re: defensiveness

In order to respond to all the questions and remarks that were posted in
response to my message of yesterday, I am going to paste in what people
said, and then respond (In italics, that may or may not come through.) -
Shivani

Marc said:
All I did was report my reaction to these filters, and
now I've got a bunch of people harrasing me for it.    
One would think that we could have a free exchange of ideas
and information, and then we would all be better off
for it. But instead, now I've got people threatening
me with lawsuits for having a negative reaction to a
product.

If all Marc had done was to report his reaction to using the filters,
that would be fine by me, however, he stated inaccurately that the filters
create high frequencies.  
I am certainly not threatening anyone with a lawsuit. I simply
reported that Dave Stetzer is fed up with people maligning his product and may decide
to sue those who continue to do so. (One party, for instance, is saying
that the filters, which are UL tested and listed, may explode. This is absurd,
but this fellow wants to scare people who have the filters into getting ridof
them and using his own products instead.) If a product is designed
specifically to reduce high frequencies and you state publically that it increases
them, you are maligning the product. If it is not in fact true that the filters
create high frequencies, then that is indeed slander.  
All that is just logical fact.  

Marc said:
If I'm getting sharp pains in my head almost immediately
after plugging something into my power outlet, then I
think that I can safely state that there is something
being generated that were not there before.

That statement in itself is logical, but it does not follow that what is
now there must be high frequencies. In fact, what is there is a slightly
increased magnetic field. It seems likely that is what you are reacting to.  
Experimentation could be done to determine that. If you do this, I'd be
very interested in what you discover.  

Marc said:
You've said before that these filters remove the RF
noise in the waveform. Well, in order to do that,
they are obviously alterating the original waveform,
correct?

The true original waveform was clean 60Hz.  
For a technical explanation of how the filters work you must contact Dr.
Graham or Dave Stetzer. Dave is going to draw a diagram to help people
understand the process that occurs.  


Marc said:
And what about the studies done in schools where
they did the surveys to see if people's health
were doing better or worse after the installation,
and a significant portion of these people reported
that they were doing worse? What is your
explanation for that?

Did you note in the conclusio that it happened to be flu season and a
lot of the people were getting the flu? That was a very short term study.


Marc said:
I don't take the stand that the filters create RF.

This is good news.
 

Marc said:
I do take the stand that the filters give me a headache.

You are certainly free to say that you get a headache when using the
filters. (You yourself have said that no one thing seems to work for everyone
who tries it?)      

Marc said:
I also take the stand that I don't see how these filters would
help ES folks who are having trouble tolerating driving
a car, being in an airport, being in a shopping mall, being
in a grocery store, walking under power lines, being in
an internet cafe, standing next to someone using a cellphone,
etc. Perhaps you could explain?

The filters were designed for a specific purpose, to reduce the high
frequency pollution in the circuits they are plugged into. They do that very
well, and that is all that they are supposed to do. They are not a miracle,
they are a highly efficient tool, that does one job and does it well.
     

Cara wrote:
It isn't necessary to attack one another here.

I definitely agree. Personally, I was not attacking anyone, just
alerting Marc to the fact that he is legally responsible if he maligns someone's
product without proof. In fact, I invited him to send the proof ASAP if he had
any.  


Marc wrote:
the company's
own research has shown that some people have no reaction
to them, and some have an adverse reaction.
The study you are referring to was not “the company's own research,”
but done by an independent researcher, Dr. Magda Havas of Trent University.
It is “spinning” the conclusions of the research to say that anyone
reacted adversely. Some of the people in the school in Canada reported that
during the time the filters were installed (which they were unaware of) they felt
less well than usual. In any group of people being used for a study, some
will always be less well than usual. Flu season was probably the biggest
factor in this case, but there are myriad reasons for fluctuations in individual
wellness, such as weather, emotional stress, eating something inappropriate,
etcetera. When studies are done to determine the effects of something, the
researcher looks at the overall picture. There are specific statistical ranges
researchers use to judge positive and negative results. The study you are
referring to had positive results that actually surprised the researcher
considerably, as by her own admission she had not expected them.
In order to determine whether the people who felt less well during the
time the filters were plugged in were less well because of the filters, further
research would have to be done.

