My Ears Are Burning…
ric...@my-deja.com
web site was dragged before the firing squad.
Touting me as overcome by “juju” Whatever that
is? These newsgroups are a miserable forum and I
have been very reluctant to step foot into this
lion’s den.
No matter what I say or do some loathsome author
will under the guise of “protecting psoriatics”
blast my information and kill whatever hope
anyone has of getting relief.
Who are they really protecting? Psoriasis
sufferers? Themselves maybe? Who knows.
I suffered for twenty years and have been scammed
more by expensive creams and pills at the
dermatologist’s office than anywhere else on
earth. I agree that useless products can be
purchased outside the pharmacy. But in my opinion
the rip off is mainly at the dermatologist’s
office. And you will never read an article in
this newsgroup about how infective a prescription
medicine is…until now.
Nystatin is a pharmaceutical medication
prescribed by a physician. Yet it has come under
intense criticism by authors on this site. Or
has it? Ken Kessler or anyone speaking highly of
him or his Nystatin information certainly comes
under fire. I recently have come under fire.
But what about Nystatin? It is extremely
effective for others and myself. Since I have
put my site up I have heard nothing but praise
for the treatment. Sufferers with psoriatic
arthritis and extremely severe psoriasis who have
hit the wall with conventional treatments find
wonderful healing by simply swallowing 10 ml four
times a day. It is so easy. So simple. There
is no need to fight and slander anyone about it.
But why kill the messenger?
Over the past 15 years I had heard about the
problems associated with fungal infections. My
attentions were focused on diet and other means
of healing. I never took fungus seriously
because I did not have any hard data. Ken
Kessler’s information http://www.psoriasis-
remission.com is what I took into the doctor’s
office and what helped me to develop my own
treatment, which I display on my site.
http://www.geocities.com/psorarth
If it weren’t for him I surely would still be
suffering. Blast me if it makes you feel
better. Threaten to have my site removed. I
have found the relief I prayed for. There is
nothing more you can do to me that psoriasis has
not already done. Why prevent others from
finding their own treatment? What possible gain
could be in it for you?
I encourage everyone who suffers from this awful
disease to find out for themselves. Don’t take
some vindictive author’s word for it.
Rick Yeager
ric...@hotmail.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
kpol...@my-deja.com
possibly have to a treatment that works for some people. Except if it
doesn't work for them I suppose, or is horribly toxic and they don't
tell us :-(
They don't actually know HOW anaesthetics work, but they do so
consistently, and so are in use every day, very effectively.
It's the nature of the beast (P) that not everything works for
everybody and this is because 'we' (the medical community + everybody
else) do not actually understand what P is or how it works in
sufficient detail.
Aside: Personally I think it is multiple different genetic flaws often
excacerbated by umpteen different triggers that just happen to feed
into a very similar response (nasty flaky skin and/or crumbly joints)
hence the extreme difficulty in sorting out what's going on. (there was
a good article on that sort of problem in biochemistry in last weeks
New Scientist).
Now, if people are claiming that Product-X 'cures' everybody then we
need to see the figures and to understand why. As I see it nobody, but
nobody is actually saying that (or they'd be very daft - setting
themselves up for a big fall). If they do they should prove it.
I suppose people get pissed off at the money they spend - being in the
UK I don't have to for conventional medicine (though you do have to
wait - current time in my area to see a derm - 8 months! I haven't
bothered) but I have paid out for two herbalists (no use and one of
them, who also did acupuncture, ended up up with hepatitis C infections
in some of their patients - I had a lucky escape).
By all means let's have rational, grown-up discussion on ANY possible
treatments. But if products have claims, we need the proper figures to
back it up, and a logical consistent explanation not just
testimonials...
Kirsty
In article <83se9e$t1q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
ric...@hotmail.com
psoriasis. It slowed down my body’s cell reproduction. Unfortunately
it was EVERY cell in my body. That was why my liver had to be tested
every month.
Then one day no matter how much Methotrexate I took, my psoriasis got
WORSE…
The 90s brought Cyclosporine. My powerful new arsenal against
psoriasis. Every white blood cell was dealt a crushing blow and my
skin cleared up.
Then one day, people started to wonder why my skin had turned so YELLOW
and I had pneumonia all the time…
In 1994, I bought my first UV unit. Everyone was very impressed. 24
high output tubes and a brand new bottle of Oxsoralene-Ultra
($164.00/50ct). I thought I had caught sunshine in a bottle. I could
radiate myself seven days a week. My psoriasis didn’t stand a chance.
Unfortunately neither did my skin.
After suffering severe burns several times and noticing my psoriasis
becoming very resistant, I decided to search for something else…
These treatments were outdated and ineffective. I needed to stop
treating the symptoms and start treating the cause of the disease. But
what is the cause really? Twenty years ago researchers thought the
cause was a genetic flaw. The HLAB-27 gene. In 1985, researchers
found that to say that genetics causes psoriasis is to say that
genetics causes the common cold…or an infected sore. I guess that in a
very technical description, genetics is the cause of my inability to
breathe under water.
I wonder if the National Psoriasis Foundation will come up with a
genetic cure for breathing under water, just like their genetic cure
for psoriasis? http://genetics.psoriasis.org
Yes…from the same people that brought you that much closer to the
grave. For a mere $10,000 you can get your DNA altered. They will
force your skin to NEVER erupt with psoriasis again. Of course the
fungal infection inside you will rage on and your internal organs will
eventually liquefy. But you won’t have any psoriasis.
The worst part about it is. Is that of all the millions of dollars
that they siphon out of the federal government and drug companies, the
real use of all that money is not to develop this new treatment but how
to MARKET IT, to EVERY medical outlet in the world. And they will do a
damn good job too. I’m sure after this letter they might even peel of
a million or so to have ME removed. Or their mascot Ed Anderson will
do it for free. http://genetics.psoriasis.org/credits.html Yes…the
very same newsgroup warrior that pisses on everything not NPF
sanctioned. Well now you all know why!
Gather round folks! Step right up and get your psoriasis cure right
here! That’s right! Straight from the high tech labs at the National
Psoriasis Foundation, comes the cure of the century. GENETICS…the new
wave in psoriasis treatments. It is EXCATLY what you psoriatics asked
for and NOTHING more. Don’t blame the NPF. You weren’t specific
enough about the cure. You just wanted to look better! And you WILL
when you MORTAGE your house.
IF you run and make your appointments right now you will receive a
limited edition Ed Anderson T-SHIRT! Be the first one on your block to
get your DNA altered! WOW. It brings a tear to my eye when I think of
little Timmy…fresh out of his DNA treatment and wearing his Ed Anderson
T-shirt. Sure the fungal infection will cripple him and eventually
kill him in a few months. But he is looking GREAT!
Hugs and kisses,
JRStern
>In 1985, I thought Methotrexate was the most powerful drug against
>psoriasis.
Maybe like the most honest lawyer in town, eh?
> Be the first one on your block to
>get your DNA altered!
Some of these -- most of these -- all to date -- of "genetic" cures in
anything bigger than an amoeba, doesn't work by changing your genes,
but by understanding how they work and building/cloning/discovering a
chemical that jams up a gene, or a protein, or other little molecular
widget. Just for the record.
Will these at least potentially have all of the nasty and unannounced
side effects you've seen from old-style drugs and fear from the new?
Maybe, y'know. Probably. I'm as cynical as you. But, when you need
a lawyer, you go with the most honest one you can find, and hope for
the best.
J.
Will Wachtel
(snip)
>But what is the cause really? Twenty years
>ago researchers thought the cause was a
>genetic flaw. The HLAB-27 gene. In 1985,
>researchers found that to say that genetics
>causes psoriasis is to say that genetics
>causes the common cold…or an infected sore.
Would you care to cite who these researchers were and where they said
that?
>I guess that in a very technical description,
>genetics is the cause of my inability to breathe
>under water.
How utterly clever, Rick. Yeah, and if your parents didn't have
children, it's not likely you will either.
>I wonder if the National Psoriasis Foundation
>will come up with a genetic cure for breathing
>under water, just like their genetic cure for
>psoriasis? http://genetics.psoriasis.org
You're beginning to show either your bias or you ignorance or both. The
prospect of a genetic cure is so far off that you'd be better off
worrying about the next big earthquake. The first goals of genetic
research are to identify and confirm all the genes involved, understand
the pathogenesis of Ps and design more universally effective and less
harmful treatments based on that knowledge.
>Yes…from the same people that brought you
>that much closer to the grave. For a mere
>$10,000 you can get your DNA altered. They
>will force your skin to NEVER erupt with
>psoriasis again. Of course the fungal infection
>inside you will rage on and your internal
>organs will eventually liquefy. But you won't
>have any psoriasis.
Oh puh-leeeze! There is so much hyperbole in that paragraph that it's
not even worth responding.
>The worst part about it is. Is that of all the
>millions of dollars that they siphon out of the
>federal government and drug companies, the
>real use of all that money is not to develop this
>new treatment but how to MARKET IT, to
>EVERY medical outlet in the world.
You are showing more ignorance and/or bias, Rick. First, the NPF budget
is less than $4 Million per year and they get NO federal government
money. Most of their revenue comes from memberships and donations from
individuals, foundations and businesses. Grants are usually restricted
to specific projects. And any funds that come from pharmaceutical
companies CANNOT have strings attached or the NPF won't accept the
money. So much for your 'millions of dollars that are siphoned off.'
Read the NPF Annual Report before you start making an ass of yourself
with ludicrous statements.
Furthermore, why would they be spending money on marketing when all the
genes have yet to be identified and confirmed? As far as marketing, it'd
be stupid to spend millions figuring that out....one press release
touting that a genetic cure was now available and 80% of the marketing
would be handled.
>And they will do a damn good job too. I'm sure
>after this letter they might even peel of a
>million or so to have ME removed.
Oooooooohhh, where are your conspiracy theories, Rick? Let's see if we
can get this logic figured out -- spend over 25% of the budget to have
one guy who posts a letter on a newsgroup "removed"? You really do have
an inflated opinion of yourself, don't you???
>Or their mascot Ed Anderson will do it for free.
That's really pathetic, Rick. Have you ever seen Ed's picture on any
piece of NPF literature or on their web site? Have you ever seen his
name mentioned anywhere other than to give credit for unpaid assistance
in setting up a web site? Not a very good use of a mascot, huh?
As many participants here told your pal Joyce, this is an unmoderated
newsgroup. That means no one can be censored or removed from here unless
they are abusive or are posting advertising ("spam"). Are you clear on
this, Rick?
>http://genetics.psoriasis.org/credits.html
>Yes…the very same newsgroup warrior that
>pisses on everything not NPF sanctioned. Well
>now you all know why!
Boy, Ed sells out cheap if he'll do that for mere mention on one web
site! Rick, the NPF doesn't sanction any treatment. What it does is
provide information on treatments that are available; mainly the ones
that have been scientifically proven and most medically accepted, but it
also covers ones that haven't been scientifically proven. Whatever Ed
has written here and on his web site (www.pinch.com) are Ed's views.
>Gather round folks! Step right up and get your
>psoriasis cure right here! That's right!
That's "funny", Rick, at first I thought you were starting to market
your "cure" here!
>Straight from the high tech labs at the National
>Psoriasis Foundation, comes the cure of the
>century. GENETICS…
(snip)
More ignorance: the NPF doesn't have ANY labs, Rick. Unless you
consider the kitchen in the employee break room a "lab."
And as far as "the cure of the century", it'd better be next century
'cause it ain't happenin' in the next 5 days! Of course, the next
century doesn't really start until 2001, but it's not happening in that
time frame either!
>IF you run and make your appointments right
>now you will receive a limited edition Ed
>Anderson T-SHIRT! Be the first one on your
>block to get your DNA altered! WOW. It brings
>a tear to my eye when I think of little
>Timmy…fresh out of his DNA treatment and
>wearing his Ed Anderson T-shirt.
Now that's funny, Rick. Instead of a Nike "swoosh", there would be a
double-helix on the sleeve!!
>Sure the fungal infection will cripple him and
>eventually kill him in a few months. But he is
>looking GREAT!
As Billy "Fernando" Crystal used to say on Saturday Night Live, "...and
chu know, it is better to look mah-velous than it is to be mah-velous!"
Seriously, Rick, do you really expect us to believe this???? If Nystatin
and the other anti-fungals are a cure, don't you think that the makers
would be conducting studies and gearing up to go after the Ps market??
Oh jeeez, that's right, I forgot that Ken Kessler managed to get a
patent on his idea, so perhaps they aren't interested in paying
royalties on a dubious theory.
Look, if you and your believers want to come here and politely post
"this worked for me" stories, then fine, have at it.
But please don't come here and post a bunch of ignorant unfounded
malicious crap about the NPF and Ed Anderson. Those tactics didn't work
for Joe McCarthy and they won't work for you.
>Hugs and kisses,
Are you crazy???? You'll catch my fungus!
Will Wachtel
Ed Reiss
says...
> The worst part about it is. Is that of all the millions of dollars
> that they siphon out of the federal government and drug companies, the
> real use of all that money is not to develop this new treatment but how
> damn good job too. I’m sure after this letter they might even peel of
> do it for free.
>
Since I built the NPF genetics site, and the original NPF web
site, both as volunteer efforts, I feel the need to reply to
these bizaare accusations. First, the site was built pro-bono
by an NPF volunteer, me. Second, Ed Anderson is a friend of
mine, and since he's a skilled software engineer, I went to
him for advice on how to configure the software at the site.
He spent many hours helping to assist me in getting the
software installed and running, so I thought that it would
be nice if I included him in the credits page in order to
recognize his contribution. It was my call. Neither of us
received any compensation. He has no official affiliation
with the NPF other than being a contributing member and
going out of his way to help in a worthy cause at the
request of a friend. End of that story.
The purpose of the genetics site is to allow psoriasis
researchers at *academic* institutions to talk to each
other and share information through the web. This type
of collaboration will hopefully speed up the pace at
which new discoveries which lead to new treatments for
us all are made.
Because of the attention being paid to the site by a few
people with very unusual agendas, including at least one
attempt of a forged registration from the same ISP that
is used by Rick Yeager, I have decided to further password
protect the site, and I may even move it to a different
unlisted domain.
I hope that the above facts clarify the situation.
