Linda's Blog

Great idea. glad someone is using their head out there.... YES!!! Zip

http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?f5.html -- all the usual
suspects that are twisting up the morgellons page
http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t12229.html
http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t7470.html
http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t12736.html
http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t12274.html
If the "liability creep" issue raised below is true, the best thing to do is
actually serve these idiots with papers and let them sweat. One decent lawsuit
could basically tank the entire project and shut them down.
In particular, a suit claiming the bias on the Morgellons page is "hate speech"
and suing for damages based on housing, employment and healthcare discrimination
brought on from being inappropriately designated "delusional" when in fact
one is ill with an infection. Note that Barrett v. Rosenthal is not precedent
allowing "hate speech" on the internet, just "freedom of speech."
know when it's time to use it. It's like that frog in a pan of water heating up
slowly on the stove it doesn't know when to jump out.
desperate situation of "liability creep." That means they're in a situation that
will only get worse in the upcoming months. Danny Wool and Brad Patrick got out
in time; the rest of them are just now noticing that the water is getting a tad
warm. (Apparently there's no liability insurance for the Foundation yet, and I
don't think any insurer would touch them at this point.)
interesting. There are a few, including Jimbo and SlimVirgin and some others,
who realize that something has to be done. Then there are people like David
Gerard and Geni who chime in with something completely diversionary and
irrelevant, and downright stupid, and everything ends up in a mush of confusion.
The people who have nothing to lose just don't get it, and a lot of them are
admins. At some point Jimbo will have to say, "Shut up Gerard, or I'll ban you.
I'm trying to have a serious discussion here!"
who elicits solutions through nice compromises. By now it's to the point where
the Foundation office cannot even use a new broom as a CEO. A broom won't do it.
They need a steamroller to come in and squish some admins into pancakes, if they
hope to start reducing their exposure to liability.
worth his time, and that his power would be almost absolute, and guarantees of
an early-separation package if it doesn't work out. The Foundation doesn't have
enough money to hire the sort of CEO they need, nor do they recognize that this
is needed. It's up to Jimbo, and all he's been doing so far is sitting in that
pan on the stove.

When most people come in contact with hay or straw (my brother had a
working farm) the hay or straw does cause irritation and intense
itching. That's why many wear gloves when haying and moving bales. I
too had experienced that years ago.
I have many pets (before and after getting Morgellons in 2004) and
have never had any reactions to the bedding used for them ..... About
a year ago, I worked in a warehouse removing outdated pet supplies
which was extreamely DUSTY, and most likely full of mold, etc. as a
roofing company shared this space as well. That day on the way home I
developed my first really intense asthma attack.
Since that day when I dust my home or empty the vacuum cannister I
get very stuffy unless I protect my nose. I do use pine shavings and
hay/straw for the pet rat, mice, and cockatiel. These types of
beddings are very dusty so now I wear a scarf over my nose to protect
me from the dust. I do not attribute getting Morgellons to these
bedding products. I do believe that since my Morgellons, I have lost
the many hairs that line and protect our respiratory systems inside
my nostrils from inhaling dust, etc. I believe that this is the
reason and cause for increased sensitivity and allergic reactions
that I get when exposed to these products.
Perhaps there is fungus in the hay. So, to stop getting reactions
take precautions such as gloves, scarves, or changing the bedding as
there are many substrates/beddings that can be used in your pet's
cages.
wendy

I've received an email from a person asking about Dr Matthews.
I don't know where Dr Matthews is but do any of you have good
or bad knowledge about any Dr Matthews? Thank you.
Rita

found this and found it interesting... especially if you perhaps got morgellons
from the bedding used for keeping animals as pets.
http://www.ctds.info/morgellons.html

It looks like Patrami81 wrote this:"so now i am equipped with some
dog dewormer. i don't have it in front of me now but the active
ingredient was men....azole or something. do i take it according to
my weight pretending i'm a dog? or one fifth of one hundred lbs."
She REPORTED on the FENBENDAZOLE. She also suggested that you need to
go back with the previous posts to determine the dosage. The product
in question is called: Safe-Guard.
THIS IS NOT THE DOG DOSE
This information is taken from information a FENBENDAZOLE Toxicity
Report:
Fenbendazole drench (paste) is marketed as a 10% suspension (100
mg/ml) of fenbendazole. The drench is labeled for use in horses or
cattle. Some common trade names include 10% Panacur Suspension
(Horse), 10% Panacur Suspension (Cattle)or Safe-Guard 10% Cattle
Dewormer. While labeled dosing directions for horses and cattle may
be different, the product concentration (100 mg/ml) is the same.
Because fenbendazole dosing is dependent upon the parasites that are
targeted, the cattle and horse products list two different doses.
Approved cattle and horse doses are labeled at either 5 mg or
10 mg of fenbendazole/kg of body weight. These doses represent either
2.5 ml of the 10% solution per 100 lbs. of body weight (the 5-mg/kg
dose) or the higher dose of 5 ml of the 10% solution per 100 lbs. of
body weight (the 10-mg/kg dose).
Approved cattle and horse doses are labeled at either 5 mg or 10 mg
of fenbendazole/kg of body weight. These doses represent either 2.5
cc of the 10% solution per 100 lbs. of body weight (the 5-mg/kg dose)
or the higher dose of 5cc of the 10% solution per 100 lbs. of body
weight (the 10-mg/kg dose).
I have been taking this for a year now. I also skip a day here or
there, or take the 10mg/Kg once a week. The reasoning being not to
let them become resistant to the drug. I have been on the 5cc/100lbs.
I weigh 200lbs so I am taking 5ml per 100 pound, which is a low dose
(5mg/Kg).
An easy way to figure out a doseage would be 1cc of the 10% paste per
20 pounds of body weight.
I am in NO way telling ANYONE to take this as this is all AT YOUR OWN
RISK as this medication is to be used in animals only.
http://www.jefferslivestock.com/ssc/products.asp?
CID=2&mscssid=CM390NWGKXTM9MMGHT4Q983FR24HEF93&BrowseList=453&dept_id=
510
I buy the large tube for $36.95 (cheaper than the small tubes)
I'm not going to repeat this again. Those that may use this copy and
paste this information and paste it somewhere on to your computer.
wendy

This is pretty bad -- shows clear quackwatch (Fyslee) infiltration and
suppression of information:
since it's essentially the primary source of both the existence of both the
"Morgellons" phenomenon, and much of the republished information on Morgellons
(such as the "case definition").
site. While there are many interesting and informative articles there about
Morgellons (most of which I wrote), they are probably not suitable as references
under a strict interpretation of Wikipedia rules. One would not, for example,
say "The MRF notes that some fibers fluoresce under UV light, but skeptics point
out that most clothing fibers fluoresce under UV light [129]". This is perhaps
unfortunate, since the UV thing has been breathlessly repeated in the press many
times.
included in the "External Links", as an additional source of information that is
not suitable for inclusion in the main article. Herd of Swine (talk) 17:06, 18
November 2007 (UTC)
Morgellons on board, since they seem to be the only people who actually
recognise it. That is not the same as saying they have recognised experts on
dermatology. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
has not one link to a peer-reviewed clinical study". The three papers cited
contain no clinical data whatsoever; all three are OPINION papers, not clinical
studies (the most recent one, for example, is in the "Perspectives" section of
that journal, which is categorized separately from "featured journal articles":
"in addition to the Review program, the journal will regularly feature Drug
Profiles, Perspectives and Meeting Highlights" - the editorial policy also
states that articles are subjected to peer review, but it does not say that
"Perspectives" papers are). Anyone can write and publish an opinion paper in
those journals. The MRF still has no peer-reviewed clinical studies linked on
their website. Dyanega (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
in the article as a source and I am firm believer that Wikipedia is not a link
farm. So if you are hellbent on finding grounds to remove the link from EL (and
thus eliminate the whole EL section for now), try "it is because the site is
cited in the article already" on for size and see how that flies. WP:EL doesn't
expressly disallow a link to be both a source and an external link; however, one
can infer from the policy that keeping the ELs and sources distinct is
preferred. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
"Above you state that I said that MRF is an SPS." That is not true. Dyanega was
only reminded of the issue because Levine had mentioned it.
name for a condition. She has then surrounded herself with other non-experts who
have a financial interest (they are treating these people!) in perpetuating this
particular definition of the condition. They are thus unreliable as experts.
Morgellons, Leitao, Savely, and the MRF. Therefore the parties to the
controversy deserve mention and morgellonswatch is a major player and should be
linked in the external links. It is the only one of the two source that cites
peer reviewed sources (the MRF does not), and they are the expertise which the
site provides. To make it even better it has no financial interest in the
matter.
of their own invention (the definition), then any third grader or quack who
invents and promotes definitions for some bizarre and imaginary condition (that
is provably nonsense and impossible - and I'm not saying this applies to
Morgellons) is also an "expert" by default, since no one else believes it. Hulda
Clark comes to mind. She's an "expert" in her particular, well-proven, scam, and
she has a financial interest in her scam, just as the MRF has a financial
interest in promoting their ideas, which makes them very suspect. Such expertise
is not what we need here.
linked according to the rules here, which allows such linking when the website
is owned by the subject of the article. It's opinions should also be quoted,
since that's all it has. It is not an accurate and unbiased source for
scientific research on the matter, if it had such research, which it doesn't.
The significant opinions on Morgellonswatch could also be quoted as the opinions
of a major player in the controversy, but it, just like the MRF, cannot be
quoted as an independent scientific source.
the external links, there being only one objector, whose arguments are
unconvincing. -- Fyslee / talk 08:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. We will not violate WP:EL and include a non-expert blog. Your
description of MRF above could easily be a description for Quackwatch (opinion
piece website driven by one man with various experts who have a financial
interest...). It seems to me to be a tad hypocritical that you want to remove
MRF here when you have fought so hard to make others believe that Quackwatch is
a WP:RS throughout Wikipedia. Please step back and consider that personal POV
may be distracting objective adherence to a basic Wikipedia policy. --
Levine2112 discuss 08:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
note its unreliable role, and that morgellonswatch is even more reliable. There
is no comparison with Quackwatch as there is no financial COI, and its numerous
writers, editors and experts are real experts in their subject areas. Quackwatch
is a RS for the opinions of skeptics and mainstream opinion, not for scientific
research, except where it hosts such research. It's not a black or white issue,
and I have never advocated such a position. As far as POV, we are both in glass
houses....;-) -- Fyslee / talk 08:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My doctor has agreed to follow the steps outlined on
morgellonstreatmentsteps.com, I have gathered the needed items for the
topical and environmental steps and with my doc on board to provide the
meds I am getting ready to begin. Has anyone else followed this plan?
If so what was the results?

