Re: Less frequent dosing and internet troll behavior

June 8, 2008

> >

> > If Dana's kids were fully chelated they wouldn't need any more

> > supplements or special

> > diets.

> >

> > Andy

> >

>

> ***********8

> Thank-you Andy. I'm happy to know that when I'm done chelating my

> children all other medical issues they may ever have will be completely

> eradicated,

No guarantees.

> to the point that I will not need to ever offer them another

> supplement or special diet. . . .

On a routine basis, to control cognition and behavior, yes.

There will be special occasions and you may choose to do it for other reasons,

e. g. life

extension, cancer prevention.

> after all, the only potential ill that

> will ever befall our children is heavy metal toxicity and more

> specifically mercury poisoning. Now, I know you don't really believe

> that.

But you do reduce things to absurdity nicely! Always a good technique to use in

argument.

> I have the utmost respect for both you and Dana, and don't believe

> either of you are playing troll. Neither do I believe that Dana needs

> to start her own message board, especially since you can already see

> that she is a moderator at this one

> * /members?group=mod

Yup. She can throw me off or delete my messages any time she wants to, so

apparently

she isn't TOO upset!

> *Her help here has been invaluable to me, and my children, more so than

> any MD or ND I've ever paid. I've also purchased Andy's book, since I

> trust that has some answers too. Ultimately, the judgment call on how

> much/when/how often is up to me as their mother though. I appreciate

> knowing how all who have successfully chelated their families have done

> it, and having access to those discussions. Also, if you go to the front

> page of this group, you will see that nowhere does it say that this

> group is intended to discuss only frequent dose chelation as a means for

> dealing with Mercury-Autism (description below). Therefore, it would

> seem that anyone who has done it differently should be welcome to

> discuss what did work for them (or didn't) without being told they are

> trolls or to start a different group for such discussions.

> *

> * P.

> who, if she finds something that helps her children yet is contrary to

> what others on this board offer for advice, will be as brave as Dana as

> to post it so others will have another option to consider

As long as you're brave enough to put up with the responses that is fine.

>

> Description from Front Page of Group

> /

>

> To discuss current issues related to the increasing incidence of autism

> the potential link between excessive mercury exposure via thimerosal in

> infant vaccines. Topics include: mercury detoxification ( " chelation " ),

> mercury-related issues/news, and vaccination-related issues/news. Most

> members are parents of children with autism, aspergers, ADD, ADHD, PDD,

> PDD-NOS, SID, oppositional defiance disorder, apraxia, speech disorders,

> and/or other related symptoms. There are many labels: you are welcome

> regardless of particular label(s). In addition to mercury, we also

> discuss other heavy metals (for example: arsenic, antimony, lead). Many

> parents here are in the process of chelation, with a child. This process

> is discussed in detail. Also welcome: mercury poisoned adults; other

> disorders/issues related to mercury poisoning; other biomedical

> treatments for ASD.

>

> Please be advised:

June 8, 2008

A troll is a fearsome member of a mythical race from Norse mythology.

Originally more or less the Nordic equivalents of giants, although

often smaller in size, the different depictions have come to range from

the fiendish giants – similar to the ogres of England (also called

Trolls at times, see Troller's Gill) – to a devious, more human-like

folk of the wilderness, living underground in hills, caves or mounds.

In the Faroe islands, Orkney and Shetland tales, trolls are called

trows, adopted from the Norse language when these islands were settled

by Vikings.

This is from wikipedia. I find this totally unacceptable, and very

insulting. I would hope that two very intelligent could disagree in a

more professional and appropriate manner. I find this crude and

totally insulting, not only to Dana, but to all of us women here on

this board. Dana may have her faults and may do things

differently...but I have yet to see her claim to share anything but

what she knows from her own experience, in either her emails or her

posts....it is up to me or another reader to make the call if she is

doing something that is good or not for our own kids by doing our

research. I use her information for a stepping stone or a starting

point.

I have a lot of respect for both of you. You both have a lot of wisdom

and experience than many of us. It is very disconcerting to see you

reacting in manner.

There have been times, Andy when someone who has said off things

against you and have been there to say this same thing to them.

Neither of you are perfect and as such you can both be prone to error.

I would seem to behoove you to discuss this in a more polite

professional manner so those that are new are not scared off or are

afraid to say anything for fear of your comments. Your heart is in the

correct place I have no doubt...but if you scare off parents, then who

helps the kids. Not all parents are able to let this kind of thing

roll off em like water.

Dana's method of chelation did not work for my kids....but my kids are

very different than almost everyone's here. Nuttin works the way it

does for other folks for them. But Dana has given me many excellent

ideas and many of them have been a great help....as are your books.

Each of you is precious and needed to this group...I think you had it

right earlier...to leave each other alone and help those who want or

need your help.

Both you and Dana know how much I have appreciated your help. I have

totold you both privately in emails and I will say it again here.

Dana, you are a special lady...you have gone out of your way to help

understand and hear me out. You have given me ideas and kindness and

an ear when I needed it. You and Anita have been my inspirations and

my friends. I love you both very deeply and appreciate you so much for

all that you have both done.

Andy, you remind me of a gruff and cranky bear. You roar and

growl...but your heart for our kids is bigger than your roar and

growl. You have spent much time and effort with your books and your

efforts to help. You have spent lots of time on the boards and have

offered many times much need albeit caustic advice...sometimes seeing

your big heart is a challenge. I appreciate all of that you have done

very much...

just my two cents.

