Re: To U, re: Stoll's thread

[Guest guest]

Hi -

I did not want to get into this again. But I will give you the sequence of

events of why I have this opinion.

I was given Stoll's website address sometime last year. I went to the site

believing that he may have been

persecuted from what I had been told. As you know, I've spent many years trying

to get a doctor to listen to me

that there might be something wrong with me thyroidwise so I went there thinking

that Dr. Stoll might have been

ignored in a similar fashion. This was a long time ago and I haven't said

anything about him until now because it

wasn't until recently that he seemed to be coming up more frequently than in the

past. Fault me for objecting to

him all you like, I can only tell you what happened.

This is the order of the things I found wrong with what I'd read then as far as

I can remember. After I went to his

site, I told Dianne and Elaine about the problems I had with what I'd read and

Dianne told me about her conversation

with him.

1. He called Candida a parasite in general and I had problems with that. Of

course, Candida can become parasitic.

When you had candidiasis it had become parasitic. But to call it that when it

is living benignly in us is wrong.

2. He wasn't forthright, in my opinion, about why he lost his license. He went

on at length about why he lost his

license and I still don't know why he lost his license.

3. I read the posts he wrote to Dianne. He didn't answer her questions and it

wasn't her responsibility to be the

one clearly understood.

You are not answering the questions now. Attention is now being diverted from

that to whether or not I judge

Stoll. I cannot stand in judgment about Dr. Stoll as a man. That's God's job.

It's a distraction to imply that

I'm judging him when I disagree with some of the things he says. And I will not

fall into that argument. It isn't

what this is about.

Now, if you want to think you won, that's fine. I didn't get into this to win

an argument. I got into this to

point out that there may be another side to this. And I think I did my job. It

has gone on far too long.

I do not know Dr. Stoll and have no opinion of him as a person. I do have an

opinion of what I've read at his

website. If you want to go on trying to convince people I'm wrong that's OK.

I would, however, prefer to drop it but you can't expect me not to defend

myself. This has deteriorated into the

implication that I'm not thinking right because I am not philosophically

identical to you. I have a four year old

son and a husband to take care of and need to spend the time I am here with

them.

Take care,

Utecht

" A. " wrote:

> Dear U, (seriously now)

>

> This thread started right after I posted two testimonials from a

> Gravesian who put himself as a LIVING EXAMPLE of how a three fold

> alternative CLASSICAL NATURIST protocol had been SUCCESSFUL..

>

> I quoted the source, (I use to do it).

>

> Then it comes that you just jump in >>>to provide some balance on

> this board<<< just because YOU did not LIKE the source.

>

> , this one is good!,... like the other one: " killing

> messeger

> when message doesn't fit "

> Both are OLD STUFF, and are in the deepest roots of human

> missunderstanding.

>

> And then, you wrote several long posts slamming Dr Stoll (NOTE that

> the testimonials were NOT WRITTEN BY HIM), to " educate

> masses " (to

> use one of the National Censoring-Support Board's GEM quotes).

>

> What about if I had found the message in the street ... where

> murderers, thiefs, rapers, and all the rest can be found?. You even

> find politicians!...

>

> You say:

>

> >>>it's important to consider all aspects when considering an

> information source<<<

>

> That's right , there is nothing I like the most, than

> considering ALL aspects.

> Let's see ALL aspects pointed out BY YOU.

>

> 1) He called PARASITE to a PARASITE

> 2) Word PARASITE seems ALARMING to YOU

> 3) He had a conversation with a friend of yours

> 4) He lost his licence.

>

> AHA!!... Number four is a good one!... and is the only one you

> mentioned in your first post dated May 27. Let's listen to your

> words:

>

> >>>I have trouble with him because I don't believe he's being

> forthright.<<<

>

> However you, like me, don't know about the WHY's (and/or

> WHY-NOT's)

> he lost it...

>

> >>> and I still have no idea why he isn't a licensed doctor<<<.

>

> >>>No where that I read does Dr. Stoll say why he lost his license

> which would be because of something specific.<<<

>

> And you finaly condemm him, or WHATEVER may COME FROM from his site:

>

> >>>Unless he comes clean about why he's no longer licensed, it throws

> all his theories into doubt in my opinion<<<

>

> Fortunately, U the beauty of this world relyes on " The

> different " (the different ones, the different things, the

> different

> colours, the different countries, the different trees, the different

> sexes, the different animals, the different religions...).

