation's intentions or with their

billion-dollar budgets, alter the data. If a study finds that tens of

thousands of people have been injured or killed by a particular

pharmaceutical, then bury the data, harass and silence the researcher.

In contrast, if several people nationwide appear to have had an adverse

reaction to a supplement, by all means close down the factory if

possible. Similarly, if a company (eg, Kirkman's) mentions that taurine

can be beneficial for individuals with gastro problems, then send in

armed troops to close the factory, confiscate its files (yep, that

happened). Thus, the basis for modern knowledge is fiction: regardless

of what studies say, the ultimate goals are pharmco sales and pharmco

profits. As have many bigwigs at the CDC, FDA, USDA, IOM, and AAP, join

the club, and club the populace. " Truth " and validity are quite

secondary to the will of pharmcos and what we all had mistakenly

believed to be " regulatory " agencies.

Mark Schauss wrote:

>A truer comment has not been said on this newsgroup. I have read so many

>abstracts and been stunned to see how different the paper is itself. This

>is why I never cite papers without reading the entire article instead of

>just the abstract as many researchers do. I have seen people in the lab

>business cite a paper to prove one of their " products " and when you read the

>paper it shows that the opposite of what they thought it did.

>

>Mark Schauss, MBA, DB

>

>www.carbonbased.com

>

March 14, 2005

,

My comments have nothing to do with idealism. If anything, the only way to

decipher data is to read the whole article and not the abstract. This is

how you uncover the truths. Your comments have little to do with what I

said. I am quite familiar with the problems with big pharma because I have

first hand knowledge of how they manipulate data as I worked in the industry

and saw how they did it. Also, I have a nutritional supplement company and

am very aware of the problems with the regulatory industry.

My comment was that we need to look at the data and not take what the

abstract say for granted. Nothing more than that. Don't know why you said

what you did.

Mark Schauss

Re: [ ] Re: Medical Research on Cilantro