Guest guest Posted April 29, 2000 Report Share Posted April 29, 2000 Dear egroup list, I subscribed to this list, because Tim Bolen sent me a vicious email, one which he also sent to this list. I have looked at this week's email, and see where I am being talked about in an unfavorable and inaccurate way. I am here to try and defend myself, and soon I hope to be unsubscribed. If the professional public relations man who is working for Dr. was trying to lure me here for some reason, well it has worked. It's true I am presently working as a house painter, but there is more to me than that. I am not a professional PR man like Tim Bolen, so please remember he may have the advantage over all of us in this medium of words. Leo Regehr has said some things about me below. Some of it is true, and some isn't. I'll try and point out the inaccuracies. > You have put it well. Something that is unsafe outside the mouth but > then is safe in the mouth, is the craziest proposition I can imagine. ***** Leo is referring to something Jan Drew attributed to me. I think Jan got it wrong, as I don't recall saying anything like this. I hope she will try to clarify the matter for us. ***** > > Here is my experience with Bill Ross. I had given him Bill the names > and phone numbers of three cancer patients who had been cured (or > vastly improved) after taking 's therapy, and who had refused > conventional treatment. I did this because Bill Ross had challenged > me > to come up with proof that it worked. > > Well, he did phone all three of them. He came back with (and I > summarize here): > > 1. Not enough names. There should be hundreds (or thousands) of names > and phone numbers for him to check. ***** Leo, I hoped you could have done better than these 3 cases. They are not very convincing at all. ***** > > 2. Person " 1 " had been cured too recently to be counted, ***** Leo, I think this is a reasonable statement. As I recall, this man had prostate cancer that was not very advanced. How do we know he is truly cured? I don't like to be pessimistic, but I try to be reasonable. If he lives a long time cancer free, maybe Dr. 's methods saved him, and maybe it was something else. If he fails in the future, what will you say, he didn't follow all of Dr. 's protocols? ***** > > 3. Person " 2 " 's doctor figured he might still have a malignancy, ***** Leo. This is true. This man in Canada was also a relatively recent case, and he did not sound very confident about being cured when I spoke to him. Why did you give me such a dubious case as something to back up Dr. 's track record? ***** > > 4. Person " 3 " ' hadn't been to her doctor lately for a checkup. ***** Leo, This woman's statements about having had several different cancers over a number of years sounded unconvincing to me. And I don't think she used Dr. 's methods to evercome those previous cancers. Her explanations to me were confusing, and I didn't think her information sounded convincing. ***** > > So for these reasons Bill told me, he would continue to oppose > Hulda's > claims and treatments wherever he could. > > AT NO TIME did Bill Ross attempt to account for why they were still > alive or so healthy today. Nor did he express any joy in their > recoveries. ***** Leo, It's hard for me to know whether Dr. has anything to do with these people being alive. I live in Ohio. Two of these people live in Canada, and one in California. It cost me over $60.00 to talk with the 2 in Canada. I believe all of these people have had some conventional cancer treatment, and as you state, at least one of the 3 still worries he may have cancer. With the other 2, it is hard to know if they are cured or in remission. I thought my conversations with these people went very well as far as being congenial. They were all friendly people, and I believe I did express happiness to the 2 who believed they were cured. As for the 3rd person, I don't recall if I expressed " joy " for his prediciment or not. ***** > My own father died of cancer. Now, I value health more because of > that > sad event. But Bill Ross expressed no appreciation or value for the > patients who had recovered from terminal cancer. ***** Leo, I am truly sorry that your father died of cancer. I lost my mother to breast cancer in 1997, and I know it is very painful. ***** > > When I saw what I thought to be such a total disregard for the > wellbeing of these people who had been left to die, I lost all > respect > for Bill Ross, and the people he associates with. ***** Whatever you " thought " you " saw " , I did not have " a total disregard for the wellbing of these people. " Why are your saying that about me?! ***** I had to see it > (his > attitude) for myself, and did I ever see it! > > But I decided to learn something from my experience with Bill Ross. I > now require the skeptics and cynics first of all, to define what they > mean by " proof " , what kind of sample size the need, etc, etc., before > I place names and phone numbers at their disposal. I will not again > be > part of an exercize in futility. My time is far to valuable. > > I hope the recounting of my experience will help someone else. > Best wishes, > Leo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2000 Report Share Posted April 29, 2000 Tim and Jan Bolen wrote: > All: > > More opinion from Tim Bolen... > > It is the dedicated quackpot's job to dis-inform. > > Barrett's pathetic parrott, Bill Ross, wants us all to > believe that someone other than he, himself, is > resonsible for his mother's death - because he didn't > believe in " alternative methods " and wouldn't act to > help, or support, his mother in her time of desperate > need. Even though his mother was trying desparately > to get that help. Somehow, in his strange, twisted, > logic, that makes Hulda , to him, a " quack. " *** There's much more to the story than this Tim. It amazes me how cruelly and publicly you are going after me about my own mother's death. Maybe this is a clever tactic you public relations professionals use, but I don't understand it. *** > > > Huh? > > Dump this jerk from the list. There is an old adage > - " If someone hears you arguing with a fool, they may > not be able to tell which is which. " That applies > here. Don't give Ross any of your time. > *** Trying to tell the list members what to do? Maybe they want to think and act on their own. " Don't give Ross any of your time. " he implores. *** > > To me, Bill Ross is a man who can't accept > resonsibility for his own actions (or lack of > actions). > > I'm not his priest - and I'm not forgiving of him. > He's the one who has to live with what he did. > > Tim Bolen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2000 Report Share Posted April 29, 2000 All: More opinion from Tim Bolen... It is the dedicated quackpot's job to dis-inform. Barrett's pathetic parrott, Bill Ross, wants us all to believe that someone other than he, himself, is resonsible for his mother's death - because he didn't believe in " alternative methods " and wouldn't act to help, or support, his mother in her time of desperate need. Even though his mother was trying desparately to get that help. Somehow, in his strange, twisted, logic, that makes Hulda , to him, a " quack. " Huh? Dump this jerk from the list. There is an old adage - " If someone hears you arguing with a fool, they may not be able to tell which is which. " That applies here. Don't give Ross any of your time. To me, Bill Ross is a man who can't accept resonsibility for his own actions (or lack of actions). I'm not his priest - and I'm not forgiving of him. He's the one who has to live with what he did. Tim Bolen --- rossviva@... wrote: > Dear egroup list, > > I subscribed to this list, because Tim Bolen sent me > a vicious email, > one which he also sent to this list. I have looked > at this week's > email, and see where I am being talked about in an > unfavorable and > inaccurate way. I am here to try and defend myself, > and soon I hope > to be unsubscribed. If the professional public > relations man who is > working for Dr. was trying to lure me here for > some reason, > well > it has worked. It's true I am presently working as > a house painter, > but there is more to me than that. I am not a > professional PR man > like Tim Bolen, so please remember he may have the > advantage over all > of us in this medium of words. > > Leo Regehr has said some things about me below. > Some of it is true, > and some isn't. I'll try and point out the > inaccuracies. > > > > You have put it well. Something that is unsafe > outside the mouth > but > > then is safe in the mouth, is the craziest > proposition I can > imagine. > > ***** Leo is referring to something Jan Drew > attributed to me. I > think Jan got it wrong, as I don't recall saying > anything like this. > I hope she will try to clarify the matter for us. > ***** > > > > Here is my experience with Bill Ross. I had given > him Bill the > names > > and phone numbers of three cancer patients who had > been cured (or > > vastly improved) after taking 's therapy, and > who had refused > > conventional treatment. I did this because Bill > Ross had challenged > > me > > to come up with proof that it worked. > > > > Well, he did phone all three of them. He came back > with (and I > > summarize here): > > > > 1. Not enough names. There should be hundreds (or > thousands) of > names > > and phone numbers for him to check. > > ***** Leo, I hoped you could have done better than > these 3 cases. > They are not very convincing at all. ***** > > > > 2. Person " 1 " had been cured too recently to be > counted, > > ***** Leo, I think this is a reasonable statement. > As I recall, this > man had prostate cancer that was not very advanced. > How do we know > he > is truly cured? I don't like to be pessimistic, but > I try to be > reasonable. If he lives a long time cancer free, > maybe Dr. 's > methods saved him, and maybe it was something else. > If he fails in > the future, what will you say, he didn't follow all > of Dr. 's > protocols? ***** > > > > 3. Person " 2 " 's doctor figured he might still have > a malignancy, > > ***** Leo. This is true. This man in Canada was > also a relatively > recent case, and he did not sound very confident > about being cured > when I spoke to him. Why did you give me such a > dubious case as > something to back up Dr. 's track record? ***** > > > > 4. Person " 3 " ' hadn't been to her doctor lately > for a checkup. > > ***** Leo, This woman's statements about having had > several > different > cancers over a number of years sounded unconvincing > to me. And I > don't think she used Dr. 's methods to evercome > those previous > cancers. Her explanations to me were confusing, and > I didn't think > her information sounded convincing. ***** > > > > So for these reasons Bill told me, he would > continue to oppose > > Hulda's > > claims and treatments wherever he could. > > > > AT NO TIME did Bill Ross attempt to account for > why they were still > > alive or so healthy today. Nor did he express any > joy in their > > recoveries. > > ***** Leo, It's hard for me to know whether Dr. > has anything > to > do with these people being alive. I live in Ohio. > Two of these > people live in Canada, and one in California. It > cost me over $60.00 > to talk with the 2 in Canada. I believe all of > these people have had > some conventional cancer treatment, and as you > state, at least one of > the 3 still worries he may have cancer. With the > other 2, it is hard > to know if they are cured or in remission. I > thought my > conversations > with these people went very well as far as being > congenial. They > were > all friendly people, and I believe I did express > happiness to the 2 > who believed they were cured. As for the 3rd > person, I don't recall > if I expressed " joy " for his prediciment or not. > ***** > > > My own father died of cancer. Now, I value health > more because of > > that > > sad event. But Bill Ross expressed no appreciation > or value for the > > patients who had recovered from terminal cancer. > > ***** Leo, I am truly sorry that your father died of > cancer. I lost > my mother to breast cancer in 1997, and I know it is > very painful. > ***** > > > > When I saw what I thought to be such a total > disregard for the > > wellbeing of these people who had been left to > die, I lost all > > respect > > for Bill Ross, and the people he associates with. > > ***** Whatever you " thought " you " saw " , I did not > have " a total > disregard for the wellbing of these people. " Why > are your saying > that about me?! ***** > > I had to see it > > (his > > attitude) for myself, and did I ever see it! > > > > > > But I decided to learn something from my > experience with Bill Ross. > I > > now require the skeptics and cynics first of all, > to define what > they > > mean by " proof " , what kind of sample size the > need, etc, etc., > before > > I place names and phone numbers at their disposal. > I will not again > > be > > part of an exercize in futility. My time is far to > valuable. > > > > I hope the recounting of my experience will help > someone else. > > Best wishes, > > Leo. > > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2000 Report Share Posted April 29, 2000 Here again, Bill Ross takes the easy way out, and shows us how irresponsible he is. Nowhere does he attempt to explain why these people are in such good health when they were left to die. Bill Ross knows what he does not believe. He is totally incapable (or unwilling) of explaining reality as these people experience it. Had these people followed Bill Ross's advice, they would be dead now. I do not believe Bill Ross is sorry about my father's death. Leo. > > > You have put it well. Something that is unsafe > > outside the mouth > > but > > > then is safe in the mouth, is the craziest > > proposition I can > > imagine. > > > > ***** Leo is referring to something Jan Drew > > attributed to me. I > > think Jan got it