PS:
I read the "Yeast Connection" soon after it was first
published in 1983 and tried oral nystatin and the more
powerful ketaconazol to address symptoms caused by what
later proved to be H Pylori. Needless to say, this
treatment was ineffective, and in fact my psoriasis first
appeared at about the same time that I was taking oral
nystatin. I sincerely doubt that the onset of psoriasis
was related to the antifungals, although some drugs can
trigger onset. Like many other people here, my psoriasis
appeared at a time of great stress, and I attribute its
onset to this element. Any assertion that nystatin is some
type of universal treatment for psoriasis is completely
without proof. Any suggestion of a conspiracy to suppress
nystatin as a treatment for psoriasis is just plain
silly, especially in light of the open and continuous
posting of articles over the years in this public
newsgroup on this very topic.
__________
Ed Reiss
DaveW
>...These treatments were outdated and ineffective.
Then why are they still in use, and very effective for many people?
>I needed to stop treating the symptoms and start treating the cause
>of the disease. But what is the cause really? Twenty years ago
>researchers thought the cause was a genetic flaw.
And researchers *still* think that that is the case. Here are a couple
of papers published just this last November:
http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=10599883,10582157
>The HLAB-27 gene.
Now there are more genes suspected.
>In 1985, researchers found that to say that genetics causes
>psoriasis is to say that genetics causes the common cold…or an
>infected sore. I guess that in a very technical description, genetics
>is the cause of my inability to breathe under water.
Yes, you do not have the genes required to grow gills, and turning on
or off any of the genes you currently possess will not enable you to
grow gills. The same is true of the common cold, and also
infected sores (but both colds and infections are different in that the
causal factors, viruses, bacteria, fungus, protozoa, etc. are too varied
and mutable for any one organism to be able to carry all the genes
required for defense against them). Well, wait a minute. I misspoke.
A cold or an infection is a sign that your body is doing *exactly* what
it should be doing. The cause of a cold *is* genetic, in that your
immune system is 'programmed' to deal with the virus in a certain
way, and so you express symptoms. If your genes were defective,
and let the cold virus do its thing untouched, you'd soon die as more
and more of your body was destroyed by the virus reproducing (see
Ebola for a good example of something for which the immune system
is pretty much incapable of handling without help).
The genetic flaw suspected in psoriasis is one which might be
'fixed' by drugs which specifically target a responsible gene, and
turn it off.
>I wonder if the National Psoriasis Foundation will come up with a
>genetic cure for breathing under water, just like their genetic cure
>for psoriasis? http://genetics.psoriasis.org
What genetic cure for psoriasis? The URL you've posted is for a
forum for genetic researchers to swap info. Where's it say there's
a cure?
>Yes…from the same people that brought you that much closer to
>the grave.
What?!? Why all the hatred for the NPF?
>For a mere $10,000 you can get your DNA altered. They will
>force your skin to NEVER erupt with psoriasis again.
Nice talk. Hope you don't get sued for misrepresenting what the NPF
can and/or cannot do.
Beyond that, of course, is the problem that no therapy to date which
actually modifies DNA has shown a lot of results for any disease. It's
more likely, as I said above, that researchers will find a way to turn
off the gene(s). This will in no way modify the DNA, and psoriasis
will therefore continue to be a heritable disease.
>Of course the fungal infection inside you will rage on and your
>internal organs will eventually liquefy. But you won’t have any
>psoriasis.
Oh, so you've got proof that the cause of psoriasis is fungal?
>The worst part about it is. Is that of all the millions of dollars
>that they siphon out of the federal government and drug companies,
>the real use of all that money is not to develop this new treatment
>but how to MARKET IT, to EVERY medical outlet in the world. And
>they will do a damn good job too. I’m sure after this letter they
>might even peel of a million or so to have ME removed.
I wouldn't be surprised if they sued you, since you're making lots of
statements I would consider to be libelous. Do you have proof for
any of the statements you're making? Let's see, so far:
1) The NPF has a genetic cure for psoriasis.
2) It's a cure which inserts or replaces genes.
3) It costs 10 grand.
4) The money the NPF spends is to market new drugs.
None of these is true, as far as I can see.
>Or their mascot Ed Anderson will do it for free.
>http://genetics.psoriasis.org/credits.html Yes…the
>very same newsgroup warrior that pisses on everything not NPF
>sanctioned. Well now you all know why!
I don't. What does Ed's authoring of a web site have to do with
anything? Of course, Ed does *not* piss "on everything not NPF
sanctioned," in fact he wrote a post recently about some of the 'odd'
things he's tried in the past, and would like to see more info about
in the future.
>Gather round folks! Step right up and get your psoriasis cure right
>here! That’s right! Straight from the high tech labs at the National
>Psoriasis Foundation, comes the cure of the century. GENETICS…
>the new wave in psoriasis treatments. It is EXCATLY what you
>psoriatics asked for and NOTHING more. Don’t blame the NPF. >You weren’t
specific enough about the cure. You just wanted to
>look better! And you WILL when you MORTAGE your house.
Again, I ask: what makes you hate the NPF so much that you'd
write such garbage? You seem like a very bitter, cynical person.
>IF you run and make your appointments right now you will receive a
>limited edition Ed Anderson T-SHIRT! Be the first one on your block
>to get your DNA altered! WOW. It brings a tear to my eye when I
>think of little Timmy…fresh out of his DNA treatment and wearing
>his Ed Anderson T-shirt. Sure the fungal infection will cripple him
>and eventually kill him in a few months. But he is looking GREAT!
And you've really gone off the deep end with this fungal infection
nonsense. Where is there any evidence that the thousands, if not
millions of untreated psoriatics are dying like flies from fungal
infections in 'months'?
- Dave W.
ric...@hotmail.com
Nancy Crutcher, M.D., E. William Rosenberg, M.D., Patricia W. Belew,
PhD, Robert B. Skineer, Jr., M.D., N. Fred Eaglstein,D.O. of the
University of Tenessee Center for the Health Sciences, 956 Court Ave.
Room 3C13, Memphis, TN, and Sidney M. Baker, M.D. of New Have,
Connecticut report on 4 cases of long term, bodily psoriasis (10-25
years) cured with oral nystatin within several months. Nystatin, a weak
antifungal drug, primarily targets intestinal yeast.
As published in the Acta Derm Venereol in 1994:
Robert B. Skionner, Jr., E. William Rosenberg, and Patricia W. Noah
report results of studies that demonstrate that psoriasis of the palms
is frequently associated with Candida. 7 out of 9 patients were cured
or substantially improved after treatment with anti-fungal drugs.
There have also been numerous other studies published that have
correlated dermatological diseases with Candida of the skin and
gastrointestinal tract (too numerous to list - see references below).
One might think that the publication of such information would provoke
nothing less than a revolution in medicine. However, obviously, this
has not been the case.
Some have considered the loss of profits from psoriasis patients as a
factor.
Books About Candida & Psoriasis in Dermatological Diseases
Dismukes, WE., Way, JS., Lee, JY., Dockery, B.K., Hain, J.D., A
randomized double-blind trial of nystatin therapy for the candidiasis
hypersensitivity syndrome. New England Journal of Medicine. 323:1717-
23, 1990.
Morita E, Hide M, Yoneya Y, Kannbe M, Tanaka A, Yamamoto S An
assessment of the role of Candida albicans antigen in atopic
dermatitis. Journal of Dermatology 26:282-287, May 1999.
Skinner, RB. Jr. Rosenberg, W. Noah, PW. Psoriasis of the palms and
soles is frequently associated with oropharyngeal Candida albicans.
Acta Dermatological Venereol Supplement. 186:149-150, 1994.
M buslau, Menzel I, Holzmann H. Fungal flora of the human faeces in
psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. Mycoses. 33:2, 90-4, Feb. 1990.
Soyeur U. Kilic H. Alpan O. Anti-Candida antibody levels in psoriasis
vulgaris. Cent. Afr. Journal of Medicaine. 36: 8, 190-2, Aug. 1990.
Baker BS. Powles AV. Malkani AK. Altered call-medicated immunity to
group A haemolytic atreptococcal antigens in chronic plaque psoriasis.
British Journal of Dermatology. 125: 1, 38-42, Jul 1991.
el-Maghrabi EA. Dixon DM. Burnett JW. Characterization of Candida
albicans epidermolytic proteases and their role in yeast-cell adherance
to keratinocytes. Clinical Experimental Dermatology. 15: 3, 183-91, May
1990.
Senff H. Bothe C. Busacker J. Reinel D. Studies on the yeast flora in
patients suffering from psoriasis capillitii or seborrheic dermatitis
of the scalp. Mycoses. 33:1, 29-32, Jan 1990.
Orkin VF. [The characteristics of the clinical picture of candidiasis
of the skin and mucous membranes in patients with chronic dermatosis] -
Russian. Vrach Delo. 5, 78-80, May 1992.
McKay M. Vulvar dermatoses: common problems in dermatological and
gynecological practice. British Journal of Clinical Pract. Sym.
Supplement. 71: 5-10, Sep 1990.
Noah PW. The role of microorganisms in psoriasis. Semin Dermatology.
9:4, 269-76, Dec 1990.
Haneke E. Fungal infections of the nail. Semin Dermatology. 10: 1, 41-
53, Mar 1991.
Rosenberg, EW. Noah PW. Skinner RB. Microorganisms and psoriasis.
Journal of the National Medical Association. 86:4, 305-10, Apr 1994.
Meinhof W. [Intestinal colonization with Candida albicans and its
effect on chronic inflammatory dermatoses]-German. Hautarzt. 46:8, 525-
7, Aug 1995.
Buslau L. Hanel M. Holzmann H. The significance of yeasts in seborrheic
eczemna. Hautarzt. 40(10):611-3, Oct. 1989. - German
Henseler T. [Mucocutaneous candidiasis in patients with skin diseases] -
German. Mycoses. 38 Supplement 1:7-13, 1995.
Kemeny L. Ruzicka T. Dobozy A. Michel G. Role of interleukin-8 receptor
in skin. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology. 104: 4, 317-
22, Aug 1994.
Squiquera L. Galimberti R. Morelli L. Plotkin L. Milicich R. Kowalckzuk
A. Leoni J. Antibodies to proteins from Pityrosporum ovale in the sera
from patients with psoriasis. Clinical Experimental Dermatology. 19: 4,
289-93, Jul 1994.
Oranje AP. Dzoljic-Danilovic G. Michel MF. Aarsen RS. van Joost, T. [Is
juvenile seborrheic dermatitis a candidiasis? Studies of a possible
link with microbial infections.] - German Tijdschrift voor
Kindergeneeskunde. 55(3):87-92, Jul 1987.
Calvo Romero JM, Alvarez Vega JL, Salazar Vallinas JM, Ortega Alberdi R
Candida arthritis in an immunocompetent patient without predisposing
factors. Clinical Rheumatology. 17(5):393-4, 1998.
Saltarelli, Cora G. Candida albicans: The Pathogenic Fungus. Hemisphere
Publishing Company: Philadelphia, 1989.
Segal, Esther; Baum, Gerald L. Pathogenic Yeasts and Yeast Infections.
CRC Press: Ann Arbor, 1994.
P.S. What would the world be like without dissenters and
disbeliveers? Especially HIGHLY paid ones! Hey ED…Rolaids spells
relief.
evetsm
ric...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Twenty years ago researchers
thought the
>cause was a genetic flaw. The HLAB-27 gene. In 1985,
researchers
>found that to say that genetics causes psoriasis is to say
that
>genetics causes the common cold…or an infected sore. I
guess that in a
>very technical description, genetics is the cause of my
inability to
>breathe under water.
Consider this. If this is not a genetic flaw per se, but a
delicate survival selection of evolution for Insulin
Resistance under millions of years of conditions of relative
carbohydrate scarcity, during winters, ice ages, famine and
lack of agriculture and before people had Twinkies delivered
by Webvan , what would you engineer the HLAB-27 gene group
to become and what would you do with the genes that surround
this group that have also evolved to be in harmony with the
HLAB-27 gene group ? They have not even identified all the
genes, they do not understand the ones that they have
identified and they have not successfully altered any one
yet. Don't hold your breath on this one. Rather, try get
your diet as close as possible to what you were evolved to
handle, I would think. Given that psoriasis is probably
characterised by IR(insulin resistance), that diet would
probably best be determined by testing for IR, glucose
intolerance, cell glyation (H1ab), blood pressure, lipid
profile, the state of your carotid artery, and the degree of
retinopathy in your eyes.
Steve
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
DaveW
[Taking it out of order]
>One might think that the publication of such information would
>provoke nothing less than a revolution in medicine. However,
>obviously, this has not been the case.
>
>Some have considered the loss of profits from psoriasis patients as
>a factor.
What profits? Who's making a mint off psoriasis patients? As far as
I can tell, nobody but some 'alternative' folks have based their entire
business on products for psoriasis. The psoriasis 'market' has been
estimated to be upwards of $3 billion a year (highest figure I've seen).
Most pharmaceutical companies whose financial reports I've seen
claim in the neighborhood of $20 billion in income a year. Let's say
there are 20 companies making drugs useful in psoriasis, and they
each get an equal share of the $3 billion pie. That'd work out to
3/4ths of one percent of their gross incomes coming from us, the
psoriatics. Big whoop. A drop in the bucket.
Oh, maybe it's the *doctors* who would care. My overworked doc
would *love* it if he could cure me, since then he'd see less of me
and my incurable disease. It would take some of the burden off of
his packed waiting room.
>Nancy Crutcher, M.D., E. William Rosenberg, M.D., Patricia W.
>Belew, PhD, Robert B. Skineer, Jr., M.D., N. Fred Eaglstein,D.O. of
>the University of Tenessee Center for the Health Sciences, 956
>Court Ave. Room 3C13, Memphis, TN, and Sidney M. Baker, M.D.
>of New Have, Connecticut report on 4 cases of long term, bodily
>psoriasis (10-25 years) cured with oral nystatin within several
>months. Nystatin, a weak antifungal drug, primarily targets intestinal
>yeast.
Four cases, huh? Wow. How many patients did *not* clear?
>Robert B. Skionner, Jr., E. William Rosenberg, and Patricia W.
>Noah report results of studies that demonstrate that psoriasis of the
>palms is frequently associated with Candida. 7 out of 9 patients
>were cured or substantially improved after treatment with anti-fungal
>drugs.
This is also too low of a sample size to tell us much.
>There have also been numerous other studies published that have
>correlated dermatological diseases with Candida of the skin and
>gastrointestinal tract (too numerous to list - see references below).
There are also studies which show *no* correlation. Which ones are
correct?
>Dismukes, WE., Way, JS., Lee, JY., Dockery, B.K., Hain, J.D., A
>randomized double-blind trial of nystatin therapy for the candidiasis
>hypersensitivity syndrome. New England Journal of Medicine.