Hi Nancy, You have been in my thoughts, knowing a
part of what you are going through on top of this
crap. Sure, repost anywhere you need or want. I wish
more people knew to ask for a woods lamp eval. i will
say that the use of a strong antifungal cleared up a
large part of the flourescing. So, my belief is that
they either feed off of fungus or produce it and the
anti-fungal took care of it. I am still drawing
things out with permethrin.
I am just sooooo tired and worn out from dealing with
this that every day seems harder.
I am using the miracle foot cream which contains aloe
and the DSP. They both seem to work well.
Good luck and my thoughts are with you.
Linda
Linda

HI everyone. Haven't checked these in a couple weeks. Went to Maui for
vacation and was not in my home where my symptoms make me so tired,
with all the cleaning and taking care of myself I have to do. Being in
the fresh air, ocean and clean 'environment' refreshed me. I am also
taking Usana vitamins... seem to help my hair grow back in and feeling
a lot better. .Sometimes I get so down I dont read these posts for
awhile. When my symptoms reside for awhile I get hope, but they always
come back. Right now getting the familar sandy feeling in my hair, the
black specks and ofcourse a tingling, crawly sensation near my ears. Oh
well. Keep the faith and I'm just sitting down to read your posts with
all of your helpfull suggestions.
Thanks, God Bless and I hope we get some help soon. It's so nice to
have friends in this terrible Morg mess we're in.

Posted the following to the Wikipedia Talk:Morgellonspage. Just
waiting to see if I get banned. Let you know. ...Zip
The CDC study is the first official US Government attempt to find
the root cause of Morgelloms and as such should be mentioned at lead
in to the topic as it is a one of the most significant event in
Morgellons story. Propose: To clearly put in perspective the current
unknown nature of this disease. The CDC has awarded Kaiser
Permanente in Northern California a contract to assist the CDC in
conducting an extensive investigation of this condition and it is
expected the the studly result well become available by end 2008.
[User:Zip|Zip22045]] 11:52, 17 November 2007 (UDT)

Linda, this was the most frightening thing about finding the fibers
everywhere with the blacklight....i looked in the mirror and saw all
the fluoresence inside my skin pores. In regular light my skin
looked wonderful, i didnt even need makeup. But, now 18 months after
removing these with soda... i have quite a different viewpoint! I
have not heard a doctors opinion about this...i just didnt like how
it looked and wanted it out and so began with aloe...then as layers
of nice skin flaked off...i started mopping the individual lesions
with soda. These things dont need to heal...they need to be
seperated out of the skin they are saturated and growing in. Im
beginnning to think that a lesion is just a colony overgrown with no
where else to go. Since it makes tons of the bright red larvae and
bags them in storage by the thousands in just one lesion, im
beginning to also think thatit is not blood, but rather a defense
mechanism for each layer. Why defense? Because the "blood" is full
of the ingredients to remake itself. That is why if you put a sample
of its blood on clear tape and hold it to the light...you will see
it immediately begin to make the block pattern that the red larvae
grows in. May i put your post on my site?, Nancy--- In

another BIG problem on the WIKIPEDIA page for Morgellons. The lead at least had
a TEENSY
little mention of the CDC investigation. ... "they" (the
quackwatch/morgellonswatch cartel) just deleted it.
Meanwhile, multiple practitioners of opinion "infection, not delusion" exist,
yet their information
is outright suppressed, or allowed to be mocked with ad-hominem attack on the
talk pages, then given less weight in the article as result. For example, the
announcement of a CDC investigation into this disease is rather important given
that the CDC doesn't normally investigate delusions --
http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/investigation.html -- and yet,
attempting to mention this in the lead has been deleted, even though it required
lifting
a "protected edit request":
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morgellons&diff=prev&oldid=171964349 .
Now, information about this important CDC
investigation is buried deep within the body of the otherwise "all in the
head"-slanted article on Morgellons.
User:Ward20, complaining about this in talk, is bullied off:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AMorgellons#Protected_edit_request ...
the study to actually start enrollment of human subjects. As I understand it,
IRB approval is the last administrative process before the study can be started.
It is just a milestone in the study so no big deal.
significant event in the Morgellons story. Propose: To learn more about
Morgellons, the CDC has contracted Kaiser Permanente in Northern California to
assist the CDC in conducting an epidemiologic investigation of this
condition.[6] Thanks.Ward20 (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Ward20 (talk)
05:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
account with no history outside this subject, your comments are being given less
weight than comments of long-standing editors with a wide-ranging edit history.
We do not engage in special pleading. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

From your post, "
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?pagetitle=morgellons..."
This probably was posted from the CDC without approval. Be
interesting to hear the CDC's explanation of why they are describing
Morgellons as DOP before any study results are in. Aren't they
suppose to be the lead on this... ZIP

http://lymebusters.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=rash&action=display&thread=11\
95177164&page=1#1195235471
Morgellons, it is difficult to separate them. Since Morgellons is not an
accepted medical condition, the presentation of symptoms that the patient thinks
are Morgellons will frequently lead to a diagnosis of delusional parasitosis. "
laboratories of the world, view Morgellon's as just another name for delusory
parasitosis."
http://lymebusters.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=rash&action=display&thread=11\
95177164&page=1#1195234858
many others in bug or skin-related professions find the results of the study
absurd as the collembolans allegedly identified have no biting mouthparts or
burrowing abilities, which are symptoms of "Morgellons." Furthermore, the
methods and images of the study are generally disregarded as showing any
evidence of collembolans.
Department of Entomology at the University of Illinois) who described the images
as "difficult to discern." She states "apparently, other entomologists, far more
secure with the status of their facial fauna, were not willing to scrutinize the
images. This article hit entomo-l list serve in November 2004 and generated a
heated discussion over the result of well-meaning or misguided computer
enhancement-- the scientific equivalent, put perhaps in more generous terms than
appeared on the list-serve, of the image of the Virgin Mary appearing in a
grilled cheese sandwich, miraculously preserved mold-free off on eBay for
$28,000 to an online casino. In other words, collembolans in skin scrapings
might be just another example of the phenomenon of "pareidolia", a-- type of
illusion or misperceptino involving the vague or obscure stimulus being
perceived as something clear and distinct." American Entomolog
ist, 51(2):68-69.
bacterium ''[[Stenotrophomonas maltophilia]]''. The Morgellons Research
Foundation was created in [[2002]] by the mother of a child suffering from the
condition, and has publicized the lack of research and the lack of doctors'
recognizing a disease and how widespread (and therefore) how serious it really
is. If the evidence of current studies proves to be valid, Morgellons disease
could be found to be the underlying cause of many other diseases ranging from
hearing loss to organ failure. There have been [[suicide]]s related to the
disease that current research indicates are due to the overwhelming lack of care
and rejection from the many doctors sufferers go to for help.
those of a condition called Delusions of Parasites or Ekbom's Syndrome. Most
leading physicians, dermatologists, entomologists, and physicians, feel that
sufferers of DOP and Ekbom's Syndrome cleave to a title such as Morgellons
because of the depth of their delusion.

I noticed they ulocked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Morgellons and added
the following bullshit:
Arbitration Committee banned Ilena and SSP indefinitely blocked Scrotel both
have used the 75.83.171.237 IP address. See User Talk. NielsMayer and Nielsp
have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of Scrotel. See SSP report. If you
are aware of any attempts to circumvent these bans/blocks, please consider
making a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. -- Jreferee t/c 18:15, 11
November 2007 (UTC)
Someone, everyone, please set them straight. ... I am mega ueber super duper
banned so i can't say much other than send emails that get ignored.
What an unusual way of becoming associated with Ilena Rosenthal.... :-)
-- Niels.
http://nielsmayer.com

resource on the web; meanwhile Enclyclopedia Brittanica subscriptions cost
money, and
years. Perhaps it *is* better to have nothing, inplace of the disinformation
found in
enyclopedia -- it will be it's downfall. A place where "National
Enquirer"-style articles
abandoned patients pouring bleach all over themselves to rid them of this
scourge,
http://nielsmayer.com/roller/NielsMayer/entry/morgellons_discovery_cure is
censored off
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMorgellons&diff=170842973&oldid\
=170788314
Syndrome, and we are now certain it is NOT Delusions of Parasitosis. The latter
in fact, will be the thrust of the paper: the DOP label has resulted in
inappropriate and incomplete treatment of countless people who never recovered.
Once the final DNA sequencing is done and the paper completed, it will be
published with treatment protocol(s) for all clinicians world wide to use.
Meanwhile, as both primary organisms create brain limbic system abnormalities,
we now understand that the delusional component of the illness is real in many
affected (but far from all), so correct psychotropic medication can help that
component even if treated purely independently. Nearly half the Morgellons are
bipolar, but became so AFTER the parasite infection began. Others have formal
diagnoses of extreme OCD or ADD/ADHD. The prevalence in children is no different
from adults, and there appear to be no gender or race di
f
There's well over 10,000 of us, and only a handful of them. Once wikipedia
learns
WIKIPEDIA THAT TELLS EVERYBODY THAT MORGELLONS PATIENTS ARE DELUSIONAL. Do it in
memory
http://lymebusters.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=support&action=display&thread\
=1194068968&page=1#1194558231
have an organization that thinks it's "the next big thing" and wants to take it
to
article in "Fast Company" magazine. But for the pages on health issues and
medical
"mainstream medicine" look faultless. Any pages on alternative, experimental
medicine,
and ridiculed with a level of ad-hominem attack that they themselves do not
allow
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMorgellons&diff=162467805&oldid\
=162466976 ). And over
be trusted for information, and in the future, we will not be able to trust it
for
needs to understand that if you allow your website to be used as a platform to
print
'user:Ilena' had also been harassing and banning 'user:Nielsp' and
'user:NielsMayer'...
erroneously called an "open proxy" (impossible) and allowed them to claim that
all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/75.83.171.237 ...
the fact that this has been allowed to happen and

Thanks Niels. I feel like this has gone the route of everything else in
society. The most purient items take precidence over what is actually CRUCIAL.
This will be the downfall of society as a whole.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Niels
My initial reaction to this dilemma, as you describe it, is, "So
what!" However, after thinking about it a bit more I remembered you
saying that this is a fight and not being one who runs from a good
fight I said to myself, "We're in!"... Than I thought about it some
more and came around full circle. Who are we fighting anyway? Just a
bunch of faceless ghosts whom aren't accountable to anyone. A
perfect phony baloney bureaucracy. The only way to fight it is to
totally discrete Wikipedia and cause it's total annihilation. The
world will be a better place because of it. Anyway, that's my 2c...
Zip
think..bring down... bring it down...