wrong, as I don't recall saying > > anything like this. > > I hope she will try to clarify the matter for us. > > ***** > > > > > > Here is my experience with Bill Ross. I had given > > him Bill the > > names > > > and phone numbers of three cancer patients who had > > been cured (or > > > vastly improved) after taking 's therapy, and > > who had refused > > > conventional treatment. I did this because Bill > > Ross had challenged > > > me > > > to come up with proof that it worked. > > > > > > Well, he did phone all three of them. He came back > > with (and I > > > summarize here): > > > > > > 1. Not enough names. There should be hundreds (or > > thousands) of > > names > > > and phone numbers for him to check. > > > > ***** Leo, I hoped you could have done better than > > these 3 cases. > > They are not very convincing at all. ***** > > > > > > 2. Person " 1 " had been cured too recently to be > > counted, > > > > ***** Leo, I think this is a reasonable statement. > > As I recall, this > > man had prostate cancer that was not very advanced. > > How do we know > > he > > is truly cured? I don't like to be pessimistic, but > > I try to be > > reasonable. If he lives a long time cancer free, > > maybe Dr. 's > > methods saved him, and maybe it was something else. > > If he fails in > > the future, what will you say, he didn't follow all > > of Dr. 's > > protocols? ***** > > > > > > 3. Person " 2 " 's doctor figured he might still have > > a malignancy, > > > > ***** Leo. This is true. This man in Canada was > > also a relatively > > recent case, and he did not sound very confident > > about being cured > > when I spoke to him. Why did you give me such a > > dubious case as > > something to back up Dr. 's track record? ***** > > > > > > 4. Person " 3 " ' hadn't been to her doctor lately > > for a checkup. > > > > ***** Leo, This woman's statements about having had > > several > > different > > cancers over a number of years sounded unconvincing > > to me. And I > > don't think she used Dr. 's methods to evercome > > those previous > > cancers. Her explanations to me were confusing, and > > I didn't think > > her information sounded convincing. ***** > > > > > > So for these reasons Bill told me, he would > > continue to oppose > > > Hulda's > > > claims and treatments wherever he could. > > > > > > AT NO TIME did Bill Ross attempt to account for > > why they were still > > > alive or so healthy today. Nor did he express any > > joy in their > > > recoveries. > > > > ***** Leo, It's hard for me to know whether Dr. > > has anything > > to > > do with these people being alive. I live in Ohio. > > Two of these > > people live in Canada, and one in California. It > > cost me over $60.00 > > to talk with the 2 in Canada. I believe all of > > these people have had > > some conventional cancer treatment, and as you > > state, at least one of > > the 3 still worries he may have cancer. With the > > other 2, it is hard > > to know if they are cured or in remission. I > > thought my > > conversations > > with these people went very well as far as being > > congenial. They > > were > > all friendly people, and I believe I did express > > happiness to the 2 > > who believed they were cured. As for the 3rd > > person, I don't recall > > if I expressed " joy " for his prediciment or not. > > ***** > > > > > My own father died of cancer. Now, I value health > > more because of > > > that > > > sad event. But Bill Ross expressed no appreciation > > or value for the > > > patients who had recovered from terminal cancer. > > > > ***** Leo, I am truly sorry that your father died of > > cancer. I lost > > my mother to breast cancer in 1997, and I know it is > > very painful. > > ***** > > > > > > When I saw what I thought to be such a total > > disregard for the > > > wellbeing of these people who had been left to > > die, I lost all > > > respect > > > for Bill Ross, and the people he associates with. > > > > ***** Whatever you " thought " you " saw " , I did not > > have " a total > > disregard for the wellbing of these people. " Why > > are your saying > > that about me?! ***** > > > > I had to see it > > > (his > > > attitude) for myself, and did I ever see it! > > > > > > > > > > But I decided to learn something from my > > experience with Bill Ross. > > I > > > now require the skeptics and cynics first of all, > > to define what > > they > > > mean by " proof " , what kind of sample size the > > need, etc, etc., > > before > > > I place names and phone numbers at their disposal. > > I will not again > > > be > > > part of an exercize in futility. My time is far to > > valuable. > > > > > > I hope the recounting of my experience will help > > someone else. > > > Best wishes, > > > Leo. > > > > > === message truncated === > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2000 Report Share Posted April 29, 2000 Tim makes an important point here, where he says,... " If someone hears you arguing with a fool, they may not be able to tell which is which. " That applies here. I am addressing my remarks to the more rational members of this group, not to him. Leo. > > > You have put it well. Something that is unsafe > > outside the mouth > > but > > > then is safe in the mouth, is the craziest > > proposition I can > > imagine. > > > > ***** Leo is referring to something Jan Drew > > attributed to me. I > > think Jan got it wrong, as I don't recall saying > > anything like this. > > I hope she will try to clarify the matter for us. > > ***** > > > > > > Here is my experience with Bill Ross. I had given > > him Bill the > > names > > > and phone numbers of three cancer patients who had > > been cured (or > > > vastly improved) after taking 's therapy, and > > who had refused > > > conventional treatment. I did this because Bill > > Ross had challenged > > > me > > > to come up with proof that it worked. > > > > > > Well, he did phone all three of them. He came back > > with (and I > > > summarize here): > > > > > > 1. Not enough names. There should be hundreds (or > > thousands) of > > names > > > and phone numbers for him to check. > > > > ***** Leo, I hoped you could have done better than > > these 3 cases. > > They are not very convincing at all. ***** > > > > > > 2. Person " 1 " had been cured too recently to be > > counted, > > > > ***** Leo, I think this is a reasonable statement. > > As I recall, this > > man had prostate cancer that was not very advanced. > > How do we know > > he > > is truly cured? I don't like to be pessimistic, but > > I try to be > > reasonable. If he lives a long time cancer free, > > maybe Dr. 's > > methods saved him, and maybe it was something else. > > If he fails in > > the future, what will you say, he didn't follow all > > of Dr. 's > > protocols? ***** > > > > > > 3. Person " 2 " 's doctor figured he might still have > > a malignancy, > > > > ***** Leo. This is true. This man in Canada was > > also a relatively > > recent case, and he did not sound very confident > > about being cured > > when I spoke to him. Why did you give me such a > > dubious case as > > something to back up Dr. 