>

> It's through difference when we can (meaningFULLy) enrich our

> lives

> and ourselves.

>

> So, that's YOUR opinion. Many others have different. Luckily!!!

>

> On your second post you say:

>

> >>>To call Candida a parasite (harmful) is alarmist, in my opinion,

> since it's naturally occurring in us (it's always in all of us) and

> usually doesn't cause disease.<<<

>

> >>>That's when I questioned him...<<<

>

> Could have I missunderstood you?. Wasn't it about he being

> license-

> revoked?

> Guess... When I read your second post, I had to go back to the first

> one... to check this out

> And found out that you had yet another motivation.

>

> And you add the " YES...BUT " condition, when after

> condescending you

> discount HIM again.

> Note that is SUBTLE, because person and theories are MIXED here. And,

> by the way, the views he sustains were not `invented' by HIM.

> They

> are part of humankind's patrimony:

>

> YES condition:

> >>>If his views are consistent with well respected homeopathic

> doctors, I have no problem with them<<<

>

> BUT condition:

> >>>, however, I would choose to get my information from this more

> reliable source. <<<

>

> But what on earth!... You had already defined him as:

>

> >>>Just a certain unlicensed physician who makes some outlandish

> claims in some instances. <<<

>

> Dare I to ask a question:

> Does license-revoking go by hand with becoming mentally retarded?.

> Does it go by hand with amnesy?

> Does license-revoking mean, he has also been knowledge-revoked?

> For God's sake!. We are grown up people!. Let's be

> serious!!!! OK?

>

> Regarding calling candida a parasite, you add:

>

> >>>To call Candida a parasite (harmful) is alarmist, in my opinion,

> since it's naturally occurring in us (it's always in all of us) and

> usually doesn't cause disease.<<<

>

> >>>That's when I questioned him and the only.....

> (WHAAAAAT???????)........reason I did was because my master's

> revolved around parasitology and molecular evolution. Otherwise, I

> probably wouldn't have known. <<<

>

> I'm puzzled!. What is the ONLY reason?.

> Wasn't it about being license-revoked?

>

> I won't come into ARGUEING with you about candida being a

> PARASITE.

> Or parasite being an ALARMING WORD to you.

>

> Should had I more time (you know, my habitual complain... days should

> be longer!) would I ask you to open a new mailing-list for fungus and

> parasites. I love the subject. And would love you to educate me on

> it, as I'm great at learning. I would choose LEARNER for my

> proffession!, I promise!.

>

> You know one thing... I simphatize with fungus and butterflies. Could

> this have to do with " catching " Candida albicans parasitosis

> and

> Graves' disease that I " attracted " them?.

> (butterfly-shaped gland)

>

> Well , back to the subject: You say that niether Tom nor other

> doctors you know call PARASITE to candida.

> Again ...

> When my candidiasis was detected in Germany, candida was referred as

> a PARASITE by docs.

> I know doctors who call it PARASITE, others call it fungus, " tiny

> creature " , " germ " , " tiny living being " , " tiny

> vegetal " , organism,

> candida parasitosis, fungal infection, candidiasis and such.

>

> So, I did not bother to VERIFY YOUR words since calling PARASITE to

> candida sounded correct to me. Anyway, I like to do my HOMEWORK, and

> CHECK OUT before I write. That's why I launched at Stoll's,

> right

> before typing this to you, and provided that you had expressed, once

> and again, many HIGHLY VEXATIOUS JUDGEMENTS on his proffesional

> credit and on his person.

>

> Being the expert you are at parasitosis, I'm sure you'd been

> aware

> that Dr Stoll refers the FUNGAL phase not the YEAST phase of candida.

> All right?.

>

> " There are only two laboratories in the country, that I know of,

> which are competent to diagnose the presence of parasites in the

> colon--of which Candida (in the fungal form) is one. "

>

> Paragraph above belongs to what HE says on candida and C-RL and LGS

> at his site:

>

> http://www.bcn.net/~stoll/candida.html

>

> And this is something, not all, what he says on the subject in his

> book:

>

> " " " One of the unexpected consequences of this alteration of our

> reserves in the immune system is the condition known as candida-

> related syndrome (C-RS). This relatively harmless fungus is found

> everywhere on this planet. Humans have lived side by side with this

> organism for millions of years without problems. However, in the past

> one hundred years, there have been additional stressors in our

> culture that a certain line of our defense reserves has been crossed.

