Send To Friend
Post your comment

===========

 Omega-3 fatty acids diet could protect from blindness

Subject: Your pain!  -(HERE IS WHAT I WROTE ABOUT MY OWN RELIEF FROM
BONE AND JOINT PAIN, GOUT, etc.) --

Hello, and best wishes to you, Dorothy A. Seese! I am so sorry to
hear about the pain and bone loss, etc., you are going through. You
may be getting lots of natural cures and helps info now, not the
worst thing that could happen! Anyway, I run a health group in
addition to endtime Bible prophetic groups, etc., and we have
researched that extensively, all I can suggest is that you use topic
search words. http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/FoodHerbHealth/
(Somehow they stuck in the "au", although I don't live in Australia,
but the good old U.S.A.)

Anyway, I have noticed that there is an overabundance of women post-
menopausal whose bones are falling apart. I have some suspicions
about that fact, but won't dealve into that just now.

Some summers ago, I was bitten in the big toe by a brown recluse
spider, which causes necrosis. Since then, gout has formed in that
toe, and I get arthritis in that foot and sometimes in the other
foot. I have discovered that if I let it go, it gets real bad. The
bone in that foot has been allowed to deform, etc... and I had to do
something. My leg and foot/feet get real painful at times, and
letting this go is not an option for me.

There is something called 'natto' - not the most pleasant of things,
God must surely have a sense of humor- that works very well for me. I
have learned how to make my own, the "American version", and if you
want some tips on 'how-to', let me know. Also, I have to take HCl
(betaine) for digestion, but it has to be properly alternated- you
don't want the good bacteria the same time as the 'eat it up'
digestive acid. And instead of sour cherry juice concentrate for
gouty toe- expensive- I use unsweetened purple grapejuice concentrate
with lemon extract drops and dissolved silica in there, plus EDTA
pills. I also use celery seed and chewable vitamin c, hopefully with
rose hips or natural orange flavor. And cod liver oil. Maybe a few
more items tossed into the equation, much of the 'extras' here can be
put into the natto. (Soy sauce is generally used, but I figure too
salty for good health.) I make my natto with unsalted black beans,
and I make 'clear butter' or ghee, also. Could go on a little more,
but don't want to overwhelm you. Anyway, it all works together!
Perhaps some natural progesterone (wild yam root) and some kelp
seaweed, along with the standards of MSM with glucosamine - the
standard fare combos for arthritis natural pills- etc., tossed in
here and there for good measure, but I don't take them everyday. The
ESSENTIALS seems to be the natto and the unsweetened purple grape
juice concentrate with the lemon extract and silica, if you want just
the basics. --Cindy-P.S. Best wishes, blessings to you.

I know that white willow bark is supposed to help against pain and
inflammation, but with pain like yours, perhaps the 'build the bones
back' stuff is better!-"Cheyenne Cin"

============
====Links to RAPTURE IMMINENT messages, don't try to join, 'joiner'
doesn't work for me!--
http://groups.msn.com/RaptureImminent/general.msnw?
action=get_threads&Dir=0&ID_Last=96
http://groups.msn.com/RaptureImminent/general.msnw?
action=get_threads&Dir=0&ID_Last=255
http://groups.msn.com/RaptureImminent/messages.msnw

=============

--- In FoodHerbHealth@..., Lee & Cindy
<leeandcindy@...> wrote:
>
> www.NewsWithViews.com
> June 30, 2007
> New Articles
>
> The Sad Case of the Spotted Owl
> Environmentalists are quick to lecture the rest of us about the
ways of
> nature. Don't clean the dead trees off the forest floor, it's
natural.
> Cattle and horses on the range aren't native, so let the grizzles
and
> wolves devour them, it's natural. Man isn't part of the ecology,
lock him
> out of vast areas of land, it's natural. It's interesting to note
how the
> "natural" argument only applies when it is used to impose the
radical
> environmental agenda. Case in point, the Northern Spotted Owl.
Spotted
> owls, we were told......
> http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom87.htm
> by Tom DeWeese
>
> Should U.N. Broker Return of Alaska to Russia
> Former Rep. Tom Campbell actually looked into rumors that there was
> "something amiss" with the U.S. side of the 1867 treaty by which
Russia
> sold Alaska to the U.S. He found that the sale was legal but that
the
> U.S. had failed to pay the $7.2 million purchase price on time.
Campbell
> ascertained that the payment took place three months and 10 days
late,
> and that the Russians were owed lost interest.......
> http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff160.htm
> by Cliff Kincaid
>
> "We" - The Democrats' Most Vicious Word
> "We" need to give health care to all people with a "non-profit"
> socialized-medicine system (the same system that wrecked medical
care in
> England and Canada?, and paid for by whom?)......
> http://www.newswithviews.com/Turtel/joel44.htm
> by Joel Turtel
>
> Chronic Pain Sufferers
> Some of the side effects of non-narcotic pain killers and
> anti-inflammatory drugs hospitalized me, and I wrote about how Big
Pharma
> has poisoned the voiceless victims, most of whom are elderly, their
> bodies wracked with infirmities that are difficult to treat. The
hospital
> discharge sheet after acute renal failure states that I am not to be
> prescribed any Cox-2 inhibitors, a certain non-narcotic pain
medication,
> or drugs from the list of prescription and over-the-counter NSAIDS
> (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs).......
