Re: That'll be enough of that

[Guest guest]

DaddyBob,

I truly appreciate the integrity and commitment to the truth you and demonstrated in posting my two messages. I sincerely apologize for the bluntness that offended you. I would like to ask your forgiveness and an opportunity to make further contributions here without posing a threat to you. In that vein, I will hereby promise and make this commitment to you, that I will not make, nor will I ask anyone else to make, any further mention of my group or participate in any rebellious talk here. I will stick to the topics being discussed and strive to be cordial.

From what I can see there is no reason for you to think I pose a threat to your membership. I have not siphoned off a single member from your group. If you are losing people it is not because they are coming to me, nor do I have any connection to Selina whoever she may be. As long as you do not unfairly ban me, I will not join this group under any other name and I haven't at this time. Thank you also for not banning me. The majority of your active posters seem to be just like you and Tom, ambivalent toward Jim and his claims. That is fine, people that want that type of forum should have it available to them, and you are doing a good job of providing it.

In all truth, I did not come here to siphon off members. I only wanted to expose a deception and see it remedied. The accusation I made is not un-provable, it is proved simply by making reasonable inferences based on the available data. That is how most legal matters are proved. Even if I could provide documentary evidence of an employment agreement and bank deposits proving my accusation, would that change anyone's mind? I doubt it. Tom seems to have posts all over the net, some of which are helpful (window dressing in my opinion) and others of which clearly show he is no friend of Jim. People largely believe what they WANT to believe, not necessarily what is true. But we still have to fight for the truth so the few who are ready can receive it.

I am not into dogma any more than you are, I just believe paid pros with hidden agendas are ultimately more harm than good. Even if I was not here, you will still lose members who are battling serious illness if you let Tom dominate things here like you have been. In all three of his long diatribes seeking to discredit Jim, he poses as a scientist and yet provides NO scientific authority to back up his assertions that Jim is not being scientific. People who have been given hope by Jim and have something serious to battle are not going to stick around to get beat up by Tom, they need encouragement.

So what is wrong with me providing another group where Tom and others like him are not allowed? It is not because I have a dogma that Jim is always right, I understand he has a work in progress that needs refinement. I will let people without hidden agendas discuss there experiences whatever they are, but guys like Tom dominate and all you have to do is look carefully at their body of work to see their agenda. When Tom moves into criticizing Jim he is not sharing his personal experiences, instead his slanted views of science. When there is serious scientific evidence (such as the chicken study Tom finally posted the link to yesterday http://japr.fass.org/cgi/content/full/16/1/45) that supports Jim's claims, Tom conveniently leaves it out of his diatribes asserting Jim's lack of science, so how honest/scientific is that? This kind of thing indicates a hidden agenda, put enough of it in front of an honest jury and you could get a finding of fact that he is lying.

I am not getting paid to be here and I don't have time to counter all of Tom's falsehoods. But if I do have time occasionally to respectfully dissent from his assertions, I hope you will be willing to post it in the interest of truth.

As far as posting this email on the group, I don't care if you do or if you don't. You can just keep it private between ourselves if you want. Or if you feel it should be posted you are welcome to do that. It is up to you.

Thank you for your time, and all the best of health and healing to you,

Harrah

[ ] That'll be enough of that

I have just deleted the first message from "Selina" as it added absolutelynothing of any use whatsoever to any discussion here. Selina- you are onmoderation. If you want to make a meaningful post, go ahead. Harrah has proven to do exactly what I suspected, started his owngroup and come here to siphon off members. He has suggested that the modsshould have banned the "paid pros". - if you really are half a lawyer you would never have made such anun-provable statement as that. And - all you want is "true believers"to follow you in your dogma. I've seen all this before. Anyone who wants to go, go right ahead, but keep it off this group. Just youfolks be careful you don't end up like the Donner Party.DaddyBob

[Guest guest]

