Dr.

[Guest guest]

Oops!! You're right. It's Arthur Doerksen who follows Dr. 's

protocols. I found Dr. 's research and info a bit overwhelming at

first, but not far-fetched. Some of her concepts may seem a bit " Star

Trek-ish, " but they are nonetheless effective and I am glad that I tossed

aside the skepticism I had while first reading her book. Thanks to her

research, many so called " terminal " patients are still alive today and

cancer-free. I know because I correspond with them. Implementing her

protocol and research along with my own, I myself have reversed a systemic

candida infection and am on the fast track to recovery.

Ken

I don't follow Dr. 's advice; you must be thinking about someone

else. I found Dr. 's work a tad far-fetched when I first grabbed

a book several years ago; I didn't finish the book and I've

subsequently garnered all my information from other sources. Perhaps

there is some correlation, but it is coincidental.

Duncan Crow

[Guest guest]

> Why is he banned from the group and why was his name taken out of the

> Dr.'s Database.

> Phil

He's banned from the group? Are you sure? That doesn't make any

sense unless the group is susposed to be a bunch of semi to uninformed

guys spreading half-right and outright misinformation. What makes you

think he's banned?

[Guest guest]

> Why is he banned from the group and why was his name taken out of the

> Dr.'s Database.

> Phil

Phil,

I just checked out the meso board, it does seem like it is possible

that he is banned. I know that in the past, I've lost access

through inactivity, that might also be the case. On the meso board

Dr. Crisler didn't seem to knowe the reason that he couldn't use this

group. I can't believe that Brad would ban him without letting him

know.

Brad, have you banned Dr. Crisler as a resource for us here?

[Guest guest]

He told me he tryed to log on and could not. Plus he in not in the Dr.'s

database anymore.

Phil

caos_n_harmony <caos_n_harmony@...> wrote:

> Why is he banned from the group and why was his name taken out of the

> Dr.'s Database.

> Phil

He's banned from the group? Are you sure? That doesn't make any

sense unless the group is susposed to be a bunch of semi to uninformed

guys spreading half-right and outright misinformation. What makes you

think he's banned?

[Guest guest]

One would sure hope that wasn't the case....

Larry

RE:

He's banned from the group? Are you sure? That doesn't make any

sense unless the group is susposed to be a bunch of semi to uninformed

guys spreading half-right and outright misinformation.

[Guest guest]

> > Why is he banned from the group and why was his name taken out of the

> > Dr.'s Database.

> > Phil

>

> Phil,

>

> I just checked out the meso board, it does seem like it is possible

> that he is banned. I know that in the past, I've lost access

> through inactivity, that might also be the case. On the meso board

> Dr. Crisler didn't seem to knowe the reason that he couldn't use this

> group. I can't believe that Brad would ban him without letting him

> know.

>

> Brad, have you banned Dr. Crisler as a resource for us here?

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

I was vocal about the misinformation he passed out on hormone pellet

therapy.

It was plain wrong and it seemed to me it was because he did not offer

that form of therapy. It takes additional training in the use of the

trocar surgical tool to be able to insert pellets safely under the

skin so there will not be any problems.

It was clear he did not know about the great track record of Dr.

Gambrell and those trained by Dr. Greenblatt in Augusta GA since the

50's. Check GOOGLE for these doctors to check their credentials.

ernestnolan

> > Why is he banned from the group and why was his name taken out of the

> > Dr.'s Database.

> > Phil

>

> Phil,

>

> I just checked out the meso board, it does seem like it is possible

> that he is banned. I know that in the past, I've lost access

> through inactivity, that might also be the case. On the meso board

> Dr. Crisler didn't seem to knowe the reason that he couldn't use this

> group. I can't believe that Brad would ban him without letting him

> know.

>

> Brad, have you banned Dr. Crisler as a resource for us here?

[Guest guest]

It's not right to ban someone because of a disagreement of opinion.

Regardless of who is right or wrong. Many of the patients he

advises aren't his direct patients nor does he get paid for advising

people so it doesn't seem like the reason would be because he

doesn't offer that service. More likely that he doesn't offer that

service because I doesn't agree with that treatment type.

He has the right to his opinion without the fear of being banned.

Gentlemen can disagree and still remain civil.