> http://www.newswithviews.com/Seese/dorothy49.htm
> by Dorothy Seese
>
> Words Are Whatever I Say They Are
> Americans have been asleep at the wheel while powerful far left
> ideologues work--round the clock to create words in his or her own
image.
> Before you know it we'll all be echoing "One Nation Under
Liberals." But
> in order to accomplish their desired goal, they must first
obliterate
> truth. Dr. Martin warned of the dangers of perverting semantics
when he
> said.....
> http://www.newswithviews.com/West/marsha47.htm
> by Marsha West
>
> =============
> A decade and thousands of broken dreams later, comes this report
from the
> federal government on the real reasons for the spotted owl's
> endangerment: "Oops."
>
> Other
> DeWeese
> Articles:
> UN Wants Control of The Seas With US Senate's Help
> Return of The CARA Monster
> Total Surveillance Equals Total Tyranny
> Loosing Your Liberty in The Name of Fighting Terrorism
> The Faith-Based Initiative is a Trojan Horse
>
> THE SAD CASE OF THE SPOTTED OWL
>
>
>
> By Tom DeWeese
> June 30, 2007
> NewsWithViews.com
> Environmentalists are quick to lecture the rest of us about the
ways of
> nature. Don't clean the dead trees off the forest floor, it's
natural.
> Cattle and horses on the range aren't native, so let the grizzles
and
> wolves devour them, it's natural. Man isn't part of the ecology,
lock him
> out of vast areas of land, it's natural. It's interesting to note
how the
> "natural" argument only applies when it is used to impose the
radical
> environmental agenda. Case in point, the Northern Spotted Owl.
> Spotted owls, we were told a decade ago, were disappearing because
big
> bad timber companies were cutting down "old growth" forests. So the
> environmental movement rushed to the forests, hugged the trees and
issued
> news releases to decry the evils of the logging industry. Save the
owl.
> Save the trees. Kill the timber industry.
> Of course, that was exactly the point. Kill the timber industry. As
a
> result of the hysteria to save the "endangered" owls, U.S. timber
sales
> were reduced by 80-90%, forcing saw mills to close, loggers to go
broke
> and whole towns which depended on the industry to literally
disappear.
> The federal crackdown on the industry caused a shift in U.S.
domestic
> lumber supplies to foreign soils. In short, American industry
suffered in
> the name of protecting the spotted owl. Turns out it wasn't true.
> A decade and thousands of broken dreams later, comes this report
from the
> federal government on the real reasons for the spotted owl's
> endangerment: "Oops."
>
>
> According to a new government draft plan to save the species,
scientists
> are no longer saying the greatest threat to the Spotted Owl is
logging
> activity. "The draft recovery plan recognizes the primary threat to
> northern spotted owls as competition with barred owls." According
to the
> report, barred owls are less selective about the habitat they use
and the
> prey they feed upon and are out competing northern spotted owls for
> habitat and food, causing its decline.
> In fact, for the entire decade since the issue emerged on the
political
> scene, the property rights and land use movements have been
reporting the
> fact that the spotted owl is only a sub-species of Mexican spotted
owls,
> which are not endangered at all. Some experts will say the only way
to
> tell the difference between the two is by their accents. (OK, I'm
> kidding, but this ridiculous story needs some humor). It was no
secret
> that the spotted owl didn't need "old growth forests" to survive,
since
> spotted owls were found living under bridges and in McDonald signs.
What
> it needed was a good food source like any other species. Now we
know it
> was undercut by another owl - a completely natural occurrence.
> What was accomplished during the ten-year fight besides the
destruction
> of an entire industry? The establishment of a very radical and
dangerous
> political agenda called the environmental movement. Its power is
now so
> great that no politician dare oppose them. Yet, that power, we now
know
> for certain, was built on a lie. Some in the movement have even
candidly
> admitted that if they didn't have the spotted owl they would have
> invented something like it to drive their agenda. In fact they did
invent
> it and the purpose was to destroy the timber industry and private
> property rights. They called it an environmental emergency.
> Now the truth has come out. So, will the same federal government
which
> rushed to impose harsh treatment of innocent property owners and
industry
> now roll back those stifling regulations and let freedom breath? Of
> course not. Agendas are agendas, regardless of the facts.
> So instead, after the nation spent millions of dollars to destroy an
> industry's private property rights, still, the government plans to
spend
> $200 million more on a "barred owl removal plan" in order to save
the
> spotted owl.
> And as usual, when a new government debacle is rolled out, there is
> always an emergency to drive the policy. Now, according to Ren
> Loheofener, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Pacific
> Region, "Because the range and numbers of barred owls are expanding
> rapidly, our effectiveness in addressing this threat depends on
immediate
> action..."
> Here's an immediate action sane folks could recommend: Let the
barred
> owls alone to do what comes natural to them. If the Spotted Owl
can't
> keep up - then good riddance. It's been used to cause enough pain
and
> obviously its time is up. It's a natural process. Species come and
go.
> We've got plenty of Mexican spotted owls to play with if we get
homesick
> for them.
> Of course, the final chapter is yet to be written. Soon, if the new
> "recovery plan" is successful, it won't be long before the
environmental
> movement has a new emergency - man's or woman's wanton destruction
of the
> barred owl. Creating false environmental disasters just comes
natural for
> some people.
>
>
> © 2007 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved
>
>
>
> Tom DeWeese is president of the American Policy Center and Editor
of The
> DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia.