Don't ask me... ask the millions of people that use it because it's a free
resource on the web; meanwhile Enclyclopedia Brittanica subscriptions cost
money, and
won't have entries like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons for a few years.
Perhaps it *is* better to have nothing, inplace of the disinformation found in
wikipedia ... Of course, the big advantage to the enclyclopedia brittanica is
that that it is an enclyclopedia, written by professionals, using professional
academic standards.
If the Morgellons page on wikipedia is any measure of wikipedia as an
enyclopedia -- it will be it's downfall. A place where "National
Enquirer"-style articles
from years ago given equal weight with medical papers discussing recent
developments with the disease (e.g. http://nielsmayer.com/morgellons07.pdf
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/11/24-b
http://www.eblue.org/article/PIIS0190962207001958/fulltext ). In fact, given
more-equal weight, as the wikipedia authors prefer salacious descriptions of
abandoned patients pouring bleach all over themselves to rid them of this
scourge,
over the observations by numerous practitioners treating Morgellons, that it is
not "delusional" or "psychosomatic; that it is related to Lyme disease and/or
Chlamydia Pneumoniae and parasitic infection. And information like
http://nielsmayer.com/roller/NielsMayer/entry/morgellons_discovery_cure is
censored off
wikipedia as it doesn't fit with "morgellonswatch" & quackwatch's hateful spin
on this real affliction.
For example, "removal of snake oil pitch" is how their most censorship is
titled:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMorgellons&diff=170842973&oldid\
=170788314
Their labelling of the first scientific experiment involving morgellons
patients as "snake oil" shows the level of bias of authors of the page.
It's important to note what they've censored and disparaged as "snake oil" --
the #1 authority on this disease, the head of the Morgellons Research Foundation
http://morgellons.org/medical.htm -- Dr. William T. Harvey, M.D., MPH. Certainly
a recognizable, quotable authority on this disease. The reason for the
censorship is obvious, Dr. Harvey says the exact opposite of their "spin" on the
morgellons wikipedia page:
Syndrome, and we are now certain it is NOT Delusions of Parasitosis. The latter
in fact, will be the thrust of the paper: the DOP label has resulted in
inappropriate and incomplete treatment of countless people who never recovered.
Once the final DNA sequencing is done and the paper completed, it will be
published with treatment protocol(s) for all clinicians world wide to use.
Meanwhile, as both primary organisms create brain limbic system abnormalities,
we now understand that the delusional component of the illness is real in many
affected (but far from all), so correct psychotropic medication can help that
component even if treated purely independently. Nearly half the Morgellons are
bipolar, but became so AFTER the parasite infection began. Others have formal
diagnoses of extreme OCD or ADD/ADHD. The prevalence in children is no different
from adults, and there appear to be no gender or race dif
ferences.
We could safely ignore wikipedia as "more internet crap", except that your
doctors, family members, employers, or anybody else that decides to lookup
"morgellons", . when they hit the wikipedia morgellons page, they will come
away prejudiced against you because the wikipedia morgellons page is hate speech
and lies against sufferers of an emerging disease.
The more important question is why are we allowing people from quackwatch and
morgellonswatch to hijack this site when we have numbers on our hands.
So get off your asses, and start fighting the people on there to change the
page. If you don't like what it says, start changing things yourself.
If they ban you it's one soldier down... and there'll be more behind you....
There's well over 10,000 of us, and only a handful of them. Once wikipedia
learns
the wrath of the Morgellons community, we will be unstoppable. BY ANY MEANS
NECESSARY YOU MUST FIGHT THEM. THERE ARE NO RULES WHEN WE'RE THE ONES BEING
RELEGATED TO DIE OF UNTREATED INFECTIOUS DISEASE BY THE HATE SPEECH ON WIKIPEDIA
THAT TELLS EVERYBODY THAT MORGELLONS PATIENTS ARE DELUSIONAL. Do it in memory
of Karen Stern who died from the atmosphere of prejudice fostered by wikipedia's
bias:
http://lymebusters.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=support&action=display&thread\
=1194068968&page=1#1194558231
In addition, if you don't like what's going on there, start making your
complaints known to higherups, such as Jimmy Wales <jwales@...
arbitratration committee ( arbcom-l@... ).
Hopefully, they're not in the pocket of the AMA and quackwatch. And if they are,
that's what investigative journalism is for...
And finally, the brokenness of wikipedia needs to get to the PRESS. Here we have
an organization that thinks it's "the next big thing" and wants to take it to
the next level -- to take on google in the search market according to a cover
article in "Fast Company" magazine. But for the pages on health issues and
medical
malpractice by the mainstream, it's clear that quackwatch has orchestrated a
wholesale suppression of information, whitewashing their complicity while
subjecting numerous articles on the site to an inexcusable level of bias:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_v._Rosenthal (page quackwatch changed to
coverup their losses)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Barrett (more lies)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackwatch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturopathy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulda_Clark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Whitaker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_alternative_medicine
So is this really "the people's" dictionary. Or is it as fraught with the same
level of potential deception and self-interest that every google-hit on the
internet should be given, when making an important research decision?? What
SEEMS to be happening on wikipedia, is that any pages showing wrongdoing by
big-tobacco, big-pharma, big-insurance, the AMA are whitewashed to make
"mainstream medicine" look faultless. Any pages on alternative, experimental
medicine,
emerging diseases, or any "questioning" of mainstream medical practices (e.g.
Ilena's http://www.humanticsfoundation.com ) ... are again slanted towards
"mainstream medicine" -- any interlopers on their territory are labeled quacks
and ridiculed with a level of ad-hominem attack that they themselves do not
allow
to occur against "mainstream medicine" doctors ( e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMorgellons&diff=162467805&oldid\
=162466976 ). And over
and over again, the same quackwatch-orchestrated people on wikipedia are
suppressing comments and changes which don't support this bias.
Given the things I read on wikipedia, this is clearly not a resource that can be
trusted for information, and in the future, we will not be able to trust it for
search either. The press needs to understand this, and wikipedia marketing needs
to understand that if you allow your website to be used as a platform to print
lies and hate-speech, you will not be allowed to get away with it. Your process
is broken! FIX IT!!
Also, let's not forget the banning of users associated with trying to correct
the quackwatch lies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NielsMayer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nielsp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ilena
The fact that simply by noticing that the same quackwatch people banning
'user:Ilena' had also been harassing and banning 'user:Nielsp' and
'user:NielsMayer'...
the fact that this user simply posted a letter from user:Ilena in his unblock
request (again censored by Fyslee) naming the quackwatch perpetrators that have
been bullying people on wikipedia... that alone got a home-firewall to be
erroneously called an "open proxy" (impossible) and allowed them to claim that
all
three users are sockpuppets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/75.83.171.237 ...
the fact that this has been allowed to happen and
go unchallenged, gives us a pretty good idea of what wikipedia is worth and how
ridiculous their rules and processes and "hearings" are. (Wikipedia is like
an internet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court ).
Fortunately a second system will come, fix all these stupid problems, and
wikipedia will hopefully be as well-remembered the 'Visicalc' of online
enclyclopedias. (Except visicalc always came up with correct results, whereas
wikipedia comes up with lies). Maybe I'll be the one to "fix" this, since
I have some experience integrating speech-act theory with groupware systems (
http://nielsmayer.com/p93-shepherd.pdf ) -- and it is the "intentional" part of
group editing that wikipedia clearly has no way of capturing (plus it's just
overall an egregious hack of web-engineering).
Anyways, the press is clearly where this needs to go... to properly expose the
soft-white-underbelly of wikipedia that allows self-interested parties to bully
away the truth.
-- Niels.
http://nielsmayer.com

Hi LeeAnn,

I actually came out to LA from CT in desperate search of a treating Dr about a month ago. My sister found a Dr. Hildegarde Staninger off of Lardhmont in LA. She's a Toxicologist treating the disease with Infra-Red Therapy along with other treatments. Her theories of what this disease is differ from the majority of theories I read on these pages in which people believe this is some kind of a worm. According to her it's an environmental toxin that we've been exposed to ( a plasic or silicone material) and the purpose of the Infra-Red is to regenerate cells and allow the body to heal allowing it to rid itself of this filth. I'm so overwhelmed I don't know who or what to believe I just know that this disease is destroying my life by the second. I'm so disturbed by this nightmare that I like all affected have to deal with. To hear that this disease isn't alive and not contagious was a relief but I'm still having a hard time absorbing all of this bizarre information. My Mom
is Scientist in the field of Genetics at a major medical university back East and some of what I've tryed to relay back makes sense to her while she questions some. She'll be calling Dr. Staniger later today to listen to her theories and observations. My mom is a pain in the ass as a mother but when it comes to Science she's brilliant so I'll trust her oppinion. The Dr's number is 323-466-2599 if you'd like to schedule an appoinment or keep in in touch with me to hear what my Mom's oppinion is. I thank God for my Mom's work because when all these scarey things started happening to me this past April, she was one of the only people to believe me other than my Phsychiatrist which was quite a surprise. After several ER visits and MD visists I was given this "Morgellons" diagnosis by 2 Drs on the border of NY. I thought they were nuts and sought out other oppinions- a Lyme's related disease, Lupus, possible parasite but over the last few weeks my symptoms are definatedly
fitting the Morgellons description so I figured that I must give this a shot. I did see the pictures of a patient taken 6 mos ago and she was in horrible shape-much worse symptoms then my own. Anyway, I met her today and she looks wonderful. Were having lunch Friday so I'll learn more of her story. But do keep in touch because it was myself 2 wks posting a request for a Southern CA Dr and I didn't get a response. Who knows, this may be your answer. You're welcome to call me, it would be nice to speak with someone experiencing the same who's not on a computer screen, 860-689-4949. If this therapy turns out to be a success I'll be staying in LA until it's completion.

Good Luck, Michelle
LeeAnn Paddock <lpaddock1@...

