Declaring victory and going home?

Declaring victory and going home?

"This settlement allows suppressed scientific viewpoints and evidence
to be heard, and it is promising news for patients," said Lorraine
Johnson, executive director of the California Lyme Disease
Association.


Okay, if you say so, I guess....but why? Exactly?

This smacks more of a face-saving POLITICAL "settlement", rather than
a LEGAL one.

Face...this thing ended with a flat thud...a whimper...no "bang".


Looks like its only requirement is that some sort of "independent"
panel be assembled to review the IDSA Guidelines...

...for the sole purpose of determining whether or not the Guidelines
should be revised.

In other words, a committee will look things over and decide if there
is any reason to edit...NOT taht there will be wholesale revision.

There is absolutely NO mention of ANY legal misconduct whatever...let
alone somethng that would give rise to "antitrust" issues.

No litigation...no charges...no complaint. Nothing.

Unsubstantiated allegations of "undisclosed conflicts". Unfortunately,
you have no way of judging how possibly relevant these might have
been...as they are undisclosed.


And...WHY does Blumenthal somehow think that it is somehow illegal for
private professional organizations to exclude views they don't wish to
accept?

I admit to being entirely baffled on this one...

Well, I guess I will accept the "victory" declaration...(standing on
the deck of the carrier, "mission accomplished")...if it includes the
going home part, too.

Re: Declaring victory and going home?

On May 2, 11:29 am, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> "This settlement allows suppressed scientific viewpoints and evidence
> to be heard, and it is promising news for patients," said Lorraine
> Johnson, executive director of the California Lyme Disease
> Association.
>
> Okay, if you say so, I guess....but why? Exactly?
>
> This smacks more of a face-saving POLITICAL "settlement", rather than
> a LEGAL one.
>
> Face...this thing ended with a flat thud...a whimper...no "bang".
>
> Looks like its only requirement is that some sort of "independent"
> panel be assembled to review the IDSA Guidelines...
>
> ...for the sole purpose of determining whether or not the Guidelines
> should be revised.
>
> In other words, a committee will look things over and decide if there
> is any reason to edit...NOT taht there will be wholesale revision.
>
> There is absolutely NO mention of ANY legal misconduct whatever...let
> alone somethng that would give rise to "antitrust" issues.
>
> No litigation...no charges...no complaint. Nothing.
>
> Unsubstantiated allegations of "undisclosed conflicts". Unfortunately,
> you have no way of judging how possibly relevant these might have
> been...as they are undisclosed.
>
> And...WHY does Blumenthal somehow think that it is somehow illegal for
> private professional organizations to exclude views they don't wish to
> accept?
>
> I admit to being entirely baffled on this one...
>
> Well, I guess I will accept the "victory" declaration...(standing on
> the deck of the carrier, "mission accomplished")...if it includes the
> going home part, too.

Face it, it 3rdshmuk,

WE WON.

Blumenthal's conclusion was that the original process was crooked and
filled with conflicts of interest...not a very good indictment of the
so called "prestigious" IDSA... They look unprofessional and
corrupt... and this agreement opens the door for patient lawsuits of
these crooks since their corrupt process led to inadequate treatment
and mental pain and suffering due to the denial of patients' condition
on the basis of collusion and faulty scientific evidence.
Don't count your chickens (or your pathetic retainer) before they
hatch....

Hopefully your clients will decide that YOU are incompetent to
further harass people here... and they'll cancel your puny little
retainer... Lets face it your a miserable failure as a shmuk... How
does it feel to be a $200 an hour toilet seat?

HA... you've been overpaid all along.... What a shmuk ... why don't
you just high tail it out of here?.

3rdshmuk is truly are the most INSANE (and peabrained) member that
ever graced a Lyme disease patient forum....and he doesn't even have
Lyme disease.... what a SICKO--- he actually enjoys harassing people
as a part of his job...... LOL.....

Re: Declaring victory and going home?

On May 2, 2:37 pm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail . com > wrote:
>
> Face it, it 3rdshmuk,
>
> WE WON.

We did, huh?

HOW?

This has got to be the biggest pile of nothing I've ever seen. Don't
be naive (and stupid).

>
> Blumenthal's conclusion was that the original process was crooked and
> filled with conflicts of interest...


LOOK...READ the actual AGREEMENT between the parties. Do you see where
there are NO admissions on the part of EITHER party?