I certainly hope that he wasn't banned for that reason!!! That

would be terribly disappointing.

> > > Why is he banned from the group and why was his name taken out

of the

> > > Dr.'s Database.

> > > Phil

> >

> > Phil,

> >

> > I just checked out the meso board, it does seem like it is

possible

> > that he is banned. I know that in the past, I've lost

access

> > through inactivity, that might also be the case. On the meso

board

> > Dr. Crisler didn't seem to knowe the reason that he couldn't use

this

> > group. I can't believe that Brad would ban him without letting

him

> > know.

> >

> > Brad, have you banned Dr. Crisler as a resource for us here?

[Guest guest]

Yes, that would be very disappointing. We have individuals here who

" advertise " the services of their attending TRT physicians almost as

if they were paid advertisers for specific doctors.... so to assume

that Dr might be " advertising his services " and use that as a

reason for a ban would be, well, quite hypocrtical. In addition, he

puts in much time and many hours actually actively moderating the

Board over at MESO... and it's not an " advertising scheme " for his

practice.

Further, his preference in dealing with new patients is to go through

the patients own PCP so that the PCP (whether he's an Endo or a Uro or

a GP) can get the benefit of learning some advancements in updated

TRT... And to ban him for having different opinions as to TRT

protocols... well, every page here is loaded with different opinions

as to TRT protocols. Are we all to be banned? And then comments that

he's " very arrogant " .... again, one sees arrogant attitudes all over

the Board. And - since he doesn't post much here - I wonder where

that even came from? I surely don't see evidence of it on the MESO

Board. Yes, at times he has to get active in addressing squabbles on

the Board or something like that, but that's simply his job as a Mod

there (in fact, I often wish that the Mods on this Board would be

openly as active in providing control).

As I still don't see this getting addressed formally, I personally

continue to hope that it was just some type of administrative error...

Larry

It's not right to ban someone because of a disagreement of opinion.

Regardless of who is right or wrong. Many of the patients he

advises aren't his direct patients nor does he get paid for advising

people so it doesn't seem like the reason would be because he doesn't

offer that service. More likely that he doesn't offer that service

because I doesn't agree with that treatment type.

>

He has the right to his opinion without the fear of being banned.

Gentlemen can disagree and still remain civil. I certainly hope that

he wasn't banned for that reason!!! That would be terribly disappointing.

[Guest guest]

Yes, he was banned.

No, it wasn't by me.

No, I don't know specifically why. It was 5 or 6 years ago.

Yes, my predecessor was not fond of doctors trolling for patients.

No, I don't know that that was the reason. The messages from that

time period are no longer available.

No one is or ever was banned for divergent medical opinions. If they

were, I'd be much busier.

My predecessor and I were in agreement about 98% of the time and he

did an excellent job and was responsible for much of the group's success.

What I do know is that one has to work at it to actually get banned

here. That always has been the last resort.

In my experience those who don't work out the first time around

usually don't do better the second time. It would only be with the

most profound reluctance that I would revisit that decision.

Since he posts elsewhere, one can interact with him there. It would

likely be easier and more comfortable for him as well. I don't see

why he would particularly wish to be here anyway.

With respect to moderation, everyone thinks they could do better. For

everyone who wants more restriction, someone else wants more freedom.

I post my opinions when I feel moved to do so. They don't count for

more or less than anyone else's opinion. I don't find it desirable to

arbitrate the civilized differences of opinion of others and I am not

qualified to do so anyway. I discretely dispose of unsuitable content

and miscreant behavior as we go along so that useful discussions can

continue as soon as possible.

Brad

> It's not right to ban someone because of a disagreement of opinion.

> Regardless of who is right or wrong. Many of the patients he

> advises aren't his direct patients nor does he get paid for advising

> people so it doesn't seem like the reason would be because he doesn't

> offer that service. More likely that he doesn't offer that service

> because I doesn't agree with that treatment type.

> >

> He has the right to his opinion without the fear of being banned.

> Gentlemen can disagree and still remain civil. I certainly hope that

> he wasn't banned for that reason!!! That would be terribly

disappointing.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Brad--

At my Meso Forum, someone posted a link to a thread here. That was

fine with me, of course, as this group is well known to have done A

LOT of good work in service of men's health.