Do any of you know of a doctor that is treating
patients with Morgellons in the Southern California
area? I would really appreciate a referral. Also, do
you guys believe it is contagious?
thank you kindly,
LeeAnn
LeeAnn

http://tinyurl.com/25mxcg
watch video

Emailed You.
Rita

Do any of you know of a doctor that is treating
patients with Morgellons in the Southern California
area? I would really appreciate a referral. Also, do
you guys believe it is contagious?
thank you kindly,
LeeAnn
LeeAnn

I think that is completely awesome that your brother beat Morgellons! That said, I think it is important to warn people that argyria is a REAL condition. It would not be listed as a cautionary statement if it were not. Additionally, I was talking to my dermatologist about a year ago stating that I was using colloidial silver and the first thing out of her mouth was to not use it for too extended of a time due to risk of developing argyria. I just want to caution others that their is a risk-research it yourself!
"b.hansen20" <b.hansen20@...

He used COLLOIDAL (not ionic) silver: 2 teaspoon evry 15 min. for 4 hrs
(No, you won't get argyria and turn blue, that is an illuminati lie
from the same folks who gifted you with nano-bugs), followed
immediately by a de-wormer (If the doc refuses to grant a script, use
dog dewormer from a feed-and-seed). Don't fall for the argyria scare or
ionic-silver subterfuge. We did, and my brother suffered longer than
necessary. After we debunked the ionic sliver, We mega-dosed the
colloidal silver, but the bugs came back five weejs later. It was only
when we combined the colloidal silver with the dewormer that we got
permanent results. BTW, we used Meso-Silver, but any decent colloid
will do. I found Meso-Silver to be the highest quality at the best
price, but things may have changed. Do your own research to find a
quality colloid at a decent price, but do please beware: Don't fall for
the pseudo-science warning that you will turn blue or that the latest,
greatest most scientific marvel of all time is ionic, not old bad
dangerous outdated debunked colloidal silver from some quack's
basement. Meso-Silver is made in a lab to exacting standards. Use it,
or find another of similar verifiable quality, and BEAT Morgellons.
Holler back when you do, please. Good luck.

Linda,

I had the dermatologist use the woods lamps yesterday, and I am not sure what she saw-I saw one of the lesions on my forearm that is almost healed, and the flourescent color appeared as yellow, but I would think this would be the stuff that makes up a scab-is this what you mean by autoflourescense?

Lori
[INLINE]

Is there a reference for Mushroomy genes in human DNA or is that
just what TamTam thinks??????????? Zip

Trish:
The interesting confluence between your observations is that TamTam of
http://silentsuperbug.com http://silentsuperbug-reference.blogspot.com fame is
that he
too has commented on bug parts growing within the body, out of flesh. I
personally have never seen this for sure (the growing out of flesh part) but i
have
removed and saved -- no delusion -- a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrip -like
bug from my skin. Perhaps if I wasn't so diligent about removign infected
tissues, perhaps I'd be growing bugs too... as it is, when successful, I end up
with a completely flat area of skin discoloration, with no hard material
underneath, no fibers or hard-objects, and no recurring infection in supposedly
"healed" areas.
Regarding bugs from the "inside" TamTam claims that this is the "chimera" part
of the infection, which is one part mushroom&bacteria and one part insect, and
where (if i understood it right) some of that mushroomy growth produces an
insect instead of (perhaps) a "fruiting body." And yes, we have mushroom genes
in us,
and insects have mushroom genes in them... people are basically just talking
fungus, so get over it. :-)
I'm not sure about how the whole "making an insect from a mushroom" would work
DNA-wise so I'm really more in favor of a much simpler and easier to explain
theory:
(1) we get lyme and various co-infections such as CpN (and perhasps morgellons)
from an insect bite (flea, tick, biting fly, mosquito)
(2) lyme and CpN degrade our immune systems, cause us to get chronic yeast and
bacterial infections
(3) lyme&chronic infections give us a "smell" that makes us attractive to
insects -- this is after all how lyme propagates itself, by signalling more
strongly
than uninfected animals "BITE ME!!" putting out "pheromones" that make us
appetizing to biting insects -- in exchange for the "nectar" of our blood, these
biting insects help propagate lyme back to their usual animal hosts as reservoir
for infection. Most Morgy/Lymies have noticed that they're the ones that get
bitten first by insects. Many may have noticed this prior to getting Morgellons
even.
(4) while we continue to be "attractive to insects" as side-effect of untreated
chronic infection, we will continue to vector this disease into the population
at large.
(5) while we continue to be "attractive to insects" as an olfactory side effect
of our infections, some insects will also lay their eggs in us, much like they'd
do in any other flesh producing smells indicative of decay and death.
One interesting idea comes from the "chlamydia pneumoniae" camp (
http://cpnhelp.org ), which is that such an infection produces what they call
"Human Dormancy
Syndrome" in which the body essentially goes into a state similar to that found
in hibernating animals. We see these as effects on thyroid, hormones, immunity,
lowered body temperature, etc which conspire to leave us extremely fatigued, and
more prone to parasitic, bacterial and viral infection AND CANCER. And I'm
sure such "dormant" animals produce a smell that signals to insects a good host
for egg-laying. So that's yet another explanation for "bugs from inside"
(myasis) which IMHO is a secondary or tertiary effect of the initial infections.
Doctors need to be able to separate all the disparate disease conditions
which might coexist in a morgellons patient, including myasis, borreliosis,
chlamydiosis, CFIDS, etc.
http://www.freshpatents.com/Diagnosis-and-treatment-of-human-dormancy-related-se\
quellae-dt20060309ptan20060052278.php?type=description
history, physical findings, and chemical tests of urine, blood, cerebrospinal
fluid (CSF) and/or tissues. Pertinent historical features include symptoms of
persistent fatigue, cognitive impairment, weight gain, depression, alopecia,
constipation, insomnia, sleep apnea, loss of libido, cold intolerance, exercise
intolerance, addiction to stimulants, history of Raynaud's syndrome,
dislipidemia, atherosclerosis, syndrome X, peripheral vascular disease, type II
diabetes, Alzheimer's disease (and other dementias), demyelinating disease,
(muscle tension headache, migraine), fibrocystic breast disease, breast cancer,
prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, other cancers, cholelithiasis, pulmonary artery
hypertension, pulmonary fibrosis, COPD, asthma, systemic hypertension,
infertility, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, chronic wide spread pain
and other chronic pain states, and obesity. (autoimmune cond
itions such as lupus, scleroderma, rheumatoid arthritis, sarcoidosis,
vasculitis, myositis, ankylosising spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, reactive
arthritis, Reiter's syndrome, Becet's and polymyalgia rheumatica, viral,
bacterial and fungal infections, septic shock, pneumonia and other serous
infections, narcolepsy, hypertension, liver disease, esophageal dysmotility,
inflammatory bowel disease, renal disease, Parkinson's disease, coma, impaired
stage 4 sleep, irritable bowel syndrome, elevated CRH, elevated sympathetic
nervous system activity, dysregulated HPA, low serotonin, altered nitric oxide
metabolism and NOS activity, low oxytocin levels, mitochondrial impairment and
structural changes with decreased membrane permeability, compulsivity,
hypervigilance, dissociation, impaired natural killer cell activity, elevated
CSF substance P levels, blunted growth hormone response during provocation
testing, orthostatic hypotension, altered cerebral blood flow.
...
organism usually infects through the respiratory route and is able to evade
destruction from WBC's in a number of ways, including the use of amphiphysin
IIm, a vacuole protein coating that allows this organism to live within, and
parasitize macrophages and monocytes, impairing their ability to function
properly. Once the organism resides within the WBC's, it is able to disseminate
throughout the body to other tissues and cells where is impairs their function.
This infection is difficult to diagnose because blood tests for obligate
intracellular organisms are commonly false negative. This infection is difficult
to treat because curative treatment appears to require that multiple antibiotics
be given simultaneously for many months (similar to tuberculosis). Tissue
culture for this organism requires special cell cultures that are not often
available in commercial settings which further complicates the
recognition of Chlamydia pneumoniae infection in those with autoimmune disease.
Stress lowers nitric oxide and ascorbic acid levels which allows Chlamydia
pneumoniae to flourish. Infection causes the release of inflammatory mediators
that further decreases free T3 and nitric oxide production as described in the
human dormancy syndrome, specifically through the effect of inflammatory
cytokines on 5' D2 and iNOS activity. Immunologic stimulation triggered directly
by the Chlamydia pneumoniae antigens can produce vasculitis, arthritis, and
other autoimmune features. However, once macrophage function has been impaired
by Chlamydia pneumoniae infection, the host is made more susceptible to other
infectious agents.
infections, including Neisseria species and viral infections. What has not been
considered is the potential for colonized fungal infections to induce autoimmune
disease by providing a constant source of antigenic material for the immune
system to contend with. Secondly, immuno-compromised macrophages can allow
colonized fungi to disseminate. Fungal culture of the sinus mucosa renders
positive cultures for 2-3 different species of fungus in virtually all people.
What is different for those with chronic airway disease from those who are
asymptomatic is that those with rhinosinusitis have eosinophil activation.
Tissue biopsies from symptomatic patients show eosinophic infiltration and
elevations in eosinophilic cationic protein levels. These findings are typically
present in asthma patients as well as in patients with rhinosinusitis,
suggesting the process of fungal mucosal colonization likely exte
nds to the bronchial mucosa. This has led the hypothesis that asthma and
rhinosinusitis are one disease and that fungal colonization with eosinophilic
activation to fungus is involved in both disease processes.
sensitized eosinophils and why others tolerate the colonization. Aspects of this
invention are based upon the finding that a drop in nitric oxide production
allows Chlamydia pneumoniae to disseminate and infect mucosa and macrophages,
both of which will impair the host's capacity to control mucosal fungal
infection by shifting their metabolic pattern to that of HDS. Other infectious
agents, including mycoplasma and more typical bacterial infections, may play a
role in asthma and COPD, but the unique nature of Chlamydia pneumoniae to live
within and compromise macrophages and monocytes makes this infectious agent of
central importance. The difficulty in detecting the presence of this organism
contributes to the misconception that the diseases it is associated with are
autoimmune rather than infectious.
fungal colonization with eosiophilic activation and low-grade systemic fungal
infection and processes that are currently considered to be autoimmune. Both
Chlamydia pneumoniae and airborne fungal spores are ubiquitous, and it is likely
that all people are exposed to and colonize these organisms. A competent immune
system would likely prevent overgrowth or dissemination of these mucosal
colonies. However, stress that is sufficient to trigger human dormancy syndrome
will decrease fT3 levels that will lower nitric oxide production that will favor
dissemination of Chlamydia pneumoniae. Once macrophage function is impaired,
additional growth of colonized fungus is likely. The fungal antigens drive
immunologic reactions that include vasculitic reactions and type 3
hypersensitivity reactions such as serum sickness as well as the expected type
1-hypersensitivity reactions referred to as atopy. The use of ant
ifungal medication alone is unlikely to be curative when concomitant Chlamydia
pneumoniae infection and HDS are present and macrophage impairment is ongoing.
involves a careful history and physical examination followed by confirmatory
laboratory tests such anti-CCP antibodies, RF, ANA, ASM, AMA, and anti-dsDNA
antibodies, along with C3, C4, urinalysis, CBC and imaging studies where
indicated. Once the autoimmune process is identified and the severity of the
process is determined, graded immunosuppressive therapy is instituted. The
current trend in immunosuppressive treatment has been influenced by the
devastating disability that is common when the chronic inflammatory process is
not sufficiently suppressed. The current standard of care is to provide
aggressive suppression at an earlier stage of the disease than was offered ten
years ago.
the biochemistry of dormancy, nitric oxide levels, Chlamydia pneumoniae
infection and fungal colonization with eosinophil activation, this invention
contemplates a new paradigm for the treatment of autoimmune disease. The history
and physical exam should include investigation for known signs and symptoms of
human dormancy syndrome, Chlamydia pneumoniae and fungal infection. Serologic
evaluation should seek to document the presence of exposure to both Chlamydia
pneumoniae and fungal infection, and culture or DNA or other antigen assays
should be considered. The rT3/fT3 ratio can assess the degree of shifting toward
dormancy and guide the clinician in their assessment of the potential need for
treatment of the dormancy component of the illness. Ascertaining systemic and/or
local nitric oxide levels will also be of benefit. Serum, plasma or tissue
levels of endotoxin (LPS), NF kappa B, angiotensin, k
inin, moesin, CD14, activated TLR4, apolipoprotein A1, Bcl-2, Bcl-xL, surviving,
CGRP, c-jun, junB, and many other features of embryonic or hibernation related
metabolism can help assess the degree of HDS and potential for HDS related
sequellae. Measurement of tumor markers and autoimmune markers are also helpful
for the purpose of assessing HDS. Physical exam findings of fibromyalgia and
tender point tenderness correlates with a reduction in endogenous nitric oxide
production. In addition to the standard proven techniques for controlling the
life-threatening features of autoimmune disease, measures should be taken to
treat dormancy, Chlamydia pneumoniae and fungal infections, as these are
components of autoimmune disease. Since fungus growth is stimulated by T3, the
inclusion of antifungal medication, either topical or systemic, should be
considered when reversing dormancy with T3 therapy. Prophylactic antifungal
treatment may be helpful when long-term antibiotic therapy is
instituted for Chalmydia pneumoniae infection.
The same document provides some real interesting "treatment plan" info in here
from Dr. Powell in Sacramento related to HDS -- similar to
http://morgellonstreatmentsteps.com suggestions:
the like. Vitamin C (1000 mg 2-4.times./day; P.O.), COX-2 inhibitors and/or
omega-3 oils to decrease prostaglandin E2 synthesis, Vitamin D, Zn, Mg and Se to
decrease NFk-.beta.. Additionally, antibiotics include doxicycline, minocyn,
flagyl and the like.
treatment.
-- Niels.
PS: my main disagreement w/ you and or Dr. Kolb is in not recognizing the
severity of the underlying chronic condition -- usually a combination of Lyme,
Chlamydia Pneumoniae and elevated viral titers of HHV-6 and Epstein-Barr Virus
(oft misdiagnosed as Chronic Fatigue or CFIDS). It appears the only successes I
know of (my own and others under LLMD treatment) come from treating with the
strong-nasty chemicals that you seem to abhor. That's not to say that there
aren't
natural remedies that can do the same thing. But as to whether they're
implicitly safer -- a very targetted checmical (one engineered specifically to
conquer a
disease) is probably betteer than a "shotgun" of plant-extracts. However, to
date very few such targetted chemicals have been created, other than for cancer
and/or AIDS. I think it's way to early in the game for anybody to dismiss much
of anything in terms of treeatment modalities or theories. Whether that's you're
own particular views on medications, the MRO's, morgellons.org, or even
morgellonswatch.org ... I myself have been dismissive too -- of the "nano" angle
-- but
that's because it's completely out in left field, outside of even medicine
itself. [I'm not interested in a doomsday vision of hopelessness peddled by the
nano/chemtrails folks ... i just want a medication that cures us so we can get
on with life ... and there's simply too much evidence (including my own)
that we have a confluence of lab-testable infections underlying our condition
(1) Lyme ; (2) Chlamydia Pneumoniae ; (3) EBV, (4) HHV-6, (5) Mycoplasmas (6)
Fungi or Yeast superinfection.
Just like AIDS patients get opportunistic infections not seen in the rest of the
population, and continue to do so until they begin a successful course of
antiretroviral therapy. Similarly, Morgellons patients whose underlying
infectious processes aren't adrressed through a combination of antibacterial
and antifungal agents will continue to be susceptible to opportunistic
infections as well. These opportunistic infections include fungal, yeast, and
parastic components.