> (540) 342-8911
> E-Mail: apcmail@...
> ==============
> (WHETHER OR NOT RUSSIA lays claim to the NORTH POLE, etc., doesn't
mean
> the united nations' intervenion or LOST treaty is GOOD! It is
> horrendous!-"Cheyenne Cin")
> Fortunately, some key members of Congress recognize that a global
> taxation regime under the auspices of UNCLOS, in order to soak U.S.
> taxpayers and provide more foreign aid to the rest of the world, is
not
> something we should ratify or welcome.
>
>
> SHOULD U.N. BROKER RETURN OF ALASKA TO RUSSIA?
>
>
> By Cliff Kincaid
> June 30, 2007
> NewsWithViews.com
> At a recent Heritage Foundation symposium on the Law of the Sea
Treaty,
> one of the proponents was Rear Admiral William D. Baumgartner, the
Judge
> Advocate General of the U.S. Coast Guard. After panelist Frank
Gaffney of
> the Center for Security Policy calmly and methodologically
delineated the
> problems with the treaty, and how U.S. national security could be
> adversely affected, Baumgartner said he was not impressed. He said
one of
> Gaffney's complaints about the International Seabed Authority, a
major
> component of the new international bureaucracy established by the
treaty,
> "just doesn't make any sense at all" and was not "rooted in
reality."
> Gaffney had complained about the treaty, formally known as the U.N.
> Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), creating a global tax
> mechanism. Under UNCLOS, now before the Senate, U.S. corporations
would
> be required to pay taxes to an International Seabed Authority for
the
> right to exploit ocean resources, including developing sources of
energy
> for the American people. Baumgartner insisted that it was set up "to
> protect commercial property rights."
> Baumgartner, appearing in his military uniform with a chest full of
> medals, is an impressive figure. A Harvard Law School graduate, he
served
> as Chief of the Office of Maritime and International Law at Coast
Guard
> Headquarters and headed the U.S. delegation to the Legal Committee
of the
> International Maritime Organization. But his performance at the
Heritage
> event demonstrates why military officials should stick to military
> affairs. His position is that we need a global bureaucracy to
safeguard
> the rights of U.S. companies to mine the ocean floor. He sounded
like a
> socialist member of the pro-world government World Federalists.
Whatever
> happened to the idea of having a strong U.S. Navy to safeguard U.S.
> interests? Gaffney noted that Baumgartner's position seems to be
that we
> have to rely on international law and treaties, not the U.S. Navy.
> This is a critical point. The American Shipbuilding Association
reports
> that the number of Navy ships has declined from 594 under President
> Reagan to 276 under President Bush. If present trends continue, it
will
> continue declining to a pathetically small number of only 180 by
2024.
> Perhaps the Admiral might want to spend his time lobbying for a
bigger
> Navy and Coast Guard, rather than for a piece of paper with a U.N.
stamp
> that seeks to transfer our wealth to the rest of the world.
> However, echoing Baumgartner, another panelist, UNCLOS supporter
John
> Norton Moore of the University of Virginia School of Law, insisted
that
> the treaty would protect "property rights." He said the payments to
an
> international bureaucracy were "fees" and "costs" and were not
> socialistic. He said the U.S. could veto the transfer of this money
to
> other countries. At the same time, he acknowledged that the funds
could
> end up becoming "a significant increase" to the U.S. foreign aid
budget
> "if it ever gets going."
>
> Advertisement
> Fortunately, some key members of Congress recognize that a global
> taxation regime under the auspices of UNCLOS, in order to soak U.S.
> taxpayers and provide more foreign aid to the rest of the world, is
not
> something we should ratify or welcome. House Republican Whip Roy
Blunt
> offered an amendment on the House floor on June 21 ensuring that
American
> taxpayer dollars aren't funneled to the International Seabed
Authority.
> Blunt's amendment, included in the House appropriations bill for
foreign
> operations and the State Department, passed by voice vote.
> In a release, Blunt declared, "More than 25 years ago, President
Reagan
> refused to commit this country to a treaty that would've weakened
our
> sovereignty at home, and rendered American companies less
competitive
> abroad…We need all the energy we can get, whenever and wherever we
can
> get it. Submitting ourselves to an unelected, unaccountable
international
> ocean bureaucracy when it comes to distributing what American
companies
> rightfully mine doesn't strike me as a good thing to do?25 years
ago,
> today, tomorrow, or in the future."
> At the Heritage event, Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise
Institute
> used the question-and-answer period to make the point that UNCLOS
> "legitimizes a socialist entity as the best way to expand wealth
for the
> world at a time when the World Bank and the IMF [International
Monetary
> Fund] have totally rejected that." He said ratification of the
treaty
> would be foolish.
> Gaffney agreed. UNCLOS creates a "world government socialist
enterprise,"
> he noted.
> Yet the Bush Administration is vigorously pushing the Senate to
ratify
> the treaty creating this global socialist entity.
> Not surprisingly, the major media are backing ratification. The
bias is
> evident in stories in the New York Times and other papers about
Russia
> claiming a huge part of the oil-rich North Pole. "In this battle for
> Arctic territory," the Times reports, "the United States is on the
> sidelines for the moment, as conservatives in Congress delay
ratification
> of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which governs all
claims."
> UNCLOS "governs all claims?" Since when did a U.N. bureaucracy
acquire
> such power? And why should the U.S. acquiesce in this power grab?
