wws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) (09/13/85)
Byron Howes says "gimmee a break" regarding his partially enlightened ideas about the effects of amalgam dental fillings. I say the same right back to him: he makes a whole lot of statements of "fact" for which he has listed not one reference. How come I have to go back to my files and look up the exact article that helped lead me to my conclusions and he doesn't? I am continually amazed at the low opinion some readers of the net have of the intelligence, honesty, sincerity, morality (I was even accused of a LIE) & general capability, of professionals who care enough to share their knowledge on the net. I have attended hundreds of hours of AMA sanctioned postgraduate training regarding the risks of amalgams. I work closely (three days a week) with one of the top dental experts (in the risks of amalgams) in the country. Dr. Ballard Morgan (the dentist in question) has taken thousands of hours of training in the fields of amalgam toxicity as well as the effects the generation of electrical currents, by those amalgams, have on the total stress created by the amalgams. Dr. Morgan has taught hundreds of hours on this subject to his colleagues around the world. The opinions I have shared were not discovered by me. They are shared by all of the Holistic Organizations I know. We would all be the first to admit that we don't know everything about this problem yet. However, we are a LOT closer to the truth than the establishment is. I challenge anyone to spend 1/100th of the effort studying this problem that I have to come up with a different conclusion. I'm ready to listen. The more minds we have working on this the better. My first impulse was to smile at Byron Howes comments. However, he writes like a thinking person---he is just seriously underinformed. He makes his comments based on the flimsiest amount of information and, like most humans, tends to judge others on his standards. I would be a fool to make comments that had not been substantiated beyond any reasonable doubt. What possible motive could I have for doing such a thing? Mr. Howes assumption that I am a fool reflects more on him than it does on me. I have found it much safer to assume that the other person has the highest level of ability and integrity until proven otherwise. That attitude has placed me much closer to the truth, while vastly improving what I can learn from that person, than assuming the worst and missing out. My computer is at home. My professional references and resources are at my medical centre where I have assistants to gather together articles and bibliographies readers of the net may desire. I have offered before, and I hereby do offer again, to provide references to anyone who would send such a request, accompanied by a Stamped, Self-addressed envelope to my address below. If you want things like reprints (basically anything you think might be too bulky to ship in a standard envelope) please send the appropriate size envelope and postage. If I'm willing to provide the above, the least the requester can do is bear the mailing costs. I enjoy sharing breakthroughs in my specialty with the net. My standards for choosing what to share does not allow for anything I'm likely to have to eat somewhere down the road. If I EVER have to "eat" something I will consider it a learning experience & thank (and admire) the person who fed it to me. However, unless I happen to have the research data accidentally close at hand, I will not be routinely placing it on the net with the subject being shared. Those who want to know can take advantage of my generous offer above. Those who just want to blow off steam will just have to wipe egg off their faces when the time comes. cbosgd!ukma!wws(Walt Stoll) YOU Walt Stoll, MD, ABFP ARE MORE Founder & Medical Director Holistic Medical Centre THAN YOU THINK 1412 North Broadway Lexington, Kentucky 40505 -- Walt Stoll, MD, ABFP Founder, & Medical Director Holistic Medical Centre 1412 N. Broadway Lexington, Kentucky 40505
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) (09/15/85)
In article <2172@ukma.UUCP> wws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) writes: >Byron Howes says "gimmee a break" regarding his partially enlightened >ideas about the effects of amalgam dental fillings. > >I say the same right back to him: he makes a whole lot of statements >of "fact" for which he has listed not one reference. How come I have >to go back to my files and look up the exact article that helped lead >me to my conclusions and he doesn't? Oooh! An attack! Good. Here's the story. On several occasions you have made reference to articles in the popular media (Newsweek, CBS) on various aspects of health. You have then gone on to exposit your favorite theories and statistics as if the articles you refer to presented them. Often the articles or reports you look to for support specifically *contradict* your claims. I consider this practice both dishonest and deceptive. You can at least stop essentially misquoting the sources you claim to represent, as with the toxicity level of mercury in amalgum filling. If I find you dishonest in this respect, how am I to believe your less substantiated claim? Certainly not without sources. Remember, *you* are the one offering cures, not me. I only report what I see and hear that I feel you have misrepresented. I am not a doctor nor any kind of health practitioner. I am simply someone leery of snake-oil salesmen who is trying to do the best for his health as he can. I expect those offering panacaea's to do a better job with facts than you seem to be capable of. >I am continually amazed at the low opinion some readers of the net >have of the intelligence, honesty, sincerity, morality (I was even >accused of a LIE) & general capability, of professionals who care >enough to share their knowledge on the net. You have been the one accusing AMA related physicians of the same sort of thing! I see you like being on the receiving end of that sort of cr*p about as much as Bill Oliver does. Perhaps