I remember joining here, but it could not have been more than 4

years ago, and probably sooner. But when I tried to login, found I

had been banned. That was a bit of a surprise to me.

Just to get it out in the open, I have never " trolled for patients " .

Instead, I have openly given away every bit of information I have

learned about hormonal manipulation, in over 10,000 posts. That is

why the papers I have written--which are the same information I use

when training other physicians for the American Academy of Anti-

Aging Medicine--are all over the Internet. My hope is that gentlemen

will print them to take to their own doctors in order to get better

treatment. From what I hear, that has happened many, many times.

I wish I could spend time here, but am sorry I can hardly keep up

with the stuff on the one Board I now control. Guys from here are

always welcome to come over to ask questions, and I am happy for my

members to come here, as they need all the information--and

frequently comradery--they can get.

If someone wants to come over and post this Group's link, I will be

more than happy to make it a permanent sticky.

On a more personal note, ya, Moderating is a heck of a lot harder,

and more time consuming, than most members realize!

Keep up the good work!

--Dr. Crisler

> > It's not right to ban someone because of a disagreement of

opinion.

> > Regardless of who is right or wrong. Many of the patients he

> > advises aren't his direct patients nor does he get paid for

advising

> > people so it doesn't seem like the reason would be because he

doesn't

> > offer that service. More likely that he doesn't offer that

service

> > because I doesn't agree with that treatment type.

> > >

> > He has the right to his opinion without the fear of being

banned.

> > Gentlemen can disagree and still remain civil. I certainly hope

that

> > he wasn't banned for that reason!!! That would be terribly

> disappointing.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I appreciate the graceful response.

Brad

> Brad--

>

> At my Meso Forum, someone posted a link to a thread here. That was

> fine with me, of course, as this group is well known to have done A

> LOT of good work in service of men's health.

>

> I remember joining here, but it could not have been more than 4

> years ago, and probably sooner. But when I tried to login, found I

> had been banned. That was a bit of a surprise to me.

>

> Just to get it out in the open, I have never " trolled for patients " .

> Instead, I have openly given away every bit of information I have

> learned about hormonal manipulation, in over 10,000 posts. That is

> why the papers I have written--which are the same information I use

> when training other physicians for the American Academy of Anti-

> Aging Medicine--are all over the Internet. My hope is that gentlemen

> will print them to take to their own doctors in order to get better

> treatment. From what I hear, that has happened many, many times.

>

> I wish I could spend time here, but am sorry I can hardly keep up

> with the stuff on the one Board I now control. Guys from here are

> always welcome to come over to ask questions, and I am happy for my

> members to come here, as they need all the information--and

> frequently comradery--they can get.

>

> If someone wants to come over and post this Group's link, I will be

> more than happy to make it a permanent sticky.

>

> On a more personal note, ya, Moderating is a heck of a lot harder,

> and more time consuming, than most members realize!

>

> Keep up the good work!

>

> --Dr. Crisler

>

[Guest guest]

To be accurate, I have not passed out any " misinformation "

whatsoever. It is not appropriate for anyone to say so. Here are

some facts about testosteorne pellets which may not have been

described previously:

1) They subject--unnecessarily IMPO--patients to the risks ALL

surgical procedures present: hemorrhage and infection. And also the

discomfort afterward.

2). Titration of dosage is a huge issue. There is absolutely no way,

up front, to determine what dosage a given patient will require.

There is no denying this fact of physiology and pharmacokinetics

Anyone who claims they can is not being forthright, or has no real

experience. I know, as I have directed the care of literally

thousands of men with TRT. There are 150 pound men who require twice

the dose of a 300 pounder, with each starting at the same baseline

and ending up at the same goal. Variations in activity level, body

composition, general metabolism, receptor activity, epigentic

effects of all manner, and the various isozymes which control our

hormonal mileau cause this. IOW, you have to start a guy on a good

conservative dose, wait for serum levels to stabilize, retest, then

titrate. Repeat until done.

So what if you put too many pellets in, then you must dig some back

out--lest you endanger the patient's health by creating excessive

androgen levels; in fact, putting him on steroids. Not good.