Ronni

June 8, 2008

>

> A troll is a fearsome member of a mythical race from Norse

mythology.

> Originally more or less the Nordic equivalents of giants, although

> often smaller in size, the different depictions have come to range

from

> the fiendish giants – similar to the ogres of England (also called

> Trolls at times, see Troller's Gill) – to a devious, more human-

like

> folk of the wilderness, living underground in hills, caves or

mounds.

> In the Faroe islands, Orkney and Shetland tales, trolls are called

> trows, adopted from the Norse language when these islands were

settled

> by Vikings.

>

> This is from wikipedia. I find this totally unacceptable, and

very

> insulting.

Here is the definition he most likely meant:

" An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone

who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages

in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat

room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional

response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion. "

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

More simply put, it is an agitator, usually someone with a personal

agenda, often someone who gets something out of punching other's

buttons. I don't think it's an accurate remark about Dana and I

wish it hadn't been used. But it really is not the same thing as

calling her " a dragon lady " or " snake in the grass " or " ogress " or

some other colorful insult. It's internet slang, with a specific

meaning about specific behavior.

Peace.

Michele

June 8, 2008

I consider your reasoning valid; I just haven't witnessed anything,

coming from Andy, that turned me off and see no reason why others

should mistake his straight-forwardness for something undesirable. I

won't profess that his approach can't be improved upon as there is

ALWAYS room for us to improve, but I value what I've seen him write,

because it has been written in a no-nonsense, understand this and

let's make progress, move forward style. I also expect that it is

not easy for him to negotiate time to help out here, so I have to

empathize with anyone going above and beyond the call of duty. I

hope you don't think that I view your comments as contentious - I

don't believe I've felt this way. Also, it would probably be helpful

for anyone making suggestions for Andy to find out what his past

approach was - this way it would be possible to avoid offering

suggestions that may be equivalent to saying, " you should revert back

to a less effective approach. " I am a bit unclear as to why you

chose to " constructively " criticize him publicly, though, as opposed

to privately. Do you think someone would be more receptive to

constructively critical comments if they weren't unnecessarily

displayed to bystanders (not sarcasm - an honest question)?

Take care,

> >

> > Do consider that people will never get as much out of this group

> as

> > otherwise if they havn't taken the time to read " Amalgam

> Illness. "

> > And, if they had read the book, it is much less likely that they

> > would ask the kind of questions likely to encourage knee-jerk

> > responses. I personally have had much success with a

diplomatic

> > and patient approach to helping (and receiving help from) others,

> but

> > there isn't always time for this, and we have all had different

> > experiences which encourage different approaches. I will not

> pretend

> > to understand everything that Andy has experienced and

contributed

> to

> > his current style. Also, I'm new to this group, have read all of

> > Andy's replies so far, and have never thought any of his posts to

> be

> > innapropriate (often enlightening though). Of course, I've

> > read " Amalgam Illness " so I don't know how I'd see the picture

> > differently had I not. , if someone is motivated enough

> to

> > stick around despite the initial replies that you felt

inadequate,

> > they are much more likely to make progress.

> >

>

June 9, 2008

>

> I consider your reasoning valid; I just haven't witnessed

anything,

> coming from Andy, that turned me off and see no reason why others

> should mistake his straight-forwardness for something

undesirable. I

> won't profess that his approach can't be improved upon as there is

> ALWAYS room for us to improve, but I value what I've seen him

write,

> because it has been written in a no-nonsense, understand this and

> let's make progress, move forward style. I also expect that it is

> not easy for him to negotiate time to help out here, so I have to

> empathize with anyone going above and beyond the call of duty. I

> hope you don't think that I view your comments as contentious - I

> don't believe I've felt this way. Also, it would probably be

helpful

> for anyone making suggestions for Andy to find out what his past

> approach was - this way it would be possible to avoid offering

> suggestions that may be equivalent to saying, " you should revert

back

> to a less effective approach. " I am a bit unclear as to why you

> chose to " constructively " criticize him publicly, though, as

opposed

> to privately. Do you think someone would be more receptive to

> constructively critical comments if they weren't unnecessarily

> displayed to bystanders (not sarcasm - an honest question)?

>

> Take care,

>

I don't post on this list consistently. I go for long stretches

without posting at all. But my membership goes back several years.

I was here before Andy became so bombastic. So I don't think I am

completely clueless as to what he did before. Nor do I feel that my

suggestions amount to " go back to what you were doing before that

wasn't working " . He was always, as you said, " straight forward " . I

don't think he was perceived as all that warm even before he

conciously chose to experiment with some other means to try to

communicate/present himself.

I once intervened on an occasion when someone on list was saying

things that could have been real trouble for Andy, with real world

consequences. I did so off list but Andy knew of it. My assumption

is that Andy most likely remembers the incident and from that most

likely views me as someone who isn't " attacking " him. I have also

spoken with him by phone. Again, my assumption is he remembers --

but perhaps not. Regardless of whether he remembers these things or

not, his reactions to me have not suggested to me that he is in any

way feeling threatened or concerned about my motives, etc.