> Now, an increasing percentage or our industrialized population no

> longer has the reserves to keep this fungus at bay. Instead of it

> remaining in the inactive yeast phase in the intestinal tract, it is

> begining to exist in the active fungal phase " " " .

>

> Concluding,

>

> Another " declaration of principles " ...

>

> -May GOD help me to remember to leave judgement of others to HIM.

> -I rather concede de the benefit of doubt. Specially if I DONT KNOW

> the FACTS.

> -I rather give a second oportunity, just IN CASE of guilt.

> -I don't rely my judgement on OTHER'S OPINIONS. I rather

> wrong with

> MY OWN HEAD.

> -I don't rely my CHOICES on what others have told me about their

> having had relationship or missusnderstanding problems.

>

> What else?

>

> -I WELCOME DISCUSSION AND DEBATE when based in DATA, not in

> appreciationss, estimations, opinions, interpretations,

> missinterpretations , ... because all this leads to waist energy

> while no positive contribution is given. And there are folks (not

> meaning anyone here) who seem to be specialized in draining energy

> from others.

>

> You are INTELLIGENT. You are EDUCATED. Keep up your responsibility to

> acknowledge both levels, as far as you've been so much blessed.

> Others have not had that many oportunities.

>

> ... and enrich us with your knowledge.

> I would love having a good article from you on CANDIDA or any other

> area of your expertise.

>

> To end up, , please, please, please,... don't URGE to reply

> to

> this message.

> Let it go in, so that it may serve to bring us (all) closer. It's

> for

> learning that we ALL are here.

>

> I hearthedly wish all the best to you.

>

> .

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Get 2 FREE books at eHarlequin.com.Indulge in our romantic books,

> recipes and getaway ideas. Take your romantic escape today to

> http://click./1/4778/5/_/585824/_/959909077/

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> -------------------------------------

> The Graves' list is intended for informational purposes only and is not

intended to replace expert medical care.

> Please consult your doctor before changing or trying new treatments.

> ----------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Utecht wrote, in part:

>1. [Dr. Stoll] called Candida a parasite in general and

> I had problems with that.

>2. He wasn't forthright

>3. I read the posts he wrote to Dianne. He didn't answer her questions

I agree, and I'd like to add a few more:

4. He has terrible bedside manner. Read what *he himself* admits that he

said to a patient: 'Finally, I told her if she chose to continue only her

allopathic approaches, in the light of the certified lab results, that she

" deserved what she got " .'

http://bcn.net/~stoll/license.html (The above quote comes from the page

where Dr. Stoll explains why he lost his license:

http://bcn.net/~stoll/license.html ).

Is that any way to treat a patient, even a patient who may be somewhat

difficult? Also, Dr. Stoll's answers to Dianne were arrogant and

condescending. The fact that Dianne may have been a bit confrontational

doesn't justify Dr. Stoll's tone. As a professional, he should be aware

that patients (especially patients with Graves') might be irritable. A

tooth for a tooth only leads to the whole world eating cream of wheat.

5. Dr. Stoll often makes fairly outrageous statements without providing any

evidence to support them. See my earlier post about Dr. Stoll's views on

AIDS.

6. Dr. Stoll doesn't correct patients' misconceptions. Again, see what I

wrote earlier about Stoll's failure to address the assertion that

homosexuality can be " cured " with nutritional supplements.

7. Dr. Stoll has a " martyr complex " that he milks for all it's worth. If

there really is some huge conspiracy out there to suppress alternative

medicine (and I don't think that there is), then why is it that Dr.

Weil has been so successful (not that I agree with him, either)? Weil has

sold millions of books, been on the cover of _Time_ magazine, etc.

8. Dr. Stoll constantly flogs his book and his expensive " health coaching "

at $2.50 per *minute* ! (By the way, shouldn't that be considered

practicing medicine without a license?) Dr. Stoll says that, " The average

charged time is 45-60 minutes " -- that's $112.50-$150 *out of pocket* (since

insurance won't cover it)! Not a bad income, even if he only gets one call

per day -- $54,750 per year at the higher daily rate. I wish I made that

much money.