If you do not put enough in, are you going to wait the months until

the first ones wear off before upping the dosage, or stick more in

right then? Then they are not dissolving in a synchronized fashion,

and future proper dosing is an issue. I'm not sure how long you must

wait for serum levels to stabilize on pellets, but every single one

of my patients has indicated he wanted to be tuned up ASAP.

3). What if PSA happens to elevate once you have placed the pellets

in? It is a fairly common occurence for a man's PSA to rise. It is

the accepted medical policy at this time to immediately withold TRT

in that case. And that means you must have all the pellets dug out.

Not fun.

4). Sure, the procedure generates extra revenue for the doctor, and

it's always nice to make more money. Especially since any doc can

learn to do it in about 20 minutes--a first year medical student

would have no problem. But many men do not have the insurance to pay

for the procedure, so it just makes TRT that much harder to afford.

I also don't want TRT to be more expensive for the insurance

companies, which may make them less likely to cover same. I want TRT

for the masses!

These four points simply cannot be argued against by anyone who

knows what they are talking about, and is being honest. I have

delivered these exact same points before literally thousands of

doctors while lecturing before the American Academy of Anti-Aging

Medicine. Not once has even one of them been able to poke a single

hole in my reasoning, even though several have tried to go toe-to-

toe with me.

Now, if someone is on them and is happy with their therapy, then

that is just great. I hope you stay that way. That is what we are

all shooting for. But if I believed in them, I'd be making that

extra money inserting them, too. As it is, I use testosterone gels

and test cyp (or enanthate)IM. IMPO, they are the only acceptable

testosterone delivery systems available at this time.

-- In , " ernestnolan " <emiles@s...>

wrote:

> Hi All,

>

> I was vocal about the misinformation he passed out on hormone

pellet

> therapy.

>

> It was plain wrong and it seemed to me it was because he did not

offer

> that form of therapy. It takes additional training in the use of

the

> trocar surgical tool to be able to insert pellets safely under the

> skin so there will not be any problems.

>

> It was clear he did not know about the great track record of Dr.

> Gambrell and those trained by Dr. Greenblatt in Augusta GA since

the

> 50's. Check GOOGLE for these doctors to check their credentials.

>

> ernestnolan

>

>

> > > Why is he banned from the group and why was his name taken out

of the

> > > Dr.'s Database.

> > > Phil

> >

> > Phil,

> >

> > I just checked out the meso board, it does seem like it is

possible

> > that he is banned. I know that in the past, I've lost

access

> > through inactivity, that might also be the case. On the meso

board

> > Dr. Crisler didn't seem to knowe the reason that he couldn't use

this

> > group. I can't believe that Brad would ban him without letting

him

> > know.

> >

> > Brad, have you banned Dr. Crisler as a resource for us here?

[Guest guest]

It's hard to argue with this reasoning. It appears the major

problem with pellets is figuring out tolerance and titration which,

as you point out, can be challenging if not dangerous for the

patient. Of course, the BIG payoff is convenience.

1) I'm not sure how many people actually suffer from infection

and hemorrhaging in these types of procedures but I'm sure it would

be rare. There are a ton of similar surgical procedures done all

the time for less severe conditions and people still elect to do

them because the risks are so small compared to the benefits.

Perhaps I'm wrong on this but I think people might choose the

convenience of pellets over the small risk of complications related

to a minor surgical procedure.

2) Do they make pellets that have different absorption times,

like a 16, 14, 12, 10 week pellet??? If so, this seems like it

would solve most of your concerns about titration with pellets.

3) If there's a reaction that is an absolute contradiction to

testosterone treatment then yes, the pellets would have to be taken

out. This seems like it could be avoided by first treating a

patient with IM injections for the first six months and if there are

no contradictory reactions then the patient could be given the

option to switch to the convenience of pellets. There is always a

risk of a contradiction developing at anytime but that could be

something the patient decides is worth the small risk.

4) I wonder which is more expensive in both cost of medication

and administration, one pellet insertion procedure every 6 months or

12 IM injections (assuming an injection every 2 weeks for 6

months)? Of course the patient can eventually learn to inject

themselves making the medication and syringe supply the only cost

for treatment. Still, which costs more out of these three options?

I have no idea!

On thing that wasn't mentioned was the risk of pellet extraction.