> The implication of the story, of course, is that the U.N.'s
international
> ocean bureaucracy should decide the fate of the North Pole—and other
> matters.
> Indeed, while the U.N. is settling that, it could possibly entertain
> claims from those in Russia who want Alaska back.
> Former Rep. Tom Campbell actually looked into rumors that there was
> "something amiss" with the U.S. side of the 1867 treaty by which
Russia
> sold Alaska to the U.S. He found that the sale was legal but that
the
> U.S. had failed to pay the $7.2 million purchase price on time.
Campbell
> ascertained that the payment took place three months and 10 days
late,
> and that the Russians were owed lost interest.
>
> There is actually a point of view which holds that Russia had no
right to
> sell the land, or the U.S. to buy it, and that the interests of
Native
> Alaskans were ignored. "Native Alaskans never made treaties with
Russia
> or the United States selling their lands, nor did Russia or the
United
> States conquer all of Alaska militarily," wrote Russel Lawrence
Barsh in
> the study, "The International Legal Status of Native Alaska."
>
> Would Rear Admiral Baumgartner back U.N. resolution of this matter?
That
> is the road we're on if we follow his advice on UNCLOS.
> © 2007 Cliff Kincaid - All Rights Reserved
>
>
>
> E-Mail: cliff.kincaid@...
> ===========
> If you accept the Democrats' deadly "we," you fall into their trap.
You
> accept the vicious socialist and fascist moral notion that you are
your
> brother's keeper.
> (OR YOUR SISTER's keeper or the children of another man's and
woman's
> keeper, especially the illegitimate children!--"Cheyenne Cin" -
P.S. We
> ARE the babyboomers who are American citizens' future keepers, as
we have
> kept the older generations in old ages, as has been promised and
removed
> from paychecks!)
>
>
> "WE" - THE DEMOCRATS' MOST VICIOUS WORD
>
>
> By Joel Turtel
> June 30, 2007
> NewsWithViews.com
> Last night I listened to the Presidential debate between Democratic
> candidates, and I got almost physically sick. They kept repeating
their
> most vicious word, "we," for two hours.
> Here's some typical policies the Democrat-looter candidates
suggested:
> "We" need to give health care to all people with a "non-profit"
> socialized-medicine system (the same system that wrecked medical
care in
> England and Canada?, and paid for by whom?).
> "We" need to give all kids tuition money for a college education (a
> socialist, anti-American-values education presided over by Marxist
> professors?, and paid for by whom?).
> "We" need pre-school for all children from age two years old,
especially
> minority kids (with or without the consent of parents?, and paid
for by
> whom?).
> "We" need "parent education" programs to teach parents how to raise
their
> kids (the parent-police in Hillary Clinton's "village" that "raises"
> children).
> "We" need more federal programs to cure AIDS, for AIDS education,
and to
> pay for drug addicts' needles (why should we pay for other people's
drug
> habits and unprotected sex that cause most of the AIDS?).
> "We" have to raise taxes on the "rich" to pay for all these multi-
billion
> dollar programs (which kills the goose that lays the golden egg—
it's the
> productive "rich" who create the jobs the poor depend on).
> "We" need to spend more billions of dollars on government (public)
> schools (that's like throwing money down a toilet).
> "We" need to spend billions of dollars to solve global warming
> (human-caused global warming is a deliberate hoax designed to
destroy our
> liberty and free economy).
> "We" have to take money from the oil companies to fund alternative
energy
> programs (yes, "take" is what Hillary Clinton said in a previous
speech.
> "Take," as in "loot").
> "We" have to end the imbecile Iraq war that is bankrupting us. But,
God
> forbid, we will NOT give the billions of dollars we spend on the
war back
> to you, the taxpayers. We'll keep your money and give it away to
every
> petty looter and special-interest group who'll vote us into office.
> "We" have to stop companies from moving overseas and not paying
heavy
> corporate taxes (companies want to run from strangling US taxes and
> regulations — why shouldn't they?).
> "We" have to tax the rich (who earned their money) to pay for
welfare,
> farm subsidies, employment programs for minorities, and dozens of
other
> giveaway programs (why should these people get unearned handouts
they
> didn't work for?).
> "We" have to make sure the "rich" pay their "fair share" of taxes
("fair
> share" means to loot money from brilliant, productive businessmen
who
> earn more than others with their superior ambition and hard work,
and
> give this stolen loot to less productive people who do not produce
jobs
> for others).
> And on it went, all night. "We" have to help this group. "We" have
to
> help that group. "We" have to raise taxes or take money from
the "rich"
> to pay for all this looting.
> "We" is the Democrats' and liberals' killer word. They mean
that "we" are
> our brothers' keeper, whether we like it or not. "We" must
sacrifice our
> lives, our work, our hard-earned money to pay for any looters who
want to
> take our money, courtesy of government-elected thieves.
> "We" is an attempt to make you forget the word "I," as in "I"
earned my
> money and "you" don't have a right to take it from me.
> The Democrat-looter Presidential candidates all claimed the right
to tax
> us to death to pay for uninsured people's health care (including
Mexican
> illegal aliens), unemployed peoples' training, tenured-teachers
unearned
> pay raises, congenitally-incompetent public schools' unending
failure,
> government workers who get rich on these programs, and every other
> whining special-interest group who demands government hand-outs at
your
> expense.