THAT is what matters.

NOT the face-saving "spin" anyone wants to try to put on it.

All it requires is that a "neutral' panel be assembled to review the
Guidelines with an eye toward a possible further revision.

It does NOT mandate revision.



YOU and your embarrassing "part-line" rants are NOT helping. Attacking
everyone who disagrees with you and branding them as "bioweaponeers"
is troubling.

That's a whole lot of "bioweaponeers", out there...

Re: Declaring victory and going home?

On May 2, 2:02 pm, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> On May 2, 2:37 pm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail . com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Face it, it 3rdshmuk,
>
> > WE WON.
>
> We did, huh?
>
> HOW?
>
> This has got to be the biggest pile of nothing I've ever seen. Don't
> be naive (and stupid).
>
>
>
> > Blumenthal's conclusion was that the original process was crooked and
> > filled with conflicts of interest...
>
> LOOK...READ the actual AGREEMENT between the parties. Do you see where
> there are NO admissions on the part of EITHER party?
>
> THAT is what matters.
>
> NOT the face-saving "spin" anyone wants to try to put on it.
>
> All it requires is that a "neutral' panel be assembled to review the
> Guidelines with an eye toward a possible further revision.
>
> It does NOT mandate revision.
>
> YOU and your embarrassing "part-line" rants are NOT helping. Attacking
> everyone who disagrees with you and branding them as "bioweaponeers"
> is troubling.
>
> That's a whole lot of "bioweaponeers", out there...

You are completely right 3rd, is actually a loss, the possibility of
uncovering if some members did indeed engaged in misconduct is now
gone. The panel is going to come back reaffirming the guidelines,
which is just going to vindicate the IDSA and further "clear up" the
controversy. Just a political stunt by Blumenthal, because he still
tried right? Blumenthal for president.

Re: Declaring victory and going home?

On May 2, 4:39 pm, chronichel...@yahoo . com wrote:
>
> You are completely right 3rd, is actually a loss, the possibility of
> uncovering if some members did indeed engaged in misconduct is now
> gone.


I have always wondered how committed to this Blumenthal's office
actually was...whether this "investigation" was largely posturing.
They probably have bigger fish to fry with limited resources
available.

I wonder how many billable hours were actually expended in pursuit of
this thing?

The panel is going to come back reaffirming the guidelines,
> which is just going to vindicate the IDSA and further "clear up" the
> controversy.

Wouldn't bet against it.

Just a political stunt by Blumenthal, because he still
> tried right? Blumenthal for president.-

LOL...yeah. (Cynical, bitter, smirk).

I am really tired of this "hooray for our side stuff", though...and I
really don't think it serves the patients' interests to gloss things
over and claim great, glorious victories.

This was a bad idea, bad move, from the beginning.

Re: Declaring victory and going home?

On May 2, 5:02=EF=BF=BDpm, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> On May 2, 2:37=EF=BF=BDpm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail . com > wro=
te:
>
>
>
> > Face it, it 3rdshmuk,
>
> > WE WON.
>
> We did, huh?
>
> HOW?
>
> This has got to be the biggest pile of nothing I've ever seen. Don't
> be naive (and stupid).
>
>
>
> > Blumenthal's conclusion was that the original process was crooked and
> > filled with conflicts of interest...
>
> LOOK...READ the actual AGREEMENT between the parties. Do you see where
> there are NO admissions on the part of EITHER party?
>
> THAT is what matters.
>
> NOT the face-saving "spin" anyone wants to try to put on it.
>
> All it requires is that a "neutral' panel be assembled to review the
> Guidelines with an eye toward a possible further revision.
>
> It does NOT mandate revision.
>
> YOU and your embarrassing "part-line" rants are NOT helping. Attacking
> everyone who disagrees with you and branding them as "bioweaponeers"
> is troubling.
>
> That's a whole lot of "bioweaponeers", out there...