I, for one, know how to use my delete button and when.Thank you, DaddyBob.God bless. "Fear not, little one. I sustain you in my hand and protect you. I love you. Receive it!" says the Lord.From: Harrah <michaelharrah@...>To:

Sent: Mon, June 28, 2010 11:47:58 AMSubject: Re: [ ] That'll be enough of that

DaddyBob,

I truly appreciate the integrity and commitment to the truth you and demonstrated in posting my two messages. I sincerely apologize for the bluntness that offended you. I would like to ask your forgiveness and an opportunity to make further contributions here without posing a threat to you. In that vein, I will hereby promise and make this commitment to you, that I will not make, nor will I ask anyone else to make, any further mention of my group or participate in any rebellious talk here. I will stick to the topics being discussed and strive to be cordial.

From what I can see there is no reason for you to think I pose a threat to your membership. I have not siphoned off a single member from your group. If you are losing people it is not because they are coming to me, nor do I have any connection to Selina whoever she may be. As long as you do not unfairly ban me, I will not join this group under any other name and I haven't at this time. Thank you also for not banning me. The majority of your active posters seem to be just like you and Tom, ambivalent toward Jim and his claims. That is fine, people that want that type of forum should have it available to them, and you are doing a good job of providing it.

In all truth, I did not come here to siphon off members. I only wanted to expose a deception and see it remedied. The accusation I made is not un-provable, it is proved simply by making reasonable inferences based on the available data. That is how most legal matters are proved. Even if I could provide documentary evidence of an employment agreement and bank deposits proving my accusation, would that change anyone's mind? I doubt it. Tom seems to have posts all over the net, some of which are helpful (window dressing in my opinion) and others of which clearly show he is no friend of Jim. People largely believe what they WANT to believe, not necessarily what is true. But we still have to fight for the truth so the few who are ready can receive it.

I am not into dogma any more than you are, I just believe paid pros with hidden agendas are ultimately more harm than good. Even if I was not here, you will still lose members who are battling serious illness if you let Tom dominate things here like you have been. In all three of his long diatribes seeking to discredit Jim, he poses as a scientist and yet provides NO scientific authority to back up his assertions that Jim is not being scientific. People who have been given hope by Jim and have something serious to battle are not going to stick around to get beat up by Tom, they need encouragement.

So what is wrong with me providing another group where Tom and others like him are not allowed? It is not because I have a dogma that Jim is always right, I understand he has a work in progress that needs refinement. I will let people without hidden agendas discuss there experiences whatever they are, but guys like Tom dominate and all you have to do is look carefully at their body of work to see their agenda. When Tom moves into criticizing Jim he is not sharing his personal experiences, instead his slanted views of science. When there is serious scientific evidence (such as the chicken study Tom finally posted the link to yesterday http://japr. fass.org/ cgi/content/ full/16/1/ 45) that supports Jim's claims, Tom conveniently leaves it out of his diatribes asserting Jim's lack of science, so how honest/scientific is that? This kind of thing indicates a hidden agenda, put enough of it in front of an honest jury and you could get a finding of fact that he is lying.

I am not getting paid to be here and I don't have time to counter all of Tom's falsehoods. But if I do have time occasionally to respectfully dissent from his assertions, I hope you will be willing to post it in the interest of truth.

As far as posting this email on the group, I don't care if you do or if you don't. You can just keep it private between ourselves if you want. Or if you feel it should be posted you are welcome to do that. It is up to you.

Thank you for your time, and all the best of health and healing to you,

Harrah

[miracle_mineral_ supplement] That'll be enough of that

I have just deleted the first message from "Selina" as it added absolutelynothing of any use whatsoever to any discussion here. Selina- you are onmoderation. If you want to make a meaningful post, go ahead. Harrah has proven to do exactly what I suspected, started his owngroup and come here to siphon off members. He has suggested that the modsshould have banned the "paid pros". - if you really are half a lawyer you would never have made such anun-provable statement as that. And - all you want is "true believers"to follow you in your dogma. I've seen all this before. Anyone who wants to go, go right ahead, but keep it off this group. Just youfolks be careful you don't end up like the Donner Party.DaddyBob

[Guest guest]

I

will hereby promise and make this commitment to you, that I will not make, nor

will I ask anyone else to make, any further mention of my group or

participate in any rebellious talk here. I will stick to the topics being

discussed and strive to be cordial.