Sometimes pellets will just work their way out of the body through

the insertion site. This appears to be an uncommon occurrence but

it does seem to happen.

Mind you I think Dr. Crisler's arguments are well founded. I'm just

trying to see how well they hold up to scrutiny. Of course my

scrutiny is based on very basic understandings of this subject so I

may be way off base in these points. But perhaps a discussion can

be had regardless as some people on this board feel strongly in

advocating pellet treatments.

> > > > Why is he banned from the group and why was his name taken

out

> of the

> > > > Dr.'s Database.

> > > > Phil

> > >

> > > Phil,

> > >

> > > I just checked out the meso board, it does seem like it is

> possible

> > > that he is banned. I know that in the past, I've lost

> access

> > > through inactivity, that might also be the case. On the meso

> board

> > > Dr. Crisler didn't seem to knowe the reason that he couldn't

use

> this

> > > group. I can't believe that Brad would ban him without

letting

> him

> > > know.

> > >

> > > Brad, have you banned Dr. Crisler as a resource for us here?

[Guest guest]

I'll likewise engage point by point:

1). It has happened. It has happened with every single surgical

procedure ever done. it's amatter of risk/benefit, as you point out,

but it is a completley unnecessary risk, IMPO.

Yes, " convenience " is in the mind of the beholder. Everyone gets to

decide for themselves which therapy is more convenient FOR THEM. So

that is not really debatable.

2). Please reread my comments regarding dosing. Then you will see

why providing pellets of varying absorbtion rate--or even different

dosed pellets--cannot solve this problem.

3). Again, please reread. My comments have absolutely nothing to do

with a reaction to the medication (which can happen with ANY

medication).

4). My guys that have to pay for their IM injections find it costs

them about $5-6 per week. Yes, IM absolutely MUST be done every week.

I had not heard of pellets deciding to extract themseves before. But

it does make sense, as they are hard foreign bodies, after all.

Thank you for the added point.

At any rate, your comments are the product of a truly enquiring mind

which is open, and applying logic and reason.

> > > > > Why is he banned from the group and why was his name taken

> out

> > of the

> > > > > Dr.'s Database.

> > > > > Phil

> > > >

> > > > Phil,

> > > >

> > > > I just checked out the meso board, it does seem like it is

> > possible

> > > > that he is banned. I know that in the past, I've lost

> > access

> > > > through inactivity, that might also be the case. On the

meso

> > board

> > > > Dr. Crisler didn't seem to knowe the reason that he couldn't

> use

> > this

> > > > group. I can't believe that Brad would ban him without

> letting

> > him

> > > > know.

> > > >

> > > > Brad, have you banned Dr. Crisler as a resource for us here?

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the respectful reply. Even though I'm only a layman on

this, and a newbie to TRT (although I think I'm pretty well read for

the amount of time I've been at this), let me see if I can explain

myself a little more on a few points. Keeping to the form of this

thread I'll reply on point as well.

1. There is no doubt that bad things happen with any invasive

medical procedure so there's no way to argue against that. We agree

in the risk/benefit aspects of these types of procedures so this

point seems to be dependent on whether this procedure benefits the

patient to such a degree that they are willing to take the

relatively small risk. So this leads us to concentrate on the

benefits, or lack thereof, to determine whether this aspect of

pellet TRT is an issue.

2. I guess what I was thinking is the following: From what I

understand from some articles I've read, pellets take about two

weeks to reach their peak T levels and thus testing at two weeks

seems like it would be reasonable. If they made pellets that were

16, 14, 12, 10, 8 week absorption rates then it seems to me that

titration could be done as follows:

a Administer a safe dose of 16 week pellets to the patient.

(safe being a dose that would hardly ever lead to adversely high

levels of T).

b. Two weeks later run tests and conservatively add 14 week

pellets.

c. Two weeks later run tests and conservatively add 12 week

pellets.

d. Two weeks later run...well, you get the point.

Now assuming this is possible the upside would be that the patient

could safely titrate without the likelihood of having to go digging

pellets out because of over dosing and the pellets would still be

synchronized in their absorption rate.

However, as I said in my original reply, I didn't think this would

answer to all your points. Assuming that this is even possible

there is still an issue of the amount of time it takes to finally

reach adequate treatment levels which, if I could venture a guess,

seems like it could take between 1 and 2 months to accomplish. And

I totally agree with your point about every single one of your

patients wanting to be " tuned up ASAP " !!!!