> Let's be clear on one thing. You are NOT your brother's keeper, and
no
> government you elect has the right to force you to be. "Compassion"
> enforced at the end of a government gun (taxes) is naked compulsion.
> Every program that looting liberals promote with their "we" forces
you to
> be your brother's keeper, whether you like it or not. In effect,
> Democrats tell you, "your money or your life."
> There is only one way to fight the Democrats' vicious moral notion
that
> "we" are our brother's keeper. Like a prayer, keep repeating the
words
> that you have the God-given right to keep every cent you earn. Your
> property is not someone else's "resource" to spend as they please.
> Liberal looters who spout their "we" think your hard-earned money is
> theirs for the taking. They think of you as an expendable
sacrificial
> animal. They think that your duty is to work for the money, but
they have
> the right to spend it.
> To fight the liberal looters, keep repeating like a prayer, "My
money and
> property are mine—I earned it. No politician I elect has the right
to
> steal my money to give away to others." It's as simple as that.
(AND FOR
> WOMEN, if your husband or ex-husband while you were married to him
> 'earned' it, so did YOU!--"Cheyenne Cin")
> If you accept the Democrats' deadly "we," you fall into their trap.
You
> accept the vicious socialist and fascist moral notion that you are
your
> brother's keeper. You accept the notion that the people you elect to
> office have the right to loot your hard-earned money to enforce that
> notion. You accept the fact that those you elect to office have the
right
> to make you into a slave—to work your whole life for the benefit of
> others.
> Only when you reject this moral doctrine, only when you reject the
> vicious liberals' "we," will you elect to office people who will
respect
> your life, your money, your property, and your liberty.
> © 2007 Joel Turtel - All Rights Reserved
>
>
>
>
> E-Mail: lbooksusa@...
>
> ============
> For those of you who think national healthcare, otherwise known as
> socialized medicine, will work in the United States, well ... there
> really is no cure for stupid!
>
> CHRONIC PAIN SUFFERERS
>
>
>
> Dorothy A. Seese
> June 29, 2007
> NewsWithViews.com
> The United States' "drug czar" has quite an extensive web site
online,
> all of it sounding as if the feds really have a handle on reducing
drug
> usage by minors, illegal use by everyone else. It's nicely
organized,
> written by a pro at making the work of this control-arm of our
> "gubbamint" seem acceptable, even successful.
> The problem is that the accomplishments are overstated (if you have
a
> phone and know people who have teens in school you can find out
just how
> available various mind-bending drugs are to those who can pay for
them).
> But that isn't the whole story, just part of it. When our government
> wants to get any legislation passed, or foist more government
control
> nets over Americans who think they live in a free country, the
first line
> of attack is to state "it's for the children." Bah, baloney and
bull.
> Somehow these federal programs never mention the victims, the
voiceless
> masses whose votes once counted and whose support was needed by the
> representatives in Congress and state legislatures. While most of
the
> hundreds of articles bearing my by-line were written as an observer
of
> "times, trends and events," this one is written as one of the
victims.
> Somehow, over the years I wrote regularly for various online sites,
I
> also aged, and my injured spine finally failed in January of 2006.
Some
> of the side effects of non-narcotic pain killers and anti-
inflammatory
> drugs hospitalized me, and I wrote about how Big Pharma has
poisoned the
> voiceless victims, most of whom are elderly, their bodies wracked
with
> infirmities that are difficult to treat. The hospital discharge
sheet
> after acute renal failure states that I am not to be prescribed any
Cox-2
> inhibitors, a certain non-narcotic pain medication, or drugs from
the
> list of prescription and over-the-counter NSAIDS (non-steroidal
> anti-inflammatory drugs).
> What does that leave? What the specialist who monitored my status
at the
> hospital prescribed -- a narcotic pain killer that seems to be
popular
> among the younger set and closely watched by both my insurance
provider
> and the feds. Never having used a narcotic, I had no idea what
chronic
> pain sufferers have to endure to receive some form of pain relief. I
> found out.
> Persons discharged from the hospital are sometimes given
prescriptions to
> last them until they can obtain an appointment with their personal
> physician. I was. Once handed a written script, the pharmacy will
fill it
> and ensure that it is picked up only by the person for whom it is
> prescribed, or in the case of an invalid, that person's authorized
> representative. This is a good policy, and even with double-counting
> required, I've managed to be shorted one of the two prescriptions
on two
> occasions -- ten tablets the first time, six this time. The
pharmacist
> assures me this cannot happen. In that case, they need to remove
> vanishing tablets from the stock they receive, or learn how to
count.
> Now to the interesting part. At the post-hospital doctor's visit, I
found
> out that he was extremely displeased with the specialist's scripts
and
> hospital discharge instructions. He is a rheumatologist, and also
the
> physician who prescribed the Cox-2 inhibitors and other drugs that
landed
> me in the hospital. He could do nothing more, and after attempting
to
> work with him, his fear of prescribing narcotics became intolerable.
> After all, that's what is left after subtracting Big Pharma's
> side-effect-laden "miracle" drugs, two of which have been pulled
from the
> market. He referred me to an anesthesiologist who specializes in
> administering epidural blocks. After two of these and almost no
relief
> (other than the narcs I managed to have prescribed by the previous
M.D.)
> I was referred to a specialist who had moved to the Phoenix area, an
> orthopedic surgeon. He looked at the films of my spine and was
gracious
> enough to explain why I could no longer walk or even stand up
unaided.