Marc said:
you should
have some awareness of what the rest of the solution should be --
detoxification & nutrition. Have you done anything
in these areas for your ES?

Yes, a great deal. I would be happy to share this with anyone who is
sincerely interested, not just looking for something to criticize me for. If
your motivation is genuine interest, just let me know.  


Marc said:
I've been reading some articles by Shivani, and it appears that
before she was threatening people with lawsuits, she's written
several articles on electrical pollution, and raising awareness
in the public.

As I said, I am not threatening you, but alerting you. (How many “
people” are you, anyway? And how many lawsuits are you expecting?You do
exaggerate, you know? )  
My husband and I know someone who repeatedly maligned a product -
thinking he was right, but not having looked into it enough - who got hit with a
lawsuit when he persisted in the defamation though the company had warned him
to desist, and he ended up bankrupt. As I also said, I don't think you
realized that what you were saying was both false and slanderous, but that wouldn't
help you legally.
I do not work for Dave or for Dr. Graham, by the way, or represent them.
I was just sharing information in hopes of preventing a legal hassle, and
to let list readers know that the filters do not create any frequencies
whatsoever.


Marc wrote:
One of the articles pretty much answered my earlier question
about the effectiveness of these filters outside the home:

"Arjuna is now so electrically sensitive that even the
arcing in a car's electrical system affects her and
prevents her from driving. She is essentially homebound
as the electrical pollution in most public places affects
her severely".

This is just as I suspected. These filter don't appear to
help you much in getting out into the real world. So for
the hundreds of dollars you spend on these filters, you
still get to be homebound.
     
As I also already said, the filters just do what they are designed to
do. For the money I spent and the remediation we did, I got total relief from
the terrifying cardiac events I had been experiencing, I was able to sleep
again, and I AM ALIVE. I definitely got my money's worth.


Marc said:
as I'm sure you must realize, there are dozens
of EMF protection devices on the market. What have
you tried besides these 37 filters?

Several things, and I am trying some new ones now, that were sent to me
from Canada and Australia. Again, if you are asking out of sincere interest
I will be glad to discuss this. It seems to me you are being sarcastic, but
I know (all too well) that people read “tone” into Web communications where
none was intended, so I am not sure just what your attitude is.

I do not know whether Marc will be glad to hear it or not, but my
recovery seems to continue. …. Some of what Marc quotes about me was written some
time ago. In 2002 I could barely walk across a room, and sat curled in a
fetal position literally unable to bear opening my eyes when my husband drove me
to various health practitioners looking for help and answers. I could
barely walk across a room. We did not know if I would live another day ordie at
any moment. My husband only told me later that he used to come and look at me
while I was asleep to see if I was still breathing. Now I can shovel snow
for over an hour without tiring, drive a car on errands, be in public places
enough to do errands and attend events…    
     
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Marc has an attitude about the
Graham Stetzer filters, that causes him to misinterpret the research results
and fail to mention the utterly amazing results that are occurring in homesand
schools where they have been installed. I would like to share a bit with
the list members regarding those results.
- In a school that had 37 kids with asthma, who frequently needed
nebulizer treatments from the school nurse, the nurse wrote the school board at the
end of the year after the filters were installed to tell them that now only3
of those children still had asthma, and she had not given a single nebulizer
treatment since the installment. She listed many other health improvements
she had noted, also.
- In that same school, one of the teachers was suffering terribly from
MS, and was going to have to quit teaching. She was only able to be there
Monday through Wednesday, as she got worse every day she was there. This woman
literally screamed at Dave when he was installing the filters, about what a
waste of money this was for the school. Soon she was knocking on Dave's door
to apologize and thank him, as all her MS symptoms had disappeared. People
with MS have responded particularly well to using the filters. Dr. Havas is
now doing a study with MS patients. She has videoed one man shoveling snow
and dancing on his sidewalk who could not even walk before.
- When diabetics install the filters they need to closely monitor their
blood glucose, as their need for insulin usually drops immediately. Some
will no longer be diabetic at all.
- Cattle recover their health (if RF was the problem) and give much more
milk when the electrical pollution is removed from their environment - 20
lbs. per day per cow more milk!
- Chicks hatched with/without electrical pollution show a marked
difference in % hatched, and those exposed to RF have many more deformities.
To see a list of health conditions caused by RF, see
www.electricalpollution.com. To read more about the research done by Dr. Havas and others,
click on “research” at www.stetzerelectric.com.