I'm exactly in that position now and I would do almost anything,

within reason, to be able to get rid of these symptoms I've been

suffering from for the last 4 or 5 years. It's difficult even

writing this reply through my mental fog as I'm not sure I'm making

my points as completely or succinctly as I would like. So to that

point I whole heartedly agree and for me this one issue would be a

huge impediment in my acceptance of a pellet based TRT.

Although, to be fair, I don't know how much of a headache any of the

other treatment types are going to be yet so perhaps for some people

going through a multi-month titration process might be worth it.

3. As you seem to indicate you weren't referring to the initial

TRT adverse reactions I can only guess your original point was

referring to contradictory reactions during mid-treatment such as a

rise in PSA. I'm not sure PSA is a good example as I believe the

recommendation, even yours in your protocol paper, is to only test

this once every six months or yearly. Seems like this testing

schedule would coincide nicely with the pellet insertion timeline

and thus would not really be an issue unless some other more

frequent examination or test revealed some other absolute

contradiction.

Of course there is always a chance that a absolute contradiction

will arise that could require removal of the pellets but I would

think that this would be rare. I have no evidence to back that

statement up but it seems reasonable to me that this would be a rare

occurrence as the only absolute contradictions are prostate cancer,

breast cancer and elevated Hemocrite levels which are hardly ever

diagnosed rapidly and are within the testing timetables for TRT it

seems.

4. No question that 5 or 6 bucks a week is a very inexpensive

treatment cost. I don't think a pellet insertion can cost less than

$140.00 so self IM injections have it beat. I would guess that a

pellet insertion would come in second and weekly office injections

would cost the most for those that don't self IM inject. In the

long run self injecting is probably the cheapest.

Of course, we haven't talked about gels yet. I think gels are 5 to

6 dollars a day in cost. I don't know how much pellet insertions

cost so I have no way to compare them. Just something to think

about.

All in all I think pellets aren't a way for me to go. I don't think

the risks are that big for this procedure but the benefits seem to

be marginal as well. One thing I would say is that although your

TRT protocol is likely superior to all other forms of TRT the

difficulty is in trying to get a doctor to administer T under your

methodology. I've seen so many people on these boards go through so

many doctors trying to find one that would follow your protcol.

Unfortunately I think for most people, even if they are aware of

your protocol, they have no choice but to accept an inferior

treatment from doctors that are unwilling to stray too far from

standardized TRT administration. This just seems like a sad fact

that can't easily be avoided by most TRT patients unless they get

lucky.

Respectfully,

> I'll likewise engage point by point:

>

> 1). It has happened. It has happened with every single surgical

> procedure ever done. it's amatter of risk/benefit, as you point

out,

> but it is a completley unnecessary risk, IMPO.

>

> Yes, " convenience " is in the mind of the beholder. Everyone gets

to

> decide for themselves which therapy is more convenient FOR THEM.

So

> that is not really debatable.

>

> 2). Please reread my comments regarding dosing. Then you will see

> why providing pellets of varying absorbtion rate--or even

different

> dosed pellets--cannot solve this problem.

>

> 3). Again, please reread. My comments have absolutely nothing to

do

> with a reaction to the medication (which can happen with ANY

> medication).

>

> 4). My guys that have to pay for their IM injections find it costs

> them about $5-6 per week. Yes, IM absolutely MUST be done every

week.

>

> I had not heard of pellets deciding to extract themseves before.

But

> it does make sense, as they are hard foreign bodies, after all.

> Thank you for the added point.

>

> At any rate, your comments are the product of a truly enquiring

mind

> which is open, and applying logic and reason.

[Guest guest]

I'll add a few points, again in CAPSSO THEY ARE EASY TO DISTINGUISH

(NOT " SHOUTING " ).

> > I'll likewise engage point by point:

> >

> > 1). It has happened. It has happened with every single surgical

> > procedure ever done. it's amatter of risk/benefit, as you point

> out,

> > but it is a completley unnecessary risk, IMPO.

> >

> > Yes, " convenience " is in the mind of the beholder. Everyone gets

> to

> > decide for themselves which therapy is more convenient FOR THEM.