I have tried to discuss some of this with him off list. I don't

think it works as well as I wish it did. His communication style

and world view are vastly different from mine. The remarks he has

found most useful were not things I really said specifically to

him. That is part of what gets the conversation coming back to the

public list, even after it died out privately. However, long

observation indicates to me that Andy is not thin skinned and not

going to have some huge personal issue with feeling " publically

attacked " or " publically criticized " . So I did not worry

particularly that he would make an issue of it.

I did worry how it would be viewed by others on list and how it

would impact them. So I did consider posting some of my thoughts to

him privately. I wasn't sure what the best course of action was.

Saying it privately would have prevented me from being viewed as

attacking him. But it also would lose the opportunity for others to

consider such ideas. From research-based texts in a class I took

and from personal experience, the type of approach I advocate works

best when all parties know the principles behind it. Secretiveness

works when you are trying to take advantage of someone. But when

you are trying to negotiate a civilized agreement of some sort for

the benefit of all parties involved, being as open as possible

benefits everyone involved and the more they know about how to make

that work, the more likely it is that it will be successfully

implemented.

It's always a risk to introduce such ideas to a group and it

routinely gets my actions misinterpretted as attacking people and so

forth. However, over time, as a majority of people on list (or even

significant minority) begin to adopt such approaches of their own

free will, flaming and such tends to die down. So given a long

track record of success and given that I know it is necessary for

the group as a whole to adopt the principles I advocate, it just

isn't logical to not pursue the course I know eventually works, in

spite of often feeling burned in the process. So in my judgement,

the best hope for helping this group is to post thoughts on the

subject to the group, not just privately to Andy.

Ordinarily, it does work better to constructively criticize someone

privately. I am not particularly seeking to constructively

criticize him. I am trying to put forth some ideas, ideas I know

work remarkably well. I'm human and I have serious health problems

My execution is often rather flawed because of it. I have

considered only posting when I feel well enough to " know " I won't

stick my foot in my mouth. But in reality that would mean never

posting. Aside from my medical condition, I also simply see the

world differently from most people I meet and that alone promotes

quite a lot of misunderandings. I get a lot less misunderstanding

when I post regularly on a list, something I have not managed to do

on this list of late. Still, I have quite a long track record of

using even very ugly misunderstandings as " grist for the mill " and

am often (unfortunately) at my best when under fire. I hate it. I

really hate confrontation and conflict and having people mad at me

and all that. But some of my best writing has come out of being

challenged to " prove " what I say, when facing a less than receptive

audience. You don't need to write so rigorously if everyone already

sees the world the way you do, basically agrees with you and so on.

You can say things sloppily and still get agreement and still get

pats on the head.

I wish it weren't so. I'm a hedonist at heart. But it is so.

Sorry if that is more rambling and introspective than I intended.

It's 2am and I wouldn't know what to cut. <shrug>

Peace.

Michele

June 9, 2008

> I am a bit unclear as to why you

> chose to " constructively " criticize him publicly, though, as opposed

> to privately. Do you think someone would be more receptive to

> constructively critical comments if they weren't unnecessarily

> displayed to bystanders (not sarcasm - an honest question)?

I sent her a private invitation in response to her first post that she should

feel free to

discuss the topic with me either on the list or in private.

We talked a bit in private, and later the list interaction evolved to the point

she thought

(and I agree) that it was appropriate to discuss it publicly.

I don't take this kind of thing personally. I think everything did was

totally

appropriate - and I'm saying that even though I never would have done it that

way and

don't agree with a lot of it. But it was fine. I appreciated hearing it.

I don't even really require that people phrase their criticisms constructively.

I just want

them to be honest and forthright. What I detest is trolling, sophistry, trying

to turn

matters of fact into popularity contests, etc.

Andy

June 9, 2008

Just want to say that I agree. whether you choose bombastic or

respectful, you won't convince everyone. strong, assertive, but

respectful will, in my mind, reach more people. You will always have

the ones that are going to do what they want, no matter what, or who

only will listen to what they want to hear. But, there are those you

are really seeking to learn, who want real information. Why risk

turning them away by being so condescending?

Ruth

On Jun 8, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Michele wrote:

>

> >

>

> > You are playing troll and you should behave yourself and stop it.

> >

> > If you weren't playing troll you'd already have started another

> list to discuss the wonders

> > of 8 hour DMSA dosing and devoted your efforts there.

> >

> > Andy

> >

> I don't think she is trolling. I think she is trying to say the same

> thing I am trying to say: If people are assumed to be wrong, guilty

> and stupid from the get-go for even admitting that they are doing a

> different protocol, then you have no hope of helping them because

> they won't post here.

>

> I think it's a mistake to make a big issue out of her using the

> example of 8 hour dosing and act like she is trying to " promote "

> that. I don't think she is. You could say the same things about

> chelating with cilantro: people ask about it fairly regularly on

> this list and typically get shouted down with " NO DON'T DO THAT " .

> Some of them will do it anyway and just go elsewhere if no one will

> have a reasonable conversation with them here.

>

> As an example, not long after I joined the list (with no intention

> of asking questions for myself about chelation), my attempts to

> understand why cilantro was helping me were initially shouted down

> on this list with people saying " DON'T DO THAT!!! " and, worse,

> people saying " don't do that to your kids " (implying I am a bad

> parent etc. when this didn't involve my children at all). When I

> did manage to finally get people to answer my actual questions

> instead of responding in knee jerk reaction to their fear that I was

> harming myself and my kids, some were apologetic for their

> assumptions, their previous posts, etc.