you will begin to tone down your own accusations. >I have attended hundreds of hours of AMA sanctioned postgraduate >training regarding the risks of amalgams. I work closely (three days >a week) with one of the top dental experts (in the risks of amalgams) >in the country. Dr. Ballard Morgan (the dentist in question) has >taken thousands of hours of training in the fields of amalgam toxicity >as well as the effects the generation of electrical currents, by those >amalgams, have on the total stress created by the amalgams. Dr. >Morgan has taught hundreds of hours on this subject to his colleagues >around the world. This tells me nothing. I've known *lots* of perennial graduate students. What is the *source* (and the precise levels found) of your data on mercury toxicity in amalgum fillings. According to the CBS report, which you originally cited, even Dr. Morgan admits that this is only a problem with people particularly sensitive to heavy-metal poisoning (I don't know what that means, but it seems different from what you are saying.) >The opinions I have shared were not discovered by me. They are shared >by all of the Holistic Organizations I know. We would all be the first >to admit that we don't know everything about this problem yet. >However, we are a LOT closer to the truth than the establishment is. >I challenge anyone to spend 1/100th of the effort studying this >problem that I have to come up with a different conclusion. I'm ready >to listen. The more minds we have working on this the better. Like I said originally, the ADA (or whatever professional Dentist's association) *has* been studying this problem and long before your lawyer friend wrote a letter. Obviously, being self-serving sons of b*tches, they don't count, right :-> They do disagree with you, or at least according to the CBS report. >My first impulse was to smile at Byron Howes comments. However, he >writes like a thinking person---he is just seriously underinformed. I don't claim to be informed. I'm just noting that while you and I claim to have seen the same CBS report, your article said very different things about it than I saw. The same happened with the Newsweek report about sugar. You made very different claims for the article than were actually in the text of the article. In what *other* ways are you making misstatements of fact that I don't know about if my poor feeble underinformed brain can spot these. >He makes his comments based on the flimsiest amount of information >and, like most humans, tends to judge others on his standards. I >would be a fool to make comments that had not been substantiated >beyond any reasonable doubt. What possible motive could I have for >doing such a thing? I haven't the faintest idea what your motives are, and I don't care. I'm only afraid that serious damage (not to mention expense) is going to be incurred from misinformation, from any quarter. > Mr. Howes assumption that I am a fool reflects >more on him than it does on me. I have found it much safer to assume >that the other person has the highest level of ability and integrity >until proven otherwise. I think Bill Oliver has noted that simply isn't true. You impune the ability and integrity of all AMA related doctors all the time. I'll let the readers of this newsgroup decide whether I am a fool or not. That is hardly relevant. > That attitude has placed me much closer to >the truth, while vastly improving what I can learn from that person, >than assuming the worst and missing out. Right. A direct line on the truth. >My computer is at home. My professional references and resources are >at my medical centre where I have assistants to gather together >articles and bibliographies readers of the net may desire. I have >offered before, and I hereby do offer again, to provide references to >anyone who would send such a request, accompanied by a Stamped, >Self-addressed envelope to my address below. If you want things like >reprints (basically anything you think might be too bulky to ship in a >standard envelope) please send the appropriate size envelope and >postage. If I'm willing to provide the above, the least the requester >can do is bear the mailing costs. I routinely distrust individuals unwilling to make their complete arguments publicly. I've been through this with the fundamentalists and the creationists and I'll go through it with you. If you believe what you have to say is important, than back it up. As one of the posters to net.origins is very fond of saying "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof" not simply your word or promises of references. >I enjoy sharing breakthroughs in my specialty with the net. My >standards for choosing what to share does not allow for anything I'm >likely to have to eat somewhere down the road. If I EVER have to >"eat" something I will consider it a learning experience & thank (and >admire) the person who fed it to me. However, unless I happen to have >the research data accidentally close at hand, I will not be routinely >placing it on the net with the subject being shared. Those who want >to know can take advantage of my generous offer above. Those who just >want to blow off steam will just have to wipe egg off their faces when >the time comes. What time is this, Walt? Again, are you seriously interested in people's health and well being or merely proving yourself "superior" to mainstream medicine. Understand, I have no disagreement with Holistic medicine or the concept thereof. Some of your ideas may be accurate. There is possibly much to be learned there. So long as you continue to misrepresent others, however, in an effort to "sell" your position I find I am unable to distinguish truth from falsehood in what you say. I certainly am not going to take you very seriously if I feel I have found evidence (which I do) that you are selling me a bill of goods with little substance. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
wws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) (09/18/85)