>323:1717-23, 1990.
This one is not directly about any sort of dermatitis. It's about
Nystatin and the so-called Candidiasis Hypersensitivity Syndrome.
By the way, before you go posting cites, you might want to read at
least the abstracts, first:
http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=2247104
I'll quote the conclusion of this one for you:
"In women with presumed candidiasis hypersensitivity
syndrome, nystatin does not reduce systemic or
psychological symptoms significantly more than
placebo. Consequently, the empirical recommendation
of long-term nystatin therapy for such women appears
to be unwarranted."
In short, Nystatin did *nothing* for the patients but eliminate the
vaginal yeast infections (as it should). It did *not* reduce the
fatigue, premenstrual tension, gastrointestinal symptoms, or
depression any better than placebos did. Note also that psoriasis
is not mentioned in the abstract.
>Morita E, Hide M, Yoneya Y, Kannbe M, Tanaka A, Yamamoto S
>An assessment of the role of Candida albicans antigen in atopic
>dermatitis. Journal of Dermatology 26:282-287, May 1999.
Atopic dermatitis isn't psoriasis. Psoriasis isn't mentioned
even once in the abstract:
http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=10380428
>Skinner, RB. Jr. Rosenberg, W. Noah, PW. Psoriasis of the palms
>and soles is frequently associated with oropharyngeal Candida
>albicans. Acta Dermatological Venereol Supplement. 186:149-150,
>1994.
No abstract available on MEDLINE, so we can't find out anything
about the methodology, or what "frequently" means, or anything
else without finding this article on paper. Have you read it?
>M buslau, Menzel I, Holzmann H. Fungal flora of the human faeces
>in psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. Mycoses. 33:2, 90-4, Feb. 1990.
This one again...
http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=2191222
So, yeasts were found in 68% of the psoriatics, as opposed to 54%
of the controls. Psoriatics are, then, 26% more likely to harbor
yeasts in their colons. Is there cause-and-effect here? For perhaps
2/3rds of psoriatics, but certainly not all of us. Beyond that,
"There was no correlation between the concentration levels of yeasts
in the faeces and the extent of psoriasis or atopic dermatitis."
Wouldn't you think the more yeast there was, the worse the disease
would be, if the yeasts *caused* psoriasis?
>Soyeur U. Kilic H. Alpan O. Anti-Candida antibody levels in
>psoriasis vulgaris. Cent. Afr. Journal of Medicaine. 36: 8, 190-2,
>Aug. 1990.
http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=2282648
It's pretty obvious you haven't read these. This study looked
for Candida antibodies in 39 psoriasis patients. 10 of them
had increased levels of antibodies, all others were within the
norms. No patient showed any sign of clinical candidiasis,
even though the yeast was found in the stool.
>Baker BS. Powles AV. Malkani AK. Altered call-medicated
>immunity to group A haemolytic atreptococcal antigens in chronic
>plaque psoriasis. British Journal of Dermatology. 125: 1, 38-42, Jul
>1991.
http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=1873200
Quoting from the abstract, "In addition, these patients did not
show significantly increased responses to any of the other antigens
tested," including Candida. Once again, had you read this abstract,
you wouldn't have cited it.
>el-Maghrabi EA. Dixon DM. Burnett JW. Characterization of
>Candida albicans epidermolytic proteases and their role in
>yeast-cell adherance to keratinocytes. Clinical Experimental
>Dermatology. 15: 3, 183-91, May 1990.
http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=2194713
This abstract says, in part, "A higher yeast-epidermal-cell
adherence for Candida was demonstrated on normal rather
than psoriatic epidermal cells..." So, yeast 'sticks' better
to *normal* skin cells than it does to psoriatic skin cells.
Doesn't support your theory much.
>Senff H. Bothe C. Busacker J. Reinel D. Studies on the yeast flora
>in patients suffering from psoriasis capillitii or seborrheic dermatitis
>of the scalp. Mycoses. 33:1, 29-32, Jan 1990.
http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=2140431
The biggest problem with this study was that they mixed two
diseases, scalp psoriasis and seborrheic dermatitis, together
in coming up with their conclusion. Beyond that, even if we
assume that scalp psoriasis is caused by yeasts, can we
extrapolate that to mean that *all* psoriasis is caused by
yeasts? No.
>Orkin VF. [The characteristics of the clinical picture of candidiasis
>of the skin and mucous membranes in patients with chronic
>dermatosis] - Russian. Vrach Delo. 5, 78-80, May 1992.
Seen this one before, too:
http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=1441419
Again, we've got a mixing of diseases. 9% of patients with
eczema, atopic dermatitis, or psoriasis showed "torpid,
atypical manifestations of candidosis." This 9% figure is
the 'worst' yet to show that psoriasis is caused by Candida.
The conclusion of this abstract says, basically, that when
diagnosing psoriasis, doctors should get the proper tests
done to find out if a yeast infection is present. You, on
the other hand, would have us all assume that one exists.
>McKay M. Vulvar dermatoses: common problems in dermatological
>and gynecological practice. British Journal of Clinical Pract. Sym.
>Supplement. 71: 5-10, Sep 1990.
http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=2091734
This one says that the most common dermatoses of the vagina
and genital area are similar-looking. But the author
specifically categorizes psoriasis and Candida infections
separately. There is nothing here that leads me to believe
that McKay believes that Candida infections cause psoriasis.
>Noah PW. The role of microorganisms in psoriasis. Semin
>Dermatology. 9:4, 269-76, Dec 1990.
http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=2285571
The abstract doesn't say much. "Associated organisms thought to
provoke a psoriatic attack were as follows:" and then the author
lists *38* microorganisms. Yes, Candida is one of them, but
this just shows that Candida is certainly not a *universal*
trigger for psoriasis. Neither are yeasts, as the majority of the
bugs listed seem to me to be bacteria.
>Haneke E. Fungal infections of the nail. Semin Dermatology. 10: 1,
>41-53, Mar 1991.
http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=2018719
Yes, Candida can infect the nails. So what? Oh, there *is* a
mention of psoriasis in this abstract, "Clinically, [fungal
infections of the nails] have to be differentiated from
noninfectious onychodystrophy, nail psoriasis, lichen planus
unguium, and chronic nail eczema." Nail psoriasis is a *non-
infection* according to this.
>Rosenberg, EW. Noah PW. Skinner RB. Microorganisms and
>psoriasis. Journal of the National Medical Association. 86:4,
>305-10, Apr 1994.
http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=8040907
"This article lists the most commonly found microorganisms
in psoriasis patients and describes the usual treatment for
each." In other words, Candida is not the only thing that
these people look for. They also seem to specifically
avoid using any word other than the generic "microbe," which
implies that it isn't just fungus, either.
>Meinhof W. [Intestinal colonization with Candida albicans and its
>effect on chronic inflammatory dermatoses]-German. Hautarzt. 46:8,
>525-7, Aug 1995.
No abstract available. Have you read this study? What,
specifically, does it say?
>Buslau L. Hanel M. Holzmann H. The significance of yeasts in
>seborrheic eczemna. Hautarzt. 40(10):611-3, Oct. 1989. - German
http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=2533189
Since "Similar findings have been recorded in the
seborrheic forms of psoriasis," this study is somewhat relevant.
But again, it mentions some specific forms of psoriasis, and is
not supportive of any claim that all psoriasis is caused by
intestinal yeasts.
>Henseler T. [Mucocutaneous candidiasis in patients with skin
>diseases] - German. Mycoses. 38 Supplement 1:7-13, 1995.
Seen this one before, too:
http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=7630373
It says, in part, "In addition, patients with erysipelas,
acne, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis showed a candidosis
significantly more often (RR between 1.3 and 1.6)." In other
words, if you've got psoriasis, you are 30 to 60% more likely
to get a Candida infection than the general population. This
fits in kinda well with the 26% figure from one of the
abstracts above.
>Kemeny L. Ruzicka T. Dobozy A. Michel G. Role of interleukin-8
>receptor in skin. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology.
>104: 4, 317-22, Aug 1994.
http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=8038609
Says, in part, "in addition to its potent actions on
leukocytes, IL-8 exerts a direct influence on several
functions of human epidermal cells such as chemotaxis,
Candida albicans killing activity or proliferation."
It also mentions an at-then new-found role for IL-8 in
psoriasis. This study is irrelevant. It makes no
causal connection at all between psoriasis and Candida.
>Squiquera L. Galimberti R. Morelli L. Plotkin L. Milicich R.
>Kowalckzuk A. Leoni J. Antibodies to proteins from Pityrosporum
>ovale in the sera from patients with psoriasis. Clinical Experimental
>Dermatology. 19: 4, 289-93, Jul 1994.
http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=7955467
This abstract concludes, "The role of the immune response
in infection by P. ovale has not yet been fully explored."
Very good. Other than that, the sample size is pretty
small, the figures show that it's not universal, and there's
no real talk of cause-and-effect.
>Oranje AP. Dzoljic-Danilovic G. Michel MF. Aarsen RS. van Joost,
>T. [Is juvenile seborrheic dermatitis a candidiasis? Studies of a
>possible link with microbial infections.] - German Tijdschrift voor
>Kindergeneeskunde. 55(3):87-92, Jul 1987.
http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=2956727
This study is completely irrelevant. It looks at
infantile seborrheic dermatitis, "a disease
occurring in the first months of life."
>Calvo Romero JM, Alvarez Vega JL, Salazar Vallinas JM, Ortega
>Alberdi R Candida arthritis in an immunocompetent patient without
>predisposing factors. Clinical Rheumatology. 17(5):393-4, 1998.
http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=9805185
The authors believe that they are describing the first
case of knee arthritis caused by Candida infection.
How does this support your theory?
>Saltarelli, Cora G. Candida albicans: The Pathogenic Fungus.
>Hemisphere Publishing Company: Philadelphia, 1989.
>
>Segal, Esther; Baum, Gerald L. Pathogenic Yeasts and Yeast
>Infections. CRC Press: Ann Arbor, 1994.
I haven't read these books, and can't find blurbs of them
on the Web. Have you read them? Can you quote the specifics
of how fungi cause psoriasis?
Have you read the following?
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/candida.html
Overall, what you've shown us is very little evidence
to support your claims that psoriasis is caused by
yeast infections. There's quite a bit of correlation,
but almost no cause-and-effect. The biology of psoriasis
may very well make the human body a more hospitable place
for yeasts, which may then, in turn, exacerbate the
psoriasis.
Again, plenty of people have tried, and failed, to
treat their psoriasis with antifungals.
>P.S. What would the world be like without dissenters and
>disbeliveers?
Pretty dull. Of course, reading abstracts is pretty
dull, too, especially when a lot of them are irrelevant
or *contrary* to the proposition being put forward. I
wish you'd read them before posting them all.
- Dave W.
ric...@hotmail.com
WOW!!! I hope you have some time left over for your kids...
Harry the Skinflint
alphabet for bad literature. Alot of things are going to come about as far as
parsing every snippet of every protein made in a cell eventually. The script
that governs that is in the DNA (also in the DNA of mitochondria within a cell,
or chloroplast if your are Al Gore). Relax, there is sufficient complexity to
keep us wondering for a long time and just like the bible, being able to read
doesn't always correlate to understanding, there are multiple levels of coding
and interaction, so relax, the puzzle is still unsolved and the human genome
project is merely the first chiseling toward a new ( oh gawd I feel like I am
quoting a RUSH song here like Limelight or somthing
shoot me please, with a big edefunt gun
Happy to be Alive
Harry the Skinflint
insulin makes intuitive sense, but have you ever looked at how many loops (plus
and minus) are in the system that makes a 747 land without a pilot? Hell, I
don't blame him, if I thought I could write an oversimplifying overgeneralizing
bestseller and not vomit everytime I shaved I would do it too, I am not an
idiot, slow maybe. Genetics is THE most promising avenue to aleviating the
woes of mankind, maybe there is a gene that makes us want to stop reproducing
like cats and ditching our kids too. The idea is that we are now "in the loop"
though, and as we discover things we have the opportunity to modify based on
new knowlege. If mankind is damned then I doubt if our futile attempts to
stifle self knowlege will do much for our future. I for one fully support the
use of psoriatic tissue anywhere someone wants to use it. Oh, and yes, there
are many pathways to knowlege, even for a facultative anaerobe like myself.
PS: WE HAVE ASSUMED CONTROL, THE BLACK HOLE CYGNUS X1 WILL NOW DIRECT YOU ON
HOW TO LIVE SO THAT YOUR DNA WILL DICTATE BEHAVIOUR THAT WILL GENERATE A BLACK
HOLE USING YOUR HIGH FALUTING ANALOG COMPUTERS THAT ONCE SAID "LET THERE BE
LIGHT"
-- Keith Partridge/aka Harri Seldon
Happy to be Alive
Ed Anderson
> do it for free. http://genetics.psoriasis.org/credits.html Yes the
> very same newsgroup warrior that pisses on everything not NPF
> sanctioned. Well now you all know why!
>
> here! That's right!
Since I indirectly triggered this flare, I suppose I should attempt to
ease the irritation, and explain what's happening for new arrivals.
It's pretty clear that Joyce Tucker and Rick Yeager get their
misinformation from the same source, namely Ken Kessler. Ken has a
prominent place in my own Psoriasis Hall of PShame web page (which is
completely unrelated to the NPF except that I mention his abuse of their
trademarked name):
http://www.pinch.com/skin/pshame.htm#kessler
Rick contacted me when he was about to roll out his web site, and recited
much of his littany. I replied with the facts as I see them. At the same
time, he submitted his site to dmoz.org for review. When I checked his
site, I was surprised to find my private email displayed there, titled as
if it were a statement from the NPF. I politely requested that he take it
down, explained that I had no connection to the NPF except that I support
their mission and occasionally volunteer. I also explained why posting
private email is a breach of netiquette. I had to do that twice. Later I
discovered that Rick had been messing with the security at the NPF site,
trying to gain access to a private forum using a forged name. I sent off a
complaint to his ISP (a throwaway account.)
Despite the affronts and hacking attempt, I gave his web site a brief
neutral review:
http://www.geocities.com/psorarth/
Rick's Psoriatic Arthritis treatment - Info and testimonials about
using a systemic antifungal as an alternative treatment for psoriasis
(requires a doctor's supervision).
I know that Rick is *trying* to help others, and I feel he has simply been
misled by Ken Kessler. Rick isn't selling secrets.