> And why I was in such pain. It seems that with spinal stenosis,
> degenerative bone disease of the spine and the lumbar vertebrae in
> particular, spinal stenosis, two herniated discs, some nerve root
> impingement and fluidity of the spine, one is going to hurt. Oh
yes, I
> understand that. Essentially, this orthopedic specialist said my
case was
> hopeless, although not exactly in those words.
> Back to the matter of pills. My primary care physician is careful to
> prescribe exactly enough tablets to last 30 days at two per day of
each.
> No dropping a pill. Explain about 31 day months being a bit longer
than
> the 30 day supply. Argue over being left without medications if
refill
> day falls on Saturday or Sunday. Argue with the pharmacy if I am
shorted
> as that "cannot happen" so I must be up to something devious. Since
I use
> a 3 x 5 memo book with a page for each day and write down
everything I
> take (no matter what it is for or whether it is prescription or
not, such
> as the aspirin-a-day or an antacid tablet), I can go back and
actually
> count my tablets taken if I did not recount them when they were
brought
> to me. My authorized representative will now count them at the
pharmacy
> counter before leaving with them, since once a person leaves that
counter
> there is no recourse. Pills cannot be exchanged, returned, and
naturally
> they are never short. While this is a good safety policy, it makes
> obtaining the correct count of a narc essential to cover the time
period
> (30 or 31 days).
> After a number of disputes with my primary, he has asked that I
locate a
> pain management specialist. At one time (he has probably forgotten
this)
> he scoffed at these practitioners of extra-terrestrial thinking and
> self-hypnosis. Now he has found out that increasing surveillance by
both
> the insurance companies and the federal drug law enforcers (with or
> without black masks and jack boots) make the pain management
specialist
> the ideal way to dodge any possible confrontation with the feds over
> giving something like a 32-day supply to a chronic pain case. After
all,
> it is possible we want to OD on two tablets, or worse, go into a
back
> alley business with two extra narcs. The brilliant saying of the
21st
> century thus far, and particularly applicable to government
functions, is
> "there is no cure for stupid."
> So the chronic pain sufferers, who are likely to be geriatric cases
also,
> are unable to get a voice anywhere from a letter to the editor to a
> letter to one's congress-critter. We want our comfort at the
expense of
> the children? My dear congress critters and anyone else who
believes this
> "for the children" trash (especially when there is a tax increase
along
> with it) has a severe to terminal case of very stupid. If an elderly
> person has grandchildren, or any chronic pain sufferer of any age
has
> children or grandchildren, they can (at their peril as to true
content)
> get all the oxycodone the kid can buy from some other kid at
school.
> Those in my age group (soon to be 72) recall when parents were
supposed
> to control their children, not the fed. We also recall when doctors
> prescribed what the patient needed from a small or large array of
> options, but the feds were out chasing moonshiners. Not that they
had
> anything against moonshine, the government wanted the liquor taxes.
As
> always, follow the money trail.
> Pain relief has become a huge business in the past forty years.
Just why
> the causes of pain have multiplied so much is questionable. Are we,
> Americans with great (joke) freedoms, being given all manner of
> allergies, heart ailments, kidney disorders and liver malfunctions
from
> one set of drugs so that we need another to prevent or treat the
side
> effects also? Possibly. Or it's possible that we have a mindset now
that
> people should be forever well, sniffling and nose-blowing must be
done
> outside public buildings and 25 feet away from the nearest
entrance/exit
> door, and headaches are all abnormal.
> In the meantime, while government spends what most of us would
consider a
> fortune on its "drug war" the chronic pain sufferers have to endure
not
> only the pain, but the aggravation of trying to deal with their
> physicians over anything on the fed's surveillance list of
prescribed
> drugs. A physician who cannot treat patients to keep them
comfortable is
> not practicing medicine, but responding to fear of government. Of
course,
> the borders are open and drugs are flowing freely into this country
to
> the enrichment of those who wish to take the chance. That alone is
an
> outrage.
> My answer, for my own condition, is to try an herbal that is taken
> sublingually and find out if it holds up to the claims of its
> manufacturers. It is legal, non-narcotic, easy to swallow and won't
cause
> drowsiness or some fuzzy-headed state of confusion. If it works,
I'll
> have alleviation of the worst of the pain, and no narcs with which
to go
> through additional abuse to my carcass and disputes with my
physician.
> That's a good deal, if the herbal really does relieve pain.
> For those of you who think national healthcare, otherwise known as
> socialized medicine, will work in the United States, well ... there
> really is no cure for stupid!
>
>
> © 2007 Dorothy A. Seese - All Rights Reserved
>
> E-Mail: carrot710@...
> =================
>
> Americans have been asleep at the wheel while powerful far left
> ideologues work--round the clock to create words in his or her own
image.
> Before you know it we'll all be echoing "One Nation Under Liberals."
> WORDS ARE WHATEVER I SAY THEY ARE
>
>
> By Marsha West
> June 29, 2007
> NewsWithViews.com
> Anything is possible if one has the power to change the definition
of
> words. Take for example the word truth. Once upon a time truth had a
> concise meaning. Merriam-Webster's dictionary (M-WD) defines truth
as
> "the body of true statements and propositions. Truth is the 'state
of
> being the case.'" In other words, it's a fact. A fact is something
that
> actually exists, or an actual occurrence. M-WD defines In truth as
in
> accordance with facts. As Ronald Reagan used to say, "Facts are
stubborn
> things."