Hey, Byron, I'm still waiting for the first reference supporting those statements of "fact" you throw around so freely. Ordinarily I would send this kind of response to Byron in his mail. Since he has chosen to put his "stuff" on the net--O.K. by me. I was an AMA type doctor for 10 years. Ihave seen the system from the inside and the outside. I have not said, nor will I say, that any individual physician is out to keep the patient ill. Anyone who gets that message is projecting. The system is set up so that the sicker the patient is the more money the doctor makes. The only part of the system set up the other way is HMOs. I have worked in both systems. In the HMO, the healthier the patient is the more money the doctor makes. The most succinct statement of the problem I have yet seen came across my desk today. It is a one page regular column in the "New Realities" monthly Journal (October), by Norman Shealy, MD,(plus more other degrees than you would imagine--chief neurosurgeon at the largest hospital in Springfield, Missouri--AMA member & Founding President of the American Holistic Medical Association). Why not do yourself a favor and read it. Then tell me what you think. The system must change. The main beneficiary of this change is the individual whose health is at stake. Those who choose to transcend the present system can do so with what is already known. Those who choose to wait longer are perfectly welcome to do so. After all, what would happen to the "disease" system if the total expenditures in the field were cut by $600,000,000,000 within the next two years (which is well within the realm of present knowledge)? CHAOS! People will get what they deserve. I will accept what comes to me. People deserve the right to choose their system. My efforts, in my life, my profession & here on the net are to do my best to place the fact of the alternative on the table. From that point it is up to each individual. The old paradigm is simplistic, comfortable (until one personally has to rely on it--except for trauma and infections) & still accepted by the majority [though shrinking] of "authorities". Those who place their faith in "authorities" usually opt to let others do their thinking for them in the mistaken belief that they can hire someone else to take care of them. The new paradigm REQUIRES that the individual think for him or herself (a very uncomfortable state of affairs until a certain level of basic information has been assimilated). There is too much to know for me to put it on the net. Those unwilling to do some studying will just have to wait till the truth is painfully obvious to most people. If Byron Howes chooses to be suspicious because there is too much data to put on the net, so be it. just stand at the newsstand and read it. Tell me how much you disagree with. -- cbosgd!ukma!wws(Walt Stoll) YOU Walt Stoll, MD, ABFP Founder & Medical Director ARE MORE Holistic Medical Centre 1412 North Broadway Lexington, Kentucky 40505 THAN YOU THINK (606) 233-4273
wws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) (09/18/85)
Hey, Byron, I'm still waiting for the first reference supporting those statements of "fact" you throw around so freely. Ordinarily I would send this kind of response to Byron in his mail. Since he has chosen to put his "stuff" on the net--O.K. by me. I was an AMA type doctor for 10 years. Ihave seen the system from the inside and the outside. I have not said, nor will I say, that any individual physician is out to keep the patient ill. Anyone who gets that message is projecting. The system is set up so that the sicker the patient is the more money the doctor makes. The only part of the system set up the other way is HMOs. I have worked in both systems. In the HMO, the healthier the patient is the more money the doctor makes. The most succinct statement of the problem I have yet seen came across my desk today. It is a one page regular column in the "New Realities" monthly Journal (October), by Norman Shealy, MD,(plus more other degrees than you would imagine--chief neurosurgeon at the largest hospital in Springfield, Missouri--AMA member & Founding President of the American Holistic Medical Association). Why not do yourself a the American Holistic Medical Association). You don't even have to buy the journal. Just stand at the newsstand and read it. Then tell me how much you disagree, or agree, with what is said. The system must change. The main beneficiary of this change is the individual whose health is at stake. Those who choose to transcend the present system can do so with what is already known. Those who choose to wait longer are perfectly welcome to do so. After all, what would happen to the "disease" system if the total expenditures in the field were cut by $600,000,000,000 within the next two years (which is well within the realm of present knowledge)? CHAOS! People will get what they deserve. I will accept what comes to me. People deserve the right to choose their system. My efforts, in my life, my profession & here on the net are to do my best to place the fact of the alternative on the table. From that point it is up to each individual. The old paradigm is simplistic, comfortable (until one personally has to rely on it--except for trauma and infections) & still accepted by the majority [though shrinking] of "authorities". Those who plase their faith in "authorities" usually opt to let others do their thinking for them in the mistaken belief that they can hire someone else to take care of them. The new paradigm REQUIRES that the individual think for him or herself (a very uncomfortable state of affairs until a certain level of basic information has been assimilated). There is too much to know for me to put it on the net. Those unwilling to do some studying will just have to wait till the truth is painfully obvious to most people. If Byron Howes chooses to be suspicious because there is too much data to put on the net, so be it. -- cbosgd!ukma!wws(Walt Stoll) YOU Walt Stoll, MD, ABFP Founder & Medical Director ARE MORE Holistic Medical Centre 1412 North Broadway Lexington, Kentucky 40505 THAN YOU THINK (606) 233-4273