>

> But I have a fairly long history of dealing effectively with being

> the center of controversy on lists and that allowed me to get past

> the initial response. Most people who come here won't have such

> skills and will either not post at all (and apparently write

> privately to Dana) or will argue with people briefly and then leave

> and go elsewhere. Greeting their inquiries in a manner that is

> experienced by them as strongly emotionally negative does nothing to

> convince them of " the error of their ways " . It only convinces them

> that folks here cannot be talked to about the issue and won't treat

> them in a respectful and caring fashion. Help is much more readily

> accepted from people who behave in a respectful and caring fashion

> than from people who are being disrespectful, condescending, etc.

>

> Some studied showed that doctors could drastically reduce their odds

> of being sued for malpractice by taking an extra 30 seconds or so to

> have good " bedside manner " and ask questions like " How are you

> today? " instead of launching coldly into the medical part of it.

> So I would suggest that malpractice suits arise at least as much out

> of hurt feelings as out of genuine wrong-doing medically. That's

> essentially what is at issue here: Some people don't listen or

> won't post at all because of how they feel about their treatment

> (socially/emotionally) on list rather than because of the quality of

> information here -- because they feel, and rightly so, that there

> will be an agenda to talk them out of what they are doing before

> anyone really listens to what is going on.

>

> If that hardline can be removed from the list culture, it would

> further your goal of promoting frequent dose chelation. If you

> can't effectively reach people who are doing other types of

> chelation, then you wind up " preaching to the choir " rather than

> getting " new converts " . Since your stated goal is to reach those

> doing protocols that are harmful and help them to do something

> better, then I suggest the path to that is to figure out how to talk

> to them such that they do not feel you are saying they are " sinners

> damned to hell " who are " at fault " for hurting their kids. Because

> you are so knowledgeable and influential, your behavior will have a

> strong impact on list culture. If you continue to choose to use

> the " bombastic " approach, the list has a poor chance of becoming a

> place that welcomes exactly the type of people you state that you

> most wish to reach. If you find another manner that works for you,

> your behavior alone will go a long way towards revising the list

> culture and providing a model for others to follow. If that weren't

> so, I would be far less concerned about trying to get through to

> you, specifically, about what I understand works and doesn't work.

>

> Peace.

>

> Michele

>

June 9, 2008

Promotion would be starting your own group and constantly

directing people to that group when topics like this pop up. Dana

offers a link to the specific area of her Danasview site instead of

regurgitating all of that information (it IS a lot!), but icludes no

promise of Internet chat or even advice. Certainly, I've never heard

her publicly say she is right and we are wrong.

We all should know Dana isn't trolling. That is one person's

assessement and it should be taken as such; even if it is Andy's.

Might I take a moment for some LIGHTHEARTED observation: Andy,

saying Dana posts just to stir the pot is really " The pot calling the

kettle black " ! Both of you are valuable to us and you should be able

to share the stage from time to time.

Off to mop up our basement floor... AGAIN! These midwest downpours

are getting old.

Pam

> > I don't think she is trolling. I think she is trying to say the

same

> > thing I am trying to say: If people are assumed to be wrong,

guilty

> > and stupid from the get-go for even admitting that they are doing

a

> > different protocol, then you have no hope of helping them because

> > they won't post here.

>

> You said this better than I did.

>

> > I think it's a mistake to make a big issue out of her using the

> > example of 8 hour dosing and act like she is trying to " promote "

> > that. I don't think she is.

>

> I promote " what works for a specific child " . If that is frequent

> dose, then do that. If 3x per day, then do that.

>

> It is odd in a way, that I apparently am not allowed to " promote 8

> hour dosing " , but others here can promote frequent dose without

> problems. This is, after all, NOT the frequent dose chelation list.

>

> I do believe that frequent dose is probably safest. However, if it

> won't work, for whatever reason/s the parent believes are relevant

and

> important, I try to work with that parent to find something

> " sufficiently safe " that will also work.

>

> Dana

>

June 9, 2008

Then again there are those of us that like people that cut to the chase

and don't pussyfoot around.

I also think its possible the bombastic approach just might wake a few

people up.

I also think when you take the softly softly approach there are a number

of people who hear:

" At the end of the day, you can do whatever you want, its all good. "

But its not all good.

Dan & Ruth Setlak wrote:

>

> Just want to say that I agree. whether you choose bombastic or

> respectful, you won't convince everyone. strong, assertive, but

> respectful will, in my mind, reach more people. You will always have

> the ones that are going to do what they want, no matter what, or who

> only will listen to what they want to hear. But, there are those you

> are really seeking to learn, who want real information. Why risk

> turning them away by being so condescending?

>

> Ruth

> On Jun 8, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Michele wrote:

>

> >

> > >

> >

> > > You are playing troll and you should behave yourself and stop it.

> > >

> > > If you weren't playing troll you'd already have started another

> > list to discuss the wonders

> > > of 8 hour DMSA dosing and devoted your efforts there.

> > >

> > > Andy

> > >

> > I don't think she is trolling. I think she is trying to say the same

> > thing I am trying to say: If people are assumed to be wrong, guilty

> > and stupid from the get-go for even admitting that they are doing a

> > different protocol, then you have no hope of helping them because

> > they won't post here.