Now that I think of it your right- . They won't change anything- the
whole med system is a bunch of crooks. We'll review it---yea, and
they still stick with their same old guidelines probably saying we did
the best we could but we are only trying to protect the patients
against harm from antibiotics overdose. But if was one of their own
family you bet they wouldn't follow those guidelines.
I don't understand why Blumenfal doesn't actually reveal the Drs.
names and show the actual evidence of their connections with the ins.
cos. Probably no lawyer would help him. Just like in med.
malpractice certain hospitals are untouchable. I think they pay off
the local in town lawyers a sum every yr. like an issurance policy not
to touch them.....one in particular is Lehigh Valley Hospital....CDC,
FDA, Dept of H& Human Svces all crooks.......And then the Philadelphia
lawyers - a few decent ones. But did you ever hear that expression
"Your as crooked as a Phil. lawyer". And in ref to certain
hospital doctors who make terrible errors that old expression "They
bury their mistakes."

Re: Declaring victory and going home?

On May 2, 10:29 pm, lipanz <lipanzmari...@aol . com > wrote:
>
> Now that I think of it your right- .  They won't change anything- the
> whole med system is a bunch of crooks.

Sorry to hear that you have such a dim view of your fellow man.

I suppose that some bitterness and frustration is understandable,
given what Lyme patients are customarily put through, and the
attitudes that a lot of physicians express...

...but, come on...the "WHOLE med system is a bunch of crooks"?
Everyone is "corrupt" except you?

Like I said...some bitterness is understandable...but this.. . it gets
excessively tiresome after a very short while. And, please...just
because there is endless repetition of this garbage on the internet
(and by some very disturbed people, too)...doesn't make it true.

Perhaps you might wish to consider the POSSIBILITY that there
might...just might...be HONEST differences of opinion over complicated
issues of medical science.

Just me...but I really would suggest that you have something like
evidence before slinging accusations.


 We'll review it---yea, and
> they still stick with their same old guidelines probably saying we did
> the best we could but we are only trying to protect the patients
> against harm from antibiotics overdose.

Probably.

But if was one of their own
> family you bet they wouldn't follow those guidelines.

Well...they are GUIDELINES...and the IDSA GUIDELINES state on their
face that they are NOT to be used as a substitute for sound clinical
judgement.

This is, apparently, an indication of a deficit in reading
comprehension skills among some in the Lyme "advocacy" community.


>  I don't understand why Blumenfal doesn't actually reveal the Drs.
> names and show the actual evidence of their connections with the ins.
> cos.   Probably no lawyer would help him.

Huh? He IS a L-A-W-Y-E-R. His office is full of L-A-W-Y-E-R-S.

Actually, it's a fairly good question...why don't you ask himA0

Understand, however, that there are varying degrees of "conflict" and
conflict analysis. Perceived, potential, actual. What Blumenthal,
himself, stated, was that he needed to show that opposing views had
been suppressed because of economic benefit to those who attempted to
suppress the views.

Apparently, he was unable to show this. Otherwise, he should have
filed an action. He did not.

Regardless of what his (somewhat irresponsible) press release says,
the actual AGREEMENT between the parties does NOT admit that any such
conflicts were present.


Just like in med.
> malpractice certain hospitals are untouchable. I think they pay off
> the local in town lawyers a sum every yr. like an issurance policy not
> to touch them.....one in particular is Lehigh Valley Hospital....CDC,
> FDA, Dept of H& Human Svces all crooks......

.And then the Philadelphia
> lawyers - a few decent ones. But did you ever hear that expression
> "Your as crooked as a Phil. lawyer".    

No. But I don't think much of things like that...you seem content to
tar a lot of people with a pretty broad brushstroke.

=46rom Chicago, myself. But you may have heard some less than flattering
things about how we do things, here, also.

And in ref to certain
> hospital doctors who make terrible errors that old expression "They
> bury their mistakes."-

Yes, well, fine...everyone is crooked and corrupt. Yeah, we get
it...they're out to get you....


LOOK...this is kind of "in-yo-face" politics is what the problem is,
here. Has been from the very beginning, when some genius decided that
the "act-up" model was the thing to emulate.

The so-called "leadership" here (LDA) decided that a little payback
was in order, (I am guessing, Ms. Smith as much as said so, once, if I
recall) for the "harrassment" of so-called "LLMD"s. And so, they used
their political connections to have an elected official search private
records under the pretense of an "antitrust" investigation.

And this, in turn, was caused, in my opinion, because the LDA has
beome too intertwined with these so-called "LLMD"s and has allowed
itself to become an advocate for them, primarily, and NOT patients.

This is a fundamental mistake, in my opinion.

If the Connecticut AG came into YOUR house and commenced a search
because of what you say here...you would scream and howl bloody
murder.