Rick, you have to understand that there are constructive ways of raising
awareness, and then there are the methods that you, Joyce, and Ken are
using. I'm really surprised at the lies and personal attacks that keep
coming my way on this, since I've stated more than once that I've read
many of the full reports on microorganisms as a basis for psoriasis and
that I'm intrigued by them. I've defended the theory, and tried to
dissociate it from the charletans who are simply out for a quick buck.
(That's unfortunately getting harder to do since the published researchers
who were the main proponents now appear to be staking a claim with
patents for Skin-Cap clones and a partenership with Andy Kanter.)
If you could read my review of Kessler's promotion without being defensive
about what you obviously see as an invalidation of your personal
salvation, you would see that it's a complaint about the marketing
method, not the treatment itself.
Nowhere on Kessler's site does he mention anything about antifungal
treatments or nystatin. He promised me over the phone that he would
correct that, but he never did. He sells his "information" with the same
methods he uses to sell his booklets claiming that "lotteries aren't
random". It's impossible for anyone to make an informed decision about the
treatment, because there's no clue as to what it is.
I mentioned your name because you provide a testimonial on his site, and
you have your own web site that explains the treatment. My point was that
Kessler will never link back to your site, or his "patent", or any details
that might give away the secret. That's what makes it a scam. When you
testify that he's "an anointed blessing from heaven", it not only sets up
more people to be suckered in by the scam, but it damages your own
credibility with anyone who knows Kessler's history.
The major fault with your own claims is that you think you can be more
convincing by claiming that because it worked for you, this is the one and
only sure fire cure. As long as you keep making it out to be more than it
is, you'll never be taken seriously.
Even the kooks who sell black salve escharotics that dissolve the skin as
a cure for cancer have a better pitch than you do. One thing you have in
common is that you both claim great conspiracies that have supressed your
method. I say it's that the claims are so outrageous, that nobody can take
them seriously, even those who are potential allies.
You said, "It is so easy. So simple. There is no need to fight and
slander anyone about it. But why kill the messenger?"
Don't you see that you, Joyce, and Ken are the ones making wild, unfounded
accusations here? You seem to think that I'm somehow suppressing this
topical nystatin regimen and you're attacking on that basis rather than
working towards substantiation of your claims.
If you could take off your blinders for a minute, you'd see that I'm one
of the few people who has made an attempt to freely explain the regimen in
detail, both here and on the web. I provide research links, unbiased
testimonials, and references to common forms of the medicine for anyone
who cares to explore it on their own. I believe that the solution to
desperation is to be informed, and that a healthy skepticism will keep one
from being a sucker for unrealistic claims. You say we have nothing to
lose, but in fact there can be great psychological damage done by raising
false hopes. The purpose of this group and my site are to help people take
control of their condition by getting informed about all their options.
(OK, and support, too.)
You say you've been scammed before by doctors an their high priced creams.
Perhaps if you had taken that constructive approach earlier on, you might
not be lashing out in revenge now.
I am dumbfounded that anyone would attempt to throw a monkey wrench into
what I consder to be a spectacularly noble effort by the NPF to bring
together diverse researchers for the purpose of sharing ideas about the
cause of psoriasis. The delicate diplomatic nature of the forum was
explained to you, and you have now decided to launch a public attack. This
isn't the world trade council. This is a lay organization that depends on
the support of all of us with this disease. If you believe in educating
doctors, new patients, and the public as most of us in this group do, then
you should be supporting the NPF any way you could. I do what I can, and
I'm embarassed that I don't do more. I could be organizing local support
group meetings, but I can't seem to organize my own time. (Maybe I waste
too much of it responding to dreck like this.)
If I were really dedicated, I could volunteer just a fraction of the time
and effort that Ed Reiss devotes to the NPF. In case you didn't know, he
created their web site as a volunteer effort. He is not paid at all by the
NPF. Just the opposite in fact. Your accusations against Ed/R and the NPF
are pure libel.
You seem to fear "removal". If this weren't just a virtual community, I
suspect you *would have* been visited by a lynch mob by now rather than
our patient explanations of your "misconceptions". Please don't forget
that we are real people that you're insulting and accusing. I personally
don't like being characterized as the Scrooge who's crippling Tiny Tim and
selling T-Shirts to advertise it. [Must.. not.. respond.. in.. kind..arrr]
It's already been explained by Will and Dave, but let me make one more
attempt to clarify the value of pure research. Research into the genetics
of diseases is a way of identifying the specific causes of the disease.
Once the cause has been pinpointed with some confidence, it opens up many
possibilities for intervening. In the case of psoriasis it probably means
interrupting the cycle of inflammation. Kim mentioned the multifactorial
nature of psoriasis in her notes from a recent NPF symposium on the East
coast. Here in San Francisco, I attended a similar presentation. Doctor AM
cited research into the influence on psoriasis of genes on 8 specific
chromosomes (1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 16, 17, and 20). Three of those (6, 17, and
20) have been confirmed by multiple research groups. More have been
announced since then. These multiple independent factors give an idea of
why the symptoms and treatment can be so elusive, and provide a basis for
the common knowledge that "What works for one person does nothing for the
next". Some of the genetics research, as Dave pointed out, gets very
specific. What was generally considered the influence of the HLA-Cw6
(white blood cell antibody encoding on chromosome 6) may have recently
been more accurately targeted as a nearby "S" gene (S for skin) that
encodes a specific protein required for normal skin adhesion and shedding.
This kind of genetics research is just getting started. There is bound to
be an explosion of new findings in the next few years, similar to the
recent computer and internet revolution.
Forget any paranoia of losing your soul by having your genes modified or
cloned. You're as likely to lose it by having your picture taken. We've
got much simpler ethical problems to deal with in this newsgroup.
Please quit spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) and stale
conspiracy theories. Tiny Tim will not die horribly in a few months if we
don't accept your "cure" for psoriasis, or send all our money to Ken
Kessler. The information is freely available, and many of us have already
tried it. If you'd like to see some of my previous comments on the topic,
follow this link:
http://www.pinch.com/skinny?deja=~a+...@pinch.com,(nystatin|microorg*)
You can believe all you hear from Kessler, but please don't try to
convince those of us who've heard it before. We're not so easily duped.
Please don't dump any more self-evident abstracts and citations in the
newsgroup. We get enough of that already.
-- Ed "wishing for a more constructive new year" Anderson
ric...@hotmail.com
How nice of you to drop by your eminence. I was worried that you were
avoiding me or something. Little did I know you were writing a novel.
And all for little ole me? I’m flattered. No really.
You know us dumb country folk out here in Oklahoma just don’t get out
to the big city enough. All that book learning you city people do.
Using them big 50 cent words and all. I reckin a high stepper like you
make a pretty good living turning sheep around.
I was wondering how regular folk could up and get an NPF link to buy
books at the bottom of their posts? No big deal or anything. I was
just curious because I want to do it. I think the NPF could use a guy
like me :)
Sincerely,
Rosa Parks
P.S. Did I mention I took Oral Nystatin 10ml four times a day for two
months and am healthier than I have been in twenty years? Psoriatic
Arthritis is a thing of the past.
Ken Kessler (formaly not associated with the National Psoriasis
Foundation)
http://www.psoriasis-remission.com
eve...@rocketmail.com
harr...@aol.comNoCrap (Harry the Skinflint) wrote:
> Hey, I think the Atkins "resetting the set point" in feedback loops
involving
> insulin makes intuitive sense, but have you ever looked at how many
loops (plus
> and minus) are in the system that makes a 747 land without a pilot?
I probably am misunderstanding , but Harry the Skinflint aka. Doug the
Ris Ant, has just shown more understanding than a pack of pundits in a
big word contest.
Steve.
Will Wachtel
>Rick Yeager wrote:
(long snip)
>>P.S. What would the world be like without
>>dissenters and disbeliveers?
>Pretty dull. Of course, reading abstracts is
>pretty dull, too, especially when a lot of them
>are irrelevant or *contrary* to the proposition
>being put forward. I wish you'd read them
>before posting them all.
Sorta reminds me of being in college and having an essay mid-term or
final in a class where my grasp of the material was tenuous, so I'd take
a blue-book and slap it full with as much great-sounding prose I could
generate supported by with whatever subject matter I could dredge up to
support my contention and hope enough of it would stick to get a passing
grade!
Nobody else here used that technique, eh??? :^)
Will W.
Andy Kanter
Ed Anderson wrote:
> ...since I've stated more than once that I've read
> many of the full reports on microorganisms as a basis for psoriasis and
> that I'm intrigued by them. I've defended the theory, and tried to
> dissociate it from the charletans who are simply out for a quick buck.
> (That's unfortunately getting harder to do since the published researchers
> who were the main proponents now appear to be staking a claim with
> patents for Skin-Cap clones and a partenership with Andy Kanter.)
Ed, what exactly does this mean? What convoluted
sense of logic did you use to connect the context of
this thread with me?
Please, tell us more about what you think you know.
I'll be glad to correct any misconceptions you have.
Andy Kanter
DaveW
>WOW!!! I hope you have some time left over for your kids...
Hmmm. How should I take this? "Thanks for the input," or "I don't
give a hoot?"
- Dave W.
Joyce
>
>
>Rick, you have said it all..and so eloquently.
All you Deja Dissenters out there..Read Rick's website at
http://www.geocities.com/psorarth/treatment.html. and get really
educated instead of spending all your time harping on other's successes.
--
Joyce Tucker
Ed Anderson
> Ed Anderson wrote:
>> ...since I've stated more than once that I've read
>> many of the full reports on microorganisms as a basis for psoriasis and
>> that I'm intrigued by them. I've defended the theory, and tried to
>> dissociate it from the charletans who are simply out for a quick buck.
>> (That's unfortunately getting harder to do since the published researchers
>> who were the main proponents now appear to be staking a claim with
>> patents for Skin-Cap clones and a partenership with Andy Kanter.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Heyy, I'ma gunna hafta rebate yore fifty cents fer thet one, partener.
> Ed, what exactly does this mean? What convoluted
> sense of logic did you use to connect the context of
> this thread with me?
Dr EW Rosenberg has been repeatedly cited as "proof" for this nystatin
"cure". He also has appeared recently in the context of Skin-Cap clones:
http://www.pinch.com/skin/scfaq.html#patents
(See the second paragraph and be sure to follow all the links.)
> Please, tell us more about what you think you know.
The Skin-Cap clone product you've been promoting as your own development
(since you quit pushing Skin-Cap) has obviously been developed by these
same doctors, who assigned the rights to Panda Pharmaceuticals.
Do you have any financial interest in Panda Pharmaceuticals?
Panda has a new patent for isopropyl myristate as an active ingredient,
either alone or in combination with any number of named compounds. It
undoubtedly spells out the precise formula of your At Last spray in the
preferred embodiment section. Here's a partial quote from another section:
Summary of the Invention:
A pharmaceutical composition for use in the treatment of psoriasis
comprising (a) 0.0001 to 30 weight percent of an anti-psoriatic agent
selected from the group consisting of hydrocortisone, other
corticosteroids, calcipotriol, retinoids, tar, sulfur,
*imidazoles*,
salicylic acid, 4-aminosalicylic acid, 5-aminosalicylic acid, zinc
pyrithione, anthralin and its derivatives, ammoniated mercury,
allantoin, menthol, phenol, undecylenate compounds, spermidine,
spermine, putrescine,
*5-amino or substituted amino 1,2,3-triazoles*,
halomethyl derivatives of a-amino acids, phenyl alpha-acyloxyacetamides,
resorcin, eosin, and mixtures thereof and
(b) 15 to 97 weight percent isopropyl myristate...
Basically, anything they could think of, including mercury compounds. Note
that these same doctors who supposedly have an antibiotic "cure" don't
mention nystatin at all. They mention more modern imidazole (like
ketoconazole) and the triazole (like fluconazole) families of antifungal
compounds.
Apparently these clinicians don't consider nystatin to be in the running
among antipsoriatic or antifungal compounds. That refutes the claims made
by Kessler and his, uh, advocates, including their conspiracy claims. It's
unlikely that they were somehow pressured into suppressing nystatin as a
possible ingredient in their patent claims.
These doctors appear to be following the money, apparently *your* money
since you seem to be the only current distributor of At Last spray.
> I'll be glad to correct any misconceptions you have.
Right. I can't recall a single instance where you've actually corrected
any of my "misconceptions". Spin away.
The FDA regulations and pharmacy associations code of ethics are very
clear about the promotion of compounded products rather than compounding
services. It's an end run around safety testing required for prescription
product approval. Your dimissal of the question because you don't agree
certainly does nothing to correct any "misconceptions". Is the Medistat
pharmacy on your click-and-print prescription form related in any way to
Panda Pharmaceuticals just a few blocks away?
http://www.clearskin.com/atlast/prescriptionforms.html
The patent also says, "Some patients had complained of stinging, burning
and dryness..." with the product when used without steroids. Why aren't
there any warnings about that on your www.clearskin.com website?
I see that you've added warnings about the use of superpotent steroids.
Thanks for doing that. You may be saving someone the grief you went
through. In addition to the entire fine print in the scare sheet, it would
be even more helpful to know what the *likely* side effects are when used
topically with enhanced skin penetrants. I believe you mentioned your own
permanent skin damage. That would be a good start.
-- Ed "Next in line?" Anderson
http://www.cheap-cds.com/surf/play/32627ab.mp3 (Step Right Up - Tom Waits)
My interpretation of the group policy on promotion is at:
http://www.pinch.com/skin/guide.html#promotion
DaveW
>All you Deja Dissenters out there..Read Rick's website at
>http://www.geocities.com/psorarth/treatment.html. and get really
>educated instead of spending all your time harping on other's
>successes.
There's little education to be found at that site. Claims that yeasts
cause psoriasis are a dime a dozen. Rick's source material, when
you read it (at least the abstracts), does not support the theory, and
in fact contradicts it at times. Rick's claim that "Nystatin is an
anti-fungal medication discovered to force psoriasis into remission"
is untrue.
- Dave W.
ric...@hotmail.com
I’d like to introduce to you a man named ED
A poor mountaineer barely kept his family fed
Then one day while scratching his head
He noticed he had white flakes in his bed
Dermatology Gold that is…Psoriasis
Next thing ya know ole Ed’s a millionaire
Some folks said “You ought to move away from here,”
“The NPF is the place ya ought to be!”