> >

> > I think it's a mistake to make a big issue out of her using the

> > example of 8 hour dosing and act like she is trying to " promote "

> > that. I don't think she is. You could say the same things about

> > chelating with cilantro: people ask about it fairly regularly on

> > this list and typically get shouted down with " NO DON'T DO THAT " .

> > Some of them will do it anyway and just go elsewhere if no one will

> > have a reasonable conversation with them here.

> >

> > As an example, not long after I joined the list (with no intention

> > of asking questions for myself about chelation), my attempts to

> > understand why cilantro was helping me were initially shouted down

> > on this list with people saying " DON'T DO THAT!!! " and, worse,

> > people saying " don't do that to your kids " (implying I am a bad

> > parent etc. when this didn't involve my children at all). When I

> > did manage to finally get people to answer my actual questions

> > instead of responding in knee jerk reaction to their fear that I was

> > harming myself and my kids, some were apologetic for their

> > assumptions, their previous posts, etc.

> >

> > But I have a fairly long history of dealing effectively with being

> > the center of controversy on lists and that allowed me to get past

> > the initial response. Most people who come here won't have such

> > skills and will either not post at all (and apparently write

> > privately to Dana) or will argue with people briefly and then leave

> > and go elsewhere. Greeting their inquiries in a manner that is

> > experienced by them as strongly emotionally negative does nothing to

> > convince them of " the error of their ways " . It only convinces them

> > that folks here cannot be talked to about the issue and won't treat

> > them in a respectful and caring fashion. Help is much more readily

> > accepted from people who behave in a respectful and caring fashion

> > than from people who are being disrespectful, condescending, etc.

> >

> > Some studied showed that doctors could drastically reduce their odds

> > of being sued for malpractice by taking an extra 30 seconds or so to

> > have good " bedside manner " and ask questions like " How are you

> > today? " instead of launching coldly into the medical part of it.

> > So I would suggest that malpractice suits arise at least as much out

> > of hurt feelings as out of genuine wrong-doing medically. That's

> > essentially what is at issue here: Some people don't listen or

> > won't post at all because of how they feel about their treatment

> > (socially/emotionally) on list rather than because of the quality of

> > information here -- because they feel, and rightly so, that there

> > will be an agenda to talk them out of what they are doing before

> > anyone really listens to what is going on.

> >

> > If that hardline can be removed from the list culture, it would

> > further your goal of promoting frequent dose chelation. If you

> > can't effectively reach people who are doing other types of

> > chelation, then you wind up " preaching to the choir " rather than

> > getting " new converts " . Since your stated goal is to reach those

> > doing protocols that are harmful and help them to do something

> > better, then I suggest the path to that is to figure out how to talk

> > to them such that they do not feel you are saying they are " sinners

> > damned to hell " who are " at fault " for hurting their kids. Because

> > you are so knowledgeable and influential, your behavior will have a

> > strong impact on list culture. If you continue to choose to use

> > the " bombastic " approach, the list has a poor chance of becoming a

> > place that welcomes exactly the type of people you state that you

> > most wish to reach. If you find another manner that works for you,

> > your behavior alone will go a long way towards revising the list

> > culture and providing a model for others to follow. If that weren't

> > so, I would be far less concerned about trying to get through to

> > you, specifically, about what I understand works and doesn't work.

> >

> > Peace.

> >

> > Michele

> >

>

June 9, 2008

If I were " softly softly " , I don't think this conversation would be

dragging on so long and I don't think I would have such a long

history of being the center of controversy on different lists and I

don't think people would react so very strongly to the things I

say. So I suggest that characterization is a misinterpretation of

what I am trying to convey. (and, yes, I do realize you actually

replied to someone else, not me, but her reply was one agreeing with

my points, so it's much the same as rebutting my remarks)

In fact, I have been told by some people who appreciate the " cut to

the chase " approach that I am a person who cuts to the chase and

doesn't do what they feel amounts to bullshitting them. Especially

on a list where people are likely to have some aspie traits, I don't

think it works to be too subtle. A lot of people simply won't

understand what you are saying. But " blunt " and " disrespectful " (or

obnoxious) aren't actually synonymous nor inseparable. It takes

more effort to be blunt and also come across as respectful but it

can be done.

I read an article in a magazine years ago. It was a personal

anecdote about a woman who had gone to " assertiveness training " back

in the 80's when that was all the rage. The instructor was some

Nazi-like woman and the class was instructed on how to yell at

people, how to be very pushy, etc. At some point, the author of the

article decided she didn't like yelling at people and being pushy

and disrespectful. She liked being nice to people. The next it was

her turn to practice yelling and being agressive, she told the

instructor she didn't want to, she didn't feel like it, she liked

being nice to people. The instructor berated her and insisted she

had to do these things or she would never be able to stand up for

herself, it's a tough world out there, etc. She politely declined

and a few minutes later decided she had had enough of this class and

quietly gathered her things and left. As she left, she heard one of

women in the back row say to another " God, what a bitch " .

I hope some folks can see how that anecdote might be relevant to my

point. I'm off to try to nap some more as I have yet to sleep

enough.

Peace.

Michele

>

> Then again there are those of us that like people that cut to the

chase

> and don't pussyfoot around.

>

> I also think its possible the bombastic approach just might wake a

few

> people up.

>

> I also think when you take the softly softly approach there are a

number

> of people who hear:

>

> " At the end of the day, you can do whatever you want, its all

good. "

>

> But its not all good.