But the real problem...the real ultimate mistake...was the assessment
of what is really going on here.


This was never going anywhere because there was nothing there to start
with.

Little in this world is accomplished through aggressive confrontation.
And if the LDA thought that they could force their way into the
room...force their way into the discussion...they are clueless fools.

Think about it...there is, now, I guess, pending Federal legislation
that involves some reincarnation of this "tick advisory panel"...or
whatever...and so, you have the seeming intention of the LDA to
sitdown with the people they just sic'ed the Connecticut AG on and
make happy-happy, nice talk, I guess.

It's absolutely absurd...and the patients are being FAILED...by BOTH
sides of this....MESS.

Time for the so-called "leadership" to either get a grip or shut up
and step down.

Probably time for more e-mails...

Re: Declaring victory and going home?

On May 3, 10:50=EF=BF=BDam, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> On May 2, 10:29=EF=BF=BDpm, lipanz <lipanzmari...@aol . com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Now that I think of it your right- . =EF=BF=BDThey won't change anything=
- the
> > whole med system is a bunch of crooks.
>
> Sorry to hear that you have such a dim view of your fellow man.
>
> I suppose that some bitterness and frustration is understandable,
> given what Lyme patients are customarily put through, and the
> attitudes that a lot of physicians express...
>
> ...but, come on...the "WHOLE med system is a bunch of crooks"?
> Everyone is "corrupt" except you?
>
> Like I said...some bitterness is understandable...but this.. . it gets
> excessively tiresome after a very short while. And, please...just
> because there is endless repetition of this garbage on the internet
> (and by some very disturbed people, too)...doesn't make it true.
>
> Perhaps you might wish to consider the POSSIBILITY that there
> might...just might...be HONEST differences of opinion over complicated
> issues of medical science.
>
> Just me...but I really would suggest that you have something like
> evidence before slinging accusations.
>
> =EF=BF=BDWe'll review it---yea, and
>
> > they still stick with their same old guidelines probably saying we did
> > the best we could but we are only trying to protect the patients
> > against harm from antibiotics overdose.
>
> Probably.
>
> But if was one of their own
>
> > family you bet they wouldn't follow those guidelines.
>
> Well...they are GUIDELINES...and the IDSA GUIDELINES state on their
> face that they are NOT to be used as a substitute for sound clinical
> judgement.
>
> This is, apparently, an indication of a deficit in reading
> comprehension skills among some in the Lyme "advocacy" community.
>
> > =EF=BF=BDI don't understand why Blumenfal doesn't actually reveal the Dr=
s.
> > names and show the actual evidence of their connections with the ins.
> > cos. =EF=BF=BD Probably no lawyer would help him.
>
> Huh? He IS a L-A-W-Y-E-R. His office is full of L-A-W-Y-E-R-S.
>
> Actually, it's a fairly good question...why don't you ask him?=EF=BF=BD
>
> Understand, however, that there are varying degrees of "conflict" and
> conflict analysis. Perceived, potential, actual. What Blumenthal,
> himself, stated, was that he needed to show that opposing views had
> been suppressed because of economic benefit to those who attempted to
> suppress the views.
>
> Apparently, he was unable to show this. Otherwise, he should have
> filed an action. He did not.
>
> Regardless of what his (somewhat irresponsible) press release says,
> the actual AGREEMENT between the parties does NOT admit that any such
> conflicts were present.
>
> Just like in med.
>
> > malpractice certain hospitals are untouchable. I think they pay off
> > the local in town lawyers a sum every yr. like an issurance policy not
> > to touch them.....one in particular is Lehigh Valley Hospital....CDC,
> > FDA, Dept of H& Human Svces all crooks......
>
> .And then the Philadelphia
>
> > lawyers - a few decent ones. But did you ever hear that expression
> > "Your as crooked as a Phil. lawyer". =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD
>
> No. But I don't think much of things like that...you seem content to
> tar a lot of people with a pretty broad brushstroke.
>
> From Chicago, myself. But you may have heard some less than flattering
> things about how we do things, here, also.
>
> And in ref to certain
>
> > hospital doctors who make terrible errors that old expression "They
> > bury their mistakes."-
>
> Yes, well, fine...everyone is crooked and corrupt. Yeah, we get
> it...they're out to get you....
>
> LOOK...this is kind of "in-yo-face" politics is what the problem is,
> here. Has been from the very beginning, =EF=BF=BDwhen some genius decided =
that
> the "act-up" model was the thing to emulate.
>
> The so-called "leadership" here (LDA) decided that a little payback
> was in order, (I am guessing, Ms. Smith as much as said so, once, if I
> recall) =EF=BF=BDfor the "harrassment" of so-called "LLMD"s. And so, they =
used
> their political connections to have an elected official search private
> records under the pretense of an "antitrust" investigation.
>
> And this, in turn, was caused, in my opinion, because the LDA has
> beome too intertwined with these so-called "LLMD"s =EF=BF=BDand has allowe=
d
> itself to become an advocate for them, primarily, and NOT patients.
>
> This is a fundamental mistake, in my opinion.
>
> If the Connecticut AG came into YOUR house and commenced a search
> because of what you say here...you would scream and howl bloody
> murder.
>
> But the real problem...the real ultimate mistake...was the assessment
> of what is really going on here.
>
> This was never going anywhere because there was nothing there to start
> with.
>
> Little in this world is accomplished through aggressive confrontation.
> And if the LDA thought that they could force their way into the
> room...force their way into the discussion...they are clueless fools.
>
> Think about it...there is, now, I guess, pending Federal legislation
> that involves some reincarnation of this "tick advisory panel"...or
> whatever...and so, you have the seeming intention of the LDA to
> sitdown with the people they just sic'ed the Connecticut AG on and
> make happy-happy, nice talk, I guess.
>
> It's absolutely absurd...and the patients are being FAILED...by BOTH
> sides of this....MESS.
>
> Time for the so-called "leadership" to either get a grip or shut up
> and step down.
>
> Probably time for more e-mails...

