A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're talking about ethylmercury, not methlmercury. They are doing everything they can to show that it is not poisonous in the doses given.

Do you even know what form of mercury was used in hat making? Or are you just grabbing made up stuff out of the air again?

The toxic effect of any substance is always dependent on the dose, a little may have little effect, a lot may be fatal.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Do you even know what form of mercury was used in hat making? Or are you just grabbing made up stuff out of the air again?

The toxic effect of any substance is always dependent on the dose, a little may have little effect, a lot may be fatal.

That's not necessarily true. Some toxic substances can be lethal with the tiniest amounts.

[peacegirl]

I never knew porcupines can talk!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v...type=2&theater

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v...type=2&theater

[peacegirl]

Lioness allowing a man near her cubs

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v...type=2&theater

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not necessarily true. Some toxic substances can be lethal with the tiniest amounts.

You really don't understand anything do you? A dose is relative to the toxicity of the substance. If a tiny amount is lethal, an even smaller dose may only make you sick. Can you comprehend that? Or is it beyond your understanding altogether? Did you actually read all of my post?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lioness allowing a man near her cubs

You are really desperate to divert attention away from you and the book.

If you really want to post about something else, there are plenty of other threads on different subjects. You are not locked into this thread. Posting on another thread might indicate that you actually are human.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is evidence...

Provide it then.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You really don't understand anything do you? A dose is relative to the toxicity of the substance. If a tiny amount is lethal, an even smaller dose may only make you sick. Can you comprehend that? Or is it beyond your understanding altogether? Did you actually read all of my post?

If you keeping talking disrespectfully, it's time for me to stop communicating with you. You've gotten out of hand. Did you not read the article that it's more than the dosage of one vaccine. It's the synergistic effect of all the vaccines put together that can become problematic?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/

Natural Health News and Wellness Tips | Natural Remedies and Products: The More Vaccines An Infant Receives In Its First Year, The Higher The Mortality Rate

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You are really desperate to divert attention away from you and the book.

If you really want to post about something else, there are plenty of other threads on different subjects. You are not locked into this thread. Posting on another thread might indicate that you actually are human.

I am not interested in discussing the book anymore, and I'm not interested in starting anymore threads. If you don't like it here, you're welcome to leave.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you keeping talking disrespectfully, it's time for me to stop communicating with you.

You want respect, earn it, start posting with intelligence and some understanding of the real world. I don't really care if you "communicate" with me or not, I'll post what I want, when I want, for the most part you are irrelevant, except as cannon fodder.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

and I'm not interested in starting anymore threads. If you don't like it here, you're welcome to leave.

I didn't say 'start a new thread', post on an existing thread that interests you, you can't be that narrow minded that nothing else strikes your fancy.

I'm not the one whining about not liking it here, that's you, I like this forum and this thread, it's entertaining, even though the object of the thread lacks substance. Other contributors have brought some substance to the thread that completely destroys everything that you have posted.

[LadyShea]

You can use any facts you want to try and prove that the Geiers were out for money.

They may not be out for money, but they are trying to salvage their Lupron therapy which is the sole purpose of the paper I posted. They had opened 8 clinics before it all blew up. My first thought is that it's for money, just like the pharmaceutical companies you rail against. What do you think their main motivation is?

I think this has become a smear campaign, and you have bought into it.

It's done been done. He is smeared. He lost his license. He is trying to salvage it though. Just because he can't practice, doesn't mean he can't hire MDs to run new clinics and charge people and insurance providers 10's of thousands of dollars.

He gave money to his own organization, so money that was given back to him was his.

Yes, that's what I said. However, there is a big ole circle jerk going on regarding taxes (as in not paying them) and expenses and shared money between for profit companies and non profit organizations. But, you obviously do not understand anything at all about business, and I am not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

BTW, you should look into his involvement and lawsuit regarding the Omnibus Autism Proceeding, and his billing practices- like billing for the same work multiple times in multiple cases and requesting expert fees when not acting in the capacity of an expert.... talk about shady ways to try to profit off autism You probably won't understand legal wheeling and dealing either, but it's pretty good. Maturin, take a look.

As far as Lisa Sykes being his colleague and therefore in collusion to pull the wool over the public, I really doubt that.