Well,

you didn’t follow thru this time…SO DO IT

[Guest guest]

Heh...

Lawyerspeak???

Chuck

I hate sex in the movies. Tried it once, the seat folded up, the

drink spilled and that ice, well it really chilled the mood.

On 6/28/2010 5:21:07 PM, palulukon (palulukon@...) wrote:

> [image]

> I will hereby promise and make this commitment to you, that I will not

> make, nor will I ask anyone else to make, any further mention of my group or

> participate in any rebellious talk here. I will stick to the topics being

> discussed and strive to be cordial.

>

> Well, you didn’t follow thru this time…SO DO IT

>

[Guest guest]

Hello ,

Who was it that pointed the way to the chicken study? Yes, it was me. I even

went so far as to instruct how to duplicate the solution used in the study in

the event someone had chickens and wanted to eliminate Salmonella from them. If

my agenda is supposed to be to suppress the successful use of sodium chlorite,

why did I do a post that shows that it can be effective? And, what about saving

the dog from death? What about eliminating ring worm? What about psoriasis?

What about Herpes? What about tooth and gum infections? What about ear

infections? What about nail fungus? What about water purification and water

storage? What about fogging to eliminate respiratory issues with animals? What

about mold and mildew control and elimination? If you actually took the time to

read any of the posts I have made here and in other forums, you would find that

the list goes on and on. The preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that

my agenda is trying to figure out how these chemicals work and then passing that

information on to others.

You seem to want to examine who is lying, let's take a look at that...

Several times in his book Jim Humble refers to the MMS dose as having about 1

PPM chlorine dioxide and that it is very effective at that concentration.

What concentration was used in the chicken study? Who is lying, Jim Humble or

the study results?

Jim Humble claims that MMS will kill all bad bacteria in the body.

Why did the chicken study show that at 600 PPM ASC was ineffective against

Campylobacter jejuni? Who is lying, Jim Humble or the study results?

Where are Jim Humbles test results showing that his doses are effective?

What is the concentration of chlorine dioxide in an MMS dose?

How was the sodium chlorite activated in the chicken study, and how does that

compare to the MMS protocol?

I don't know if you have actually read any of my posts, but my agenda is not

hidden. My agenda is to provide knowledge of the chemistry involved with sodium

chlorite, and how to safely handle and use it. I answer questions that come up,

and promote safe handling practices.

I am not the one with slanted views of science. Jim Humble is. I am the one

that is forcing him to re-evaluate his protocol and change it to something that

has the possibility of being more effective. I am not the only one doing this.

You may want to review the recent work of Dr. Hesselink.

The chicken study shows that sodium chlorite solutions can be effective if you

understand the chemistry, but they don't support Jim Humbles claims. At 600

PPM, ASC is effective against Salmonella but not Campylobacter. According to

Jim Humble, 1 PPM should be effective against everything.

Yes, I am critical of Jim Humble and I am sharing my experiences. My experience

is that Jim Humbles claims are many times wrong. His idea of science doesn't

hold up to true science. Does this mean that sodium chlorite doesn't work? On

the contrary, it works very well when you follow the science behind it. It is

my hope that Jim Humble will come to understand this chemistry and then he may

be able to rid the world of illness, or at least help in a significant way.

You refer to his " work in progress that needs refinement. " I am one of the ones

that is doing the refinement...

I actually think you should stick around. I spend a lot of effort educating

about sodium chlorite and pointing out the claims that Jim Humble has made that

can't be correct, but I don't spend enough time extolling his virtues. You seem

to have had nothing but excellent results and believe that Jim Humble actually

understands what he is talking about. Between the two of us, someone reading

this may actually get a couple of different perspectives on this, and may be

able to make more informed decisions...