I can ad my "ME TOO" to that. The only difference is that I used
different clustered Silver in combination with the Horse Dewormer.
The two do seem to work together to kill the morg. Also, I didn't
use exactly the same dosage. After 3-4 weeks all my leasions were
gone and I followed up with a maintenance dosage. I have however
since developed an intollerance to the silver and I am now contuning
with a small maintenance dose of Clindamycin. Worndering if you have
experienced any intollerance to the silver too and thanks for the
post. Zip

He used COLLOIDAL (not ionic) silver: 2 teaspoon evry 15 min. for 4 hrs
(No, you won't get argyria and turn blue, that is an illuminati lie
from the same folks who gifted you with nano-bugs), followed
immediately by a de-wormer (If the doc refuses to grant a script, use
dog dewormer from a feed-and-seed). Don't fall for the argyria scare or
ionic-silver subterfuge. We did, and my brother suffered longer than
necessary. After we debunked the ionic sliver, We mega-dosed the
colloidal silver, but the bugs came back five weejs later. It was only
when we combined the colloidal silver with the dewormer that we got
permanent results. BTW, we used Meso-Silver, but any decent colloid
will do. I found Meso-Silver to be the highest quality at the best
price, but things may have changed. Do your own research to find a
quality colloid at a decent price, but do please beware: Don't fall for
the pseudo-science warning that you will turn blue or that the latest,
greatest most scientific marvel of all time is ionic, not old bad
dangerous outdated debunked colloidal silver from some quack's
basement. Meso-Silver is made in a lab to exacting standards. Use it,
or find another of similar verifiable quality, and BEAT Morgellons.
Holler back when you do, please. Good luck.

Also, since people are asking "he seems to young to be retired"... not if your
company gets bought by Activision...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neversoft
Jewett, Mick West and Chris Ward. Neversoft is best recognized for their line of
Tony Hawk skateboarding games, known as the Tony Hawk's series. The company was
acquired by Activision in 1999.
development at the rapidly shrinking Malibu Interactive. He teamed up with Mick
West, a game programmer who had just completed working on "Battletech - A Game
of Armored Combat" for the Mega Drive/Genesis, and Chris Ward, an Artist. Both
Chris and Mick were from Yorkshire in England, although they first met when they
moved to California in 1993 to work at Malibu Interactive.
There's a long list of games to BOYCOTT listed on that page!!
-- Niels.

I feel better since starting B12 shots and oral sublingual B12 as well
as folic acid. Parasites are one cause of the deficiency as the
digestive system is not able to absorb the vitamin. Check out B12
deficiency symptoms. I am also using Super Silver Solution and it
seems to help.