I said nothing about collusion to pull the wool over the public-whatever that means. I merely pointed out that she is in fact paid by Geier, and is in business with him, which you seemed to imply wouldn't be the case when you tried to pre-empt my making a statement to that effect.

You are so suspicious of everyone that no one is safe from your condemning eyes.

Who needs suspicions when we have all these public facts?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wish them luck trying to find a one size fits all drug [based on a system that looks at how brain networks contribute to difficulties that are shared across diagnoses]. It follows that they are looking for new ways to keep the money rolling in because their antiquated system of shock treatments and drugs have failed once again. Their hype is so convincing that it's easy to be a believer, but no drug will ever be able to solve all of the problems people have, especially when there is no lab finding that can identify what the problem is, let alone what the solution is.

Huh? They are not developing new drugs. The article clearly states this. It also clearly states they have shifted funding from psychiatric pharmaceuticals to neuroscience research. Neuroscience is not psychiatry just as psychiatry is not psychology though all of them have some overlap.

I swear you have the worst reading comprehension I have seen in an adult.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I didn't say 'start a new thread', post on an existing thread that interests you, you can't be that narrow minded that nothing else strikes your fancy.

I'm not the one whining about not liking it here, that's you, I like this forum and this thread, it's entertaining, even though the object of the thread lacks substance. Other contributors have brought some substance to the thread that completely destroys everything that you have posted.

Nothing here has destroyed everything I've posted except in your imagination. When I said the tiniest amount of some substances (which, by definition, cannot get any tinier by virtue that they are the tiniest) can be lethal, that's exactly what I meant. I hope you enjoy this thread while you can because I'm not going to be here much longer, at least not on an everyday basis. If the thread lasts after I leave that would be great, but I doubt it. People say I'm the draw.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They may not be out for money, but they are trying to salvage their Lupron therapy which is the sole purpose of the paper I posted. They had opened 8 clinics before it all blew up. My first thought is that it's for money, just like the pharmaceutical companies you rail against. What do you think their main motivation is?

I don't think their main motivation was for money although I don't know if there have been enough of these cases to justify opening 8 clinics. Taking away this man's license did not seem like an appropriate action. To me, this feels like it was more of a way to remove a threat to the vaccine industry which has political ties.

I think this has become a smear campaign, and you have bought into it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's done been done. He is smeared. He lost his license. He is trying to salvage it though. Just because he can't practice, doesn't mean he can't hire MDs to run new clinics and charge people and insurance providers 10's of thousands of dollars.

And... save some young lives in the process who were destroyed by ethylmercury.

He gave money to his own organization, so money that was given back to him was his.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, that's what I said. However, there is a big ole circle jerk going on regarding taxes (as in not paying them) and expenses and shared money between for profit companies and non profit organizations. But, you obviously do not understand anything at all about business, and I am not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place if you can't explain it? Probably because you don't understand it yourself.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

BTW, you should look into his involvement and lawsuit regarding the Omnibus Autism Proceeding, and his billing practices- like billing for the same work multiple times in multiple cases and requesting expert fees when not acting in the capacity of an expert.... talk about shady ways to try to profit off autism You probably won't understand legal wheeling and dealing either, but it's pretty good. Maturin, take a look.

If he actually lied and stole money, that would be unethical and I would never support that. But I don't believe the gossip or people who may give false witness for reasons of their own which could undermine someone's entire career.

As far as Lisa Sykes being his colleague and therefore in collusion to pull the wool over the public, I really doubt that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I said nothing about collusion to pull the wool over the public-whatever that means. I merely pointed out that she is in fact paid by Geier, and is in business with him, which you seemed to imply wouldn't be the case when you tried to pre-empt my making a statement to that effect.

What? I didn't try to preempt your making a comment that she worked for him. But being that she did work for him, you in your effort to make them look like the bad guys, jump to all kinds of conclusions without any facts to back it up. How does her working for him have to do with the book she wrote about how her son was helped, and how do you know that her testimony wasn't honest? If she is lying just to make money off of this, it would come out sooner or later and would destroy her reputation in the religious community. I doubt if she is a complete fraud as you are making her and Geier out to be.

You are so suspicious of everyone that no one is safe from your condemning eyes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who needs suspicions when we have all these public facts?