Oops, I forgot about this comment you made...

" I am not getting paid to be here... "

Oh well, the best of health you.

Tom

>

> DaddyBob,

>

> I truly appreciate the integrity and commitment to the truth you and

demonstrated in posting my two messages. I sincerely apologize for the

bluntness that offended you. I would like to ask your forgiveness and an

opportunity to make further contributions here without posing a threat to you.

In that vein, I will hereby promise and make this commitment to you, that I will

not make, nor will I ask anyone else to make, any further mention of my group or

participate in any rebellious talk here. I will stick to the topics being

discussed and strive to be cordial.

>

> From what I can see there is no reason for you to think I pose a threat to

your membership. I have not siphoned off a single member from your group. If

you are losing people it is not because they are coming to me, nor do I have any

connection to Selina whoever she may be. As long as you do not unfairly ban me,

I will not join this group under any other name and I haven't at this time.

Thank you also for not banning me. The majority of your active posters seem to

be just like you and Tom, ambivalent toward Jim and his claims. That is fine,

people that want that type of forum should have it available to them, and you

are doing a good job of providing it.

>

> In all truth, I did not come here to siphon off members. I only wanted to

expose a deception and see it remedied. The accusation I made is not

un-provable, it is proved simply by making reasonable inferences based on the

available data. That is how most legal matters are proved. Even if I could

provide documentary evidence of an employment agreement and bank deposits

proving my accusation, would that change anyone's mind? I doubt it. Tom seems

to have posts all over the net, some of which are helpful (window dressing in my

opinion) and others of which clearly show he is no friend of Jim. People

largely believe what they WANT to believe, not necessarily what is true. But we

still have to fight for the truth so the few who are ready can receive it.

>

> I am not into dogma any more than you are, I just believe paid pros with

hidden agendas are ultimately more harm than good. Even if I was not here, you

will still lose members who are battling serious illness if you let Tom dominate

things here like you have been. In all three of his long diatribes seeking to

discredit Jim, he poses as a scientist and yet provides NO scientific authority

to back up his assertions that Jim is not being scientific. People who have

been given hope by Jim and have something serious to battle are not going to

stick around to get beat up by Tom, they need encouragement.

>

> So what is wrong with me providing another group where Tom and others like him

are not allowed? It is not because I have a dogma that Jim is always right, I

understand he has a work in progress that needs refinement. I will let people

without hidden agendas discuss there experiences whatever they are, but guys

like Tom dominate and all you have to do is look carefully at their body of work

to see their agenda. When Tom moves into criticizing Jim he is not sharing his

personal experiences, instead his slanted views of science. When there is

serious scientific evidence (such as the chicken study Tom finally posted the

link to yesterday http://japr.fass.org/cgi/content/full/16/1/45) that supports

Jim's claims, Tom conveniently leaves it out of his diatribes asserting Jim's

lack of science, so how honest/scientific is that? This kind of thing indicates

a hidden agenda, put enough of it in front of an honest jury and you could get a

finding of fact that he is lying.

>

> I am not getting paid to be here and I don't have time to counter all of Tom's

falsehoods. But if I do have time occasionally to respectfully dissent from his

assertions, I hope you will be willing to post it in the interest of truth.

>

> As far as posting this email on the group, I don't care if you do or if you

don't. You can just keep it private between ourselves if you want. Or if you

feel it should be posted you are welcome to do that. It is up to you.