>

June 9, 2008

I'm not really rebutting anyone's remarks.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is:

you have to bait the hook to suit the fish.......

and there's cluster's of different fish out there that will respond to

different bait....

Not that I know anything about fishing...........

Michele wrote:

>

> If I were " softly softly " , I don't think this conversation would be

> dragging on so long and I don't think I would have such a long

> history of being the center of controversy on different lists and I

> don't think people would react so very strongly to the things I

> say. So I suggest that characterization is a misinterpretation of

> what I am trying to convey. (and, yes, I do realize you actually

> replied to someone else, not me, but her reply was one agreeing with

> my points, so it's much the same as rebutting my remarks)

>

> In fact, I have been told by some people who appreciate the " cut to

> the chase " approach that I am a person who cuts to the chase and

> doesn't do what they feel amounts to bullshitting them. Especially

> on a list where people are likely to have some aspie traits, I don't

> think it works to be too subtle. A lot of people simply won't

> understand what you are saying. But " blunt " and " disrespectful " (or

> obnoxious) aren't actually synonymous nor inseparable. It takes

> more effort to be blunt and also come across as respectful but it

> can be done.

>

> I read an article in a magazine years ago. It was a personal

> anecdote about a woman who had gone to " assertiveness training " back

> in the 80's when that was all the rage. The instructor was some

> Nazi-like woman and the class was instructed on how to yell at

> people, how to be very pushy, etc. At some point, the author of the

> article decided she didn't like yelling at people and being pushy

> and disrespectful. She liked being nice to people. The next it was

> her turn to practice yelling and being agressive, she told the

> instructor she didn't want to, she didn't feel like it, she liked

> being nice to people. The instructor berated her and insisted she

> had to do these things or she would never be able to stand up for

> herself, it's a tough world out there, etc. She politely declined

> and a few minutes later decided she had had enough of this class and

> quietly gathered her things and left. As she left, she heard one of

> women in the back row say to another " God, what a bitch " .

>

> I hope some folks can see how that anecdote might be relevant to my

> point. I'm off to try to nap some more as I have yet to sleep

> enough.

>

> Peace.

>

> Michele

>

> >

> > Then again there are those of us that like people that cut to the

> chase

> > and don't pussyfoot around.

> >

> > I also think its possible the bombastic approach just might wake a

> few

> > people up.

> >

> > I also think when you take the softly softly approach there are a

> number

> > of people who hear:

> >

> > " At the end of the day, you can do whatever you want, its all

> good. "

> >

> > But its not all good.

> >

>

June 9, 2008

I haven’t kept up with this thread but we recovered our son who is now 19

when he was 17-18. We did not fully chelate, probably only got ½ done

through the andy cutler method before having to stop to pay for medication

for our daughter with uveitis. We chelated 8 months.

Here is an update: A few days ago he went to rockfest and had so much fun

and came back sunburned from 14 hours in the sun. He has a car, and a job

and is in college. He wrote a persuasive speech for his speech class on

procrastination. He has other college students that want to roommate with

him and they all went looking for apartments by the college but they would

not rent to them because it was too many kids in a 3 bedroom so now they are

looking for a house to rent.

He is brilliant in his job with computers, helps me around the house, and

has friends and goes out socially, he gives eye contact and can have

conversations now. He interacts with his siblings and his “chore” is to

motivate them to do their chores since he is so great at that. Yesterday he

told me that while watching my younger son work, he found that he didn’t get

any work done because he spent the day tattling on other people and annoying

them so they couldn’t get their chores done. He shows great management

skill potential and shows insight into others with his thinking. Prior to

chelation, he didn’t bathe, didn’t leave his room (ocd) and didn’t have a

conversation beyond “need food” or can you buy me such and such video game.

This is the boy that was hardly verbal and relatives told me that setting a

goal of driving was too ambitious of a goal to ever set for him.

I still do not think we are finished Chelating him. My next step I think

should be testing his adrenals and fixing them, and then he might feel like

continuing on with chelation again when we can afford it. His sleep clock

is off, so that is one gain that has regressed. Please understand that I

get a lot of people wanting to know what we did so I can’t answer every

private email as I would like. We did the andy cutler method of chelation

with a strong continual rotation of yeast fighters (everything but the

kitchen sink) protocol in place while he ate a diet of pizza hut, taco

bell, burger king and subway. So, basically you can chelate successfully

and eat crap which I find really interesting because I could go from all

organic foods and eat crap to afford chelators then go back to all organic,

in theory it would work…

Most often we would do a 3 day round every 2 weeks for 8 months, taking

longer breaks for illness if yeast got out of control but staying on

supplements inbetween rounds as well as on rounds using dmsa/ala. Dmsa only

for the first month or two. Starting with very low doses, like 12.5mg, dosed

every 4 hours dmsa, every 3 with ala. We also had an extreme

supplementation protocol (if he needed it, he got it, and he needed a lot

because of his symptoms and diet), with high zinc, clo, and amino acids

which was inspired by the Pfeiffer protocol. He also needed d-lactate free

probiotics. Chelation is so individual. YMMV, your mileage may vary.