's track record? ***** > > > > > > 4. Person " 3 " ' hadn't been to her doctor lately > > for a checkup. > > > > ***** Leo, This woman's statements about having had > > several > > different > > cancers over a number of years sounded unconvincing > > to me. And I > > don't think she used Dr. 's methods to evercome > > those previous > > cancers. Her explanations to me were confusing, and > > I didn't think > > her information sounded convincing. ***** > > > > > > So for these reasons Bill told me, he would > > continue to oppose > > > Hulda's > > > claims and treatments wherever he could. > > > > > > AT NO TIME did Bill Ross attempt to account for > > why they were still > > > alive or so healthy today. Nor did he express any > > joy in their > > > recoveries. > > > > ***** Leo, It's hard for me to know whether Dr. > > has anything > > to > > do with these people being alive. I live in Ohio. > > Two of these > > people live in Canada, and one in California. It > > cost me over $60.00 > > to talk with the 2 in Canada. I believe all of > > these people have had > > some conventional cancer treatment, and as you > > state, at least one of > > the 3 still worries he may have cancer. With the > > other 2, it is hard > > to know if they are cured or in remission. I > > thought my > > conversations > > with these people went very well as far as being > > congenial. They > > were > > all friendly people, and I believe I did express > > happiness to the 2 > > who believed they were cured. As for the 3rd > > person, I don't recall > > if I expressed " joy " for his prediciment or not. > > ***** > > > > > My own father died of cancer. Now, I value health > > more because of > > > that > > > sad event. But Bill Ross expressed no appreciation > > or value for the > > > patients who had recovered from terminal cancer. > > > > ***** Leo, I am truly sorry that your father died of > > cancer. I lost > > my mother to breast cancer in 1997, and I know it is > > very painful. > > ***** > > > > > > When I saw what I thought to be such a total > > disregard for the > > > wellbeing of these people who had been left to > > die, I lost all > > > respect > > > for Bill Ross, and the people he associates with. > > > > ***** Whatever you " thought " you " saw " , I did not > > have " a total > > disregard for the wellbing of these people. " Why > > are your saying > > that about me?! ***** > > > > I had to see it > > > (his > > > attitude) for myself, and did I ever see it! > > > > > > > > > > But I decided to learn something from my > > experience with Bill Ross. > > I > > > now require the skeptics and cynics first of all, > > to define what > > they > > > mean by " proof " , what kind of sample size the > > need, etc, etc., > > before > > > I place names and phone numbers at their disposal. > > I will not again > > > be > > > part of an exercize in futility. My time is far to > > valuable. > > > > > > I hope the recounting of my experience will help > > someone else. > > > Best wishes, > > > Leo. > > > > > === message truncated === > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2000 Report Share Posted April 29, 2000 Dear list, I am signing off the list. I have gotten some very strange feelings about this list. It seems to be used as a vehicle to indoctrinate people to some Dr. is God belief. And there seems to be the desire here for anyone with differing opinions about any of Dr. s' claims & theories to be banned from the list. I do not think this is healthy. Certainly not for me. I don't have a need to get rid of anyone who may have a different opinion than myself. I think it is sick. I think that criticism & skepticism is a healthy part of getting to the truth. I think that most people who criticise Dr. and her methods care just as much as the blind followers about finding the truth of what heals dis-ease. I am not a scientist or electrician, but it also seems to me that if the synchrometer works, in this day & age, there should be a way to show the resonance - on a scope or wave pattern or something. There should also be a way to program in the frequencies so that you don't actually need a slide, if the frequencies are known already? I think that their own intolerance will likely be the cause of the Regehr family's problems & downfall. My main concern at this time is finding what will help me heal, not all these politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2000 Report Share Posted April 29, 2000 I agree with Jules. I haven't learned a thing from this list except how to delete more rapidly. And who cares if Bill is a house painter or a scientist? Should a person of higher learning be the only that has an opinion? ****POOF!*** At 02:53 AM 4/29/00 -0400, you wrote: >Dear list, > >I am signing off the list. I have gotten some very strange feelings >about this list. It seems to be used as a vehicle to indoctrinate >people to some Dr. is God belief. And there seems to be the >desire here for anyone with differing opinions about any of Dr. >s' claims & theories to be banned from the list. I do not think >this is healthy. Certainly not for me. I don't have a need to get rid >of anyone who may have a different opinion than myself. I think it is >sick. >I think that criticism & skepticism is a healthy part of getting to >the truth. I think that most people who criticise Dr. and her >methods care just as much as the blind followers about finding the >truth of what heals dis-ease. > >I am not a scientist or electrician, but it also seems to me that if >the synchrometer works, in this day & age, there should be a way to >show the resonance - on a scope or wave pattern or something. There >should also be a way to program in the frequencies so that you don't >actually need a slide, if the frequencies are known already? > >I think that their own intolerance will likely be the cause of the >Regehr family's problems & downfall. My main concern at this time is >finding what will help me heal, not all these politics. > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers. >1/3019/0/_/455736/_/956991247/ >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2000 Report Share Posted April 29, 2000 In a message dated 4/29/2000 2:54:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jules@... writes: << I am signing off the list. >> Please do not sign off of the list. If you are looking for support in your journey to health, you have come to the right place. I know that is hard for you to see with all of the politics going on. You see, the 'scoffers' as I like to call them are associates of a group whos main function is to deter the public from persuing health in avenues other than standard medical practice. They do not want you to know that there are alternative choices for yourself or that anyone other than a qualified practitioner has the ability to heal you. I am sorry for this. I have been seeking