>

> Thank you for your time, and all the best of health and healing to you,

>

> Harrah

[Guest guest]

Tom,I think you're wasting your... ink. There are some people who just will not listen to reason. Do not enter into debate with such. It is not profitable. It upsets your peace and does no good for them, so just don't enter in. There is good and bad in everybody. Some people need their heroes to be without error. They can't abide that they are human. So be it. Just let it go, my friend. I enjoy your posts and have gleaned immense information from them. Thank you. :-)\Pamela"Fear not, little one. I sustain you in my hand and protect you. I love you. Receive it!" says the Lord.From: silverfox_science <poast@...> Sent: Mon, June 28, 2010 3:40:13 PMSubject: [ ] Re: That'll be enough of that

Hello ,

Who was it that pointed the way to the chicken study? Yes, it was me. I even went so far as to instruct how to duplicate the solution used in the study in the event someone had chickens and wanted to eliminate Salmonella from them. If my agenda is supposed to be to suppress the successful use of sodium chlorite, why did I do a post that shows that it can be effective? And, what about saving the dog from death? What about eliminating ring worm? What about psoriasis? What about Herpes? What about tooth and gum infections? What about ear infections? What about nail fungus? What about water purification and water storage? What about fogging to eliminate respiratory issues with animals? What about mold and mildew control and elimination? If you actually took the time to read any of the posts I have made here and in other forums, you would find that the list goes on and on. The preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that my agenda is trying

to figure out how these chemicals work and then passing that information on to others.

You seem to want to examine who is lying, let's take a look at that...

Several times in his book Jim Humble refers to the MMS dose as having about 1 PPM chlorine dioxide and that it is very effective at that concentration.

What concentration was used in the chicken study? Who is lying, Jim Humble or the study results?

Jim Humble claims that MMS will kill all bad bacteria in the body.

Why did the chicken study show that at 600 PPM ASC was ineffective against Campylobacter jejuni? Who is lying, Jim Humble or the study results?

Where are Jim Humbles test results showing that his doses are effective?

What is the concentration of chlorine dioxide in an MMS dose?

How was the sodium chlorite activated in the chicken study, and how does that compare to the MMS protocol?

I don't know if you have actually read any of my posts, but my agenda is not hidden. My agenda is to provide knowledge of the chemistry involved with sodium chlorite, and how to safely handle and use it. I answer questions that come up, and promote safe handling practices.

I am not the one with slanted views of science. Jim Humble is. I am the one that is forcing him to re-evaluate his protocol and change it to something that has the possibility of being more effective. I am not the only one doing this. You may want to review the recent work of Dr. Hesselink.

The chicken study shows that sodium chlorite solutions can be effective if you understand the chemistry, but they don't support Jim Humbles claims. At 600 PPM, ASC is effective against Salmonella but not Campylobacter. According to Jim Humble, 1 PPM should be effective against everything.

Yes, I am critical of Jim Humble and I am sharing my experiences. My experience is that Jim Humbles claims are many times wrong. His idea of science doesn't hold up to true science. Does this mean that sodium chlorite doesn't work? On the contrary, it works very well when you follow the science behind it. It is my hope that Jim Humble will come to understand this chemistry and then he may be able to rid the world of illness, or at least help in a significant way.

You refer to his "work in progress that needs refinement." I am one of the ones that is doing the refinement...

I actually think you should stick around. I spend a lot of effort educating about sodium chlorite and pointing out the claims that Jim Humble has made that can't be correct, but I don't spend enough time extolling his virtues. You seem to have had nothing but excellent results and believe that Jim Humble actually understands what he is talking about. Between the two of us, someone reading this may actually get a couple of different perspectives on this, and may be able to make more informed decisions...

Oops, I forgot about this comment you made...

"I am not getting paid to be here..."

Oh well, the best of health you.

Tom

>

> DaddyBob,

>

> I truly appreciate the integrity and commitment to the truth you and demonstrated in posting my two messages. I sincerely apologize for the bluntness that offended you. I would like to ask your forgiveness and an opportunity to make further contributions here without posing a threat to you. In that vein, I will hereby promise and make this commitment to you, that I will not make, nor will I ask anyone else to make, any further mention of my group or participate in any rebellious talk here. I will stick to the topics being discussed and strive to be cordial.