Each supplement, and there was about 20 different ones, with like probably

100 individual vitamins/minerals/etc. a day or more, maybe 150. It was an

amazing amount of pills. Fistfulls of pills. Not everyone will need that

much. The vitamin C alone was fourty capsules a day (you give to bowel

tolerance). He took 4 caps of C0-Q10 a day, we gave him lots of extra

vitamins he needed. The CoQ was for his headaches. You will find the

individual supplements your child needs, and test each one individually, so

be prepared for that. I can’t emphasize enough how financially ready you

have to be, and purchase supplements in bulk and own a capsule making

machine. Then there are people who do it for much less money and use the

basic supplements. I am just saying what it took to recover our son was on

the extreme end of cost and amount of supplements. When we begin chelating

again, he might not need all that. He eats a much healthier diet now, drinks

water, and eats food at home.

Ref list of supplements he took (to find your childs dosage and needs search

onibasu.com)

Vit C as sodium ascorbate (10,000 mg a day)

Magnesium chelated

Calcium

Chelated zinc (54mg 4 times a day which is way over the RDA, FYI)

Selenium

molybdenum

Vit e

Cod liver oil

Grapeseed extract with phosphodytlcholine

We found phosphydyltcholine gave him gains so we switched to lethicin

Metzger’s research states CLO/Combined with other supplements give

gains and we saw this with our son.

L Taurine

Orthomega

Pfeiffer aminos (search Pfeiffer protocol-they gave me their amino list over

the phone when I explained my son’s gains)

P5P

Chromium

Can’t remember all of them sorry

Now B-50

L lysine (can’t remember why)

Gut/yeast

Houstons trio with food

Custom probiotics away from food

Candidase away from food

Rotation of 2months of each MCT oil/Uva Ursi/GSE for yeast

Super strength oregano away from everything dosed middle of night.

Reducing sugar at times, sometimes on round. ALA stirs up yeast so 1 month

prior get yeast protocol in place if your

Child is yeasty. Reduce sugars prior to ala.

Activated charcoal/bentonite clay/to absorb yeast dieoff given l hour after

yeast fighters

Bad breath/casket breath

Silva solution then we switched to a better and more effective solution

(andy does not agree with giving silver, so we found something that worked

that was different, Chlorophyll)

Chlorophyll for bacterial smell

For sleep

Inositol

For migranes

Co Q 10 I think he took 100 mgs 4x a day, buy powder from now for $100, cap

it yourself in small caps

He took 4 small caps a day.

On the frequency of dmsa/ala we always used andy’s protocol of 3 or 4 hours

on the half life depending on what we were giving ala, dmsa, or both

together. We would fail the round if we missed a dose and stop the round.

I find it shocking and appauling that people would use less frequent

dosing…this is pointless in my opinion, displacing mercury and heavy metals

rather than chelating them out.

I probably have missed some things but this gives a general idea….My son is

well now. His chemical sensitivity is gone and he is no longer receiving

disability benefits because he said “He is no longer disabled”. He also

used to be chemically sensitive and was receiving ssi for that and is no

longer.

June 9, 2008

Well, I don't think I proposed a softly, softly approach, but merely

a respectful one. I find it interesting that people on this list

serv often act as if there is not in-between. And, at the end of the

day, they are the parents and will need to make their own decisions.

I believe that if people are bulled, they are not acting necessarily

on their own conviction, but to an external pressure. That often

doesn't last. Educating, being as honest (but respectful in the

process) as possible, and encouraging people to research because the

risks are real, makes sense. Bullying does not. Better to empower

than to disempower and control.

You will NEVER get everyone. Go for the approach that will get you

the best results. I've been on this list for years and this is a

CONSTANT point of contention. And, there are always just a few that

do the bullying. I think the majority respond better to accurate

information and respect. You can be straightforward, not apologetic,

and accurately state the risks without being rude, condescending, and

manipulative, IMO.

Ruth

On Jun 9, 2008, at 9:30 AM, Reynolds wrote:

> Then again there are those of us that like people that cut to the

> chase

> and don't pussyfoot around.

>

> I also think its possible the bombastic approach just might wake a few

> people up.

>

> I also think when you take the softly softly approach there are a

> number

> of people who hear:

>

> " At the end of the day, you can do whatever you want, its all good. "

>

> But its not all good.

>

> Dan & Ruth Setlak wrote:

> >

> > Just want to say that I agree. whether you choose bombastic or

> > respectful, you won't convince everyone. strong, assertive, but

> > respectful will, in my mind, reach more people. You will always have

> > the ones that are going to do what they want, no matter what, or who

> > only will listen to what they want to hear. But, there are those you

> > are really seeking to learn, who want real information. Why risk

> > turning them away by being so condescending?

> >

> > Ruth

> > On Jun 8, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Michele wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > You are playing troll and you should behave yourself and stop

> it.

> > > >

> > > > If you weren't playing troll you'd already have started another

> > > list to discuss the wonders

> > > > of 8 hour DMSA dosing and devoted your efforts there.

> > > >

> > > > Andy

> > > >

> > > I don't think she is trolling. I think she is trying to say the

> same

> > > thing I am trying to say: If people are assumed to be wrong,

> guilty

> > > and stupid from the get-go for even admitting that they are

> doing a

> > > different protocol, then you have no hope of helping them because

> > > they won't post here.

> > >

> > > I think it's a mistake to make a big issue out of her using the

> > > example of 8 hour dosing and act like she is trying to " promote "

> > > that. I don't think she is. You could say the same things about

> > > chelating with cilantro: people ask about it fairly regularly on

> > > this list and typically get shouted down with " NO DON'T DO THAT " .