You are not just suspicious. You have already condemned them; you have made yourself the judge, the jury, and the warden.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to be here much longer...

Do you really believe that?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I said the tiniest amount of some substances (which, by definition, cannot get any tinier by virtue that they are the tiniest) can be lethal, that's exactly what I meant.

The most toxic substance known to man is Botulinum toxin, produced by Clostridium botulinum (which causes botulism), but the tiniest amount is not lethal. A very tiny amount can be, like 1 nanogram per kilogram of weight, but the tiniest amount...such as a single molecule, is not. It is used in Botox, after all, without killing people.

Tetanus is also highly lethal, in the 1 nanogram/kilogram range. Still the very tiniest amount is not.

So, if you meant what you said, what you said and meant was wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People say I'm the draw.

There was a train wreck close to where I live and it drew a lot of people to come and watch.

Traffic remains restricted near area of train derailment in Cumberland County - The York Daily Record

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think their main motivation was for money although I don't know if there have been enough of these cases to justify opening 8 clinics.

Here are the clinics that are still listed as open.
Autism Treatment Centers and Clinics

Geier at one point stated he had treated over 300 children and was evaluating 200 more, but the total number who used the Lupron protocol is unknown

Taking away this man's license did not seem like an appropriate action.
To me, this feels like it was more of a way to remove a threat to the vaccine industry which has political ties.

If this was about Big Pharma, then the drug industry could have been well served by producing leuprorelin and other testosterone reducing meds as a "treatment" for the "damage" they themselves caused! They could make money at both ends! Why would that be a threat rather than an opportunity?

Why would pediatric endocrinologists, the specialists who are usually consulted to diagnose and treat precocious puberty, not jump on it if it worked and could make them a ton of money? Geier's patent is still pending, they could have developed their own similar protocol and used their credentials to get in on the action.

And... save some young lives in the process who were destroyed by ethylmercury.

If the treatment worked. But of his known 300 patients, how many saw such dramatic results as to be termed life saving?

Then why did you bring it up in the first place if you can't explain it? Probably because you don't understand it yourself.

It's patently clear in the financial information I originally posted, and what I just said. Taxes, shared monies between for-profit and non-profits, and paying for expenses from organizational funds rather than out of pocket. If you were capable of understanding you wouldn't need it explained.

If he actually lied and stole money, that would be unethical and I would never support that. But I don't believe the gossip or people who may give false witness for reasons of their own which could undermine someone's entire career.

It's not gossip or rumors, but actual filings and orders from court cases where he requested compensation. These are available to the public. I found them in less than 10 minutes.

What? I didn't try to preempt your making a comment that she worked for him.

Your predicted I would tell you she might be lying or have been paid off by Geier because you "know me".

But being that she did work for him, you in your effort to make them look like the bad guys, jump to all kinds of conclusions without any facts to back it up.

I didn't jump to any conclusions. She works with him and gets paid. I have posted facts.

How does her working for him have to do with the book she wrote about how her son was helped, and how do you know that her testimony wasn't honest?

She has a financial interest which can cause bias. She may have been honest, or maybe not. How can that be determined?

If she is lying just to make money off of this, it would come out sooner or later and would destroy her reputation in the religious community. I doubt if she is a complete fraud as you are making her and Geier out to be.

They may be sincere in their desire to help people as well as greedy and willing to take advantage when/if they can. The two aren't mutually exclusive. And where did I say I think she is a complete fraud? You are reading into things.

You are not just suspicious. You have already condemned them; you have made yourself the judge, the jury, and the warden.

I am just posting facts. You may interpret them differently and come to a different conclusion, but you are just as guilty of making judgements.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The most toxic substance known to man is Botulinum toxin, produced by Clostridium botulinum (which causes botulism), but the tiniest amount is not lethal. A very tiny amount can be, like 1 nanogram per kilogram of weight, but the tiniest amount...such as a single molecule, is not. It is used in Botox, after all, without killing people.

Tetanus is also highly lethal, in the 1 nanogram/kilogram range. Still the very tiniest amount is not.

So, if you meant what you said, what you said and meant was wrong.