I agree with some of the things you say to me. Yes I am full of
anger which I should leg go of some. But if you only knew the
unbelievable real unbelievable "Horror situtation" that was done to a
loved one in my family. This has nothing to do with my reply but in
general but if the lyme was treated properly (no use explaining on
that) but if the secondary complications from the Lyme etc.didn't
develop this whole horror story would never have happened. No more
on that Please....

I thought or else I wasnt reading properly that you did say that we
really didn't win anything in ref to the Infectious Disease Society
and Blumenthal's exposure. Perhaps I erred and got it mixed up with
someone else's post.
Sorry. As I always seemed to agree with most of your posts. This is
3rd man I'm replying to???
What about several yrs. ago when McSweegan was smearing the lyme D.
Fdtn of Conn. and blackening them and saying they out the money and it
found in one of his internet smears that crazy lyme fdtn. He really
tried to knock them out. The Lyme D. Fdtn sued for slander and false
statements.
Now did they win. No.
I'm sure in Chicago you must have heard the expression "You can't
fight city hall." Actually if I didn't see an article in Reader's
Digest yrs ago about Lyme Disease I wouldn't have believed the drs. I
had poly migratory arthritis when I was healthy as a horse before.
And it had at the end of article for more information contact the Lyme
D. Assoc of Connecticut. They helped a lot with their
information. Where are they now.
You will have to admit in this world there will always be the battle
of good and evil. Who took over now as the Lyme Disease Experts
-------The American Lyme Disease Fdtn. started by Allen Steere and
company. The Lyme Disease Assoc's journal of spirochetal & tick borne
diseases - where is it now. It was excellent. I read somewhere that
the other side (the so called conservative side ) somehow it got out a
statement they made "We have to get rid of that Journal." I'm only
saying what I recall reading. It may have been in the Lyme D. Assoc
of Conn's newsltr they used to have.
Is Polly Murray a bitter and hateful woman....I don't think so. In the
article NY Times Stalking Steere it states she has nothing to do with
him now....
QUOTE ---- Is this from 3rd man.Something doesn't sound right.
> Perhaps you might wish to consider the POSSIBILITY that there
> might...just might...be HONEST differences of opinion over complicated
> issues of medical science.
>

Re: Declaring victory and going home?

On May 3, 10:02 pm, lipanz <lipanzmari...@aol . com > wrote:
> I agree with some of the things you say to me.   Yes I am full of
> anger which I should leg go of some.  But if you only knew the
> unbelievable real unbelievable "Horror situtation" that  was done to a
> loved one in my family. This has nothing to do with my reply but in
> general but if the lyme was treated properly (no use explaining on
> that) but if  the secondary complications from the Lyme etc.didn't
> develop  this whole horror story would never have happened.  No more
> on that Please....