So he loaded up the truck and he moved to Beverly
Hills that is…swimming pools…dolphins
Are old friend Ed is now big head honcho
Of the NPF’s genetic cure joko
Get your DNA treated today
And we’ll give you an Ed shirt right away
The Man…the mascot
These days Ed has a responsibility
To turn back sheep with much veracity
If he loses one he is going to dread
Going in to work and bowing his head
Everyone at the Dermatology Clinic says:
“You all come back now ya hear!”
Ken Kessler remission is only a click away
http://www.psoriasis-remission.com
Andy Kanter
DaveW wrote:
I'd go with the "Thanks for the input" option.
Andy Kanter
Andy Kanter
Ed Anderson wrote:
> Andy Kanter <ultr...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > Ed Anderson wrote:
> >> ...since I've stated more than once that I've read
> >> many of the full reports on microorganisms as a basis for psoriasis and
> >> that I'm intrigued by them. I've defended the theory, and tried to
> >> dissociate it from the charletans who are simply out for a quick buck.
> >> (That's unfortunately getting harder to do since the published researchers
> >> who were the main proponents now appear to be staking a claim with
> >> patents for Skin-Cap clones and a partenership with Andy Kanter.)
>
> > Ed, what exactly does this mean? What convoluted
> > sense of logic did you use to connect the context of
> > this thread with me?
>
> Dr EW Rosenberg has been repeatedly cited as "proof" for this nystatin
> "cure". He also has appeared recently in the context of Skin-Cap clones:
>
> http://www.pinch.com/skin/scfaq.html#patents
>
> (See the second paragraph and be sure to follow all the links.)
...but you didn't answer the question. What does
this thread have to do with me? Dr. Rosenberg is
a noted researcher. Why is it so difficult for you to
imagine that his work takes him into different areas
or research?
You have made a valiant effort to connect me with
Kessler. I am quite certain that you know, and
knew before you wrote, that there is no connection.
I leave it to others to interpret your clear and
continued attempt at character assassination.
> > Please, tell us more about what you think you know.
>
> The Skin-Cap clone product you've been promoting as your own development
More inaccuracies. I have never suggested that
I developed At Last Spray. How did you come
up with this one? The brochure clearly states
that Ultranet Pharmaceuticals is the wholesale
distributor. We have never made any other
claim. I guess reporting accurately still doesn't
matter to you.
> ...has obviously been developed by these
> same doctors, who assigned the rights to Panda Pharmaceuticals.
Well, you almost have this one right. I know, I
know, almost being correct has always been
good enough for you. Why quibble over the
facts, right?
> Do you have any financial interest in Panda Pharmaceuticals?
It's a bit late to ask, don't you think? Most
reporters get their facts first and then write. I
guess your version of "gotcha" journalism doesn't
require that.
> Panda has a new patent for isopropyl myristate as an active ingredient,
> either alone or in combination with any number of named compounds. It
> undoubtedly spells out the precise formula of your At Last spray in the
> preferred embodiment section. Here's a partial quote from another section:
>
> Summary of the Invention:
> A pharmaceutical composition for use in the treatment of psoriasis
> comprising (a) 0.0001 to 30 weight percent of an anti-psoriatic agent
> selected from the group consisting of hydrocortisone, other
> corticosteroids, calcipotriol, retinoids, tar, sulfur,
> *imidazoles*,
> salicylic acid, 4-aminosalicylic acid, 5-aminosalicylic acid, zinc
> pyrithione, anthralin and its derivatives, ammoniated mercury,
> allantoin, menthol, phenol, undecylenate compounds, spermidine,
> spermine, putrescine,
> *5-amino or substituted amino 1,2,3-triazoles*,
> halomethyl derivatives of a-amino acids, phenyl alpha-acyloxyacetamides,
> resorcin, eosin, and mixtures thereof and
> (b) 15 to 97 weight percent isopropyl myristate...
>
> Basically, anything they could think of,
Standard patent application strategy.
> including mercury compounds. Note
> that these same doctors who supposedly have an antibiotic "cure" don't
> mention nystatin at all. They mention more modern imidazole (like
> ketoconazole) and the triazole (like fluconazole) families of antifungal
> compounds.
My understanding, and you really should confirm
it directly with Dr. Rosenberg, is that he investigated
nystatin as a treatment and has since moved on to
other research.
> Apparently these clinicians don't consider nystatin to be in the running
> among antipsoriatic or antifungal compounds. That refutes the claims made
> by Kessler and his, uh, advocates, including their conspiracy claims. It's
> unlikely that they were somehow pressured into suppressing nystatin as a
> possible ingredient in their patent claims.
Makes sense, but again, how is this related to me?
> These doctors appear to be following the money, apparently *your* money
> since you seem to be the only current distributor of At Last spray.
I don't particularly care for your implication here, but
as you know, research costs money. Yes Ed, money
must be earned before it can be available for research.
> > I'll be glad to correct any misconceptions you have.
>
> Right. I can't recall a single instance where you've actually corrected
> any of my "misconceptions". Spin away.
Well, you have certainly never allowed the facts
to stand in the way of your conclusions when it
has had to do with me or any of my companies.
> The FDA regulations and pharmacy associations code of ethics are very
> clear about the promotion of compounded products rather than compounding
> services. It's an end run around safety testing required for prescription
> product approval. Your dimissal of the question because you don't agree
> certainly does nothing to correct any "misconceptions".
What I have said, and I will say it again, is that I
don't agree with *your* interpretation of the
regulation. Let me make this very clear to you, I
don't disagree with the regulation, I disagree with
*your* suggestion that we in any way violate it.
> Is the Medistat
> pharmacy on your click-and-print prescription form related in any way to
> Panda Pharmaceuticals just a few blocks away?
>
> http://www.clearskin.com/atlast/prescriptionforms.html
No.
> The patent also says, "Some patients had complained of stinging, burning
> and dryness..." with the product when used without steroids. Why aren't
> there any warnings about that on your www.clearskin.com website?
We haven't received any such complaints. Our
sales are almost entirely to pharmacies for
compounding. The few customers that regularly
use the non-prescription version obviously
haven't experienced these problems.
> I see that you've added warnings about the use of superpotent steroids.
> Thanks for doing that.
Your such a phony, Ed. You know from our private
email that these warnings have been there for almost
as long as the site has been up. There's no news here.
> You may be saving someone the grief you went
> through.
Hopefully.
> In addition to the entire fine print in the scare sheet, it would
> be even more helpful to know what the *likely* side effects are when used
> topically with enhanced skin penetrants.
As you know, when side effects do occur they are
not uniform. Which *likely* side effects shall I
highlight? The ones that effected you, the ones that
effected me or the ones that effected someone else?
> I believe you mentioned your own
> permanent skin damage.
The judgment on permanence is still out, but
thanks so much for your heartfelt concern.
> That would be a good start.
This has been nothing more than another one
of your attempts at character assassination.
Your continued obsession with all things SC
just doesn't seem healthy.
Andy Kanter
Will Wachtel
>All you Deja Dissenters out there..Read Rick's
>website at
>http://www.geocities.com/psorarth/treatment.ht>ml. and get really
educated instead of
>spending all your time harping on other's
>successes.
Yeah, why would we want to spend all our time harping on each other's
successes when we could get "really educated"? Nothing is being
"pedaled" there, right????
Thanks for your post, Joyce. You must have recovered quickly from being
"terrorized"!
Will W.
DaveW
I'd like to, I really would. However, with Rick's performance of late,
I can't tell for sure. Perhaps after the holidays, he'll use the stuff I
gave him and make a more relevant list of references on his Web
site.
- Dave W.
ric...@hotmail.com
THE NATIONAL PSORIASIS FOUNDATION
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
FROM: Ed Anderson
TO: All NPF Dermatology Clinic Retention Reps
DATE: 12/31/99
CC: Ed Reese
RE: 1999 - Year End Retention Awards
________________________________________________________________________
First I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you for a
great year! The numbers for 1999 have far and away exceeded my
expectations. Dermatology Clinics around the country are jam packed
with patients who sincerely believe that their condition is incurable.
In addition, the internet vermin that have stolen research findings
done in the mid 80s and attempted to start dismantling our Consortium,
have been no match against my superior team of Dermatology Clinic
Retention Reps.
As difficult as this was for me to choose which one would hold the
title for Rep of the Year, I am proud to say that this past week I
found him. A rep which has gone far beyond the call of duty. Putting
his family last and spending endless hours of overtime in the office
nailing our National Psoriasis Foundation name to the tip of every
psoriatic’s tongue.
I give you Dave White everyone!
This young man is going places. His onslaught on Kessler and Yeager
has shown me that this guy has got what it takes to crush every
psoriatic’s hope of remission and keep them in the clinics. Keep them
itching Dave!
We all need to start looking toward the future and the upcoming launch
of the new genetic cure. The boys down in the lab assure me that the
recent mishaps are a thing of the past. Don’t forget that we will be
changing your preformatted data sheets to reflect the new treatment.
Please continue to mercilessly crush anyone on the newsgroup who
attempts to make a mockery of our new cure. As noted by Ed Reese, PC
support, someone has been attempting to break into the genetics web
site. I don’t have to tell any of you what could happen if that
information were to get out. If those damn internet freaks get a hold
of our unfortunate accidents in our high tech research labs. Well, we
could all be out of a job. So do what you can to confuse the public
and keep them on standard clinic regimens for now. Once the Genetic
treatment is introduced to all of the Dermatology Clinics, expect there
to be an enormous outcry from the psoriatic community. The pricing
information I received from Glaxo today shows the average patient
paying around $10,000. You all will have your work cut out for you.
On a lighter note, this is a great time to be a part of the Consortium
and your employment is very secure. The major drug companies and
Dermatology Clinics report that they will continue to keep our
department on the front lines, I am happy to say.
Everyone is invited over to my Beverly Hills Ranch for the party after
work today. I will be serving the usual prime rib and lobster and I
taught the dolphins a new trick that you just have to see. Don’t
worry, I promise to let each and everyone of you kneel and kiss my NPF
ring.
Keep up the great work and thanks for a hell of a 1999,
Ed Anderson
Ken Kessler remission is just a click away
Kim Malo
>
> INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
> FROM: The evil NG Cabal
> TO: Everyone on the ng whether they want it or not
> DATE: 12/31/99
> CC: Yeah, yeah, like we're going to say. Not to mention the BCC list
> RE: 1999 into 2000 war plans
> ________________________________________________________________________
So how long are we going to keep letting that Rickokc person
keep on posting his wit and wisdom before we pull the plug? We
told him this is an unmoderated, free forum where no one can
actually get him kicked off, but of course those of us in the
evil ng cabal really know better, don't we (heh, heh, heh)?
If we do it today, we can pretend that it's a Y2K problem rather
than us evil empire types in action. And do we go for the simple
kick off the ng or do we go for the full blow up his PC version...
-Mein Furh -er, make that whaddaya all think?. Of course if we let
him go on so that he'll ^%*&^%(*&)(*&GH()LL*&)*&)(*&RFFY
(use your secret docoder rings, setting 4U) instead...
Joyce
________________________________________________________________________
>
> What? You don't like receiving what this group has been dishing out?
Shame on you! I thought for sure that this type of response was the
food that made you more psoriatic, fatter, leaner, better than all the
people who would dare set foot into your lion's den. Why don't you take
it like the miserable men and women you are? Oh, I guess I forgot..you
really do like your disease and you don't want anyone telling you how to
get rid of it.
Even that person who tried it and failed? It couldn't be psoriasis.
Everybody who uses our 'treatment' recovers.
This was a masterful piece. Read it carefully. It reflects exactly the
opinions of others who have found not only relief, calm, and peace
through alternate treatments not associated with cortizone, but a sense
of sharing it with the likes of this newsgroup.
Enjoy your miserable diseases all through the New Millennium, you
miserable bunch of idiots.
Signing off forever in the New Year,
--
Joyce Tucker
Will Wachtel
I'll post this on the chance you're lurking or that Rick will tell you
about it.
Joyce Tucker (jhten...@my-deja.com) wrote:
>>What? You don't like receiving what this
>>group has been dishing out?
Joyce, if this was posted on this NG, who said it? You have not
attributed this quote to the author and I have searched this thread and
the Deja archives for it without finding out who said this. Did this
come from your private e-mail? If it did, it is not appropriate to post
it here and your response should be sent privately to that person.
>Shame on you! I thought for sure that this type
>of response was the food that made you more
>psoriatic, fatter, leaner, better than all the
>people who would dare set foot into your lion's
>den.
Huh?
>Why don't you take it like the miserable men
>and women you are?
Thank you for offering us your judgment that we are miserable. Still
haven't bought that copy of Dale Carnegie's "How To Win Friends And
Influence People"? I'm sure Amazon or Borders carries it and you can go
through http:/www.jhj.com/pbooks/ to buy it and help the NPF when you
do.
>Oh, I guess I forgot..you really do like your
>disease and you don't want anyone telling you
>how to get rid of it.
Speaking for myself, I don't mind someone telling me what worked for
them, as long as they're not obnoxious about it and don't falsely claim
to have the cure.
>Even that person who tried it and failed? It
>couldn't be psoriasis. Everybody who uses our
>'treatment' recovers.
That's a very clever rationale: if the treatment didn't work, then the
patient didn't have the disease! Too bad the medical community can't use
that kind of logic.
>This was a masterful piece. Read it carefully.
What was a masterful piece? This thread has 6 different titles in
it.....some of the posts I too would describe as pieces, but I won't say
what they are pieces of!
>It reflects exactly the opinions of others who
>have found not only relief, calm, and peace
>through alternate treatments not associated
>with cortizone, but a sense of sharing it with
>the likes of this newsgroup.
Again, which post is this? By the way, Dovonex, Tazorac, Anthralin,
MTX, Cyclosporin, PUVA, UVB, sunshine, and coal tar are all treatments
that are "not associated
with cortizone."
>Enjoy your miserable diseases all through the
>New Millennium,
WOW!! That means I'm going to live for the next 1000 years??? I'm sure
there will be a real cure within the next 20 - 50 years, so I'll be
psoriasis-free for the rest of the new millennium!
>you miserable bunch of idiots.
More of your inimitable style of persuasion and support.
>Signing off forever in the New Year,
>--
>Joyce Tucker
Damn, no one else calls us "idiots" quite like you. :¯(
Will W.
Ed Anderson
Andy Kanter <ultr...@email.com> wrote:
> Ed Anderson wrote:
>> Dr EW Rosenberg has been repeatedly cited as "proof" for this nystatin
>> "cure". He also has appeared recently in the context of Skin-Cap clones:
>> http://www.pinch.com/skin/scfaq.html#patents
> ...but you didn't answer the question. What does
> this thread have to do with me? Dr. Rosenberg is
> a noted researcher. Why is it so difficult for you to
> imagine that his work takes him into different areas
> or research?