> So

> > that is not really debatable.

> >

> > 2). Please reread my comments regarding dosing. Then you will

see

> > why providing pellets of varying absorbtion rate--or even

> different

> > dosed pellets--cannot solve this problem.

> >

> > 3). Again, please reread. My comments have absolutely nothing to

> do

> > with a reaction to the medication (which can happen with ANY

> > medication).

> >

> > 4). My guys that have to pay for their IM injections find it

costs

> > them about $5-6 per week. Yes, IM absolutely MUST be done every

> week.

> >

> > I had not heard of pellets deciding to extract themseves before.

> But

> > it does make sense, as they are hard foreign bodies, after all.

> > Thank you for the added point.

> >

> > At any rate, your comments are the product of a truly enquiring

> mind

> > which is open, and applying logic and reason.

[Guest guest]

BTW, what does " blinkered " mean?

> > I'll likewise engage point by point:

> >

> > 1). It has happened. It has happened with every single surgical

> > procedure ever done. it's amatter of risk/benefit, as you point

> out,

> > but it is a completley unnecessary risk, IMPO.

> >

> > Yes, " convenience " is in the mind of the beholder. Everyone gets

> to

> > decide for themselves which therapy is more convenient FOR THEM.

> So

> > that is not really debatable.

> >

> > 2). Please reread my comments regarding dosing. Then you will

see

> > why providing pellets of varying absorbtion rate--or even

> different

> > dosed pellets--cannot solve this problem.

> >

> > 3). Again, please reread. My comments have absolutely nothing to

> do

> > with a reaction to the medication (which can happen with ANY

> > medication).

> >

> > 4). My guys that have to pay for their IM injections find it

costs

> > them about $5-6 per week. Yes, IM absolutely MUST be done every

> week.

> >

> > I had not heard of pellets deciding to extract themseves before.

> But

> > it does make sense, as they are hard foreign bodies, after all.

> > Thank you for the added point.

> >

> > At any rate, your comments are the product of a truly enquiring

> mind

> > which is open, and applying logic and reason.

[Guest guest]

I was wondering the same thing. I was thinking that it came from

the two words " blink " and " red " which I guess would mean a red

blinking light. But who knows. :-)

> > > I'll likewise engage point by point:

> > >

> > > 1). It has happened. It has happened with every single

surgical

> > > procedure ever done. it's amatter of risk/benefit, as you

point

> > out,

> > > but it is a completley unnecessary risk, IMPO.

> > >

> > > Yes, " convenience " is in the mind of the beholder. Everyone

gets

> > to

> > > decide for themselves which therapy is more convenient FOR

THEM.

> > So

> > > that is not really debatable.

> > >

> > > 2). Please reread my comments regarding dosing. Then you will

> see

> > > why providing pellets of varying absorbtion rate--or even

> > different

> > > dosed pellets--cannot solve this problem.

> > >

> > > 3). Again, please reread. My comments have absolutely nothing

to

> > do

> > > with a reaction to the medication (which can happen with ANY

> > > medication).

> > >

> > > 4). My guys that have to pay for their IM injections find it

> costs

> > > them about $5-6 per week. Yes, IM absolutely MUST be done

every

> > week.

> > >

> > > I had not heard of pellets deciding to extract themseves

before.

> > But

> > > it does make sense, as they are hard foreign bodies, after

all.

> > > Thank you for the added point.

> > >

> > > At any rate, your comments are the product of a truly

enquiring

> > mind

> > > which is open, and applying logic and reason.

[Guest guest]

For those at the conference,

Did he suggest metabolic typing for people with cancer? If not, what did he

suggest?

jafa

Idol <Idol@...> wrote: Wanita-

>I'd appreciate hearing what else covered at the conference

>when you have the time.Will be highly disappointed if Wise Traditions

>does an anti MT article considering the varying macronutrient ratios

>and sources of them WAP found in his groups. If individuals actually

>adapted their genetic and metabolic predisposition to any

>macronutrient source wouldn't be doing what he does.