> In our post-modern culture a number of people have come to believe
that
> there are no absolute truths. All truth is relative. They proclaim,
> 'What's true for you is not true for me" and "No one can know
anything
> for sure." For the relativist there is no universal moral truth,
only
> what each individual perceives as truth. We all have our own truth,
so we
> mustn't push our views on anyone else. Even some self-professed
> Christians embrace the concept of moral relativism even though it's
> patently unbiblical. M-WD defines relativism as "A theory that
knowledge
> is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of
> knowing (b) a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and
> groups holding them."
> "What is truth?" Pontius Pilot asked Jesus prior to sending Him to
the
> cross. Jesus chose to remain silent, but on other occasions He
addressed
> the truth question head-on. To the chagrin of many, Jesus stated
> categorically that He is the way the TRUTH and the life and those
who
> reject Him will be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven and spend
eternity
> in hell. The fact that Jesus Christ claimed to be God is another
subject,
> so I'll move on. Truthful means "telling or disposed to tell the
truth."
> Truth defines what a person believes in. It is not abstract, like a
> feeling or an idea. Jesus said, "Sanctify them by the truth; your
word is
> truth" (John 17:17). He was talking about Scripture. By reading
it "you
> will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32).
> Ask yourself this question, professed Christian: If there is no
absolute
> truth as the moral relativists holds, why did the Apostle John
say, "For
> the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus
> Christ" (John 1:17).
> Liberal ideologues redefine words to help advance a religious,
political,
> environmental, scientific or social agenda. Never mind that to do so
> perverts the truth. For them "The end justifies the means."
> The cults are infamous for perverting historically accepted biblical
> terms. "Is it any wonder then," asked the late Christian
> apologist/polemicist Walter Martin, "that orthodox Christians feel
called
> upon to openly denounce such perversions of clearly defined and
> historically accepted biblical terminology, and claim that the
cults have
> no rights—scholastically, biblically, or linguistically—to redefine
> biblical terms as they do?"[1]
> Oh that more Christians would feel called upon to denounce cultists
who
> bastardize Christianity.
> Politicians are also infamous for twisting words into pretzels.
Even a
> former president of the United States did some fancy word twisting
when
> he thought it would get him off the hook. You may recall how Bill
Clinton
> stunned the nation during the Monica Lewinsky probe when he said
under
> oath, "If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is
> not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a
completely
> true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you
> having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is,
asked me
> a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would
have
> been completely true."
> In an age of moral relativism there's no virtue in honesty.
Dishonesty,
> duplicity and deceit have become common behavior, even for those
who have
> been elevated to high office.
> Some unscrupulous homosexuals are as sharp as a dual blade saw when
it
> comes to perverting words. Radical "gay" activists know all to well
that
> if they're going to achieve the acceptance they yearn for, they must
> manipulate words that are a stumbling block to their cause -- which
is to
> make same-sex sex appear as normal as, well, normal heterosexual
sex.
> Take "sodomite" for example. Homosexuals have fought to prohibit
thought
> on the question of whether or not sodomy is normal. Try taking the
> position that it's not, and you're branded a bigot, a homophobe, or
> you're accused of spreading hate. Our once free press is no longer
free
> to be critical of homosexuals for fear the Lavender Police will
come down
> on them. (Note that homosexual activists go silent when the media
smears
> a "gay" conservative or a Christian leader.)
> Before homosexuals stripped "normal" of its original definition, it
meant
> "occurring naturally." Which begs the question: If a practice goes
> against nature, is it normal or abnormal?
> Common sense dictates that man on man and woman on woman sex is
abnormal.
> Quite frankly, it's perverted. And I know this is true because I
looked
> up "perverted" in my trusty M-WD. Perverted is defined as "an
aberrant
> sexual practice or interest especially when habitual."
> If we can't trust M-WD to give accurate word definitions, we're
doomed!
> An honest person will have to admit that those who have a
propensity for
> same-sex sex are, by definition, perverts. In their struggle to make
> homosexuality mainstream, "gays" and lesbians have had to pervert
the
> meaning of words. To avoid hurting a homosexual person's feelings,
a vast
> number of people who are opposed to homosexual behavior (this
includes
> people of faith) have surrendered to perverts who pervert words! Is
that
> preposterous, or what?
> Same-sex sex is not what the Designer intended. The human body was
> designed for normal heterosexual sex.
> "Gays" and lesbians contend that the cause of same-sex attraction is
> biological therefore same-sex sex is normal. In his article, "What
if
> Homosexuality is Biological" Selwyn Duke explains their reasoning
this
> way:
> "[I]f such feelings are biologically induced, then homosexual
behavior is
> neither sinful nor a choice. Thus, the genesis of same-sex
attraction has
> become a locus of debate in the culture war."[2]
> In order to win the debate, "gays" and lesbians play the biological
card.
> They argue that homosexuality is inborn therefore it's not
perverted.
> They also play the tug on your heartstrings card. "It's not my
fault I
> was born gay," they insist. But even if homosexuality has a basis in
> biology (there's no solid scientific evidence that it does) the
behavior
> is by definition "deviant." And how do I know that? The M-WD tells
me so.
> Deviant means, "deviating especially from an accepted norm." The
> homosexual lifestyle does, in fact, deviate from the accepted norm.
> "Gays" and lesbians rationalize their choices by claiming that
since they
> were born that way it's normal for them.