support for alternative health for some time, and have found people posing as doctors and scoffers in each and every holistic avenue. They will stop at nothing, believe me. Know why? It is a direct threat to their pocketbooks. Ask yourself, is natural better? Trust your instincts, that is why you are here. Your illness is very real. Unfortunately, they cannot see or feel your desire to be well, nor will they. We are having difficulty seeing who wants to be well and who is looking for political gain. I see you, and I hear you. This list serves a much needed purpose, but the potential of the list to help others has been halted almost, with the constant interventions by the protestors. Please do not ever listen to anyone who tells you that you cannot expect to become well using Dr. s protocol. I have seen angry, depressed, sick people become well after just some of the use of the protocol. My entire family. If I listened to the skeptics and never gave myself a chance to try it, I would have never known I could be happy and healthy like this. The scoffers would have gotten what they came for. You see, they have no proof of this protocol not being effective, but they choose to discredit it just the same, as I have researched, they do with all holistic avenues. They have been investigating Dr. , harassing the list, etc. for some time, but still have nothing, so have resorted to childish personal attacks. For someone like you or I, that could be construed as a hurdle we are not strong enough or willing to jump. It is what I see as a huge illusion that they would have you believe- that the negativity, gnashing of teeth and meaness are something that either the listers or holistic practicing in general produces. I'm sure you don't want to be around the negativity and I wish they would leave. We are here to be well and support others like you in their search for health. They come in here to start trouble, deter the public and try to publicly humiliate humanitarians like Dr. , thereby turning diseased people back to their doctor, guaranteeing a steady flow of income for medicines that cannot heal, only medicate. It is human nature to defend those things that we find precious. I find the whole holistic arena to be sacred, yes, but only because I have seen herbs do what modern medicine reffers to as " miracles " . They do not care whether or not people who have the potential to be well are turned away by their pessimism. Their only concern is to shut down any and all health avenues not pertaining to corporate American medicine. Natural medicine has been used effectively for thousands of years, but they will not give one single ounce of credit for it. Know why? Pocketbooks. Insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, doctors, universities, scientists, government agencies, product manufacturers, whoever is making the amalgam fillings, they all have their hands in our pockets and get pretty mean when we say " no " . We would not need any of this if we knew it was harmful to our health, or if we knew that we would feel better by not utilizing these things, thereby having true ability to be happy because we are not burdened with the physical effects of these things. ( Chemicals, solvents, synthetic medicines and the like). We have the ability to sustain ourselves and even have a happy life without them. It can be very overwhelming to walk into these findings after a lifetime of burdening ones self with their chemicals. We have been taught to submit and not question authority. Unfortunately, authority in this case leads to the largest market in the world, you. There is a better life for you and it is a true test for those who really do want to be well. Nobody said it would be easy. Don't give up your fight. You have a right to be well and there are ways that you can do that. This list is, in my opinion, the absolute best place to start. Beleive me, those who I have seen persue alternative medicine and herbs, despite the political threats made to them, have experienced profound changes in their life and awareness. Think it's too good to be true? It's not, but it is up to you. You have to make the commitment to yourself that you want to be well and will not let any disease or politician stop you. The more I shed the chemicals, the better I feel. No if ands or buts about it. I am a new person that I never dreamed I could be. I hope you are still out there and I hope you will continue to seek better health through holistic avenues. I care and I feel good every day. You can, too. FOGGS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2000 Report Share Posted April 29, 2000 Dear and Jules, I joined this group after searching the archives for information relevant to my quest for health via Dr. 's protocols. I refuse to insult the integrity of this list by damning it because of quackwatch posers. Nor will I threaten to unsubscribe (in the same spirit as the quackwatcher's subscription in the first place) with references to my annoyance of other peoples annoyance to other peoples annoyance etc., ad nauseum. Despite the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I've seen this list continue to discuss Dr. 's protocols. I have found that quackwatchers come and go (usually after saying their rather repetitive and long winded 'peace'.) Of course, we will always have them. But we have a weapon, just like other groups barraged with innocent questions contrary to the groups purpose. This weapon unfortunately is used mostly on the active positively contributing members of this list (I'm mentioning those who are sharing their KNOWLEDGE of Dr. --- not their speculation), but now I am asking everyone to direct their hairlines on the quackwatch representatives. The weapon is called silence. Marve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2000 Report Share Posted April 29, 2000 Dear Foggs, That is so beautiful and lovingly put! I, personally, am tired of the negativity. You stated in a very positive way what the situation is with Alternatives and the " scoffers " . And, you did this without denigrating anybody. So refreshing! I would like to go back to the healing aspects of Dr. 's protocols. Even those who do not subscribe to the whole of Dr. 