> > > Some of them will do it anyway and just go elsewhere if no one

> will

> > > have a reasonable conversation with them here.

> > >

> > > As an example, not long after I joined the list (with no intention

> > > of asking questions for myself about chelation), my attempts to

> > > understand why cilantro was helping me were initially shouted down

> > > on this list with people saying " DON'T DO THAT!!! " and, worse,

> > > people saying " don't do that to your kids " (implying I am a bad

> > > parent etc. when this didn't involve my children at all). When I

> > > did manage to finally get people to answer my actual questions

> > > instead of responding in knee jerk reaction to their fear that

> I was

> > > harming myself and my kids, some were apologetic for their

> > > assumptions, their previous posts, etc.

> > >

> > > But I have a fairly long history of dealing effectively with being

> > > the center of controversy on lists and that allowed me to get past

> > > the initial response. Most people who come here won't have such

> > > skills and will either not post at all (and apparently write

> > > privately to Dana) or will argue with people briefly and then

> leave

> > > and go elsewhere. Greeting their inquiries in a manner that is

> > > experienced by them as strongly emotionally negative does

> nothing to

> > > convince them of " the error of their ways " . It only convinces them

> > > that folks here cannot be talked to about the issue and won't

> treat

> > > them in a respectful and caring fashion. Help is much more readily

> > > accepted from people who behave in a respectful and caring fashion

> > > than from people who are being disrespectful, condescending, etc.

> > >

> > > Some studied showed that doctors could drastically reduce their

> odds

> > > of being sued for malpractice by taking an extra 30 seconds or

> so to

> > > have good " bedside manner " and ask questions like " How are you

> > > today? " instead of launching coldly into the medical part of it.

> > > So I would suggest that malpractice suits arise at least as

> much out

> > > of hurt feelings as out of genuine wrong-doing medically. That's

> > > essentially what is at issue here: Some people don't listen or

> > > won't post at all because of how they feel about their treatment

> > > (socially/emotionally) on list rather than because of the

> quality of

> > > information here -- because they feel, and rightly so, that there

> > > will be an agenda to talk them out of what they are doing before

> > > anyone really listens to what is going on.

> > >

> > > If that hardline can be removed from the list culture, it would

> > > further your goal of promoting frequent dose chelation. If you

> > > can't effectively reach people who are doing other types of

> > > chelation, then you wind up " preaching to the choir " rather than

> > > getting " new converts " . Since your stated goal is to reach those

> > > doing protocols that are harmful and help them to do something

> > > better, then I suggest the path to that is to figure out how to

> talk

> > > to them such that they do not feel you are saying they are

> " sinners

> > > damned to hell " who are " at fault " for hurting their kids. Because

> > > you are so knowledgeable and influential, your behavior will

> have a

> > > strong impact on list culture. If you continue to choose to use

> > > the " bombastic " approach, the list has a poor chance of becoming a

> > > place that welcomes exactly the type of people you state that you

> > > most wish to reach. If you find another manner that works for you,

> > > your behavior alone will go a long way towards revising the list

> > > culture and providing a model for others to follow. If that

> weren't

> > > so, I would be far less concerned about trying to get through to

> > > you, specifically, about what I understand works and doesn't work.

> > >

> > > Peace.

> > >

> > > Michele

> > >

> >

June 9, 2008

Wow. No wonder some of you come across as condescending....

On Jun 9, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Reynolds wrote:

> you have to bait the hook to suit the fish.......

>

> and there's cluster's of different fish out there that will respond to

> different bait....

June 9, 2008

----- Original Message -----

From: Dan & Ruth Setlak

Well, I don't think I proposed a softly, softly approach, but merely

a respectful one. I find it interesting that people on this list

serv often act as if there is not in-between.

====>Lots of lessons here, for me for sure but because it's always easier to

start with someone other than yourself.... here goes.

A lot of this has to do with cohort groups and their expectations. Each

generation becomes more spoiled than the last, mine included. I am a baby

boomer, there were a ton of us. Noone gave us the delusion that we were

overvalued so we were taught to wait our turn, do the work for ourself, keep our

mouth shut and if someone were willing to help us (other than our parents) noone

would think about worrying about how the message was delivered. We were stupid

enough to believe that the help was valuable.

As the number of children a parent had lessened this has changed, maybe for

the better. But maybe not if parents' are willing to do things to hurt their

kids because the message is not in the tone they prefer. Yes, that will teach

the person not to be rude. Really fail to see the logic here.

And, at the end of the

day, they are the parents and will need to make their own decisions.

====>Yes, this is the right of every parent, within reason, no doubt. However

I do not think respect is something I can muster for parents' who chose to do

things to hurt their children, sorry, can't do it. For parents' who are ignorant

(meaning they don't know better) lots of patience..... for parents' who know

better and chose to do things in the parents' best interests...I can't muster

respect for that idea.

Overconcern for the feelings of adults who have choices appear to be at the

expense of little people who are helpless......something wrong here.

You can be straightforward, not apologetic,

and accurately state the risks without being rude, condescending, and

manipulative, IMO.

====>No, you really can't be straightforward without a lot of unwarranted

complaints that you are bashing and such. It's always interesting to me that

after a conversation with Dana the only people who are whipped into emotional

overdrive are..........Dana and I.

You're correct in that you can't please everyone and I agree that the response

should match the situation and rarely necessitates starting out with strong

tactics....however, they are sometimes necessary.