I did answer the question later in the post, partly by showing that
Rosenberg has branched into other areas of "research".
> You have made a valiant effort to connect me with
> Kessler. I am quite certain that you know, and
> knew before you wrote, that there is no connection.
> I leave it to others to interpret your clear and
> continued attempt at character assassination.
My public complaints are related to unethical, misleading, and deceptive
marketing methods, repeatedly pitched at this newsgroup and on the web
despite consistent objection. Both you and Kessler cite the same "noted
researcher" to substatiate your marketing claims. Rosenberg works with a
company which from all appearances uses only your company for product
promotion and distribution. When you are the only representative of your
company (UltraNet Pharmaceuticals) here, and it appears you are the sole
owner, it is difficult to separate the character from the product. I try
not to get personal, despite your ad hominem responses and accusations. If
it isn't clear, I suggest that all members of this group boycott your
product.
>> > Please, tell us more about what you think you know.
>>
>> The Skin-Cap clone product you've been promoting as your own development
> More inaccuracies. I have never suggested that
> I developed At Last Spray. How did you come
> up with this one? The brochure clearly states
> that Ultranet Pharmaceuticals is the wholesale
> distributor. We have never made any other
> claim. I guess reporting accurately still doesn't
> matter to you.
You asked for my opinion. In my opinion, development of your product isn't
limited to the production of zinc+alcohol in a can. That's only the Panda
half of the product you developed. Your company developed the prescription
forms, and promotional literature. (It also sent out unsolicted emails to
previous Skin-Cap users.) You have in fact suggested that you developed
the product, since you have posted authoritatively as to how direct
donations to universities are used to employ their researchers for hire.
>> ...has obviously been developed by these
>> same doctors, who assigned the rights to Panda Pharmaceuticals.
> Well, you almost have this one right. I know, I
> know, almost being correct has always been
> good enough for you. Why quibble over the
> facts, right?
You invited my opinion, saying, "I'll be happy to clear up any
misconceptions." Was that just a sarcastic troll? You say that there's
something inaccurate about what I said, and then make a personal attack
without substantiatiating it. Let's hear *your* facts.
>> Do you have any financial interest in Panda Pharmaceuticals?
> It's a bit late to ask, don't you think? Most
> reporters get their facts first and then write. I
> guess your version of "gotcha" journalism doesn't
> require that.
Another personal attack and dodge of the question. Anyone in Menphis care
to look up the "Limited Liability Corporation" details for Panda?
>> Panda has a new patent for isopropyl myristate as an active ingredient,
>> either alone or in combination with any number of named compounds. It
>> undoubtedly spells out the precise formula of your At Last spray in the
>> preferred embodiment section.
>
> Standard patent application strategy.
No, good patents are usually issued to be enforcable. This one appears to
have been written as a marketing tool. The patent office depends on full
disclosure of prior art. No mention was made of the previous use of
isopropyl myristate in skin cap and several other clones for the purpose
of treating psoriasis. If the patent really was intended to be enforced,
then your company, excuse me, Panda Pharmacueticals, may have to defend
against Glaxo's temovate emollient cream which uses steroids plus
isopropyl mysristate. The purpose of a patent is to prevent others from
using the claims that are made public. This patent is a statment that
Panda intends to prevent the production (or even use) of Skin-Cap clone
variants that use isopropyl myristate.
>> including mercury compounds. Note
>> that these same doctors who supposedly have an antibiotic "cure" don't
>> mention nystatin at all. They mention more modern imidazole (like
>> ketoconazole) and the triazole (like fluconazole) families of antifungal
>> compounds.
> My understanding, and you really should confirm
> it directly with Dr. Rosenberg, is that he investigated
> nystatin as a treatment and has since moved on to
> other research.
That was the reason I detailed the content of the patent in this thread.
It's evidence that the researchers cited as "proving" that nystatin is a
cure for psoriasis appear to have completely forgotten about it. The other
research that they moved on to appears to be development of your
product. No confirmation is necessary. The patent is evidence of that.
>> Apparently these clinicians don't consider nystatin to be in the running
>> among antipsoriatic or antifungal compounds. That refutes the claims made
>> by Kessler and his, uh, advocates, including their conspiracy claims. It's
>> unlikely that they were somehow pressured into suppressing nystatin as a
>> possible ingredient in their patent claims.
> Makes sense, but again, how is this related to me?
This thread was not originally about you. It was a calm rebuttal to the
outrageous nystatin claims and personal attacks. Somehow that caused me
to thinnk of you in passing because of Rosenberg, but this has gotten out
of hand. Next time, I should put it all on a web page and post a link. It
would save a lot of wasted words.
>> These doctors appear to be following the money, apparently *your* money
>> since you seem to be the only current distributor of At Last spray.
> I don't particularly care for your implication here, but
> as you know, research costs money. Yes Ed, money
> must be earned before it can be available for research.
That's as close as I'd expect to a confirmation of what I wrote.
>> > I'll be glad to correct any misconceptions you have.
>>
>> Right. I can't recall a single instance where you've actually corrected
>> any of my "misconceptions". Spin away.
> Well, you have certainly never allowed the facts
> to stand in the way of your conclusions when it
> has had to do with me or any of my companies.
Please back up that accusation, and reconcile it with your defense of your
previous promotion of Skin-Cap which turned out to based on a fraud. I can
list several facts which you repeatedly discounted as vicious rumors using
ad hominem attcks.
>> The FDA regulations and pharmacy associations code of ethics are very
>> clear about the promotion of compounded products rather than compounding
>> services. It's an end run around safety testing required for prescription
>> product approval. Your dimissal of the question because you don't agree
>> certainly does nothing to correct any "misconceptions".
> What I have said, and I will say it again, is that I
> don't agree with *your* interpretation of the
> regulation. Let me make this very clear to you, I
> don't disagree with the regulation, I disagree with
> *your* suggestion that we in any way violate it.
This implies that you have your own interpretation of a very clear law
that let's you ignore it, but you won't say what that is. Imagine
presenting a defense like that anywhere else that mattered. I suspect
you've got some finger pointing scheme between you and any compounding
pharmacist, both saying it's the others' responsibility to adhere to the
law. You and your company are the ones doing the promotion and
distribution for your own benefit. Clearly the promoter and distributor is
the one addressed by a regulation designed to prevent unethical promotion.
>> The patent also says, "Some patients had complained of stinging, burning
>> and dryness..." with the product when used without steroids. Why aren't
>> there any warnings about that on your www.clearskin.com website?
> We haven't received any such complaints. Our
> sales are almost entirely to pharmacies for
> compounding. The few customers that regularly
> use the non-prescription version obviously
> haven't experienced these problems.
Why is that obvious? The patent was by Panda who made statments about
a non-prescription version of the product which was in trial, presumably
the same trials that you cite for efficacy. How can you claim to not know
of these side effects?
>> I see that you've added warnings about the use of superpotent steroids.
>> Thanks for doing that.
> Your such a phony, Ed. You know from our private
> email that these warnings have been there for almost
> as long as the site has been up. There's no news here.
So much for conceding *anything* to you.
>> You may be saving someone the grief you went
>> through.
> Hopefully.
>> In addition to the entire fine print in the scare sheet, it would
>> be even more helpful to know what the *likely* side effects are when used
>> topically with enhanced skin penetrants.
>> I believe you mentioned your own permanent skin damage.
>> That would be a good start.
> As you know, when side effects do occur they are
> not uniform. Which *likely* side effects shall I
> highlight? The ones that effected you, the ones that
> effected me or the ones that effected someone else?
Yes, yes, and yes. As I wrote in the next line which you broke out of
context, I suggest starting with the side effects that you described:
bruising and thinning of the skin, which can lead to permanent damage in
the form of striae or stretch marks. How about mentioning the most likely
reason not to overuse your product, which could be a nasty rebound flare
when the product runs out.
Please describe safe application methods and the reason for pulsed doses
for the prescribing physicians who don't have time to explain all the
details to their patients. Is the busy derm likely to mention that
glaucoma can be a serious risk if the spray gets into the eyes?
I believe other clones state a *maximum* safe treatment time of two weeks.
I don't see any warning at all for your product.
Wouldn't these warnings be required for a package insert in any approved
prescription medication?
Just because you're getting away with selling an unapproved prescription
drug doesn't mean you shouldn't provide the safeguards that would require.
Go back and look at all the issues you raised when complaining about a
potential competitor, Anasilpiel, and see how they apply to your nearly
identical product. You asked everyone to complain to the FDA at the time
because they were circumventing the approval process. Your company's
promtional methods practically define hypocrisy.
http://www.pinch.com/hit?deja=~a+kanter,fda
>> I believe you mentioned your own permanent skin damage.
>> That would be a good start.
> The judgment on permanence is still out, but
> thanks so much for your heartfelt concern.
My heartfelt concern is for others who might end up in the same condition
or worse through your company's lack of simple product warnings.
> This has been nothing more than another one
> of your attempts at character assassination.
> Your continued obsession with all things SC
> just doesn't seem healthy.
Unhealthy for whom? Mostly the companies and promoters who depend on the
sensation caused by a collosal fraud.
I think I've shown that the only personal insults have been directed at
me. I don't want your psych evaluation, or sarcastic concern for my
health. I've compiled a page of facts about a product that you promoted
and distributed because nobody else was doing it, I happen to have the
trust of some unique info sources, and the public has a right to know
what's going on. I occasionally update the page with new information, so
it's hard to avoid seeing that the deception continues. If I were obsessed
with this, I would spend more time on following up on useful leads and
probably demand official intervention. Some people are still demanding
more info on Skin-Cap, because they don't believe the clones are as
effective, now that they know what they actually contain. There are surely
undiscovered components, but they would probably be trace ingredients.
Skin-Cap caused a lot of damage as evidenced by the dozens of personal
injury lawsuits. People have a right to know what they're getting into
with a treatment. As the promoter and distributor of a prescription drug,
you have an obligation to provide clear warnings about side effects,
whether it eats into the company profits or not.
I'm sure many who are familiar with the history of your promotions are
really tired of hearing the objections to it. My reference was intended to
be pointer to new information for anyone who wanted to look into it. I
didn't intend to rehash the same arguments, but it seemed necessary to
counter the spin for all the new arrivals.
My take home message is that we as group shouldn't support companies that
resort to misleading or intrusive promotions, or opressive tactics such as
the Panda and Dermazinc patents. That pretty much covers all the Skin-Cap
clones. The ingredients of the clones are now well documented. A physician
can prescribe the mix and send the specs to any compounding pharmacist. No
expensive proprietary formulas are required. For more details, see:
http://www.pinch.com/skin/scfaq.html
This is not an endorsement or recommendation of the treatment. It is
definitely not for long term use. I advise everyone to avoid it because of
previous complaints.
-- Ed "it's long, but be glad I don't rebut *all* the flames" Anderson
Rick Yeager
Well…What do you know? Our old friend Ed is back after all.
I asked the boys down in the production studio to whip me up a spot for
your genetic cure. Hope you like it!
http://www.geocities.com/psorarth/media/video/npfgeneticure.rm
You will need Real Player to enjoy and savor every moment.
Keep in touch,
Rick Yeager
ric...@hotmail.com
S.A.M.
> You will need Real Player to enjoy and savor every moment.
Guess we need more than that...
This page is unavailable.
We're sorry, but this page is currently unavailable for viewing.
Please try again later, or search Yahoo! GeoCities for other pages that
interest you.
Andy Kanter
not interested in the ongoing Andy and Ed show.
It may even be boring if you are interested.
This posts ends my participation in this thread.
Ed Anderson wrote:
> Andy Kanter <ultr...@email.com> wrote:
> > Ed Anderson wrote:
> >> Dr EW Rosenberg has been repeatedly cited as "proof" for this nystatin
> >> "cure". He also has appeared recently in the context of Skin-Cap clones:
> >> http://www.pinch.com/skin/scfaq.html#patents
>
> > ...but you didn't answer the question. What does
> > this thread have to do with me? Dr. Rosenberg is
> > a noted researcher. Why is it so difficult for you to
> > imagine that his work takes him into different areas
> > or research?
>
> I did answer the question later in the post, partly by showing that
> Rosenberg has branched into other areas of "research".
I just read your response again and I still don't see
your answer. I do note that for some reason you
left the following part out of your quote. This is
what my question referred to:
">>(That's unfortunately getting harder to do since
>>the published researchers who were the main
>>proponents now appear to be staking a claim
>>with patents for Skin-Cap clones and a
>>partenership with Andy Kanter.)"
You were discussing Kessler and his advocacy
of nystatin. Dr. Rosenberg's old research into
nystatin doesn't involve me in any way. So I
ask you again, why did you include me in your
post?
> > You have made a valiant effort to connect me with
> > Kessler. I am quite certain that you know, and
> > knew before you wrote, that there is no connection.
> > I leave it to others to interpret your clear and
> > continued attempt at character assassination.
>
> My public complaints are related to unethical, misleading, and deceptive
> marketing methods, repeatedly pitched at this newsgroup and on the web
> despite consistent objection.
This may describe Kessler's methods but it doesn't
describe ours.
> Both you and Kessler cite the same "noted
> researcher" to substatiate your marketing claims.
Like most University researchers, Dr. Rosenberg
investigates many theories. So what.
> Rosenberg works with a
> company which from all appearances uses only your company for product
> promotion and distribution.
Besides your attempt to insinuate a conspiracy here
I'm not sure what point you're making. Your previous
post seems to contradict this, however, by including a
web site (not ours) that sells At Last Spray .
> When you are the only representative of your
> company (UltraNet Pharmaceuticals) here, and it appears you are the sole
> owner, it is difficult to separate the character from the product. I try
> not to get personal,
You don't seem to try too hard. Your attacks are,
like this one, unprovoked, unsubstantiated and
unfortunately, personal.
> despite your ad hominem responses and accusations.
I just re-read what I wrote and I don't see one
"ad hominem" response or accusation. This is
often your claim when anyone responds to one
of your attacks.
> If it isn't clear, I suggest that all members of this group boycott your
> product.
This is obviously the point you wanted to make
from the beginning. Why waste all this effort
getting to it. Just say what's really on your mind.
> >> The Skin-Cap clone product you've been promoting as your own development
>
> > More inaccuracies. I have never suggested that
> > I developed At Last Spray. How did you come
> > up with this one? The brochure clearly states
> > that Ultranet Pharmaceuticals is the wholesale
> > distributor. We have never made any other
> > claim. I guess reporting accurately still doesn't
> > matter to you.