's scientifically based theories, who have tried aspects of her protocol such as the liver cleanse, the kidney cleanse and the parasite cleanse have found increased well-being. I have done the parasite cleanse, (saw the parasites myself) and felt better because of it. I am looking for Epsom salts to do the liver cleanse next. Someone mentioned that there is something called " edible epsom salts. " How would one go about finding them? The softer half of the JuriMed team - Jan Bolen __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2000 Report Share Posted April 30, 2000 Leo, Thank you for your response. I was at the open house when Bill showed up. I was the one who found out he was coming. I corresponded with him for about three weeks. I also put him in touch with another man who's father had been cured by Hulda's methods. I found Bill to be sincere at times, but he just didn't want to follow her protocol. At other times I got really disgusted with him. I have written him off, he doesn't demand proof from Barrett, but wants it from us. Others' had told me not to give him the time of day, but I didn't feel that was right, and there were times when he seemed to not be completely closed minded, but all in all it looks like I wasted a lot of my time. I really do think we need to be patient with people, but I draw the line when I find they are believers in Quack Barrett's garbage, and they don't question it. Sincerely, Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2000 Report Share Posted April 30, 2000 << You have put it well. Something that is unsafe outside the mouth but > then is safe in the mouth, is the craziest proposition I can imagine. ***** Leo is referring to something Jan Drew attributed to me. I think Jan got it wrong, as I don't recall saying anything like this. I hope she will try to clarify the matter for us. ***** >> Someone mentioned that you had some websites. I ask for them. e-mailed me and gave me the one that you have. I answered him. My response is below. Leo was addressing my response. He wasn't speaking of you, but was replying to my response. Jan responded: > >Thank you. I corresponded with him just > > last night. He has his mind made up. He > > knows of my experience with mercury > > poisoning and still prefers to believe all > > the medical *experts* who say that > > metal in the mouth is safe. Yet it > > becomes *dangerous* immediately > > AFTER it leaves the mouth. He also > > points to Quack Barrett's websites. > > Need I say more?? Isn't it strange that > > so many ASK for PROOF, but Quack > > Barrett has NONE? I think it is time for > > him to PROVE all the garbage on his > > websites. Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2000 Report Share Posted April 30, 2000 << Please stop judging and trying to speculate about Barrett or myself. Go to the data if you dare, and tell us what Barrett is wrong about. I don't think you will do it, and you'll have some excuse as to why you won't. >> Since when have I ever made excuses Bill? I am a straight forward person. Didn't I take much time with you in private e-mail? I will do that when I have time, but for starters, I will just say that Barrett makes a statement about Dr NOT giving the patient a physical. This is preposterous, and is how he throws in his little nasty remarks. He also states that she says all cancers are alike. She does NOT say that. So there's two. He also refers to the article which he has absolutely NO PROOF of. I know many people who have been to her clinic and it is NONE of the things that she states. So there is three. Quack Barrett is ready to believe a reporters story.....WITHOUT checking to see if it is true?? And post it as fact on his website. This is how the man operates. All of his websites are the same. Yet you want PROOF from Dr 's supporters?? And NONE from Barrett?? Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2000 Report Share Posted April 30, 2000 JDrew63929@... wrote: > Leo, > > Thank you for your response. I was at the open house when Bill showed up. I > was the one who found out he was coming. I corresponded with him for about > three weeks. I also put him in touch with another man who's father had been > cured by Hulda's methods. I found Bill to be sincere at times, but he just > didn't want to follow her protocol. Jan, And I'm glad I didn't. Dr. has done little to convince me to buy a zapper, a syncrometer (which almost nobody can seem to get resonance with), go to great lengths to get rid of what she says are dangerous pollutants, take the wormwood, cloves and walnut tincture, have my teeth worked on, go to her clinic, attend her syncrometer seminar, and do the other things so she will not say I wasn't cured because I didn't do all she recommends. *** > At other times I got really disgusted > with him. I have written him off, he doesn't demand proof from Barrett, but > wants it from us. Others' had told me not to give him the time of day, but I > didn't feel that was right, and there were times when he seemed to not be > completely closed minded, but all in all it looks like I wasted a lot of my > time. > > I really do think we need to be patient with people, but I draw the line when > I find they are believers in Quack Barrett's garbage, and they don't question > it. > Jan, And when do we question what Dr. , her brother, her son, and her hired publicist Tim Bolen says? I have asked you to question the validity of Dr. Barrett's website on Hulda . To tell me what it is there, that Dr. Barrett is wrong about. You seem to completely ignore that repeated request of mine. Instead I get the same old tired personal attack line, that Barrett is not to be trusted, and he's in the pocket of the pharmaceuticals or whomever. And yet you offer nothing to support this. Barrett supports what he says about Hulda on his website, with footnotes to parts of her book. He analyzes her 50 alleged cancer cases, and points out the many glaring flaws. He gives the facts strait from her book, and explains himself. All you seem to do is attack him, and ignore my legitimate questions, and try to convince others here to write me off. Talk about close minded and control tactics. Again I ask, go to Barrett's thorough and documented report on " The Cure For All Cancers. " , and tell me what he is saying about the 50 case studies that is wrong. http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clark.html Please stop judging and trying to speculate about Barrett or myself. Go to the data if you dare, and tell us what Barrett is wrong about. I don't think you will do it, and you'll have some excuse as to why you won't. The lawsuits against Dr. may escalate, as more people discover her cure for cancer or AIDS is not what it is claimed to be. I suspect Tim Bolen's aggressive take no prisoners offensive is a desperate effort to keep him from getting fired by the and Regehr people. I wonder how much Tim gets paid. Bill Ross Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2000 Report Share Posted April 30, 2000 In a message dated 4/30/2000 9:03:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rossviva@... writes: << If my name stops being used on this list, I will leave. >> I have an idea, if you leave, we'll stop using your name. Foggs, A Member of the for President Campaign Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2000 Report Share Posted April 30, 2000 << Thank you for engaging in meaningful dialogue Jan, and not going the personal attack route as others here, and yes, also on the HealthFraud list sometimes do. Bill Ross >> I went to bed last night with all this on my mind. I am sorry that this whole thing as gotten out of hand. Bill and I have agreed to disagree. I have NEVER found Bill to be uncaring. What he does