Guest guest Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 I'm with you . This Duncan bashing is getting annoying. He is off the list and cannot defend himself, and the focus should now be back to helping people. Diane fcunsrial@... wrote: >List I did not write my opinion to support Duncan or anyone in particular. I would be just as concerned if anyone has acted in bad faith, of course, but in general, I think we need to be more tolerant and more focused in the idea that our mission in this life is to help others. If in so doing so we break a few minor rules.....so did Jesus and Confucius and Mohammed and.... >Best regards > > Re: spam > > > I think a lot of you all are missing the point here. > I think Ducan, while well informed, is a user, or even worse. He is, > for sure, just using these lists and the people on them, (and believe > me he is on at least 2 others *I* know of) to make money and probably > a lot of it. Notice how he never answered my question about that??? He > may not make it directly but every time you buy a product from one of > the sites he endorses, he gets at least a kickback, I am guessing. > And who knows what else? The medical community is doing everything > they can to avoid anyone finding out that there are alternate > methodologies, Dr. s amoung them, that work better than anything > modern medicine has (cures don't make money like chronic illness > eh??). So why not have people who seem to know sooooooo much and be > such 'experts' subtly (or with Duncan, in the case of that other list > NOT at all subtly) be members on lists like these, and imply Dr. > 's work (or Bob Beck's or Rife's or...)is a bunch of hooey with > no 'real' scientific credibility at all? > He was constantly implying that Dr. was full of crap and was > just a poor misguided, however well intended woman who shouldn't be > taken seriously. Or else he would just ignore her approach altogether, > and drag out the 'latest' studies (funded by big biz phamaceutial > companies which of course wouldnt' be at all biased, eh??) He didn't > even believe that parasities are a major problem, for pity's sake! > Sheeesh! > He could do more damage to Dr. 's credibility by being on this > list than a thousand of those Quackwatch s!! This *IS* The DR. > CLARK list!! If we don't stick to our guns here, where, Oh Where will > anyone find out about Dr. in a fully supportive atmosphere??? > I KNOW Dr. 's work is valid, but if I was new or unsure, a > know-it-all like him would shut me down in a heartbeat. NOT what we > need here on this list. It needs to be clear that WE fully support Dr. > 's work and we don't support any naysayers, no matter how much > 'expertise' they seem to have, backed by all the latest " research " , eh?? > So let's think very carefully about putting that wolf in lamb's > clothing back loose amongst the flock, eh?? Oh, while we at it, maybe > we can invite that Quackwatch guy to be a member too! I am sure he > could add a lot to this group as well! *rolling eyes* Also, if you > really miss the big D's 'sage' advice, I have no doubt you can find > him on any number of other lists. > > Annette > > > > > > > > Hi , > > > I will agree with you that Duncan was very well informed and that > > he also shared some > > > very valuable information. Unfortunately , from what other have > > said, Duncan went > > > out of his way to either discount or disagree with Dr. Hulda > > s protocol and that > > > along with his spamming got him kicked off this list. > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Sensitivity has little to do with this, Chuck. If it had been just *something* she said he didn't agree with, sure, that would be fine, but Duncan didn't agree with ANY of her stuff from what I could tell. I never once heard him say anything postive about her research. Only his own. And in a way that implied, if we were as smart as him, we would see that she is a fraud too. Strange as it may sound, I would prefer to remain on a list that bears Dr. 's name and fully supports her work, without having to defend *my* beliefs about her work from a naysayer like Duncan. Is that too much to ask????? But this isn't Duncan-bashing. It is about setting a precedence of appropriate behavior for list membership. Do we allow any old 'expert' on the list, just because he has good idea or two, and allow him to bash Dr. 's work because he doesn't believe it is valid research, or do we draw a line and say " If you want to be here, you need to at least agree with the basics of Dr. 