I would like to be just another list member here, not treated as if I
were an attacker that must be fought. I am not attacking anyone here. My
intention is to promote the sharing of accurate information, and “demote” the
sharing of inaccurate information, so that electrical pollution and other forms
of EMR can be dealt with in the best way possible.
I realize that I am sometimes very blunt and forthright, just stating
facts without thinking of the state of the person I am addressing. From Marc's
reaction it seems that he had gotten “sensitized” by havingseveral GS
filter fans question his reaction to the filters, so that when I came alongand
objected to his inaccurate statement about the filters creating frequencieshe
thought he heard me say things I did not say.
I myself have been similarly “sensitized” by all that Dave and some of
us have been put through by the utility companies and PSCs (The politics
involved stink to high heaven.) and now just lately there has also been a company
and a group maligning the filters, so that when someone sent me Marc's remarks
I did not happen to be in a sweet and diplomatic state myself. I just spoke
what was on my mind and put forth the facts, like Spock.

Having spent the last several years studying and experimenting regarding
electrical pollution, I have quite a bit of useful information to share, and
I know that other list members do too. I request that we move forward
with better “listening” to each other, as it certainly would not promote our
welfare to get caught up in squabbles. There is so much to learn and so much to
be done. Let's focus on that.

Regards,
Shivani Arjuna Small
     
     


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks for your reply, Shivani!

While there may have been some sarcasm in my replies to you,
I *am* interested in what you have tried and what worked
and what didn't.

Also, I am interested in knowing what types of detox/nutrition
things you've tried which have made a difference.

I don't really have an "attitude" about the Graham Stetzer
filters -- I myself had a huge improvement from using
filters from quantumproducts.com, but I keep
finding myself searching for devices which don't have
to be plugged in, so that I can benefit from them when
out & about. For me, the Springlife Polarizers have
best satisfied me in this area, but they do have their
shortcomings for certain types of radiation (notably
florescent lighting). For this, I have to fall back
onto the quantum products. I've tried many other
types of portable products, but my reaction to them
is all over the place.

Marc

First here is a definition of slander. Let's all get on the same page.

Slander is a subcategory of defamation.

The basic elements of a claim of slander include;

(1) a defamatory statement;

(2) published to third parties; and

(3) which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.

1) #3 would be very tough if not impossible to prove in this case. You
would have to be an engineer in this field to meet #3. Also there are
also conditions limiting what publishing means. And posting something
in a newsgroup may not be considered publishing.

2) " but this fellow wants to scare people who have the filters into
getting rid of them and using his own products instead "

Who are you talking about? Marc? Someone else? Be specific!

3) Are you affiliated with any of the sites you mentioned or to the
people in anyway who are selling these products? If so you are ethicly
bound to reveal that.

4) The strength of this group is that we can discuss treatments, third
party products, etc without censorship or pressure from commercial
interests. The standard disclaimer is that individual results will
vary. Those of us with ES understand that. What works for one person
may not work for another.

5) If you feel there are areas you can educate people in this group on
that is fine. Attempts at coercion may violate the usage rules of this
group.  

5) There is not enough time in our lives to be distracted from the one
common goal of members of this group. And that is to get better!! Is
that your goal? To get better or help a loved one get better? I am
unclear on you status as someone with ES.