>

> From what I can see there is no reason for you to think I pose a threat to your membership. I have not siphoned off a single member from your group. If you are losing people it is not because they are coming to me, nor do I have any connection to Selina whoever she may be. As long as you do not unfairly ban me, I will not join this group under any other name and I haven't at this time. Thank you also for not banning me. The majority of your active posters seem to be just like you and Tom, ambivalent toward Jim and his claims. That is fine, people that want that type of forum should have it available to them, and you are doing a good job of providing it.

>

> In all truth, I did not come here to siphon off members. I only wanted to expose a deception and see it remedied. The accusation I made is not un-provable, it is proved simply by making reasonable inferences based on the available data. That is how most legal matters are proved. Even if I could provide documentary evidence of an employment agreement and bank deposits proving my accusation, would that change anyone's mind? I doubt it. Tom seems to have posts all over the net, some of which are helpful (window dressing in my opinion) and others of which clearly show he is no friend of Jim. People largely believe what they WANT to believe, not necessarily what is true. But we still have to fight for the truth so the few who are ready can receive it.

>

> I am not into dogma any more than you are, I just believe paid pros with hidden agendas are ultimately more harm than good. Even if I was not here, you will still lose members who are battling serious illness if you let Tom dominate things here like you have been. In all three of his long diatribes seeking to discredit Jim, he poses as a scientist and yet provides NO scientific authority to back up his assertions that Jim is not being scientific. People who have been given hope by Jim and have something serious to battle are not going to stick around to get beat up by Tom, they need encouragement.

>

> So what is wrong with me providing another group where Tom and others like him are not allowed? It is not because I have a dogma that Jim is always right, I understand he has a work in progress that needs refinement. I will let people without hidden agendas discuss there experiences whatever they are, but guys like Tom dominate and all you have to do is look carefully at their body of work to see their agenda. When Tom moves into criticizing Jim he is not sharing his personal experiences, instead his slanted views of science. When there is serious scientific evidence (such as the chicken study Tom finally posted the link to yesterday http://japr.fass.org/cgi/content/full/16/1/45) that supports Jim's claims, Tom conveniently leaves it out of his diatribes asserting Jim's lack of science, so how honest/scientific is that? This kind of thing indicates a hidden agenda, put

enough of it in front of an honest jury and you could get a finding of fact that he is lying.

>

> I am not getting paid to be here and I don't have time to counter all of Tom's falsehoods. But if I do have time occasionally to respectfully dissent from his assertions, I hope you will be willing to post it in the interest of truth.

>

> As far as posting this email on the group, I don't care if you do or if you don't. You can just keep it private between ourselves if you want. Or if you feel it should be posted you are welcome to do that. It is up to you.

>

> Thank you for your time, and all the best of health and healing to you,

>

> Harrah

[Guest guest]

Yes ma'am; I'll do what I said. You have a good eye for legalese.

Harrah

RE: [ ] That'll be enough of that

I will hereby promise and make this commitment to you, that I will not make, nor will I ask anyone else to make, any further mention of my group or participate in any rebellious talk here. I will stick to the topics being discussed and strive to be cordial.

Well, you didn’t follow thru this time…SO DO IT

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

If Tom dominates the forum it's because many of us specifically ask Tom for answers, knowing that he provides accurate information. And if you'd observed, you would see that the majority of Tom's posts are in reply to a question someone has specifically asked him.

As a naturopath I get sent information every day, much of it marketing hype, promoting one supplement or another as being the 'be all and end all". Most of those products are never heard of again after a few months. So I ask questions. I'm always wanting to learn new, better, cost effective and safe ways to help my clients (human and animal). I question everything and everybody, including gurus.

Glad to see you are apologetic - although I would never have guessed by the tone of your "apology"!