> I call this the "nature made me do it defense."
> Selwyn Duke makes the case that society has fallen victim to a
terrible
> misconception and raises this excellent point:
> "Many of the same people who tell us homosexuality is inborn also
claim
> that sociopaths (those without consciences and who exhibit
antisocial
> behavior) may be born and not made. But, if this is true, would that
> render it moral for these individuals to trample the rights of
others? If
> one is born with homicidal instincts, would it be licit for him to
commit
> murder? Don't scoff, for it's precisely the same reasoning. Either
> morality is dictated by biology or it isn't."[3]
> The movement to eliminate thought on homosexuality has failed,
miserably.
> That's because there's an issue that cannot be swept under the rug,
> namely, something that's biological is not necessarily normal.
> Incredible how a small group of radical "gay" activists have found
a way
> to manipulate the public into thinking that morality should be
dictated
> by biology. Biology my Aunt Fanny!
> Homosexuality is not one of those moral dilemmas posed by new
> technologies, like in vitro fertilization and embryo
transplantations. In
> verbally inspiring the Bible, God revealed absolute morality to
mankind
> and made it clear that sodomy is immoral because it degrades the
body.
> Romans 1:24-27 clearly states,
> Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts
to
> sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
They
> exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served
created
> things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of
> this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women
exchanged
> natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also
> abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust
for
> one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and
received in
> themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
> People shouldn't fall prey to destructive biological urges anymore
than
> they should fall prey to vices like pornography, prostitution, or
> gambling – or other egregious sins such as lying, cheating,
stealing,
> adultery, sexual immorality and so on. Benjamin Franklin rightly
said,
> "To err is human, to repent divine, but to persist is devilish."
> The reason I bring up homosexuality is not to attack "gays" and
lesbians,
> as I will be accused of doing, but to show that liberals change
> vocabulary and terminology to normalize aberrant behavior. One
example is
> the fanatical feminist fruitloops who've been pushing to change the
> meaning of the word "prostitute" to "sex-worker." Or try this one
on for
> size. Pathological perverts whose primary sexual preference is for
> prepubescent kids prefer the term "intergenerational sex" to
> "pedophilia."
> How pathetic.
> Getting back to the cults, Walter Martin addresses the masterful
way in
> which the cults redefine terms:
> "If the reader consults the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary,
published by
> the Unity School of Christianity, he will see the masterpiece of
> redefinition for himself. For in this particular volume, Unity has
> redefined exhaustively many of the cardinal terms of biblical
theology,
> much as Mary Baker Eddy did in her Glossary of Terms in the book
Science
> and Health With Key to the Scriptures. The reader will be positively
> amazed to find what has happened to biblical history, the person of
Adam,
> the concept of human sin, spiritual depravity, and eternal
judgment. One
> thing, however, will emerge very clearly from this study: Unity may
use
> the terminology of the Bible, but by no stretch of the imagination
can
> the redefinition be equated with the thing itself."[4]
> To put it bluntly, cultists lie. M-WD defines liar this way: to
make an
> untrue statement with intent to deceive 2: to create a false or
> misleading impression.
> Change agents intentionally create a false impression. Let me
repeat,
> liberal ideologues redefine words to help advance a religious,
political,
> environmental, scientific or social agenda.
> For the liberal elites (the news media, politicians, jurists,
attorneys,
> radical homosexuals, rabid feminists, Hollywood, environmental
> extremists, scientists, educators, even some religious leaders)
words are
> whatever they say they are!
> Americans have been asleep at the wheel while powerful far left
> ideologues work--round the clock to create words in his or her own
image.
> Before you know it we'll all be echoing "One Nation Under
Liberals." But
> in order to accomplish their desired goal, they must first
obliterate
> truth. Dr. Martin warned of the dangers of perverting semantics
when he
> said,
> "The problem of semantics has always played an important part in
human
> affairs, for by its use or abuse, whichever the case may be, entire
> churches, thrones, and governments have been erected, sustained, or
> overthrown. The late George Orwell's stirring novel 1984, in which
he
> points out that the redefinition of common political terms can lead
to
> slavery when it is allowed to pass unchallenged by a lethargic
populace,
> is a classic illustration of the dangers of perverted semantics. It
> should be of no particular surprise to any student of world history
that
> trick terminology is a powerful propaganda weapon."
> The lethargic populace seems not to realize what the sly devils
have been
> up to. If the populace is aware of it, they seem not to understand
the
> dire consequences of perverting semantics. Better come out of your
> stupor, huddled masses, before it's too late.
> Footnotes:
> 1, The Riddle of Semantics By Walter Martin
> 2, What if Homosexuality is Biological? By Selwyn Duke
> 3, Ibid
> 4, The Riddle of Semantics By Walter Martin
> Additional Reading:
> 1, What is Truth? By Douglas Groothuis
>
>
> © 2007 Marsha West - All Rights Reserved
>
> E-mail: EMbrigade@...
>
> ==========================
>
> ====Links to RAPTURE IMMINENT messages, don't try to join, 'joiner'
> doesn't work for me!--
> http://groups.msn.com/RaptureImminent/general.msnw?
action=get_threads&Dir
> =0&ID_Last=96
> http://groups.msn.com/RaptureImminent/general.msnw?
action=get_threads&Dir
> =0&ID_Last=255
> http://groups.msn.com/RaptureImminent/messages.msnw
>