9. Dr. Stoll is inconsistent in his views. When it suits his purpose, he

accepts the findings of traditional medicine. When it doesn't suit his

purpose, Dr. Stoll rejects allopathic medicine. There is no apparent rhyme

or reason to which way Dr. Stoll is going to swing on any given health

issue. For example, Dr. Stoll accepts the role of thyroid gland in Graves'

(more or less, anyway), but he brings in this bizarre theory about

" stress-effect storage " . Huh?

10. Dr. Stoll seems never to have heard of the important principle that

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I promised myself that I wouldn't jump back into this debate, but I have

obviously broken that promise. I can't stand by idly while misinformation

gets spread. As others have pointed out, this list may contain

newly-diagnosed people who may be tempted to abandon proven techniques in

favor of Stoll's questionable theories.

--

alex@...

PS Nobody has (yet?) told me what's going on with the Graves' support group

that's been infiltrated by drug companies or something. Or is that because

I'm under suspicion?

[Guest guest]

> Hi -

>

> I did not want to get into this again. But I will give you the

sequence of events of why I have this opinion.

>

> I was given Stoll's website address sometime last year. I went to

the site believing that he may have been

> persecuted from what I had been told. As you know, I've spent many

years trying to get a doctor to listen to me

> that there might be something wrong with me thyroidwise so I went

there thinking that Dr. Stoll might have been

> ignored in a similar fashion. This was a long time ago and I

haven't said anything about him until now because it

> wasn't until recently that he seemed to be coming up more

frequently than in the past. Fault me for objecting to

> him all you like, I can only tell you what happened.

>

> This is the order of the things I found wrong with what I'd read

then as far as I can remember. After I went to his

> site, I told Dianne and Elaine about the problems I had with what

I'd read and Dianne told me about her conversation

> with him.

>

> 1. He called Candida a parasite in general and I had problems with

that. Of course, Candida can become parasitic.

> When you had candidiasis it had become parasitic. But to call it

that when it is living benignly in us is wrong.

>

> 2. He wasn't forthright, in my opinion, about why he lost his

license. He went on at length about why he lost his

> license and I still don't know why he lost his license.

>

> 3. I read the posts he wrote to Dianne. He didn't answer her

questions and it wasn't her responsibility to be the

> one clearly understood.

>

> You are not answering the questions now. Attention is now being

diverted from that to whether or not I judge

> Stoll. I cannot stand in judgment about Dr. Stoll as a man.

That's God's job. It's a distraction to imply that

> I'm judging him when I disagree with some of the things he says.

And I will not fall into that argument. It isn't

> what this is about.

>

> Now, if you want to think you won, that's fine. I didn't get into

this to win an argument. I got into this to

> point out that there may be another side to this. And I think I

did my job. It has gone on far too long.

>

> I do not know Dr. Stoll and have no opinion of him as a person. I

do have an opinion of what I've read at his

> website. If you want to go on trying to convince people I'm wrong

that's OK.

>

> I would, however, prefer to drop it but you can't expect me not to

defend myself. This has deteriorated into the

> implication that I'm not thinking right because I am not

philosophically identical to you. I have a four year old

> son and a husband to take care of and need to spend the time I am

here with them.

>

> Take care,

>

> Utecht

>

>

Dear U,

I duly read, several times, your message above.

As I consider you are a very intelligent person, I deduct –from

your

reply- that something must have failed in my said post for it being

so little made of.

It saddens me to hear you saying

>>>you can't expect me not to defend myself<<<

as I am not fighting you and there is nothing for you to defend from.

So, if you need to defend from me, it must have been my lack of

expression, my poor communication, since it's far from my

thoughts

attacking you.

This being different from discussing with you about irreflective

comments you've done these days.

It doesn't mean you are not the same intelligent and valuable

to my eyes, but simply you did not act correctly here. And these

mistakes are the of kind I cannot bear with.

We ALL make mistakes. ME TOO, and MANY!. I'm very FAR from being

perfect. Really!.

I KNOW you can do it much better, and this is what I would like you

to do.

My best wishes to you

A.