>
> You asked for my opinion.
I did?
> In my opinion, development of your product isn't
> limited to the production of zinc+alcohol in a can. That's only the Panda
> half of the product you developed.
Not to contradict you with facts, but Panda had
developed At Last Spray before I ever heard of
them.
> Your company developed the prescription
> forms, and promotional literature.
Finally, you've gotten one partially right. We had
nothing to do, however, with developing the At
Last brochure.
> (It also sent out unsolicted emails to
> previous Skin-Cap users.)
We have sent out mailings to anyone who opts-in
to our list seeking information about skin disorder
treatments. We don't send unsolicited email, but
you knew that didn't you?
> You have in fact suggested that you developed
> the product,
Never. That's your invention. Why not produce
some evidence of this?
> since you have posted authoritatively as to how direct
> donations to universities are used to employ their researchers for hire.
You're not suggesting that this is your proof, are
you? I would guess that you, and many others,
knew this information prior to my posting it. By
your own logic, therefore, you and others must
have been involved in the development of At Last
Spray. I hope you can see how silly your assertion
is.
> >> ...has obviously been developed by these
> >> same doctors, who assigned the rights to Panda Pharmaceuticals.
>
> > Well, you almost have this one right. I know, I
> > know, almost being correct has always been
> > good enough for you. Why quibble over the
> > facts, right?
> You say that there's
> something inaccurate about what I said, and then make a personal attack
> without substantiatiating it. Let's hear *your* facts.
I don't see what personal attack you're referring
to but this is an interesting way to turn the
conversation. For the record, I didn't start this.
You dragged me into a totally unrelated thread
for a reason that you still refuse to reveal. I am
always happy to answer legitimate questions from
reasonable people. However, I don't feel
compelled to fill in the blanks of another one of
your inaccurate and unprovoked attacks.
> >> Do you have any financial interest in Panda Pharmaceuticals?
>
> > It's a bit late to ask, don't you think? Most
> > reporters get their facts first and then write. I
> > guess your version of "gotcha" journalism doesn't
> > require that.
>
> Another personal attack
So this is what you consider a personal attack?
Considering what you dish out this seems very thin
skinned to me (no pun intended).
> and dodge of the question.
No dodge. I just don't care for being attacked
first and then being expected to participate in your
after the fact information gathering.
> >> Panda has a new patent for isopropyl myristate as an active ingredient,
> >> either alone or in combination with any number of named compounds. It
> >> undoubtedly spells out the precise formula of your At Last spray in the
> >> preferred embodiment section.
> >
> > Standard patent application strategy.
>
> No, good patents are usually issued to be enforcable. This one appears to
> have been written as a marketing tool.
You're not correct.
> The patent office depends on full
> disclosure of prior art. No mention was made of the previous use of
> isopropyl myristate in skin cap and several other clones for the purpose
> of treating psoriasis.
Isopropyl myristate is not an active ingredient in any
other product. As such, none of the examples you
site would be considered prior art.
> If the patent really was intended to be enforced,
> then your company, excuse me, Panda Pharmacueticals,
Cute, but not surprising or particularly creative.
> may have to defend
> against Glaxo's temovate emollient cream which uses steroids plus
> isopropyl mysristate. The purpose of a patent is to prevent others from
> using the claims that are made public. This patent is a statment that
> Panda intends to prevent the production (or even use) of Skin-Cap clone
> variants that use isopropyl myristate.
Wrong again. I don't think you understand the
patent. It only has to do with isopropyl myristate
as an active ingredient. Oh, before I forget, does
the fact that you're writing authoritatively about
this patent and process mean that you were
involved with the isopropyl myristate patent?
> >> including mercury compounds. Note
> >> that these same doctors who supposedly have an antibiotic "cure" don't
> >> mention nystatin at all.
Are you quoting Kessler here are you suggesting
that Dr. Rosenberg made this claim?
> > My understanding, and you really should confirm
> > it directly with Dr. Rosenberg, is that he investigated
> > nystatin as a treatment and has since moved on to
> > other research.
>
> That was the reason I detailed the content of the patent in this thread.
> It's evidence that the researchers cited as "proving" that nystatin is a
> cure for psoriasis appear to have completely forgotten about it.
Again, are you quoting Dr. Rosenberg or Kessler?
> The other
> research that they moved on to appears to be development of your
> product. No confirmation is necessary. The patent is evidence of that.
We are the wholesale distributor of At Last Spray.
Contrary to your assertion, Panda's patents are
evidence that they are developing isopropyl
myristate as a treatment for psoriasis and other skin
disorders. It has nothing to do with At Last Spray.
> >> Apparently these clinicians don't consider nystatin to be in the running
> >> among antipsoriatic or antifungal compounds.
Did they ever?
> That refutes the claims made
> >> by Kessler and his, uh, advocates, including their conspiracy claims. It's
> >> unlikely that they were somehow pressured into suppressing nystatin as a
> >> possible ingredient in their patent claims.
> > Makes sense, but again, how is this related to me?
>
> This thread was not originally about you.
My point exactly. Unfortunately, you chose to drag
me into it. Why was that?
> It was a calm rebuttal to the
> outrageous nystatin claims and personal attacks. Somehow that caused me
> to thinnk of you in passing because of Rosenberg, but this has gotten out
> of hand. Next time, I should put it all on a web page and post a link. It
> would save a lot of wasted words.
You might consider avoiding unprovoked side
attacks that are off topic to the thread to which
you're responding. I know that would save a lot
of wasted effort on my part. Regarding your
putting it on a web page, that would certainly help
you avoid the burden of having to defend your
inaccurate opinions.
> >> These doctors appear to be following the money, apparently *your* money
> >> since you seem to be the only current distributor of At Last spray.
>
> > I don't particularly care for your implication here, but
> > as you know, research costs money. Yes Ed, money
> > must be earned before it can be available for research.
>
> That's as close as I'd expect to a confirmation of what I wrote.
Take it as you wish. But what exactly do you
think it confirms?
> >> > I'll be glad to correct any misconceptions you have.
> >>
> >> Right. I can't recall a single instance where you've actually corrected
> >> any of my "misconceptions". Spin away.
>
> > Well, you have certainly never allowed the facts
> > to stand in the way of your conclusions when it
> > has had to do with me or any of my companies.
>
> Please back up that accusation, and reconcile it with your defense of your
> previous promotion of Skin-Cap which turned out to based on a fraud.
You have made many claims about me and my
companies that are completely inaccurate and
without a basis in fact. You have selectively
highlighted events and used them to substantiate
your own theories. Rather than label them as
subjective opinion you have presented them as
if they were facts. Most of the time you are
wrong. Above are many good examples of this.
On several occasions, both privately and publicly
I have pointed out that many of your conclusions
are without merit. If you are at all objective you
must be aware by now that there are no facts
that support your many allegations. If you were
interested in accuracy, you would correct the
information you present or clearly label it as your
own unsubstantiated opinion.
For example, you have taken my support for SC,
a product that I along with many others believed
to be an effective non-steroidal treatment, and you
have turned that into a vast conspiracy. Your
evidence for this, and that I committed fraud, is that
I passed along information from Cheminova to you
and this newsgroup and that I vigorously defended
a product I used and believed in.
So lets review. 1) I believed a product was
effective that turned out to be fraudulently
marketed by the manufacturer. 2) You and others
asked questions that I relayed to Cheminova and,
in turn, reported their answers back to you. 3) I
defended an effective treatment against some very
unsubstantiated attacks.
From this information, which is the only "proof"
you have ever offered, you have made some very
serious accusations about me and my companies
here and at your web site. In fact, not a very
substantial basis upon which to draw your
conclusions.
> >> In addition to the entire fine print in the scare sheet, it would
> >> be even more helpful to know what the *likely* side effects are when used
> >> topically with enhanced skin penetrants.
> >> I believe you mentioned your own permanent skin damage.
> >> That would be a good start.
>
> > As you know, when side effects do occur they are
> > not uniform. Which *likely* side effects shall I
> > highlight? The ones that effected you, the ones that
> > effected me or the ones that effected someone else?
>
> Yes, yes, and yes. As I wrote in the next line which you broke out of
> context, I suggest starting with the side effects that you described:
> bruising and thinning of the skin, which can lead to permanent damage in
> the form of striae or stretch marks.
This is taken directly from the site,
http://www.clearskin.com/atlast/topicalsteroids.html
Again, your suggestion that the side effects issue
hasn't been covered is inaccurate and misleading.
If you will take the time to read it fully you will find
that people are well warned about the potential
dangers of topical steroid use.
"Warnings: If used under an occlusive dressing,
particularly over extensive areas, or on the face,
scalp, axilla(e), scrotum or when applied to the
genitourinary tract or when administered rectally,
sufficient absorption may take place to give rise
to adrenal suppression and other systemic effects.
Precautions: Topical corticosteroids (particularly
the potent ones) should be used with caution on
lesions close to the eye because systemic
absorption may cause increased intraocular
pressure, glaucoma or cataracts.
Tolerance to the vasoconstrictive effects of
topical corticosteroids may occur with repeated
administration (see Pharmacology).
Although hypersensitivity reactions have been
rare with topically applied steroid products, the
drug should be discontinued and appropriate
therapy initiated if there are signs of reaction.
Prolonged use of topical corticosteroid products
may produce atrophy of the skin and of
subcutaneous tissues particularly on flexor
surfaces and on the face. If this is noted,
discontinue the use of the product.
In cases of bacterial infections of the skin,
appropriate antibacterial agents should be used
in primary therapy. In selected cases, the topical
corticosteroid product may be used as an adjunct
to control inflammation, erythema, and itching.
The product should be used with caution in patients
with stasis dermatitis and other skin diseases
associated with impaired circulation.
If a symptomatic response is not noted within a
few days to a week, the local applications of
corticosteroid should be discontinued and the
patient re-evaluated. During the use of topical
corticosteroids secondary infections may occur.
Significant systemic absorption may occur when
corticosteroids are applied over large areas
of the body. To minimize this possibility, when
long-term therapy is anticipated, interrupt
treatment periodically or treat one area of the
body at a time.
Patients are advised to inform subsequent
physicians of the prior use of corticosteroids.
Occlusive dressings should not be applied if there
is an elevation of body temperature. Pregnancy
and Lactation: The safety of topical corticosteroids
during pregnancy or lactation has not been
established. The potential benefit of topical
corticosteroids, if used during pregnancy or
lactation, should be weighed against possible
hazard to the fetus or the nursing infant. Children:
Pediatric patients have a higher skin surface to
body weight ratio than do adults and may absorb
a higher percentage of topically applied
corticosteroids. This may translate into a greater
susceptibility to topical corticosteroid-induced
HPA axis suppression and to exogenous
corticosteroid effects.
HPA axis suppression, Cushing's syndrome, linear
growth retardation, delayed weight gain, and
intracranial hypertension have been reported in
children receiving topical corticosteroids.
Manifestations of adrenal suppression in children
include low plasma cortisol levels and absence of
response to ACTH stimulation. Manifestations of
intracranial hypertension include bulging fontanelle,
headaches and bilateral papilledema.
Adverse Effects: The following local adverse
reactions have been reported with the use of
topical corticosteroids: dryness, itching, burning,
local irritation, striae, skin atrophy, atrophy of
subcutaneous tissues, telangiectasia,
hypertrichosis, change in pigmentation and
secondary infection. If applied to the face, acne
rosacea or perioral dermatitis can occur. When
occlusive dressings are used, pustules, miliaria,
folliculitis and pyoderma may occur. Contact
sensitivity to a particular dressing material or
adhesive may occur occasionally. In rare instances,
treatment of psoriasis with corticosteroids (or its
withdrawal) is thought to have provoked the
pustular form of the disease.
Adrenal suppression has also been reported
following topical corticosteroid therapy.
Conditions that may increase systemic adsorption
include use of the more potent steroids, use over
a prolonged period of time, use over large surface
area and an occlusive dressing."
"Note: Flourinated Steroids should never be used
on thin skin areas such as the face, neck or genitals."
> Please describe safe application methods and the reason for pulsed doses
> for the prescribing physicians who don't have time to explain all the
> details to their patients.
Anything other than general dosing information
should be determined and provided by the
physician.
> Is the busy derm likely to mention that
> glaucoma can be a serious risk if the spray gets into the eyes?
He/She should, but it is also included in the
warning information at the clearskin site and
copied above.
> I believe other clones state a *maximum* safe treatment time of two weeks.
> I don't see any warning at all for your product.
This is a result of their use of Clobetasol.
The use of Fluocinonide does not require the same
limitation.
> Wouldn't these warnings be required for a package insert in any approved
> prescription medication?
>
> Just because you're getting away with selling an unapproved prescription
> drug doesn't mean you shouldn't provide the safeguards that would require.
We don't sell a prescription drug. We provide
a compounding vehicle for a steroid. I'm sorry,
I thought you understood that.
> Go back and look at all the issues you raised when complaining about a
> potential competitor, Anasilpiel, and see how they apply to your nearly
> identical product.
Yes let's. Your nasty implications aside, tell me
how there is any similarity?
> You asked everyone to complain to the FDA at the time
> because they were circumventing the approval process.
No I didn't. I asked people to notify the FDA
about their obvious connection to Cheminova.
Read the posts from the link you provided.
> Your company's
> promtional methods practically define hypocrisy.
Again with the nasty comments. And you accused
me of making ad hominem attacks, sheesh.
> http://www.pinch.com/hit?deja=~a+kanter,fda
>
> >> I believe you mentioned your own permanent skin damage.
> >> That would be a good start.
>
> > The judgment on permanence is still out, but
> > thanks so much for your heartfelt concern.
>
> My heartfelt concern is for others who might end up in the same condition
> or worse through your company's lack of simple product warnings.
Next time, try reading the site before you criticize.
> > This has been nothing more than another one
> > of your attempts at character assassination.
> > Your continued obsession with all things SC
> > just doesn't seem healthy.
>
> Unhealthy for whom?
You.
> I think I've shown that the only personal insults have been directed at
> me.
Really. Perhaps you should re-read what you write.
Your tone, the way you slip nasty asides into your
commentary, the way you make accusations with
no basis in fact and the way you offer "evidence"
that doesn't even stand up to a simple reading
would certainly qualify.
> I don't want your psych evaluation, or sarcastic concern for my
> health.
It's not sarcastic at all. My concern is very sincere.