the mystery continues... i mean with the screenwriter's guild on strike, this
almost passes for drama
(please note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3AMickWest
== http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AHerd_of_Swine
== Margellons
== Morgellonswatch )
Stuff MickWest edited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3AContributions/MickWest
(note his early edits on "delusional parasitosis" and "Morgellons" before he
created an illegal "sock puppet" account 'Herd of Swine' so he could be
anonymous
while twisting the facts on the Morgellons page).
From wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3AMickWest
User talk:MickWest
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] userpage cleanup
Thanks for reverting my user page - and such a civilized vandal too! :-)
FreplySpang (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Algorithms
How about:
An algorithm is a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing
an end, especially by a computer.
In computer science an algorithm is a well-defined computational procedure that
takes some value, or set of values as input and produces some value, or set of
values as output.
[edit] to: MIckwest
You wrote:
There seem to be rather a lot of external links in the "Little Tyke" section.
Nearly all of them are Christian or Vegetarian websites that contain a
paraphrasing of the original children's book Little Tyke (which should also be
linked). The story seems to be based entirely on this book, with NO sources of
verification of aspect of the story regarding not eating meat. Unless some other
source is found, I would consider the vegeterian part of the story too suspect
to be included as fact. I'll edit it appropiately in a few days, pending
comments. MickWest 03:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I replied:
to: Mickwest Entirely wrong. You didn't mention the swami's vegetarian lion.
Second, you failed to mention the domestic cat experiment and observations.
Third,
if you wish to assert the Little Tyke book is a lie you need to demonstrate this
matter.
Furthermore, I have a admin on my side now. If you want to arbitrarily remove
info you will be held accountable.
sincerely, kdbuffalo
[edit] 3 Reverts
Please see Wikipedia:Three revert rule, which you are currently in violation of
due to your edits at the Biblical scientific foreknowledge article. Please
discuss changes at that article's talk page. --Scimitar parley 19:11, 7
September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I realised. I just didn't want to get dragged into the fight,
earlier. Guettarda 19:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Tilde test
The preview button is good for trying out things like that :) Guettarda 23:06, 8
September 2005 (UTC)
Doh! ~~~~~~~```tildetilde~~~~ (MickWest 23:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC))
[edit] To: mickwest
I appreciate your last comments in the talk page at BSF.
Secondly, I did update the CreationWiki article so if you are interested in BSF
you might want to look at. Here it is:
http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Bible_scientific_foreknowledge
Lastly, the OT is not very pro-rat. There are numerous examples. Rats and swine
are kind of lumped together. You might want to take a look at rat urine and rats
and toxoplasmosis.
ken 17:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
to: mickwest
There may to be a wide variety of opinion about rat urine and toxoplasmosis. But
maybe not. I checked out a religious site, a animal lover site, and a more
science oriented site. I am not sure when I will get around to the rat issue. I
think I have quite a bit already. If memory serves counted about 100 footnotes
in my CreationWiki article on BSF. In the not too distant future I will do one
on global warming and seas and a gospel passage.
ken 00:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] to mickWest
Please send me no more private messages. I believe you are trying to pick out
splinters in my eye while having a log in your own.
Here is something I wrote:
TO: MickWest, regarding your very low credibility with me:
You wrote:
"Regarding "Little Tyke" (which is the only subject I was addressing, the swami
lion and domestic cats are seperate topics), surely the burden of proof lies
with the claimant? For you to use Little Tyke as evidence, you need to establish
the veracity of the Little Tyke story."
You said this despite the reported pictures, filming, and the book. I tire of
your petty and unreasonable exclusionary tactics.
I think you try to supress information unreasonably and are a boorish egotist
who rather than justify deletions of my material via a talk page (which I don't
think you can do) acted like a self centered clod who imperiously deleted
material.
Please no more private messages from you. I don't want them at this time
although perhaps things may hopefully change in the future. I will let you know
if and
when I want private messages from you. Again, I do hope things change.
ken 20:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
to:mickwest
Please do not send me any messages to my userpage. Again, perhaps things may
change in the future and I hope they do. I don't want the messages now and said
why
before. Please use any pertinent talkpages. Thank you.
ken 21:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] Kdbuffalo
I have seen ken being rude to you, thus I have warned him. However, its not a
one way street. Do not provoke him. That would be a terrible misjustice, eh? So
you two, try and get along. Wikipedia is, afterall, a collaborative project.
Good luck. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] to: mickwest
I have politely asked you to refrain from mailing me. Yet you insist on doing
so. I know you are not sincere given your approval of the "gossip column". I
believe I know why the gossip column was started and I find it no better than
National Enquierer type material.
ken 18:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
by the way, if you think I need to spend a lot of time formatting a response to
gossip I think you are kidding yourself.
ken 18:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I have told you to not send mail to my userpage. You persist. Stop it.
ken 19:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] to: mickwest
Mark encouraged me to make attempts at reconciliation.
I think if you respect that minority views which are not hateful can "receive as
much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to
those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia." then I have no problem with
you. I frankly do not want to see a tremendously larger article than is at
Wikipedia or here: BSF -CreationWiki.
I do not want to see another edit war. I think if both of us and others express
the BSF and non-BSF views and do it responsibly then we should have no problem.
I don't think either of us should editorialize in a Encylopedia. Also, I did
incorporate the Seventh Day Adventist article at the CreationWiki article. I
also
mentioned that ancient Egyptians were circumcised although I am not certain how
widespread it was and when it appeared to be more widespread. I guess I don't
know enough about the Egyptian washing issue yet to intelligently comment on it.
I don't think either of us need to create some big introduction which prejudices
readers. For example, I don't need to say how various scholars think
Christianity advanced the practice of science and you don't need to take the
opposite approach. I think we both agree this isn't a history of science
article.
After all is said and done, I think we both did work on this and there is an
opportunity to educate people and let them make the decision based on seeing
both
views responsibly expressed.
[edit] to: mickwest
I got your letter. Thanks for writing it.
You wrote:
"So, I'd like to cut back on the "evidence" war, and try to collaborate with you
on describing the known facts."
I don't see it as a war. I think the evidence/non-evidence is the central issue
though. In short, I think a prophecy article should focus on prophecy and a BSF
article should mainly focus on the issue of BSF. I do think both parties cannot
editorialize here but "just the facts" Ma'am and cite supporters/expert
opinion/detractors which encyclopedias do.
You next wrote:
What is BSF?
I think we agree on this largely and it should take one sentence.
You next wrote:
What types of claims does BSF make?
I think this will take care of itself. Just bring them up.
You next wrote:
What are the earliest examples of BSF?
I know this is important to you. If you want to include it, it doesn't matter to
me. A lot of people are interested in history.
You next wrote:
Who promotes BSF now?
I think 99.9% people already know this and we don't have to belabor the point
but I have no problem with it being mentioned. We needn't say Buddhist don't
generally promote it etc. etc. I think Wikipedia generally belabors this point
whereas other encyclopedias do not.
I think the following people mainly promote it: People who believe the Bible is
inspired and scientifically accurate. I guess if you wanted to belabor the point
you could say a good God who wanted to offer preventative medicine or evidence
of his existence but this could go on and on.
You then wrote:
Who has opposed BSF and why?
I think most people know the scoop here as well as far as main opposers. People
who don't think the Bible is inspired and people who think it is scientifically
inaccurate. I don't think we need to belabor the point here as well. Otherwise,
we start getting into radiometric dating versus young earth dating etc etc etc
etc. I will add though that you are not "parallel". You wrote: "Who promotes BSF
now?" You then wrote: "Who has opposed BSF and why?" As far as the "why" I
don't think we should get into the "dogmatic right wing fundamentalist in a
pickup truck" versus the "militant atheist, etc etc etc drama. It is just
unnecessary. Logicians call this a genetic fallacy. There is no reason to start
WWIII here.
You then wrote:
Where can I find out more?
I think we do the job for the most part here via our links.
You then wrote:
I'd like to do this without arguing for or against the validity of the claims of
BSF, but in a way that simply describes the topics in a way that is not
contended. And where there is contention, we describe the nature of the
contention rather than arguing for one side or another.
I don't think we need to argue. Just present the info and let people decide for
themselves. I desire no arm twisting or carnival barking.
Lastly, I do see over and over the dung issue being raised by BSF people. Dung
is buried. Dung is not promoted in medicine etc etc Dung is "hot" to BSF people.
LOL I do think though that you added something with your early sewers info which
you will sadly not hear most BSF people mention probably cause they do not
know. They just assume people dump their dung out the window or in some kind of
outhouse. I think they assume the worst in most cases and picture third world
conditions.
ken 00:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] by the way
When did the Egyptians first start to think that cleanliness was close to
godliness? LOL
ken 00:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] addendum
I do realize that Egyptian chronology is something that is increasing being
debated.
ken 00:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] one last quick thing
I am speculating that Grant Jeffrey made the dung/medicine issue more popular
since "Signature of God" was a best seller. But I could be wrong. The Pastor and
the other guy made no allusions to Jeffrey.
My guess is that in the 20th Century: Morris, Grant Jeffrey, and Alan Hayward
(but probably not Hayward) made it more prominent. It seems a new push may be on
(look at CreationWiki the 101 BSF advertisement for the pamphlet). I heard they
printed up something like 100,000 of them or some big number I cannot recall.
128.205.191.58 01:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] I fogot to mention
I think BSF is really hard to track down as far as origins.
128.205.191.58 01:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] to: mickwest
I wanted to say something before I took my possible (not sure yet of how much
time I will have) vacation from the article. Pwrhaps it won't matter as the
article might be locked for a while.
Take a look at my new response to Ramm. I was tired last night and did not read
your Ramm commnent as closely as I could have.
ken 17:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] take a look! You are a good guesser!
Dear MickWest,
You guessed right! The CreationWiki BSF article was linked to JP Holding's
website. How did you guess right?
It is linked to it in four places and here are a few:
http://www.tektonics.org/TK-GEN.html (Genesis)
http://www.tektonics.org/TK-E.html (Evolution)
So far the article has gotten over 1,000 hits and those are only the internal
hits at CreationWiki and do not include JP Holding's (part of those hits were
created in the article's creation).
I think as CreationWiki gets bigger in size of material it will gain more
internet hits and it might snowball. So far CreationWiki only has about 10,000
google
hits for the topic "CreationWiki".
ken 20:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] BSF scientific studies citations
I might be able work with you only a little on this but I don't know yet. I
think the hyssop connection might be tenuous as the Bible plant might not be
hyssop.
I think I deleted that from the article already though although the hyssop
footnote is still there.
All the other studies are relevant to the question of BSF. You cannot have BSF
without science studies helping to establish it unless it is something very
obvious like gravity.
ken 00:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] I underestimated
My first message about condensing was errant. Please see subsequent message.
ken 02:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] Very interested in
You quoted this earlier:
"I can't remember if I mentioned this before, but in History of Medicine, Lois
Magner, 1992, Magner says "Cleanliness of body was even more valued by the
Egyptian than by the Greeks. Rules for the disinfection of dwellings and proper
burial of the dead sprang from a combination of hygienic and religious motives.
Fear of exacerbating intestinal putrefaction by the ingestion of impure foods
and drink encouraged protective food inspection and dietary restrictions" (I've
bolded the sections that have Levitical counterparts). Unfortunately he does not
give sources here - and might just be refering the the account of Herodotus
from c. 450BC."
I would be very interested in details and I know it is frustrating that Magner
