Re: here's what we are up against-

[Guest guest]

Why don't they ask some people who have MCS to have themselves hooked up to

machines that monitor their inflammation, etc. in REAL TIME and then analyze

those results statistically?

I am not a scientist, but I can tell when i am getting mold exposure by

simple things like my ears starting to ring, and then the ringing frequency

changing, (it might be possible to analyze that frequency by beating an

audio tone against it) or my ears starting to feel pressure.. or suddenly

getting very tired and cranky, and not being able to remember anything

because the situation of being so tired and not being able to lie down is

distracting.. etc..

There are also changes in blood flow to extremities.. tingling in fingers

and toes, nausea. There are probably tests that would measure these things

scientifically. However, there has to be a DESIRE TO LEARN AND UNDERSTAND..

What I think is that these organizations already DO understand these

illnesses much more than we realize or they admit and THAT IS WHY they are

trying so hard to pretend they don't understand them..

Because the reasons for them demand changes - because they are hurting a lot

of innocent people substantially - because of that there are liability

issues that are not being addressed... literally a pandoras box of liability

issues with many, many people effected.

[Guest guest]

Now, we should really shed our naiiveness and stop thinking that if we

could only show them those things that they don't know, that things

would change.. They won't.

What we REALLY should be trying to prove is what I just said above..

That they DO KNOW much more than they are willing to let on AND that

they are DELIBERATELY trying NOT to be shown PROVABLY as knowing

things -

THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO DO...

So, a strategy to do that would be publically showing them - meaning

the principals who claim to be scientists - things in public fora or

in ways - registered letters tracked on public web sites, for example,

where they could not in any way deny having seen them and then

analyzing their responses very critically, and building a case..

They would hate us for this, though.. because it cracks their whole

facade right open..

Kind of like 's " and Me " if you have ever seen it..

(a great film made in the 80s about globalization and the offshoring

of American jobs and its effect on Flint, MI.)

[Guest guest]

can't say for sure but I think if anyone has tried for grants to do

studys, they've probably been denied.

>

> Why don't they ask some people who have MCS to have themselves

hooked up to

> machines that monitor their inflammation, etc. in REAL TIME and

then analyze

> those results statistically?

>

> I am not a scientist, but I can tell when i am getting mold

exposure by

> simple things like my ears starting to ring, and then the ringing

frequency

> changing, (it might be possible to analyze that frequency by

beating an

> audio tone against it) or my ears starting to feel pressure.. or

suddenly

> getting very tired and cranky, and not being able to remember

anything

> because the situation of being so tired and not being able to lie

down is

> distracting.. etc..

>

> There are also changes in blood flow to extremities.. tingling in

fingers

> and toes, nausea. There are probably tests that would measure these

things

> scientifically. However, there has to be a DESIRE TO LEARN AND

UNDERSTAND..

>

> What I think is that these organizations already DO understand these

> illnesses much more than we realize or they admit and THAT IS WHY

they are

> trying so hard to pretend they don't understand them..

>

> Because the reasons for them demand changes - because they are

hurting a lot

> of innocent people substantially - because of that there are

liability

> issues that are not being addressed... literally a pandoras box of

liability

> issues with many, many people effected.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

well, it's pretty obvious that they know and have known for a long

time, and they had lots of time to come up with a plan, and they had

to know that things were only going to get worse. thats the whole

point of the reason behind the statement. if they didn't know, they

wouldn't have did what they done. but because of what they've done

the general public has been kept in the dark. we don't need to waist

our time sending anything to the acoem or the aaaai, they allready

know and thier not getting of the hook by playing dumb. thats not

going to work.but we can make efforts to educate the public and we

can't do that inless we first educate ourselfs.

>

> Now, we should really shed our naiiveness and stop thinking that if

we

> could only show them those things that they don't know, that things

> would change.. They won't.

>

> What we REALLY should be trying to prove is what I just said above..

>

> That they DO KNOW much more than they are willing to let on AND that

> they are DELIBERATELY trying NOT to be shown PROVABLY as knowing

> things -

>

> THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO

DO...

>

> So, a strategy to do that would be publically showing them - meaning

> the principals who claim to be scientists - things in public fora or

> in ways - registered letters tracked on public web sites, for

example,

> where they could not in any way deny having seen them and then

> analyzing their responses very critically, and building a case..

>

> They would hate us for this, though.. because it cracks their whole

> facade right open..

>

> Kind of like 's " and Me " if you have ever seen

it..

> (a great film made in the 80s about globalization and the

offshoring

> of American jobs and its effect on Flint, MI.)

>