> I've compiled a page of facts about a product that you promoted
> and distributed because nobody else was doing it, I happen to have the
> trust of some unique info sources, and the public has a right to know
> what's going on.
The public has the right to *accurately* know what
is going on. The page you compiled has some fact
and a great deal of your opinions. Your opinions
should be clearly labeled as such. Unfortunately,
your style of mixing your opinions in with some facts
can be very misleading. I'll have to check again
when I get a chance but I don't recall anything at
your site that wasn't previously in the public domain.
What are the "unique info sources" giving you?
> I occasionally update the page with new information, so
> it's hard to avoid seeing that the deception continues.
You've lost me here.
> If I were obsessed
> with this, I would spend more time on following up on useful leads and
> probably demand official intervention.
Demand? Do you think you're that powerful?
> Some people are still demanding
> more info on Skin-Cap, because they don't believe the clones are as
> effective, now that they know what they actually contain.
If this is true, how does your opinion page help
with this?
> There are surely
> undiscovered components, but they would probably be trace ingredients.
Could be, perhaps, but "surely" suggests fact.
Why not just call it what it is, your opinion.
> Skin-Cap caused a lot of damage as evidenced by the dozens of personal
> injury lawsuits.
This is good as a sensational line, but it's not
accurate.
> People have a right to know what they're getting into
> with a treatment. As the promoter and distributor of a prescription drug,
> you have an obligation to provide clear warnings about side effects,
> whether it eats into the company profits or not.
Your editorializing is getting very boring. Just for
the sake of accuracy, and as you know, we don't
distribute a prescription drug. Our warnings are
clear but I can't read them for you. You must at
least take that first step on your own.
> I'm sure many who are familiar with the history of your promotions are
> really tired of hearing the objections to it.
If you are talking about your objections, I can't
speak for anyone else but I'm certainly tired of
hearing you inaccurately portray them.
> My reference was intended to
> be pointer to new information for anyone who wanted to look into it. I
> didn't intend to rehash the same arguments, but it seemed necessary to
> counter the spin for all the new arrivals.
How conveniently you characterize your attack.
I just asked why you included me in your post
about Kessler. Re-read my original question
from 12/29/99. What "spin"? Re-read your
12/30/99 response to my original question.
This history is to recent for you to re-write.
> My take home message is that we as group shouldn't support companies that
> resort to misleading or intrusive promotions, or opressive tactics such as
> the Panda and Dermazinc patents.
Oppressive tactics? What are you talking about?
Can you document this or is this more of your
projected opinion?
> That pretty much covers all the Skin-Cap
> clones.
Not really. The Panda patents aren't even a
product. Just more of that broad brush, throw
it all in writing style of yours.
> The ingredients of the clones are now well documented.
The At Last ingredients have been available at
the clearskin web site all along. There's nothing
new here. Or are you taking credit for this
disclosure?
> A physician
> can prescribe the mix and send the specs to any compounding pharmacist. No
> expensive proprietary formulas are required. For more details, see:
>
> http://www.pinch.com/skin/scfaq.html
True, but At Last is not expensive and what you
have suggested won't save the end user a penny.
A pharmacy will charge the market rate whether
they make it themselves or buy the parts pre made.
Most insurance plans cover the prescription and
tend to control the reimbursement to the pharmacy.
For those without insurance, we already provide
At Last Spray at a greatly reduced price.
This is it for me. I've said what I have to say about
your misconceptions. If you don't care to correct
the record, so be it. I'd just like to end this here
before anyone gets the impression that we don't
like each other.
Andy Kanter
Ed Anderson
> I asked the boys down in the production studio to whip me up a spot for
> your genetic cure. Hope you like it!
> http://www.geocities.com/psorarth/media/video/npfgeneticure.rm
LOL! That's pretty funny. It almost approaches satire rather than the
daily defamation. I really want one of those flying T-shirts.
I can see you have talent. It's a shame you couldn't apply it in a more
constructive direction. If I were as adamant as you are about a treatment,
I'd be looking for ways to generate positive interest among those who
could implement it. (That will require substatiating the claims.)
Your attempts to discredit others with obvious lies only damages your own
credibility. You've already dug yourself into a hole so deep that I don't
know how you'll get out.
I don't even know exactly why you're attacking me or the NPF. You said
you've had a bad history with some serious systemic drugs, and seem to
blame that on just about everyone in a big conspiracy but yourself. You're
also a supporter of Ken Kessler because you apparently learned of
antifungal treatment options after paying him for a secret cure.
The fact is, those treatments have been discussed openly here. The other
cofounder of this group reported years ago about his use of oral nystatin
and treatment by Dr Rosenberg. I've even posted bits of the the theory
behind it. This is not secret information. It's out there for anyone who
is willing to look for themselves. As you've seen, the NPF has it listed
on their website.
Trying to keep it a secret and promoting as a cure is what's criminal.
That's what Ken Kessler is doing. The purpose of the critical review in my
Psoriasis Hall of PShame is to correct his misinformation and to freely
explain, with references, the exact regimen that he's promoting. In
showing that it is not a true cure, it is necessary to portray the benefit
of the regimen more realistically. I realize that you have had great
success, and that many others may also be helped, but not at the financial
and psycological expense of those who are deperate enough to pay anything
for a cure, sight unseen.
If you have Kessler's ear, why not convince him to share his regimen
openly. You would be amazed at what a difference that would make in the
way nystatin is perceived. I tried that, and got a promise that he would,
but he never kept his word. He's practically done it already with his
public patent and references to candida overgrowth proponents. He just
doesn't reveal it unless he gets forty bucks.
I know that you're not promoting a secret cure on your own website and are
trying to help others, but this isn't the way to do it. Because of that,
I've been patient in explaining why Kessler's promotion actually hurts any
chance of this method being accepted. In spite of your continual
accusations and personal attacks, (which could only be inspired by Mr
Kessler,) I have yet to respond in kind, either publicly or privately.
Your name came up as an example to Joyce Tucker of someone who was freely
sharing the info. I gave your website in addition to my own.
Since your attacks are unprovoked and seem to be increasing, let me ask:
Why exactly are you attacking me?
Why you attacking the NPF, when discrediting them hurts us all?
What would you like done to put an end to these attacks?
Since reasoning with you so far has been pointless (although maybe
educational for some,) I don't see many options for resolving these
disruptions other than official intervention. You seem to be begging
martyrdom, anyway.
Please try to distinguish between criticisms of inaccurate or unethical
marketing methods, and personal attacks. Again, nobody means to invalidate
your experience with nystatin. We just want the claims to be realistic so
people can make an informed decision about their own treatments.
I've been advised to provide you with formal notice to cease and desist in
your malicious defamation. Consider it done.
-- Ed "the object of your obsession" Anderson
eve...@rocketmail.com
This has become certifiable. What is the big word for neurotic ?
Steve.
ecar...@my-deja.com
Joyce <jhten...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > What? You don't like receiving what this group has been dishing
out?
>
> food that made you more psoriatic, fatter, leaner, better than all the
take
> it like the miserable men and women you are? Oh, I guess I
forgot..you
> really do like your disease and you don't want anyone telling you how
to
> get rid of it.
>
> Everybody who uses our 'treatment' recovers.
Wrong, Joyce it did not work for me.
> This was a masterful piece. Read it carefully. It reflects exactly
the
> opinions of others who have found not only relief, calm, and peace
> through alternate treatments not associated with cortizone, but a
sense
> of sharing it with the likes of this newsgroup.
>
> Enjoy your miserable diseases all through the New Millennium, you
> miserable bunch of idiots.
Hey, Joyce, Go to hell
> Signing off forever in the New Year,
Thank God
> --
> Joyce Tucker
Rick Yeager
Awww…Poor baby. Don't cry anymore honey.
I tell you what, if you go put your jammies on, I will read you a
bedtime story. Doesn't that sound nice?
This is the story of the three little pigs. One of your favorites.
Once upon a time there was a mother pig who had three little pigs.
The three little pigs grew so big that their mother said to them, "You
are too big to live here any longer. You must go and build houses for
yourselves. But take care that the wolf does not catch you."
The three little pigs set off. "We will take care that the wolf does
not catch us," they said.
Soon they met a man who was carrying some straw. "Please will you give
me some straw?" asked the first little pig. "I want to build a house
for myself."
"Yes," said the man and he gave the first little pig some straw.
Then the first little pig built himself a house of straw. He was very
pleased with his house. He said, "Now the wolf won't catch me and eat
me." "I shall build a stronger house than yours," said the second
little pig. "I shall build a stronger house than yours, too," said the
third little pig.
The second little pig and the third little pig went on along the road.
Soon they met a man who was carrying some sticks.
"Please will you give me some sticks ?" asked the second little pig. "I
want to build a house for myself."
"Yes," said the man and he gave the second little pig some sticks.
Then the second little pig built himself a house of sticks. It was
stronger than the house of straw. The second little pig was very
pleased with his house. He said, "Now the wolf won't catch me and eat
me." "I shall build a stronger house than yours," said the third
little pig.
The third little pig walked on, along the road, by himself. Soon he met
a man carrying some bricks.
"Please will you give me some bricks?" asked the third little pig. "I
want to build a house for myself."
"Yes," said the man and he gave the third little pig some bricks.
Then the third little pig built himself a house of bricks. It took him
a long time to build it, for it was a very strong house. The third
little pig was very pleased with his house. He said, "Now the wolf
won't catch me and eat me."
The next day the wolf came along the road. He came to the house of
straw which the first little pig had built. When the first little pig
saw the wolf coming, he ran inside his house and shut the door. The
wolf knocked on the door and said, "Little pig, little pig, let me come
in."
"No, no," said the little pig. "By the hair of my chinny chin chin, I
will not let you come in." "Then I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow
your house in," said the wolf. So he huffed and he puffed and he
huffed and he puffed. The house of straw fell down and the wolf ate up
the first little pig.
The next day the wolf walked further along the road. He came to the
house of sticks which the second little pig had built. When the second
little pig saw the wolf coming, he ran inside his house and shut the
door. The wolf knocked on the door and said, "Little pig, little pig,
let me come in."
"No, no," said the little pig. "By the hair of my chinny chin chin, I
will not let you come in." "Then I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow
your house in," said the wolf. So he huffed and he puffed and he
huffed and he puffed. The house of sticks fell down and the wolf ate up
the second little pig.
The next day the wolf walked further along the road. He came to the
house of bricks which the third little pig had built. When the third
little pig saw the wolf coming, he ran inside his house and shut the
door. The wolf knocked on the door and said, "Little pig, little pig,
let me come in."
"No, no," said the little pig. "By the hair of my chinny chin chin, I
will not let you come in." "Then I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow
your house in," said the wolf. So he huffed and he puffed and he
huffed and he puffed. But the house of bricks did not fall down.
The wolf was very angry, but he pretended not to be. He thought, "This
is a clever little pig. If I want to catch him I must pretend to be his
friend." So the wolf said, "Little pig, if you will be ready at six
o'clock in the morning, I will take you to Farmer Smith's field. We
shall find some nice turnips for dinner."
"Very well," said the little pig. But the third little pig was a clever
little pig. He knew that the wolf just wanted to eat him. So the next
morning the third little pig set off for Farmer Smith's field at five
o'clock. He filled his basket with turnips. Then he hurried home before
it was six o'clock.
At six o'clock the wolf knocked on the little pig's door. "Are you
ready, little pig ?" he said.
"Oh! I have been to Farmer Smith's field," said the little pig. "I
filled my basket with turnips and they are now cooking for my dinner."
The wolf was very angry, but he pretended not to be.
Then the wolf said, "If you will be ready at five o'clock in the
morning, I will take you to Farmer Brown's apple tree. We will pick
some red apples." "Very well," said the little pig. Next morning, the
little pig set off at four o'clock. He found the apple tree. He was up
in the tree, picking apples, when the wolf came along.
The little pig was very frightened, but he pretended not to be. He
said, "These are fine apples, Mr. Wolf. I'll throw you one." He threw
down an apple, but it rolled away down the road. The wolf ran after
it. Then the little pig jumped down from the tree. He ran all the way
home and shut his door quickly.
The wolf was very angry, but he still pretended not to be. He went to
the little pig's house and knocked on the door. "Little pig," he
said, "if you will be ready at four o'clock this afternoon, I will take
you to the fair. We will have some fun on the swings and
roundabouts." "Very well," said the little pig.
At two o'clock the little pig set off for the fair. He had great fun,
riding on the swings and roundabouts. Then he bought himself a butter
churn. It looked like a big barrel. As little pig was going home he
saw the wolf coming up the hill. Little pig was very frightened, so he
jumped inside his butter churn.
The butter churn began to roll over and over, down the hill. It rolled
faster and faster. It knocked the wolf down. The wolf did not know
what had knocked him down. He was so frightened that he ran away as
quickly as he could. Little pig jumped out of his butter churn and
carried it home.
The next day the wolf came and knocked on the little pig's door.
He said, "Little pig, I did not go to the fair yesterday. A great, big
thing came rolling down the hill and knocked me over."
"Ha-ha!" said the little pig. "That was me, inside my butter churn!"
When the wolf heard this he was very, very, very angry indeed.
He said, "Little pig, I am going to eat you up. I am going to climb
down your chimney to get you."
The little pig was very frightened, but he said nothing. He put a big
pot of water on the fire, to boil.
The wolf climbed on the roof. Then he began to come down the chimney.
The little pig took off the lid from the pot. Into the pot fell the
wolf, with a big splash. And that was the end of the wolf. The third
little pig was too clever for him.
The moral to the story is you and the NPF can pucker up and smooch my
big fat white butt.
Rick Yeager
DaveW
>Joyce wrote:
>> Even that person who tried it and failed? It couldn't be psoriasis.
>> Everybody who uses our 'treatment' recovers.
>
>Wrong, Joyce it did not work for me.
Joyce's point was that if Kessler's treatment didn't work for you, then
you don't have psoriasis. It's not the quack's fault, it's the patient's
(or the disease's, or the dermatologist's) fault. This is one of the
hallmarks of promoters of unproven treatments, and does nothing
but torque me off, too.
- Dave W.
Rick Yeager
You should be torqued off Dave W.
Ken Kessler is overwhelmed, as I am, from all the new inquires. People
just can’t get enough of Kessler. Go Figure!
I guess the pie is getting carved up just a little more today.
It must suck to be you...
Harry the Skinflint
>From: eve...@rocketmail.com
>Date: Wed, 05 January 2000 11:43 AM EST
>Message-id: <84vsb9$3p6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
which part? (was neurotic that is)
Happy to be Alive