offered no sources.
I wish Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies had a Bibliography here [1]
and I wrote them but got no response so far.
What works do you think these citations came from (You guessed for Reeves before
but I cannot recall):
There was also personal hygiene (Reeves, 18) and disposal of impurities by
burying, washing, or burning (Wright 1987, 258-259). [2]
ken 00:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] Addendum
As you know I believe the Torah was written in the 15th century B.C.
If you find out when the Egyptians started being very cleanliness oriented I
would appreciate knowing this. Also, I am interested in knowing when and if the
ancient Jews might have been very cleanliness oriented.
ken 01:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] Be cautious about "Herodotus" and Egyptians
Here something I wrote at CreationWiki at:
http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Bible_scientific_foreknowledge
It appears as if the ancient Egyptians practiced circumcision although it
appears not to be clear when they first began this practice and the origins of
it and
if it ever was widespread (The ancient historian Herodotus is one of the
sources, but it appears as if Herodotus's value as a historical source has been
questioned due to the possible existence of a pseudo Herodotus who mistakenly
refers to the Egyptians as "black skinned, wooly-haired and circumcised"
according
to Jim Reilly author of Nebuchadnezzar & the Egyptian Exile. [3][4] See also: O.
Kimball Armayor, "Did Herodotus Ever Go to Egypt?" Journal of the American
Research Center in Egypt 15 (1980) 59-71).[5][6][7]. In short, skeptics cannot
show the Jews adopted circumcision as a result of Egyptian influence
(circumcision appears to be benefical medically overall which will be commented
on later).
ken 16:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] I Revised my last post and made it more concise
Look at my revised post up above.
ken 17:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] got your message and ......
I believe Egyptians were practicing circumcision. I just don't know exactly when
(not too keen on consensus's dating methods) and how widespread. Needless to
say I question the "Herodotus" (or pseudo Herodotus) accounts of the Egyptians.
I have some stuff accessible at Holding's site regarding Egyptian chronology
which goes into more detail and will be updated in 2006.
ken 17:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] Where do you think the Reeves citation came from again, I cannot
remember.
Here it is:
What works do you think these citations came from (You guessed for Reeves before
but I cannot recall):
There was also personal hygiene (Reeves, 18) and disposal of impurities by
burying, washing, or burning (Wright 1987, 258-259). [8]
ken 17:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] Sources for List of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions
Hello, good work on List of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions, and
thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or
sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very
important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage
editors to
cite the sources they used when adding content. Can you list in the article any
websites, books, or other sources that will allow people to verify the content
in List of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions? You can simply add
links, preferably as the inline citations, or see citation templates for
different
citation methods. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 00:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Accuracy of phytopharmacology
Replied to your comment on Talk:David_Macht#Accuracy_of_phytopharmacology, will
decide what to do according to your response or lack of response. The Crow
15:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bible exegesis
Bible exegesis is done in groups (Bible translating teams, churches,
denominations, etc.) and done personally. I don't think it is a one or the other
type thing.
Secondly, I think it should be done prayefully and with the help of the Holy
Spirit.
ken 17:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] Bible exegesis further thoughts
Dear Mick,
I have thought about your question more. I really don't think there is much
demand in the marketplace for a line by line exegetical work done by single
scholars
or many scholars. The only Bible commentary that I can think of that does many
verses of Bible exegesis that was done by a team of scholars was the Bible
commentary done by Jamieson, Fausett & Brown. And they don't do very detailed
exegesis looking at all of the factors. By all the factors I mean:
"The rules of exegesis:
Gordon D. Fee, in his New Testament Exegesis, p 27, states simply,
Exegesisanswers the question, What did the biblical author mean? It has to do
both with
what he said (the content itself) and why he said it at any given point (the
literary context). Furthermore, exegesis is primarily concerned with
intentionality: What did the author intend his original readers to understand?
Before we can determine what a given text might mean for us today, we must
establish what it meant for its original audience.
This is the process of exegesis. In this article, we will lay out the
fundamental rules, of which there are eight. In future articles, we will
elaborate on each
one from a nuts & bolts perspective. The rules listed are taken directly from
Prof. Fees excellent book (p. 32), mentioned in the paragraph above.
Rules of Bible exegesis
Rule No. 1: Survey the historical context in general.
Rule No. 2: Confirm the limits of the passage.
Rule No. 3: Become thoroughly acquainted with your paragraph or pericope
Rule No. 4: Analyze sentence structures and syntactical relationships.
Rule No. 5: Establish the text.
Rule No. 6: Analyze the grammar.
Rule No. 7: Analyze significant words.
Rule No. 8: Research the historical-cultural background."
taken from:
http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.h\
tm
Mick as you can see Bible exegesis looks at many factors and I don't think there
is much demand in the marketplace for a line by line Bible exegetical work done
by a team of scholars or single scholars.
I think most people like Bible commentaries rather than detailed Bible
exegetical works.
ken 21:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] Bible exegesis - followup
You wrote:
"It does trouble me though that there is substantial focus in individual
exegesis, this seems to imply that each person can have an individual personal
understanding of the text. Does this suggest that for each person the Bible
might mean something different?"
I am hoping you see given the work that is involved that there would not be much
of a market for a line by line Bible exegetical work but if you disagree with
me that is fine.
Second, each person does bring something different in their life experiences but
at the same time the Bible says what is says and I do believe in "the original
audience" approach cited above. In short, I don't think you can take the verse,
"Jesus wept" and make it mean whatever you want it to say.
Next you wrote:
"Or does it just mean that the nobody actually had the correct meaning of the
whole of the Bible, and can only hope to gain a partial understanding of God's
message?"
I think that each person can understand the Bible although not exhaustively
given the limitations of the human brain (You would have to have the whole thing
memorized along with cross references).
However, from experience I can say that I believe the Holy Spirit helps
tremendously in understanding the Bible (I am a pentocostal/charasmatic
Christian).
ken 22:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
TO: Mickwest, re: Unity
Mick, I believe each Christian gets the same Holy Spirit to listen to. I also
believe in the baptism and infilling of the Holy Spirit as I am a
pentocostal/charismatic. I believe the Holy Spirit can lead men to truth. I
believe that is sufficient.
Secondly, I am not sure and I am not accusing you of anything but I am getting
the feeling you want to debate me on Bible exegesis or deconvert me. I am also
guessing you are an athiest who wishes to make other people atheist. I am not
into debating you or having an attempted deconversion done on me.
ken 02:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] to: mickwest, from kdbuffalo
re: not logging in
Sometimes I don't log in because I am lazy.
At other times, I don't want to be hassled by a certain athiest moderator who
recently had a lot of complaints against him in a RFC (Duncharris).
I am logging in more though.
Re: exegesis
If you read Professor Fee cited above and understand what the Bible says about
the Holy Spirit guiding men into all truth you understand my Bible exegesis
position. I really don't want to talk about this anymore. You did make me think
more about this in regards to commentaries/translations though. It seems group
effort is done more for translations (which also involve exegesis) than for
commentaries. It is probably because translating the whole Bible is no small
task.
ken 18:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
No doing proxy edits. I make my edits different. So reverts are minimally
necessary. ken 18:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] SAB and Talk Origins
I just wanted to explain why the talk origins link is cited in the article. If
you notice the old article pages and talk pages have fundamentalists claim
scholarly sources do not cited the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. The line with link
It has been cited by scholarly articles and is considered a useful resource for
finding biblical error.[9] shows otherwise. Talk.origins is very notable in
academic and scientific circles (there is others on the talk page that address
it.)
By removing evidence that it is sourced you will see a phrase on that page
attacking the SAB merits. The link is not for vanity, but to demonstrate that
serious
academic-related groups do cite SAB. Arbustoo 04:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re: Greek
I believe you regarding the Greek/Hebrew comment. I put a note in the Skeptic's
Annotated Bible talk page.
By the way, if you want to read some Christian apologetics and haven't done much
reading in this regard, here are some books which would make a good start:
Historical Apologetics:
* On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Kenneth Kitchen, Grand Rapids
and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003. ISBN 0802849601
* The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ Gary
Habermas, College Press: Joplin, MI, 1996
* The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Gary Habermas, Gary Licona,
Kregel, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994. ISBN 0825427886
* The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the
Evidence for Jesus. Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1998. ISBN
0310209307
* New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson, Inc,
Publishers, 1999. ISBN 0785242198
Creationism apologetics:
* Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, Duane Gish, El Cajon: ICR, 1995.
[10]
* Darwin on Trial, Phillip Johnson, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove,
Illinois, 1991. [11]
* The Creation-Evolution Controversy. R. L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution
Controversy, by Dr. R. L. Wysong. Available from the Wysong Library Catalog,
1880 N. Eastman, Midland, MI 48640, 1984 (455 pages) [12]
ken 16:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] re: Apologetics
Actually, I mentioned New Evidence that Demands a Verdict and not Evidence that
Demands a Verdict. Anyways, McDowell and Strobel are very introductory and
mainly preach to the choir. I would recommend reading Kitchen and Habermas if
you haven't done so. I have been reading this book: Gary R. Habermas and Antony
G.
N. Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, ed. Terry L.
Miethe (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987; Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003). If
memory serves all five philosophers voted Habermas the winner and the debate
judges panel voted Habermas the winner too. I thought Flew was very evasive and
didn't address Habermas's evidence and arguments. You will also note that
Habermas has lots of footnotes and Flew does not. I would recommend reading this
book
which goes into Habermas's evidence more in detail: Habermas, Gary, Licona, Gary
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Kregel, 1994 ken 17:47, 18 February
2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Here is a review of the book: Mike Licona and Gary Habermas' The Case
for the Resurrection of Jesus ken 17:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I also wanted to add this. Both McDowell and Strobel are designed
to give an outline of material and point believers to other sources. Josh
McDowell has said this explicitly regarding his "Evidence that Demands a
Verdict".
I cite:
* A Response To A Secular Web Review Critical Of "Evidence that Demands a
Verdict"
* A Final Response To A Secular Web Review Critical Of "Evidence that
Demands A Verdict"
ken 18:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] to: MickWest, re: Evidence question
Gary Habermas bases his position on Jesus on Biblical and extrabiblical material
(including a verse in the Bible that points to Paul receiving a very early
extrabiblical creed).[13] Read the Habermas book I recommended and the
Flew/Habermas book if you are more ambitious. If you are interested in
extrabiblical
masterial too I would recommend reading "The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence
for the Life of Christ (College Press: Joplin, MI 1996)."
I would recommend reading something that is written to be a
intermediate/advanced Christian apologetic work. I would read the material from
Dr. Habermas and
Kitchen I recommended. I think that Strobel and McDowell have their place though
and recommend good books for further investigation for their readers.
Here are the books again:
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Gary Habermas, Gary Licona, Kregel,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994. ISBN 0825427886
On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Kenneth Kitchen, Grand Rapids and
Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003. ISBN 0802849601
If you want to read more about various apologetic evidences/subjects, I would
read the books by the scholars in the Christian apologetics section.
Next, I would go to a Pentecostal/charasmatic church like I did when I was a
unbeliever. I experienced one leg becoming as long as the other at an altar when