's work " . Since this list is the DR. CLARK list, that just doesn't seem unreasonable to me. > > > > > >>Hi , > >>I will agree with you that Duncan was very well informed and that > >> > >> > >he also shared some > > > > > >>very valuable information. Unfortunately , from what other have > >> > >> > >said, Duncan went > > > > > >>out of his way to either discount or disagree with Dr. Hulda > >> > >> > >s protocol and that > > > > > >>along with his spamming got him kicked off this list. > >>Regards, > >>Sharon > >>========================================================= > >>========================================================= > >> re: spam > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>Hi, Leo. > >>> > >>>I am on several groups, so I don't always read all the messages > >>> > >>> > >on the list. > > > > > >>>I didn't realize that Duncan had been kicked off. While he was > >>> > >>> > >promoting > > > > > >>>his probiotic stuff, he also gave very important information. My > >>> > >>> > >husband > > > > > >>>was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, and thanks to the > >>> > >>> > >information Duncan > > > > > >>>shared on this list, I tried him on the probiotics and inulin, > >>> > >>> > >and he > > > > > >>>completely recovered. That information about the study that was > >>> > >>> > >done was > > > > > >>>not any information that his doctor was telling him. I didn't > >>> > >>> > >buy anything > > > > > >>>from him, but the information was important and helpful to my > >>> > >>> > >family at > > > > > >>>least. > >>> > >>> Doyon > >>> > >>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2006 Report Share Posted October 1, 2006 I just removed this person from our group and banned the email address. Chris. On 01/10/2006, at 4:21 PM, first name wrote: > HI Im ANTHEA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2006 Report Share Posted October 6, 2006 THANK YOU CHRIS > > > HI Im ANTHEA! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2006 Report Share Posted October 15, 2006 Hi, I don't know how that spam got through... I already do have the settings as you describe. That is what I've been doing. Hmm? Thanks for the heads up though. [ ] Digest Number 1787 2. Are you ready? Action! Posted by: "singbemm" singbemm singbemm Date: Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:36 am (PDT)Come here to have a nice date with great singles. There're many beutiful, sexy, rich singles waiting for a great date with you.http://geocities.com/abcbabemu/http://cheerleaders.vost.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2007 Report Share Posted June 1, 2007 Dear Penny In the group I run the same thing is happening. I just disabled the whole damned thing and no more problems. I've also noticed an increase in multiple messages and in delays. I think the last upgrade must have bugs. Regards R [infections] Re: Exciting news! Cohort trying the simplified GD-MCB treatment growing fast Hi ,For some reason your messages keep ending up in the pending spam folder, which I'm not in the habit of checking very often (I'll be notified from now on as I changed my settings today). I don't know why this is happening as you're obviously a member of the group. Are you sure your email address is listed under your membership? You might want to check that.penny> > Hi, all.> > > > I realise that not everyone here is ecstatic about my approach to > > treating CFS, but I like you nevertheless, and I don't want anyone > to > > be left out. So here's the big news:> > > > As of this afternoon, the number of PWCs who have notified me that > > they are trying the new simplified treatment approach based on the > > glutathione depletion--methylation cycle block hypothesis for CFS > has > > reached twenty-four, and several more have informed me that they > are > > planning to start at various times in the future. > > > > This has developed from a standing start in late January, 2007. > Most > > of these people > > have been on it for only a few weeks or a few days, the longest > being > > a little over three months now. Because the pioneers on this > > treatment have been posting such good early reports on CFS internet > > boards (especially the ImmuneSupport FM/CFS board), there appears > to > > be an avalanche effect going on in terms of new people starting it > > over > > the past few days. I find it quite exciting! > > > > One of the first things several have noticed is better sleep. There > > are also reports of memory returning, less pain, more energy, brain > > fog lifting, improved thyroid function, vulvodynia going away, and > > more. I think we are finally hitting the root cause in the > > biochemistry for many PWCs. > > > > I don't yet know whether this treatment will work for "pure > > fibromyalgia." I haven't been pushing it for that, because I don't > > know how FM develops at the biochemical level. I do think I > > understand how many cases of CFS develop now, though, and I believe > > that the science is in place to support this treatment for CFS. I > > presented > > it in a poster paper at the IACFS conference in January. > > > > As many of you may know, I've been trying to figure out CFS for > over > > ten > > years. Thanks to the work of others, including Dr. Cheney and the > > autism people, I think we are finally there, at least for a major > > subset, and perhaps for the majority of cases. > > > > Is there a downside