for a living such NOT be belittled. I was also hurt to see what was said about Bill's Mom and his letting her die. He moved back here from CA to help his Mom, and saying that she would most likely be alive is totally outrageous. And did he inherit her house? That was uncalled for also. I truly know in my heart that Hulda would NOT approve of these kind of things being said. Losing a parent is really tough and no one should make judgments so profound. I have never found Bill's personal integrity to be in question, quite the opposite. I DO question Steve Barrett's. Now could we please get back to some good discussion and let this be a lesson for all?? Never letting it happen again? I sure hope we can. Sincerely, Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2000 Report Share Posted April 30, 2000 JDrew63929@... wrote: I know many > people who have been to her clinic and it is NONE of the things that she > states. So there is three. Quack Barrett is ready to believe a reporters > story.....WITHOUT checking to see if it is true?? And post it as fact on his > website. This is how the man operates. All of his websites are the same. Yet > you want PROOF from Dr 's supporters?? And NONE from Barrett?? > Jan, Dr. Barrett is not the one writing books that claim to have " the cure for all disease. " When someone writes and puts such claims on the marketplace, and promotes medical theories that fly in the face of what the vast majority of health professionals believe, and attracts the attention of desperately ill people, the burden of proof should be on them to back up this incredible claim. Barrett is pointing out that Dr. 's claims lose their appeal and credibility when a close look is taken. Her 100 alleged cancer case studies is an example. You fault Barrett for saying some things that are deceptive or untrue, based in part on what you have heard from others, and that you think he should not assume news media accounts are accurate. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my questions. I know this can all take a great deal of time and research. " Maybe " you have some good points about Barrett, but I still think Barrett is making a very good case for why one would want to be wary of trying Dr. 's very involved alleged cures. Barrett is not trying to sell me on any radical ideas, such as a cure for all diseases. I believe he is honestly trying to protect people from quackery, and his passion for that is often construed as having some sinister motive. I don't accept all that Barrett says, and I do believe at times he oversimplifies or discounts new ideas too quickly. But maybe that is because he has about seen it all in the area of quackery, and his patience is wearing a bit thin. I don't know, I am speculating. And maybe Barrett is a paid stooge as so many here say, but I don't think so. About all I've read from him does not conflict with what I've read from other sources I trust. But then if one thinks the pharmaceutical industry is as corrupt and powerful as some do, I can see where conspiracy theories can seem very real. Sure there is corruption, and there probably always will be. But overall, I think our modern healthcare system is better than at any time in history. Life expectancy is at an all time high, but many people want to live disease free for longer than may be realistic to expect. In spite of the advances of modern science, they are trying to do better, and turn to many alternatives that offer better. I'm afraid most of those alternatives fall far short of there promises. I'm not for giving in to disease, but I am for pursing health in a rational manner based on sound thought, evidence and good judgement. At this point I don't believe Dr. has a cure for all diseases. is probably helping some with health problems, but I pity the poor cancer or AIDS patient who puts themselves through all that her programs demand. I think their best chance is with standard medicine, and to do research on their own as well. As of yet I've only talked personally to the 3 people Leo mentioned, and I was not convinced at all. The person you referred me to Jan was the son of a cancer patient, and his information was very sketchy about his dad. Thank you for engaging in meaningful dialogue Jan, and not going the personal attack route as others here, and yes, also on the HealthFraud list sometimes do. Bill Ross Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2000 Report Share Posted April 30, 2000 I'm going to give this a little attention since that is all it deserves. Toxic carcinogenic compounds in the home being removed and being a possible " problem " PREPOSTEROUS, what a quack! Mercury in the mouth, the second most toxic element known to mankind being removed, and being another possible " problem " OUTRAGEOUS The recommendation that you stop putting irritants and possible carcinogens on your body and in your mouth, OUTLANDISH! Pesticides on our food, buy organic when possible, more craziness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2000 Report Share Posted April 30, 2000 CCs@... wrote: > I'm going to give this a little attention since > that is all it deserves. > > Toxic carcinogenic compounds in the home being > removed and being a possible " problem " PREPOSTEROUS, what a quack! > > Mercury in the mouth, the second most toxic > element known to mankind being removed, > and being another possible " problem " OUTRAGEOUS > > The recommendation that you stop putting > irritants and possible carcinogens on your body > and in your mouth, OUTLANDISH! > > Pesticides on our food, buy organic when possible, > more craziness. > > > , I'm not clear on what you're saying above, but would you change the heading of this thread please. I don't know what it has to do with " Burned by Bill Ross. " If my name stops being used on this list, I will leave. I think those who attracted me here by using my name, would like to see me leave by now. Thank you, Bill Ross > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to table saws. > 1/3020/0/_/455736/_/957096853/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2000 Report Share Posted April 30, 2000 Bill Ross never leaves. He just keeps bobbing up like a cork. And we are setting ourselves up for him. Leo. > > > I'm going to give this a little attention since > > that is all it deserves. > > > > Toxic carcinogenic compounds in the home being > > removed and being a possible " problem " PREPOSTEROUS, what a quack! > > > > Mercury in the mouth, the second most toxic > > element known to mankind being removed, > > and being another possible " problem " OUTRAGEOUS > > > > The recommendation that you stop putting > > irritants and possible carcinogens on your body > > and in your mouth, OUTLANDISH! > > > > Pesticides on our food, buy organic when possible, > > more craziness. > > > > > > > > , > > I'm not clear on what you're saying above, but would you change the heading of this thread please. I > don't know what it has to do with " Burned by Bill