I
was prayed for at a Charasmatic church when the Pastor prayed for me (they were
different before). The supernatural did not end in the Bible. I have experienced
the supernatural as well as my pentecostal/charasmatic friends and
acquaintances. I would recommend going to a trinitarian Pentecostal church where
miracles may
be common. I say this because Christianity should be lived/experienced and not
just studied.
By the way, I may be away from the internet for a while due to doing taxwork (I
have been self employed). ken 03:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I thought about your emails to me and I wanted to say something before my
vacation.
You wrote:
"I think there is something of a disconnect between the way people view the
world - in some people this disconnect is very large, so it become impossible to
genuinely communicate. If you WANT to believe, then you are far more likely to
be swayed by certain arguments."
I think if you are applying this to Christianity in general then you are
practising what C.S. Lewis called "Bulverism".
Here is what Bulverism is:
"In other words, you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining
why he is wrong. The modern method [Note: This essay was written in 1941.] is to
assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from
this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became to be so silly. In
the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I
have had to invent a name for it. I call it Bulverism. Some day I am going the
write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was
determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father - who
had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the
third - Oh, you say that because you are a man. At that moment, E. Bulver
assures us, there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that
refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume your opponent is wrong, and
then
explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he
is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the
national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall. That is how Bulver
became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century." [14]
I think bulverism is a two edged sword and Christians can say atheist are
atheist because they want to believe it rather than because it has validity.[15]
Next you wrote:
"Again it seems to be basing all the arguments on "evidence" that is in the
Bible. It is, as you say, preaching to the choir."
I don't think using the Bible as evidence is preaching to the choir. The Bible
has been corroborated by external sources and sometimes shows signs of coming
from very immediate sources (see previous post about creed).[16][17]
Next you wrote:
"Where there is external evidence, it's highly circumstantial - saying the Bible
is likely more valid because the early Christians were persecuted is like
saying the book of Mormon is more valid because the early Mormons were
persecuted."
I don't think that just stating things is convincing. You never showed that all
the external evidence for the Bible is merely circumstancial. Also you never
showed the Mormon persecution/martyr situation is analogous to the Christian one
in terms of evidential value. ken 20:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] Your limb comment
You wrote:
"I wonder how you feel about the question of why God never heals people who have
lost a limb?"
You never demonstrated this. Did you even search to see if your assertion was
true or did you assume? Please no more unsupported assertions. Second, if God
doesn't heal with lost limbs I would assume it is because of the benefits of
divine hiddenness. [18]
ken 22:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] An apology and your leg problem and misc.
Sorry for the hard line I took in the last post. Unsupported assertions and just
assuming are a pet peeve of mine. :)
You wrote:
"Hi Ken, thank you for your thoughtful response. I was interested to hear about
your supernatural experience - I imagine that would have been quite convincing
to you!"
I messed up my back helping to unload a tractor trailor of peat moss bags. I
went up to the altar for prayer. My former Pastor, Dr. Burgio, told me my one
leg
was longer than another. I triple checked to make sure what he said was true.
Then I decided to "Go for it" and believe that God would heal it. After the
prayer
the legs were the same length. Later a chiropractor told me if your back is
messed up one of the symptoms is differing leg lengths.
Second, you wrote:
"I also suffer slightly from functional leg length asymmetry, probably from
spending too much time sitting at the computer :)"
I think you should become a Christian and go to a pentocostal/charasmatic church
to get it prayed for! A chiropractor might help too. There is more science
behind chiropractic than you might think.
I cite:
"According to a study conducted by Ontario's Ministry of Health "...for the
management of low-back pain, chiropractic care is the most effective treatment,
and
it should be fully integrated into the government's health care system." The
same study also found, "...injured workers ... diagnosed with low-back pain
returned to work much sooner when treated by chiropractors than by physicians."
According to the British Medical Research Council Study, spinal manipulation
performed by chiropractors was found more effective than alternative treatments
for
low-back pain."[19]
ken 23:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] Amputees continued
I have heard from missionaries about unusual supernatural events which you often
do not hear in the West.
Here is statement worth considering:
"I have often wondered if the major miracles: limb restoration, resurections,
etc. don't happen in the States because we have become such a complacent and
callous society? I hear reports from our missionary affiliates about the
miraculous things happening around the world, and it makes me wonder if God did
such
miracles in the States, would they even garner the attention they should? Your
thoughts?"[20]
Here is a take on the amputee issue that takes a God does not heal amputees view
and takes a tough view on the ""Why Does God Hate Amputees" view: Summary
Points: "Why Does God Hate Amputees" by James Patrick Holding I don't think he
should have called him stupid and merely should have said he was errant or
foolish at the most. ken 23:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] Holding and Marshall Brain
JP Holding did a spoof of "Why does God hate amputees? [21] I liked it except
for the parts where he implies he is stupid which I don't think it necessary.
ken
22:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I sent a email to Holding regarding incorporating the divine hiddenness
material I had earlier posted to you. Second, I think Holding makes a point
here:
Fallacious Faith, Correcting an All-too-Common Misconception by James Patrick
Holding ken 01:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I think my leg problem was a symptom of a back problem. I think God healed me of
the whole issue.
Second, have you seen my contra atheism resources at CreationWiki located here:
Decline of atheism? ken 19:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] decline of atheism
I looked at the decline of atheism not from a parochial view but from a world
wide view. It seems to me the biggest "storehouses of atheism" is Europe and
China. Christianity is exploding in China and Europe is on the decline and can
only keep from declining in population by importing Islamacists. ken 20:07, 25
February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] No religion does not equal atheism
You wrote:
"Hi Ken, I read you article with interest, but I can't help feeling it goes
somewhat against the facts - for examples, an AP story reports that "the number
of
people who said they had no religion rose from 9 percent to nearly 14 percent
[between 1993 and 2002]" [22]."
My response:
No religion does not mean atheism. For example, a non church goer or a deist who
believes in God but not Christianity can still believe there is a God. In
short, they may not have a religion but still believe there is a God.
More importantly, I also cite:
The number of people becoming atheists or agnostics in the USA has not changed
in the last ten years according to social researchers. [23][24]
ken 20:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] Weak atheism and agnosticism, any practical difference?
You wrote:
"Are you perhaps employing a strict definition of "Atheism"? Personally I
consider myself to be a weak atheist, since I dislike the occasional dogma of
the
strong atheism position. MickWest 19:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)"
My response:
I thought some of the best resources in my decline of atheism resource were all
the links which had multiple arguments against atheism. I would encourage you to
read them.
For example, regarding "weak atheism" here is what one of the articles listed
said:
"*Defensive Atheism.* Many sophisticated atheists today are fully aware of the
philosophical pitfalls connected to offensive or dogmatic atheism. Prominent
atheists such as Gordon Stein and Carl Sagan have admitted that God's existence
cannot be disproven. This has led such atheists to advocate what I call
defensive atheism. Defensive atheism asserts that while God's existence cannot
be logically or empirically disproven, it is nevertheless unproven.
Atheists of this variety have actually redefined atheism to mean "an absence of
belief in God" rather than "a denial of God's existence." For this more moderate
type of atheism, the concept of "God" is like that of a unicorn, leprechaun, or
elf. While they cannot be disproven, they remain unproven. Defensive atheism's
unbelief is grounded in the rejection of the proofs for God's existence, and/or
the belief that the Christian concept of God (or any other God) lacks logical
consistency.
An appropriate Christian rejoinder at this point is that defensive atheism is
using a stipulative or nonstandard definition for the word atheism. Paul
Edwards,
a prominent atheist and editor of The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, defines an
atheist as "a person who maintains that there is no God." Atheism therefore
implies
a denial of God's existence, not just an absence of belief. It should also be
stated that defensive atheism's absence of belief sounds very similar to
agnosticism (which professes inability to determine whether God exists). The
Christian should force the defensive atheist to show just how his (or her)
atheism
differs from agnosticism. Does he know or not know that there is no God?" [25]
ken 20:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] Weak atheism or weak desire to truly experience God
The Bible states that God is a rewarder of those who DILIGENTLY seek him.
(Hebrews 11:6).
Have you read anything beyond introductory Christian apologetics? Have you read
any of Dr. Gary Habermas's books for example? Have you been to a trinitarian
charasmatic/pentecostal church to see if there are miracles since I suggested
doing so?
ken 21:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] your last mail to me
You wrote:
A strong atheist absolutely believes there is no God.
A weak atheist (me) believes the evidence indicates there is no God, but is open
to new evidence.
My reply:
How open to new evidence are you? If the evidence is there but you have very low
motivation to examine it then how truly open are you? Have you read any of Dr.
Gary Habermas's books? Have you been to a trinitarian charasmatic/pentecostal
church since I suggest going to one to see if there are any miracles?
Second, you have a almost fanatical desire to suppress evidence that does not
line up with your view. How many times did you erase the dung evidence and other
evidence for the fallability of ancient Egyptian medicine? I think a more noble
thing would have been to acknowledge the great fallability of ancient Egyptian
medicine (Hearst papyrus, etc. ) while also recognizing its achievements.
Next you wrote:
I feel most people consider an atheist to be someone who does not believe in
God, and since belief in God implies some religion, and the number of people who
profess to have no religion has doubled in the last decade [1], then it make no
sense to speak of "the decline of Atheism", unless you make quite clear that you
are referring to a very limited definition of Atheism.
My reply:
Again, I gave two credible citations showing atheism did not grow in the USA. I
also showed how you can have no religion but still be a theist and not a
atheist. Also, I showed that on the world scene athiesm is decreasing and not
increasing. I think you are trying to suppress information again and showing
again
that you are not truly open. ken 21:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] I revised my last post to you
I made some revisions to my last post to you as I was in a hurry to post due to
time constraints in my last post to you. ken 21:52, 25 February 2006
(UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] I think you have to acknowledge you are not open
You have not demostrated anything but a introductory knowledge of Christian
apologetics. You are not exactly diligent in your efforts to know God. I don't
believe you have been to a trinitarian charasmatic church since my suggestion in
regards to exploring the surpernatural.
Secondly, the Hearst Papyrus evidence and other evidences you suppress (World
wide atheism is on the decline, credible citations showing atheism is not
growing
in the USA) show you are not truly open.
Here is the Hearst Papyrus evidence again:
For example, according to a paper published in the 10th Annual Proceedings of
the History of Medicine Days by Michael D. Parkins, 72% of medical 260
prescriptions in the Hearst Papyrus had no curative elements.
In short, the God of the Torah scoffs at your crocodile dung contraception and
fly speck/dung medicine. Bible scientific foreknowledge exist and there is
nothing you can do about it.
ken 22:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
[edit] Your alleged weak atheism
Your supposed weak atheism which is supposedly different from agnosticism
because of its "openness" would be far more convincing if you didn't suppress
evidence
and if you had displayed more evidence of reading material beyond introductory
Christian apologetics. I see no strong evidence of openness or diligence.
Romans 1:18-20 (NASB): For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in
unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them;
for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His
invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have b