I have a fairly good horror story, also. I have told someof the
details...but not all the social fall-out, which can be devastating,
also. Currently, after a period of almost eight months of being
virtually symptom free...I am having problems, again. Now...is that
evidence of relapse...recurrent infection? I DON'T KNOW.

Might be. Intutitvely, you would think so. There is this "feeling" I
get when I have "problems". It's back. I walk with a cane. Have heart
problems because of this.

But I am going to try to keep an open mind to OTHER possible
explanations. All of this, I suppose, could have been avoided had I
been properly diagnosed and treated earlier. But maybe not. Who knows?
Am I angry about that? I was, once. But I know that my doc tried hard
to figure it out.. . it just wasn't something that they saw much of
around here at that time. You know...like they say, "why
me"?...well..."why not YOU"?
>
> I thought or else I wasnt reading properly that you did say that we
> really didn't win anything in ref to the Infectious Disease Society
> and Blumenthal's exposure.   Perhaps I erred and got it mixed up with
> someone else's post.

Nope. You got it right. Didn't "win" anything, at all...in fact, once
you start down a road like the LDA chose...everyone loses, in my
opinion.

>  Sorry. As I always seemed to agree with most of your posts.  This is
> 3rd man I'm replying to???

Yes. And thank you for that remark. Nice of you to say.

> What about several yrs. ago  when McSweegan was smearing the lyme D.
> Fdtn of Conn. and blackening them and saying they out the money and it
> found in one of his internet smears that crazy lyme fdtn.  He really
> tried to knock them out. The Lyme D. Fdtn sued for slander and false
> statements.

>  Now did they win.  No.

I don't know waht happened there. I do know that McSweegan prevailed
in court. I also know that there are a lot of irresponsible people
around on this issue who seem to have blackened their own souls by
adopting smear tactics...instead of responding to substance they use
terrorist tactics...just falsely accuse people they disagree with in
some juvenile attempt to discredit them.

The problem with this tactic...and the tactics of the so-called
"leadership" when they stoop to this sort of thuggery is that it is
the PROCESS and simple rationality that ultimately suffers.

Dr. McSweegan has First Amendment rights, also, and the right to
express them. From what I have read of his material, I consider him to
highly intelligent and perceptive. What I worry about, actually, is
the effect of just outright personal assault on people like Dr.
McSweegan. They certainly make Lyme patients look like crazies, don't
they?

Look at what (wasshername?)...my friend Carla...I forget what's she's
claling herself, now...said about me here, in this thread.


>  I'm sure in Chicago you must have heard the expression "You can't
> fight city hall."

LOL. Interesting that you should say that. Years ago, when I was a
young lawyer, I was involved in shepherding a huge project through the
appropriate governmental authorities here. Spent a LOT of time
"fighting City Hall". And won, too, I might add...as (I would like to
think) so did the people of Chicago. Success, there, was achived by
working WITH people. NOT confronting them.

See, while I wouldn't suggest that you just believe everything I
say...I DO have some experience with government, politics. I have
actually worked on antitrust cases. Drafted settlement agreements. I
know what a "class action" suit is and how to file one. A lot of what
I did with the City involved conflict analysis. (I was not a
corporation counsel;not a city attorney).

> You will have to admit in this world there will always be the battle
> of good and evil.  

Well...perhaps. Some might say that the real good and evil are in our
hearts and that it is up to us to choose.

Do YOU know who is "good" and who is "evil"? Sometimes, white is black
and black is white.

I think that you have to maintain a dedication to PRINCIPLE...or you
will lose your way.
In this case, TRUTH.That's my belief, anyway....the ends do NOT always
justify the means.


> QUOTE ----  Is this from 3rd man.Something doesn't sound right.

Yes, that's me.

I really do NOT know the answer. I am willing to believe that "they"
don't either...and extend them the same respect for their opinions
that I wish for my own.

Yes. I have NEVER seen ANYTHING in this internet ranting that tends to
indicte ANY false or financial motivation. Sorry.


> > Perhaps you might wish to consider the POSSIBILITY that there
> > might...just might...be HONEST differences of opinion over complicated
> > issues of medical science.- Hide quoted text -