How the Phantasmal Poison Frog can Kill you with a Touch
By: Terrence Aym
Published: May 21, 2010

MORE ARTICLES ABOUT:
How the phantasmal poison frog can kill you with a touch


A tiny frog that makes its home on the western slopes of the Ecuadorian Andes secretes a venom through its skin that’s so deadly just touching it can kill you. The phantasmal poison frog has one of the strongest toxins of all known amphibians.

The lethal poison it excretes—200 times more toxic than morphine—can be absorbed through human skin causing an instant overdose.

The minuscule frogs measure only four-tenths of an inch. After attaining adulthood they turn a bright red and have three parallel green stripes across their back. [Photo]

The World Conservation Union has listed the phantasmal poison frog as an endangered species. And although it can kill with merely a touch, researchers have discovered potential medical benefits from the little frog’s venom.

Because the frogs are in danger of becoming extinct, several facilities around the world have been working to breed them. One, the Blue Reef Aquarium in Portsmouth, England, just announced they had successfully bred 26 of them.

Jenna MacFarlane, a spokesperson at the aquarium, explains, “When we handle them we always use gloves and often wear a face mask.”

The British Herpetological Society’s David Willis—a frog expert—noted that although the frog’s diet in captivity reduced its toxicity, he found it “reassuring” that the Blue Reef Aquarium staff were protecting themselves from the poisonous amphibian.

Poison frog toxins come from the amphibian’s diet—synthesized from toxic chemicals from the ants. millipedes and other poisonous invertebrates that the frogs eat. Captive-born poison frogs don’t have venomous skin secretions unless their diet has the poisonous invertebrates that the species normally eats in the wild.

The Blue Reef Aquarium staff has take pains to provide their phantasmal poison frogs with the proper diet assuring a high level of toxic secretions.

Tourists visit the aquarium daily and when they see the frog “Most people find it hard to believe that something so small and pretty can be so deadly,” MacFarlane said.

Recently, a research lab developed a new painkiller from the toxin and named it “epibatidine” after the frog’s scientific name, “Epipedrobates tricolor.” The painkiller is hundreds of times more effective than morphine without the possibility of addiction or other serious side effects.

Other than the analgesic properties of its toxin the researchers hope for the development of new muscle relaxants and stimulants for the heart.

“Despite their deadly status, it is hoped that the phantasmal poison frog could one day help save lives,” added MacFarlane.

The tiny frogs are part of a group of diverse amphibians known as “poison dart” or “poison arrow” frogs—a description coined by Amazon explorers in the 19th Century. The frogs’ venom was used by indigenous South American natives to coat darts projected by wind-driven devices called blowpipes. The best known venom of the blowpipe darts is called curare, developed from a plant and used for many decades as a muscle relaxant.

http://www.critters360.com/index.php...a-touch-10028/

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here are the clinics that are still listed as open.
Autism Treatment Centers and Clinics

Geier at one point stated he had treated over 300 children and was evaluating 200 more, but the total number who used the Lupron protocol is unknown/quote]

If the total number is unknown, how can you come to these hard and fast conclusions that they were not helped by this therapy? I do not support drugs at all as the first line of defense, but when a child has been severely damaged by the negaligence of the vaccine industry, this therapy could very well give children their lives back to some degree. I asked you earlier: What do you want these parents to do; wait for years until the vaccine industry admits they ruined their children's lives and have no therapy that can help reverse the terrible effects?

Because they didn't pursue the studies. Geier did, and they didn't like it. If any good could come of it, do you think they wanted to give this man credit and lose their standing with the public once they found out that there is indirect correlation betweem thimerosal and autism? How do you think that would have fared?

Same reason. The cat was already out of the bag. To find problems with the vaccine after the fact would have been damaging to the entire vaccine industry.[quot think this has become a smear campaign, and you have bought into it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's done been done. He is smeared. He lost his license. He is trying to salvage it though. Just because he can't practice, doesn't mean he can't hire MDs to run new clinics and charge people and insurance providers 10's of thousands of dollars.

And... save some young lives in the process who were destroyed by ethylmercury.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the treatment worked. But of his known 300 patients, how many saw such dramatic results as to be termed life saving?

I'm not using this term in reference to a heart that beats versus a heart that doesn't beat. The term can be used in a broader sense. If a child can't write his own name and then begins to show signs of cognitive ability that was completely lost after the vaccine, this therapy would be considered lifesaving by any definition.

