Re: Digest Number 44

December 12, 1998

Yes, I met Dr. Steenblock at the Hyperbaric Oxygen for Stroke conference

of mainly physicians at the Washington-Marriott Hotel in May 1998. He felt

confident he could help my wife, but she was in no condition to make a long

trip. At that time she was totally paralyzed both in speech and mobility as

well as cognitive powers. Now she is much improved, but his clinic is in

Calif. and the patient needs to be ambulatory. Also, he has other therapies

such as chelation which help to reinforce his program. I hear he is getting

some excellent results. I am now trying to get her some local HBO therapy,

but thus far, have not been able to get those who have an HBO capability to

use it for stroke. They limit their patients to the 13 or 14 indications

approved by Hyperbaric Undersea Medical Society, FDA, Medicare and many of the

insurance companies. I do believe the rules and attitudes for stroke are in

transition, and that soon stroke, Cerebral Palsy and other oxygen responsive

diseases will be included in the approved list. Thanks for the suggestion.

December 12, 1998

,

I was wondering if you already know Dr. Steenblock, out here in

California. He is trying to do what you are, getting the medical

establishment to understand the implications of HBOT in treating

stroke. If you don't know him, maybe you guys should talk.

" My objective at the moment is to spread the word about hyperbaric

oxygen

therapy for stroke victims as well as cerebral palsy, MS and other

difficult

to treat diseases. HBOT is approved by Medicare for 14 indications but

excludes stroke, CP and MS all of which are proving responsive to HBOT.

I

personally know of an estimated 100 stroke patients, from Baltimore to

California, including Florida, Louisiana, Texas currently receiving HBOT

and

each and all improving both in speech and mobility. Yet HBOT therapy is

not

approved for stroke and the others. "

And thanks for your support,

Tangerine

December 12, 1998

Dear , You know you are always welcome here!!

susan

Rapid Recovery Hyperbarics

909-889-7626

January 5, 1999

Message here is in response to Merry's recent email and her upcoming shot

refusal. When your flight surgeon says he wouldn't recommend getting the shot

if you were a civilian, but you should as a " vulnerable " member of the

military, that argument is totally bogus with a capital B. Chances are your

flight surgeon knows little about the OPERATIONAL threat of anthrax. Who were

the targets/victims in OK City, the World Trade Center and the recent embassy

bombings? Primarily civilian. OK, we had Khobar towers--one terrible

terrorist incident. But the anthrax threats last year that I know of--Federal

Building in Los Angeles, 2 guys in the North West who threatened local

officials, and a letter bomb, were all targeted hoaxes at CIVILIANS.

Why don't terrorists target the military? Because they'd be beyond stupid.

Our response to such a bio or chem attack in the Gulf War was, " You slime us,

we'll nuke you! " This modern day threat of " massive retaliation " seemed to

suffice against Iraq as a proven bio/chem aggressor. No potential enemy of

the U. S. should be convinced that the U. S. military is abandoning such

massive retaliation if it is known who perpetrates such an act. So it's the

Civilians who are really vulnerable and are not getting this so-called

" protection " . Why? Who in the civilian community would be gullible or

cooperative enough to subject themselves to such a program? It's the military

culture which cannot effectively protect itself against such requirements that

allows them to be abused in this manner.

The administration would like to do more to protect civilians, but has no plan

to stockpile this vaccine for their protection. Why? Administration

officials say they expect better non-toxic vaccines to be available in 2-3

years and don't want to invest in using the current questionably-safe

inventory. But it's surely good enough for our second-class citizens in

uniform, apparently. (This info from a NY Times article).

