Re: Re: Misstatement by Nighline Reporter? (my response to this long email)

[Guest guest]

Yes, I agree with you. She seems like a newbie to

media and the media is deffinately not on our side. My

point was simply to clarify what was stated by Dr.

Nagey in the interview that was then typed by

Dr.Thrasher about only being a mold victim and not a

chemical victim. She stated that she was probably

exposed to other things before being exposed to mold

in her home that took her toxicity level over the

edge. I was not making any comments on how the media

twists things. We already know that they do.

--- NTEFUSA@... wrote:

> THere is much more than what you are referring to.

>

> This is a person who is acting as if they are the

> " poster child " for people

> who have NOT garnered that title/representation upon

> her.

>

> I am a mold newbie compare to a majority of the

> people on here and do not

> profess to know mold from a-z. I am probably at e-f

> if that.

>

> But when it comes to POISONING by CHEMICLAS I RESENT

> the actions of her and

> her " self promoting " posts for monies for her to ACT

> for people. I have YET

> to know anyone who is POISONED by chemicals

> endorsing her to act for them.

> Nor for her to work with legislation that will

> affect all of us.

>

> If she wants her 15 minutes of fame that is fine,

> everyone is entitled to

> that. But keep the spotlight if you are going to

> seek it, ON yourself, speak

> for YOURSELF not an entire segment of the population

> who is injured.

>

> She is very obviously a newbie when it comes to the

> media and that is a

> tempest in a teapot. The ABC piece was her baptism

> by fire and she now has 3rd

> degree burns from it.

>

> People have to realize when they " decide " to go

> public and " think " that they

> are going to be protrayed as they are lead to

> believe by an interviewer as

> " unbiased " honest etc., they are looking thru rose

> colored glasses.

>

> Media people are trained to see how they can

> " manipulate " an interviewee and

> get the story/slant that they set out to achieve.

> Then the final damage is

> done in the editting room. They are your BEST FRIEND

> while they are filiming.

>

> The mold or chemical movement is under a major

> attack by industry and people

> who are going public need to be wearing " kevlar "

> when attempting to try and

> " get " the word out. These " public " discussions are

> not forensic type debates

> at a local level. Industry has a lot to lose if it

> the " movement " is

> successful. They are out for blood in a do or die

> battle of public

> awareness/knowledge. This movement is LITERALLY a

> WAR and the enemy is a very powerful and

> formidable opponent.

>

> I know a few people think it was " wonderful " that

> she had the courage to go

> public about being under the care of a psychiatrist.

> That good intention was

> more fuel for industry and a lot of people are

> failing to realize it.

>

> Of course there is power in numbers no one doubts

> that. But as Dr. Thrasher

> said, Dr. Rea's attorney would be the best one to

> seek guidance from. I

> would " suspect " that people producing legal

> documents in the form of an

> affidaivt if they were a patient would be

> beneficial.Then again that is up to the

> attorney as to how he wants to defend his client.

> I am sure he has a very

> highly trained legal team working for him.

>

> We ALL want to see justice done and recognition of

> the illnesses that are

> being protrayed as " psychological " in nature, we all

> want Kahn taken to task for

> playing shrink without being board certified.

>

> I would " think " rather than bring more " attention "

> to Dr. Rea, maybe the

> target should be discrediting Kahn. Find out if he

> has been given research

> monies by industry, pharm companies and make that an

> issue. Find out if he has

> ever testified as an expert and use that against

> him. Remember the old adage

> " know your enemy " .

>

> Keep the virgins who are not able to handle the

> media out of the public eye

> and stop giving the enemy more ammunition to use as

> a broad brush against all

> of us.

>

> If someone wants to do a radio interview, make sure

> that you are on a 3

> second delay so that you KNOW what is going out on

> the air. Anytime you allow a

> pre-taped segment to be editted at a later time you

> already have lost the

> game if you are up against industry. There were

> numerous posts made that ABC

> was looking for people to interview. They

> apparently, were looking for someone

> who had the " negative " background that would

> reinforce their " bottom " story

> line. Various names were " given " to ABC but it

> " appears " the only one they

> " used " had a year long history of being under the

> care of a shrink, been

> committed to a mental institution. This was

> " Scripted " from the beginning.

>

> Adversaries LOVE chatty type people, as they

> tend to just talk and

> " let " out things that should be kept quiet.

>

> KNOW who is interviewing you, who the sponsors are

> and who else is going to

> be interviewed. Its not unusual to bring NOTES to

> radio interviews, even

> politicans use cheat sheets. It's normal to get

> nervous when doing public

> speaking ESPECIALLY if there is the risk of an

> expsoure and you lose your " clear

> headedness " .

>

> I doubt most of us the first time in front of a

> camera would feel " relaxed "

> and comfortable especially on a major program.

> Nerves would/will also

> distract most people and might/could cause their

> " guard " to be let down.

>

> We all have limitations and have to work within

> those parameters. If you

> can't swim you do not go out into the middle of the

> ocean and try to learn.

>

> For example, I personally hated and still hate

> public speaking. But I have

> no choice now and have to do it at times. It gets

> easier over time but the

> butterflies are still there. But I would NEVER go

> into or on an interview

> without being fully armed as to who I am up or

> working with. I know how I get

> with exposures and I have to avoid being in a public

> venue when exposed trying

> to explaining about environmentally related

> problems. AS I can get tripped up

> very easy. That's why most of mine are done on a

> call in or done in a

> chemically neutral environment.

>

> SO, when people start going public they have to be

> forearmed and ready for

> the worst and know how to handle the inquistion that

> will ensue.

>

> We all who are or have gone public " technically "

> have a bulls eye on our

> backs and have to learn to avoid getting " hit " . None

> of us laypeople are experts

> and to try and speak with such " authority " is

> ludicrious along with being a

> self-proclaimed voice for all.

>

> I can state that I am probably the only one aside

> from the company that is

> an expert on Clarins Angel Perfume. I spent 7 years

> doing my homework and dirt

> digging on them.That is what I use as an example and

> can feel very confident

> with my knoweldge base., But, there is NO way I can

> feel comfortable at any

> level with the biochemical/cell physiological

> aspects and divert questions

> regarding such.

>

> Nor have I EVER taken the position that I speak for

> others nor equate my

> health issues to others.

>

> There is only one concrete/salient fact that I KNOW

> everyone will agree

> upon: That this is real.

>

> Dr. Thrasher has decades of knoweldge and I think he

> is only trying to make

> sure that this mess gets contained while trying to

> mitigate further problems.

>

=== message truncated ===