One genuine problem with a lot of the MT field, though, is the

dietary fat recommendation continuum it usually presents. IIRC,

Wolcott says " carb " types on one end should get 10% of calories from

fat and " protein " types on the other end should get 30% of calories

from fat. That's ludicrous. I'm less familiar with Kelley's system,

which follows, just because it was Wolcott's book I read,

but a lot of MT dietary recommendations are similarly ludicrous.

I'm not saying there's nothing to typing, since it seems like there's

got to be _something_ there, but by comparison to Wolcott and modern

orthodoxy, ALL Price's healthy natives ate a high-fat diet, and all

of Price's healthy natives also ate lots of animal protein in one

form or another.

-

<HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

<B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

<UL>

<LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

<LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

<B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> One genuine problem with a lot of the MT field, though, is the

> dietary fat recommendation continuum it usually presents. IIRC,

> Wolcott says " carb " types on one end should get 10% of calories from

> fat and " protein " types on the other end should get 30% of calories

> from fat. That's ludicrous.

When you talk to Wolcott's primary trainer, Dodie at(

www.metaboliced.com ),she will throw the book recommendation for 30% max fat

right out the door. I'm not sure why they felt the need to put that in the

book when she and Wolcott both don't believe it. She herself eats much

higher fat than that and recommends that hard protein types eat 60 to 70%

fat.

I didn't really understand metabolic typing until I worked over the phone

with Dr. Mercola's main nutritionist for two hours and then did 4 hours with

Dodie. Again -- not sure why they didn't make this information clear in the

book. Liability, perhaps?

Ron

[Guest guest]

Jafa-

> Did he suggest metabolic typing for people with cancer? If not,

> what did he suggest?

He did... but (naturally) only the particular school of MT he

subscribes to, which he didn't have time to even come remotely close

to fully explaining. The bulk of his lecture was on his theory of

the root cause of most cancers and of the importance of pancreatic

enzymes. One of these days I WILL post my notes from his lecture,

which was the most fascinating of all the ones I went to.

-

[Guest guest]

The bulk of his lecture was on his theory of

> the root cause of most cancers and of the importance of pancreatic

> enzymes. One of these days I WILL post my notes from his lecture,

> which was the most fascinating of all the ones I went to.

,

Whoa--please hurry up. Can you in the meantime give us a teaser on

the importance of pancreatic enzymes? I have some, which I used to

take, but discontinued because of my ambivalence re: the veggie

capsules. (Thorne) I figured it takes them 30 mins to dissolve--if

they do AT ALL--and was bewildered re: the timing of this thing.

-please-help.

B.

[Guest guest]

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of downwardog7

>,

>Whoa--please hurry up. Can you in the meantime give us a teaser on

>the importance of pancreatic enzymes? I have some, which I used to

>take, but discontinued because of my ambivalence re: the veggie

>capsules. (Thorne) I figured it takes them 30 mins to dissolve--if

>they do AT ALL--and was bewildered re: the timing of this thing.

>-please-help.

>

TB,

According to DeFelice (enzymes and autism lady), food remains in the

upper stomach chamber for 30-90, IIRC. Therefore I take Dipan-9 (Thorne

pancreatin) at the *beginning* of meals. That way it'll supposedly dissolve

by the time it reaches the intestines. However, as cited several

studies showing that pancreatin is destroyed by stomach acid, YET

was adament that they are not and also cited several studies. Maybe

different products were used in different studies? The heck I know. But I do

think Dipan-9 survives stomach acid because my one dog who's never been a

good digester does better on the enzymes than off. But then again she also

gets Bio-Gest with HCl, pancreatin and ox-bile at the same time. So I'm not

really sure if that's the one she relies on the most for good digestion.

Just trying to add to the confusion.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

-

>Whoa--please hurry up. Can you in the meantime give us a teaser on

>the importance of pancreatic enzymes? I have some, which I used to

>take, but discontinued because of my ambivalence re: the veggie

>capsules. (Thorne) I figured it takes them 30 mins to dissolve--if

>they do AT ALL--and was bewildered re: the timing of this thing.

>-please-help.

There are two largely separate issues at hand. One: do you need

pancreatic enzyme supplements to aid your digestion. And two: if so,

is your pancreating insufficiency contributing to a risk of

cancer. The latter is a subject that will require a long time for me

to summarize. The former can be determined at least to some degree

by your experience with supplementation. What happened when you quit?

-