Thanks, Alan

--- In [hidden email], SArjuna@a... wrote:
>
> In order to respond to all the questions and remarks that were
posted in
> response to my message of yesterday, I am going to paste in what  
people
> said, and then respond (In italics, that may or may not come
through.) - filters,
> that would be fine by me, however, he stated inaccurately that the
filters
> create high frequencies.  
> I am certainly not threatening anyone with a lawsuit. I simply
> reported that Dave Stetzer is fed up with people maligning his
product and may decide
> to sue those who continue to do so. (One party, for instance, is
saying
> that the filters, which are UL tested and listed, may explode.  
This is absurd,
> but this fellow wants to scare people who have the filters into
getting rid of
> them and using his own products instead.) If a product is designed
> specifically to reduce high frequencies and you state publically
that it increases
> them, you are maligning the product. If it is not in fact true
that the filters that what is
> now there must be high frequencies. In fact, what is there is a
slightly
> increased magnetic field. It seems likely that is what you are
reacting to.  
> Experimentation could be done to determine that. If you do this,
I'd be contact Dr.
> Graham or Dave Stetzer. Dave is going to draw a diagram to help
people and a
> lot of the people were getting the flu? That was a very short term
study. using the
> filters. (You yourself have said that no one thing seems to work
for everyone high
> frequency pollution in the circuits they are plugged into. They do
that very
> well, and that is all that they are supposed to do. They are not a
miracle,
> they are a highly efficient tool, that does one job and does it well.
>      
>
> Cara wrote:
> It isn't necessary to attack one another here.
>
> I definitely agree. Personally, I was not attacking anyone, just
> alerting Marc to the fact that he is legally responsible if he
maligns someone's
> product without proof. In fact, I invited him to send the proof
ASAP if he had
> any.  
>
>
> Marc wrote:
> the company's
> own research has shown that some people have no reaction
> to them, and some have an adverse reaction.
> The study you are referring to was not “the company's own
research,”
> but done by an independent researcher, Dr. Magda Havas of Trent
University.
> It is “spinning” the conclusions of the research to say
that anyone
> reacted adversely. Some of the people in the school in Canada
reported that
> during the time the filters were installed (which they were unaware
of) they felt
> less well than usual. In any group of people being used for a
study, some
> will always be less well than usual. Flu season was probably the
biggest
> factor in this case, but there are myriad reasons for fluctuations
in individual
> wellness, such as weather, emotional stress, eating something
inappropriate,
> etcetera. When studies are done to determine the effects of
something, the
> researcher looks at the overall picture. There are specific
statistical ranges
> researchers use to judge positive and negative results. The study
you are
> referring to had positive results that actually surprised the
researcher
> considerably, as by her own admission she had not expected them.
> In order to determine whether the people who felt less well
during the
> time the filters were plugged in were less well because of the
filters, further
> research would have to be done.
>
> Marc said:
> you should
> have some awareness of what the rest of the solution should be --
> detoxification & nutrition. Have you done anything
> in these areas for your ES?
>
> Yes, a great deal. I would be happy to share this with anyone
who is
> sincerely interested, not just looking for something to criticize me
for. If many “
> people” are you, anyway? And how many lawsuits are you
expecting? You do
> exaggerate, you know? )  
> My husband and I know someone who repeatedly maligned a product
-
> thinking he was right, but not having looked into it enough - who
got hit with a
> lawsuit when he persisted in the defamation though the company had
warned him
> to desist, and he ended up bankrupt. As I also said, I don't think
you
> realized that what you were saying was both false and slanderous,
but that wouldn't
> help you legally.
> I do not work for Dave or for Dr. Graham, by the way, or
represent them.
> I was just sharing information in hopes of preventing a legal
hassle, and designed to
> do. For the money I spent and the remediation we did, I got total
relief from
> the terrifying cardiac events I had been experiencing, I was able to
sleep
> again, and I AM ALIVE. I definitely got my money's worth.
>
>