He gave money to his own organization, so money that was given back to him was his.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, that's what I said. However, there is a big ole circle jerk going on regarding taxes (as in not paying them) and expenses and shared money between for profit companies and non profit organizations. But, you obviously do not understand anything at all about business, and I am not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place if you can't explain it? Probably because you don't understand it yourself.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's patently clear in the financial information I originally posted, and what I just said. Taxes, shared monies between for-profit and non-profits, and paying for expenses from organizational funds rather than out of pocket. If you were capable of understanding you wouldn't need it explained.

Findings are still within a context, and the context may be very much misinterpreted due to the way they are presented. When this much money is involved, you cannot trust those who have a lot to lose if they don'e look squeaky clean.

What? I didn't try to preempt your making a comment that she worked for him.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your predicted I would tell you she might be lying or have been paid off by Geier because you "know me".

Well don't I? You are jumping on this bandwagon before you get the other side's defense. You are extremely biased as you already admitted.

But being that she did work for him, you in your effort to make them look like the bad guys, jump to all kinds of conclusions without any facts to back it up.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't jump to any conclusions. She works with him and gets paid. I have posted facts.

The "facts" do not come close to the conclusions that you have drawn, as if there can be no other explanation.

How does her working for him have to do with the book she wrote about how her son was helped, and how do you know that her testimony wasn't honest?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She has a financial interest which can cause bias. She may have been honest, or maybe not. How can that be determined?

You don't go condemning people just because it appears as if... That's a terrible way to approach science and life itself. You give people a break and assume their innocence before you assume their guilt. That's even protected under the constitution.

If she is lying just to make money off of this, it would come out sooner or later and would destroy her reputation in the religious community. I doubt if she is a complete fraud as you are making her and Geier out to be.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They may be sincere in their desire to help people as well as greedy and willing to take advantage when/if they can. The two aren't mutually exclusive. And where did I say I think she is a complete fraud? You are reading into things.

Then why did you bring her up in this negative light? Why would you talk about her working for Geier if you didn't want to make her look guilty of being a party to a scam?

You are not just suspicious. You have already condemned them; you have made yourself the judge, the jury, and the warden.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am just posting facts. You may interpret them differently and come to a different conclusion, but you are just as guilty of making judgements.

When thousands upon thousands of people have died due to the FDA's refusal to expose the the danger of Vioxx that they were well aware of, my discussing this sad state of affairs does not make me guilty. Why can't you admit that they were responsible for these deaths? The fact that you will not admit this shows me how biased a conversation can be to the degree that it's not objective anymore.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Huh? They are not developing new drugs. The article clearly states this. It also clearly states they have shifted funding from psychiatric pharmaceuticals to neuroscience research. Neuroscience is not psychiatry just as psychiatry is not psychology though all of them have some overlap.

I swear you have the worst reading comprehension I have seen in an adult.

Somehow I don't believe that new drugs aren't going to be coming down the pike. The shift in funding doesn't mean psychiatry won't exist anymore. It will just be wrapped differently. I doubt if psychiatric pharmaceuticals are going to disappear completely.

[The Lone Ranger]

You'll absorb a whole lot more than 1 molecule of the toxin from even lightly touching a frog. There is no substace so toxic that a single molecule of it can kill you; that's a physiological impossibility.

Incidentally, that article makes some elementary errors. For example, no frog is venomous, though there are plenty of poisonous frogs. Those terms ("poisonous" and "venomous") are not synonymous, though lots of people who don't understand the difference use them as if they are. As is so often the case with "Pop Sci" articles, the author doesn't seem to really understand the subject.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You'll absorb a whole lot more than 1 molecule of the toxin from even lightly touching a frog. There is no substace so toxic that a single molecule of it can kill you; that's a physiological impossibility.

Incidentally, that article makes some elementary errors. For example, no frog is venomous, though there are plenty of poisonous frogs. Those terms ("poisonous" and "venomous") are not synonymous, though lots of people who don't understand the difference use them as if they are. As is so often the case with "Pop Sci" articles, the author doesn't seem to really understand the subject.

I read that ricin the size of a pin head could kill you.

[The Lone Ranger]

Do you have any friggin' idea of how many trillions of molecules there are in something the size of the head of a pin?


Just one cell in your body contains well over 10,000,000,000,000 atoms.