Ross. " If my name stops being used on this list, I will > leave. I think those who attracted me here by using my name, would like to see me leave by now. > > Thank you, > Bill Ross > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to table saws. > > 1/3020/0/_/455736/_/957096853/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2000 Report Share Posted April 30, 2000 There is a book called, " Racketeering in Medicine - the suppression of Alternatives " by Jim , M.D. that I think you should read. It tells the story of how the NCAHF came to be - and why. It has a lot of footnotes and references to back up the points, it is a very credible book. I challenge you to read it. Jan Bolen __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2000 Report Share Posted May 1, 2000 Into the fray I go................... Bill Ross wrote: Jan, And I'm glad I didn't. Dr. has done little to convince me to buy a zapper, a syncrometer (which almost nobody can seem to get resonance with), go to great lengths to get rid of what she says are dangerous pollutants, take the wormwood, cloves and walnut tincture, have my teeth worked on, go to her clinic, attend her syncrometer seminar, and do the other things so she will not say I wasn't cured because I didn't do all she recommends. *** Some minds are like concrete!! They are thoroughly mixed and permanently set!!!! So Bill Ross, when and if you are stricken with cancer by all means indulge in mustard gas chemo therapy..... and other 'round up' treatment protocols that you seem to have such implicit trust in. By all means unsubscribe yourself from the gene pool with your infallible logic and implicit trust in the blood letters of the 20th Century and mistrust of Hulda . Here are some facts about the The Orthodox Cure Hoax you seem to favour: The five year survival rates for the major cancers are: Stomach - 5% Trachea, bronchus and lung - 5% Breast - 50% Oesophagus - 5% Large intestine - 22% Pancreas - 4% Liver - 2% Being that you are such a superb stool disturber with your criticism of Hulda's suggested protocols, why not try it and inspect yourself and perhaps discover that you are full of worms. Such a discovery for you might uncover the source of your scepticism and bring you to realization that her "suggested protocols' are in fact efficacious to begin with! When you see the Ascribes and read the blood work reports of people who followed Hulda's work and rid their bodies of Leukaemia without blindly submitting their minds to the medical mafia you endorse by way of refusing to acknowledge there is a better way. What Hulda has discovered is not popular. You seem like the masses who want to support the status quo of big money. If you are not part of the solution Mr. Ross then pray what part of the solution do you represent? Do you have a Scientist of the year behind you? Instead of allying yourself with Barrett why not try Hulda's Protocols from start to finish? What is it that you are afraid of? That she might be right? "Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." ~ Linus ing PhD ~ (Two-time Nobel Prize winner) "Economics and politics simply intertwine in shaping conventional medicine's approach to cancer. Very simply put, treating disease is enormously profitable, preventing disease is not." ~ British Cancer Control Society~ "A solution to cancer would mean the termination of research programs, the obsolescence of skills, the end of dreams of personal glory, triumph over cancer would dry up contributions to self perpetuating charities....It would mortally threaten the present clinical establishments by rendering obsolete the expensive surgical, radiological and chemotherapeutic treatments in which so much money, training and equipment is invested....The new therapy must be disbelieved, denied, discouraged and disallowed at all costs, regardless of actual testing results, and preferably without any testing at all. ~American newsmen, Houston and Null~ You stated in another post: I'm not for giving in to disease, but I am for pursing health in a rational manner based on sound thought, evidence and good judgement. So then you take the posture that todays medical convention is acceptable and that you implicitly trust it! Now we are clear on where you stand. There is nothing so abysmal as ignorance in action! At this point I don't believe Dr. has a cure for all diseases. is probably helping some with health problems, but I pity the poor cancer or AIDS patient who puts themselves through all that her programs demand. I think their best chance is with standard medicine, and to do research on their own as well. It is again apparent that you endorse mustard gas and round up treatment and other lethal immune destroying chemical cocktails for both the aids victim and cancer victim! The protocols suggested by Hulda are fare more benign than that which the aids and cancer victims are currently receiving. You have the audacity to call those who enjoin Hulda's suggested protocols as poor?????? What ?? When was the last time you walked the halls of the Church of Cancer Institute and witnessed the suffering? As of yet I've only talked personally to the 3 people Leo mentioned, and I was not convinced at all. Does your reasoning also apply to the six million jews that were killed by the Nazis? Three witnesses would not be not enough? Get this fact straight!!! It is not anyone's job to convince you of anything! Take what you want and leave the rest. They don't have to convince you at all!! It's that simple! 'A' equals 'A'........what is .... is! We are aware of what works and that is sufficient. But you would rather go along with the cancer establishment, right? You too can become aware when you choose to try Hulda's protocols. They really speak of lifestyle changes as well. However, like I said at the beginning "Some minds are like concrete! They are thoroughly mixed and permanently set!" Why has it become your job to discredit that which you have no experiential knowledge of yourself? As I remember it this list serves those who are working with Hulda's Protocols and have taken the path of self responsibility for their bodies which have be so polluted and poisoned by the food producers (growers, manufacturers). Most are undergoing a learning curve of their own because they are in process. I don't recall reading any guarantees yet I do read logic and reason for hope which is more than the ESTABLISHMENT and its quackers have brainwashed you with. Hulda's protocols are but the sum of the individual things suggested we do to achieve that which we want for our bodies. It has been an interesting and rather pleasant process for most that I know. In other words it works for me! I personally esteem Hulda's Book CURE FOR ALL DISEASES and regard it as a manual for the human body. You know, the one we were never given at birth. See: http://www.disinfo.com/disinfo?p=folder & title=The+War+On+Cancer+Is+A+Fraud Philip Wylie 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.