to this treatment? Yes, it doesn't bring a cure > > overnight, and there is unavoidable detox to go through, because > the > > body accumulates toxins and infections while a person has CFS. > Their > > detox system and their immune system are not operating properly > > during > > this time. And the rates of excretion of toxins from the body are > > limited. So > > the more that has accumulated, the longer it will likely take to > work > > off the backlog and clear it all out, so that the person can be > > healthy again. But I'm convinced that it will happen, if the person > > hangs in there with the treatment. > > > > So far very few who have started this treatment have quit. Several > > find that they need to take breaks to let the detox settle down to > a > > tolerable level, but because they begin experiencing improvement in > > CFS > > symptoms almost immediately, they are motivated to continue. > > > > For those interested in the details of this treatment and its > > history, here's a reprint of something I posted on the > ImmuneSupport > > board: > > > > Simplified Treatment Approach--Current Version 05/22/07 09:58 AM > > > > Here is the current version of the simplified treatment approach > > based on the glutathione depletion--methylation cycle block > > hypothesis. > > > > All the supplements can be obtained from > http://www.holisticheal.com, > > or you can obtain them elsewhere. The cost is a little over $2.00 > > per day for all the supplements at the dosages suggested below. > > > > These supplements and dosages have been selected by Dr. Amy Yasko > as > > part of her complete treatment approach, as described in her > > book "The Puzzle of Autism." Substitutions or changes in dosages > may > > not have the same effect as the combination of supplements and > > dosages suggested. It's not wise to raise the dosages, at least for > > a few weeks, because this can bring on detox at an intensity that > is > > difficult to tolerate. Please be patient and take it easy! > > > > Here are the five supplements: > > > > 1. one-quarter tablet (200 micrograms) Folapro (Metagenics) > > > > 2. one-quarter tablet Intrinsic B12/folate (Metagenics) > > > > 3. (up to) 2 tablets (It's best to start with ¼ tablet and work up > as > > tolerated) Complete Vitamin and Neurological Health Formula > (Holistic > > Health Consultants) > > > > 4. one softgel capsule Phosphatidyl Serine Complex > > > > 5. one sublingual lozenge Perque B12 > > > > The first two supplement tablets can be difficult to break into > > quarters. An alternative is to crush them into powders, mix the > > powders together, and divide the powders into quarters using a > knife > > and a flat surface. The powders can be taken orally with water, > with > > or without food, and do not taste bad. > > > > Since some questions have been asked about what ingredients are > > essential, and since some of the people appear to be taking > > augmented versions of the simplified GD-MCB treatment approach that > I > > wrote about in my January treatment paper, I want to give you some > > history and some comments about that to help you with your own > > choices about what to take. There's nothing proprietary about what > > I've written. I would just like to see people get healthy. > > > > I have been trying to figure out CFS for about 10 years, since a > > friend of my wife and myself developed it and wasn't given any hope > > by > > her doctor. I started studying biochemistry and physiology, joined > > some CFS internet lists, started using PubMed to study the > published > > literature, went to the conferences, got Dr. Cheney's tapes, etc. > In > > 1999 I picked up on Dr. Cheney's observation that many of his > > patients were depleted in glutathione. When I learned of all the > > things that glutathione normally does, and saw that many of these > > tied in with the symptoms of CFS, I became convinced that this is a > > fairly fundamental aspect of the pathophysiology of CFS. So for > > several years I encouraged PWCs to build their glutathione by > various > > means. This helped quite a few, but it was not a cure for most. It > > was just a temporary help. Some couldn't tolerate it at all. In the > > fall of 2004 I reported this at the AACFS conference in Madison, > WI. > > You can find that poster paper at the phoenix-cfs.com site, under > > research. > > > > Then in late 2004, a paper came out by S. Jill et al. on > > autism. I learned for the first time that glutathione was depleted > in > > autistic kids, and that this was tied to problem earlier in the > > sulfur metabolism, in the methylation cycle. This was a big BINGO > for > > me. It looked as though the same thing was happening in CFS, and > now > > I knew why PWCs could not build up their glutathione levels on a > > permanent basis by the methods I had been advocating. > > > > I went to the Long Beach DAN! conference and learned more about > > autism, and I became more convinced that we were dealing