Carole in OzEideann & Fionn (Tristania GSDs)carole@...www.berigorafarm.com.au

[ ] That'll be enough of that

I have just deleted the first message from "Selina" as it added absolutelynothing of any use whatsoever to any discussion here. Selina- you are onmoderation. If you want to make a meaningful post, go ahead. Harrah has proven to do exactly what I suspected, started his owngroup and come here to siphon off members. He has suggested that the modsshould have banned the "paid pros". - if you really are half a lawyer you would never have made such anun-provable statement as that. And - all you want is "true believers"to follow you in your dogma. I've seen all this before. Anyone who wants to go, go right ahead, but keep it off this group. Just youfolks be careful you don't end up like the Donner Party.DaddyBob

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4580 (20091106) __________The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4580 (20091106) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

[Guest guest]

Carol To me the most extensive research got blown off as a rebuttal, that is

what brought to surface. Did you read any of these studies?

http://www.malariainitiative.com/278/malaria-treatment-science/targeting-iron/

# DISCOVERY

# EXPLORING BENEFITS

# HEME IS AN OXIDANT SENSITIZER

# MALARIA IS OXIDANT SENSITIVE

# MATERIALS AND METHODS

# MORE RESEARCH

# OVERCOMING ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE WITH OXIDATION

# OXIDANTS AS PHYSIOLOGIC AGENTS

# OXIDES OF CHLORINE AS DISINFECTANTS

# REDUCTANT RECOVERY SYSTEMS

# SAFETY ISSUES

# SOME INCOMPATIBILITIES

# TARGETING IRON

# TARGETING POLYAMINES

# TARGETING PROTEINS

# TARGETING PURINES

# TARGETING THIOLS

--- In , " healinghope " <mfrreman@...>

wrote:

>

> Carol Actually what started all this was a link I posted that tagged

as a rebuttal to Tom. Tom responded to many of my post that were never directed.

I agree everyone deserves their say, and for sure Jim Humble deserves a say.

>

> I also want to use chlorine dioxide safely. However the writings from Tom

could scare a scientist away and for sure a novice. Not everyone on this forum

are naturopaths attorneys or medical authorizes. They are people or loved ones

with cancer, lyme, ms, malaria, aids, herpes and diseases with little hope or

answers. Some are just curious for better health. And with out a doubt I would

think some a big medicine cartel wondering if chlorine dioxide is just another

health fad.

>

> In my mind we need simple and definite direction with the seekers in mind. I

find misdirection and doubt more than information from many post lately.

>

> --- In , " Carole " <carole@>

wrote:

> >

> > Hi ,

> >

> > If Tom dominates the forum it's because many of us specifically ask Tom for

answers, knowing that he provides accurate information. And if you'd observed,

you would see that the majority of Tom's posts are in reply to a question

someone has specifically asked him.

> >

> > As a naturopath I get sent information every day, much of it marketing hype,

promoting one supplement or another as being the 'be all and end all " . Most of

those products are never heard of again after a few months. So I ask questions.

I'm always wanting to learn new, better, cost effective and safe ways to help my

clients (human and animal). I question everything and everybody, including

gurus.

> >

> > Glad to see you are apologetic - although I would never have guessed by the

tone of your " apology " !

> >

> > Carole in Oz

> > Eideann & Fionn (Tristania GSDs)

> > carole@

> > www.berigorafarm.com.au

> > [ ] That'll be enough of that

> >

> >

> >

> > I have just deleted the first message from " Selina " as it added

absolutely

> > nothing of any use whatsoever to any discussion here. Selina- you are on

> > moderation. If you want to make a meaningful post, go ahead.

> >

> > Harrah has proven to do exactly what I suspected, started his

own

> > group and come here to siphon off members. He has suggested that the

mods

> > should have banned the " paid pros " .

> >

> > - if you really are half a lawyer you would never have made such

an

> > un-provable statement as that. And - all you want is " true

believers "

> > to follow you in your dogma. I've seen all this before.

> >

> > Anyone who wants to go, go right ahead, but keep it off this group. Just

you

> > folks be careful you don't end up like the Donner Party.

> >

> > DaddyBob

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus

signature database 4580 (20091106) __________

> >

> > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

> >

> > http://www.eset.com

> >

> >

> >

> > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature

database 4580 (20091106) __________

> >

> > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

> >

> > http://www.eset.com

> >

>