Your flight surgeon, along with many others, has bought the threat hook, line

and sinker. Even with radar, counter air, gas masks, antibiotics, ship air

filtration systems, emergency vent closing procedures, etc., etc., there

seems to be nearly universal conviction that all current defensive measures

will fail simultaneously, exposing thousands of troops to lethally-inhalable

anthrax. Statistics from the Iran/Iraq War should indicate how effective the

biowarfare attempts were. Has anyone researched this angle? Statements from

a few articles here and some other thoughts may give one pause in this rush to

vaccinate environment:

1. If a 5 lb bag of anthrax drops from the air and falls on the ground, it

affects the 2 ft diameter area in lands on.

2. If the bag breaks open, it disperses over a larger area depending on the

release height and assuming the aircraft dropping it is not detected or shot

down.

3. No one seems to know how many anthrax spores it takes to lethally be

inhaled. One estimate indicates maybe 10,000 spores. Another 100,000,000.

4. Anthrax doesn't penetrate solid materials like concrete buildings.

Individuals inside wouldn't be affected.

5. If the 5 lb bag falls on Washington, D. C. and would kill half the

population as has been claimed, how does that actually occur? Would the 5 lb

bag be dispersed over the whole city? Would 1/2 the people be outside to

inhale it? Would it be concentrated enough to get in the lungs of 300,000

people over the entire city? Or would a single plane with a single bag have

to make numerous passes over the mall area on a concentrated crowd during an

event such as the Million Man March and all of them remain stationary while

the " people-dusting " takes place?

6. Anthrax in liquid form is dangerous if swallowed or injected, but is not

an inhaled threat even though Iraq may have 20,000 gallons (which we

apparently sold to them along with the vaccine).

The somewhat ludicrous conjectures on this subject have become accepted as

almost unavoidable threats.

Some other anecdotal indication of the real level of concern over this threat:

After hearing an overseas briefing about the anthrax threat and vaccination

program, a pregnant servicemember asked if she would be reassigned safely out

of the theater and back to the states since the vaccine is considered risky

for pregnant women. She was told no. Apparently, the government wants to

protect males and non-pregnant women against this " threat " , but is perfectly

willing to EXPOSE PREGNANT WOMEN since they will not be removed from the area

for their own protection. That's how much the government really thinks the

military is exposed to anthrax. Where the hell is the logic here? Seems to

me, the government doesn't really believe there is a threat or someone is

trying to punish all the women who dared enter the realm of the formerly male-

dominated military.

How about both the men and women who don't want to risk the health of yet

unconceived children they might have in future families, or who have to delay

conception until the 18 month shot-series is over? The government policy

apparently condones this health risk even though plenty of veterans with Gulf

War Syndrome are living proof this policy constitutes inexcusable abuse on the

part of the military leadership and medical community. But then again, since

when have these groups been held accountable for their actions? Not often.

Merry, there are consequences for not obeying a " lawful " order to vaccinate

against this " threat " . Apparently, you see the consequences of obeying such

an order even more of a threat. I understand.

Redmond Handy

August 26, 1999

I'd love to be in the swap, too!

Debbie H.

August 26, 1999

Digest Number 44

>

>---------------------------

February 22, 2000

Hi, Everyone......Nothing like a special needs kid getting the stomach

flu!!!! Poor Gareth.......doesn't quite seem to know what end to put on the

toilet. Anyways........I was going through the Medscape review for

the week and there is an article in there about the coexistence of Tourettes'

Syndrome and Autism. Seems one study has the rate at 8% of kids with Autism

having both, along with the good ole ADD and OCD. For 6 yrs. we went back

and forth between the two dx., depending on which psych. saw him. Perhaps

he's got both!!! Oh well, what's one more label ?!?!?! Thanks

for the advice on the Buspar. Gareth has an appt. with a new psych. tomorrow

night. His 'NO' is getting pretty loud and the ODD is making a comeback.

He's on 3 mg. of Risperdal now and I really don't want to raise that if I

don't have to. It's been a miracle drug for him, so I am really hesitant

about taking him off it too. I do know (like a lot of you have said) that

they tend to become immune to the affects after a while. We will wait and

see what the Dr. says. Take care everyone.

Margaret

February 22, 2000