with the > > same mechanism. > > > > I started suggesting some DAN! treatments to the PWCs, using the > > Pangborn and Baker book, which is an excellent background book on > > this, by the way, and I recommend it. Well, the people who > > tried this felt somewhat better at first, but then things turned > > south for them. Meanwhile, I learned about Amy Yasko's approach in > > autism, and I decided that I liked it better, because it started at > > the genetic level, and built the biochemistry on top of that, > dealing > > with people individually based on their genetic variations. So > about > > a year ago I started encouraging PWCs to try Amy's approach. > > > > Amy's approach is not simple, easy, quick or cheap, and it has not > > been easy for PWCs to do it, but the people doing it have > experienced > > benefit and are continuing with it. > > > > For the 2007 IACFS conference, I decided to submit another paper, > > this time giving the rationale for a methylation block in CFS, > > connected to the glutathione depletion. It was accepted, but again > > only as a poster paper, so I printed up a lot of copies of it and > did > > a personal sales job on as many people at the conference as I was > > able. One clinician asked me to write up a > > description of treatment based on this hypothesis. Later in January > I > > emailed him a treatment writeup, which is what is on the internet > > (also at www.phoenix-cfs.com, under Research). In > > writing this, I knew that the full Yasko treatment approach is > > probably not going to be practical for most clinicians. Amy has > > written me that she has not been able to interest many in doing > what > > it takes to get up to speed on it and to apply it in individual > > cases. They just don't have the time, and frankly, > > many have told me that they do not find biochemistry very easy to > > assimilate. > > > > So I decided to try including a simpler approach in addition to > > describing the full Yasko treatment approach. In doing so, I asked > > Trina in the cfs_yasko internet group for help, since she is very > > knowledgeable about the Yasko treatment approach and is using it > > herself. She pointed out some problems with what I had in my draft, > > and then > > suggested a better approach, which I adopted substantially. The > > simplified approach I put in my treatment article is essentilly > what > > Trina suggested, because it made a lot of sense to me. So I must > give > > the credit for this to her. She also suggested including > nucleotides, > > but I left them out because there are some in the complete multi > (now > > called the General multi). > > > > O.K., so now what do each of the ingredients do, and how important > is > > each one? > > > > FolaPro--This is in there because a lot of PWCs have a SNP in their > > MTHFR enzyme that affects the production of 5-> methyltetrahydrofolate, > > which is the same as FolaPro. This form of folate is the one used > by > > the methionine synthase enzyme, and that's the enzyme that appears > to > > be blocked in many or most cases of CFS. If a person had their > > genetics characterized, as in the full Yasko approach, they would > > know for sure whether they needed this one, but in the simplified > > approach we just suggest giving to everyone. > > > > Intrinsic B12/folate--This one has 3 forms of folate--FolaPro, > > folinic acid and folic acid. It also has some cyano-B12 and some > > intrinsic factor as well as some other things. The folinic is > helpful > > because some people can't use ordinary folic acid well, as a result > > of genetic issues. Also, this helps to supply forms of folate that > > will make up for the low tetrahydrofolate resulting from the block > in > > methionine synthase. This enzyme normally converts 5- > > methytetrahydrofolate to tetrahydrofolate, which is needed in other > > reactions. This supplement also has some intrinsic factor and some > > ordinary B12 supplement to help those who have a type of pernicious > > anemia that results from low production of intrinsic factor in the > > stomach and which prevents them from absorbing B12 in the gut. B12 > is > > also needed by methionine synthase, in the form of methylcobalamin, > > but this supplement has cyanocobalamin, which must be converted in > > the body by glutathione and SAMe to form methylcobalamin. As > > glutathione and SAMe come up, this should become more effective. > > > > Complete vitamin and ultra-antioxidant (now called the General > > Vitamin and Neurological Health Formula)--This is Amy Yasko's basic > > high- > > potency general nutritional supplement. This is kind of a > foundation > > for the biochemistry in general. However, I think it's better for > > PWCs than other general supplements, because it has particular > things > > needed for dealing with a methylation cycle block, including some > TMG > > and sulfur metabolism supplements as well as nucleotides. It is > also > > high on magnesium and low on calcium, and has no iron or copper. So > I > > don't think other general supplements do everything this one does, > > and I think it's important in the treatment. > > The TMG helps to get the shortcut pathway in the methylation cycle > > going, and that helps to build SAMe, which is needed to get the > > methionine synthase reaction going. The nucleotides will help to > > supply RNA and DNA for new cells until the folate cycle is working > > right again. > > > > Phosphatidylserine complex--This has various phosphatidyls in it, > > which will help repair damaged membranes, including those in cells > of > > the brain and nervous system. It also has some choline, which can > be > > converted to TMG (betaine) in the body, to help start the shortcut > > pathway. > > > > Perque B12--This is a hefty dose of sublingual hydroxocobalamin. As > I > > said above, B12 is needed to get methionine synthase going. > > Methylcobalamin is actually the form needed, but some people cannot > > tolerate it for genetic reasons, and I'm also concerned that people > > with high body burdens of mercury could move mercury into the brain > > if they take too much methylcobalamin. Methylcobalamin is the only > > substance in biological systems that can methylate mercury, and > > methylmercury can cross the blood-brain barrier. This supplement is > > sublingual to compensate for poor B12 absorption in the gut of many > > people. > > > > There are also two others that were in the earlier version of the > > simplified approach: > > > > SAMe--This is normally part of the methylation cycle. Depending on > > genetic variations (SNPs or polymorphisms) some people can't > tolerate > > much of this, and some need more. The dosage is a compromise. If > > people can't tolerate this, they should leave it out, because > > stimulating the shortcut pathway, using TMG and choline in the > other > > supplements) will probably make enough for them. > > > > Methylation Support Nutriswitch Formula--This is a mixture of RNAs > > that is designed to help the methylation cycle. It is somewhat > > expensive, and is not essential, but is helpful and worthwhile if > > people can afford it. > > > > I do think that the forms of > > folate and B12 are probably essential, because they go after the > > basic problem in CFS, in my opinion. I think the General supplement > > is important, and, and I think that some way to stimulate the > > shortcut is important, also. SAMe will help some people but perhaps > > not be tolerated by others, and if not, can be left out. The > > Methylation Support formula is helpful, but could be left out. > > > > Adding glutathione support will help some people, as will adding > > molybdenum. As more things are added, though, we are moving toward > > the full Yasko approach, which is fine, but it is more complicated > > and expensive, too. Maybe we should view this simplified approach > as > > the front door to the full Yasko approach. It might work fine by > > itself for some people, but for others, maybe they should look at > The > > Puzzle of Autism, sold on www.Amazon.com, to see what else there > > might > > help them. If the simplified approach seems to help to some degree, > > and it catches your attention for that reason, but it still doesn't > > do the whole job for you, then you could look further at the the > full > > Yasko treatment. At least then you would have some reason to dig > into > > it. Otherwise, it looks pretty daunting to a lot of PWCs. > > > > Rich> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2007 Report Share Posted October 16, 2007 Hi Michelline, I prefer tinyurl's because they save time, conserve webspace, reduce typos, and eliminate broken links. Whether I make any money from tinyurl's is really none of your concern. However, if you or anyone else in this group has any reserves whatsoever about visiting them, then I suggest you refrain from doing so. Discussion ended. Regards, Dudley Delany dudley_delany [low dose naltrexone] SPAM I think this Dudley Delaney guy is profiting off of his " tinyurl " links...every topic he posts a tiny url........please post ACTUAL links!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2007 Report Share Posted October 16, 2007 so what, it is good info. Your Dr and pharmacists profit too. It is the american way. You have a choice to ignor the post. Many people sell good products, to help us, some sell bad for gain, we each decide ________________________________ From: low dose naltrexone on behalf of michelline_stewart Sent: Tue 10/16/2007 9:21 AM low dose naltrexone Subject: [low dose naltrexone] SPAM I think this Dudley Delaney guy is profiting off of his " tinyurl " links...every topic he posts a tiny url........please post ACTUAL links!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2007 Report Share Posted October 16, 2007 I agree 100%. And, I've asked many times............ Plus, I like to know where a link leads to before clicking, tinyurls does not allow for that, in addition to the profiteering. mjh From: low dose naltrexone on behalf of michelline_stewartSent: Tue 10/16/2007 9:21 AMlow dose naltrexone Subject: [low dose naltrexone] SPAMI think this Dudley Delaney guy is profiting off of his "tinyurl" links...every topic he posts a tiny url........please post ACTUAL links!!!See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2007 Report Share Posted October 16, 2007 -Dudley has very good info. I've yet to see him try to sell anything. If he did, so what? Don't read his posts. Delete them, if they bother you. -- In low dose naltrexone , " Ron Ball " <rball@...> wrote: > > so what, it is good info. Your Dr and pharmacists profit too. It is the american way. You have a choice to ignor the post. Many people sell good products, to help us, some sell bad for gain, we each decide > > ________________________________ > > From: low dose naltrexone on behalf of michelline_stewart > Sent: Tue 10/16/2007 9:21 AM > low dose naltrexone > Subject: [low dose naltrexone] SPAM > > > > I think this Dudley Delaney guy is profiting off of his " tinyurl " > links...every topic he posts a tiny url........please post ACTUAL > links!!! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 But, Dudley, tinyurl does not let people know where a link will take them.. Why don't you post the actual link in addition to a tinyurl. mjh Posted by: "Dudley Delany" DudleyDelany@... dudley_delany Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:57 am (PST) Hi Michelline,I prefer tinyurl's because they save time, conserve webspace, reduce typos, and eliminate broken links.See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 You know I think Dudley has alot of info and is very helpful. If he did try to sell something that would be OK with me. it is an abundant universe and we all have to make a living. What better way than helping someone with a health issue. I am sure there are many people who need to work from home. Thank God they have the opportunity. it is all good. [low dose naltrexone] SPAM> > > > I think this Dudley Delaney guy is profiting off of his "tinyurl" > links...every topic he posts a tiny url........please post ACTUAL > links!!!> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 if you are part of a group to make money it should concern us all lyn [low dose naltrexone] SPAM I think this Dudley Delaney guy is profiting off of his "tinyurl" links...every topic he posts a tiny url........please post ACTUAL links!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 Okay, here's the gist of it. It's about how much risk a person can safely take (depending on their computer security), or how much risk a person is willing to take: What are tiny urls? Tiny urls are links used to replace long cumbersome url links that can break apart due to line length limitations in emails. Some people think they're easier to use when you want to direct someone to information somewhere else on the web. Others don't like them because tiny url links conceal the REAL url link destination. What's the risk associated with tiny urls? Because tiny urls conceal the real internet address you're being re- directed to; you don't know where you'll end up when you click on them. Clicking on a tiny url could take you to a perfectly legitimate website with great info, but it could also take you to a specific product or a specific website where the person who referred you can get a referrer's fee (sometimes just for getting you there, OR, for getting you to buy a product - think commissions, kick-backs), OR it could lead you to a website that compromises your computer security (without you knowing anything about it). What's wrong with earning money by referring people to websites or products? Absolutely nothing, providing the person who's referring you is up- front about their intent and is not concealing anything. Otherwise, it is a clear case of 'conflict of interest'. Where's the 'conflict'? Most of the wonderful people here recommend products they've tried and that have worked for them - and they give that information freely in the interest of helping patients achieve the best result for their health. So the question is ... if a person has something to gain from recommending a specific product or service, might they be tempted to recommend a product that'll deliver the best result for themself ... rather than the best result for the patient? Cris Kerr casehealth.com.au > > > if you are part of a group to make money it should concern us all > > lyn > > > [low dose naltrexone] SPAM > > I think this Dudley Delaney guy is profiting off of his " tinyurl " > links...every topic he posts a tiny url........please post ACTUAL > links!!! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 I just discovered about half my mms mails in my spam box. was sometimes confused as to what people were talking about. Now I know why. Just a heads up for everyone. Yvetta. 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.