> Marc said:
> as I'm sure you must realize, there are dozens
> of EMF protection devices on the market. What have
> you tried besides these 37 filters?
>
> Several things, and I am trying some new ones now, that were
sent to me
> from Canada and Australia. Again, if you are asking out of sincere
interest
> I will be glad to discuss this. It seems to me you are being
sarcastic, but
> I know (all too well) that people read “tone” into Web
communications where
> none was intended, so I am not sure just what your attitude is.
>
> I do not know whether Marc will be glad to hear it or not, but my
> recovery seems to continue. …. Some of what Marc quotes about me
was written some
> time ago. In 2002 I could barely walk across a room, and sat
curled in a
> fetal position literally unable to bear opening my eyes when my
husband drove me
> to various health practitioners looking for help and answers. I could
> barely walk across a room. We did not know if I would live another
day or die at
> any moment. My husband only told me later that he used to come and
look at me
> while I was asleep to see if I was still breathing. Now I can
shovel snow
> for over an hour without tiring, drive a car on errands, be in
public places
> enough to do errands and attend events…    
>      
> I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Marc has an attitude
about the
> Graham Stetzer filters, that causes him to misinterpret the research
results
> and fail to mention the utterly amazing results that are occurring
in homes and
> schools where they have been installed. I would like to share a
bit with
> the list members regarding those results.
> - In a school that had 37 kids with asthma, who frequently needed
> nebulizer treatments from the school nurse, the nurse wrote the
school board at the
> end of the year after the filters were installed to tell them that
now only 3
> of those children still had asthma, and she had not given a single
nebulizer
> treatment since the installment. She listed many other health
improvements
> she had noted, also.
> - In that same school, one of the teachers was suffering
terribly from
> MS, and was going to have to quit teaching. She was only able to
be there
> Monday through Wednesday, as she got worse every day she was there.
This woman
> literally screamed at Dave when he was installing the filters, about
what a
> waste of money this was for the school. Soon she was knocking on
Dave's door
> to apologize and thank him, as all her MS symptoms had disappeared.
People
> with MS have responded particularly well to using the filters. Dr.
Havas is
> now doing a study with MS patients. She has videoed one man
shoveling snow
> and dancing on his sidewalk who could not even walk before.
> - When diabetics install the filters they need to closely
monitor their
> blood glucose, as their need for insulin usually drops immediately.
Some
> will no longer be diabetic at all.
> - Cattle recover their health (if RF was the problem) and give
much more
> milk when the electrical pollution is removed from their environment
- 20
> lbs. per day per cow more milk!
> - Chicks hatched with/without electrical pollution show a marked
> difference in % hatched, and those exposed to RF have many more
deformities.
> To see a list of health conditions caused by RF, see
> www.electricalpollution.com. To read more about the research done
by Dr. Havas and others,
> click on “research” at www.stetzerelectric.com.
>
> I would like to be just another list member here, not treated
as if I
> were an attacker that must be fought. I am not attacking anyone
here. My
> intention is to promote the sharing of accurate information, and
“demote” the
> sharing of inaccurate information, so that electrical pollution and
other forms
> of EMR can be dealt with in the best way possible.
> I realize that I am sometimes very blunt and forthright, just
stating
> facts without thinking of the state of the person I am addressing.
from Marc's
> reaction it seems that he had gotten “sensitized” by having
several GS
> filter fans question his reaction to the filters, so that when I
came along and
> objected to his inaccurate statement about the filters creating
frequencies he
> thought he heard me say things I did not say.
> I myself have been similarly “sensitized” by all that Dave
and some of
> us have been put through by the utility companies and PSCs (The
politics
> involved stink to high heaven.) and now just lately there has also
been a company
> and a group maligning the filters, so that when someone sent me
Marc's remarks
> I did not happen to be in a sweet and diplomatic state myself. I
just spoke
> what was on my mind and put forth the facts, like Spock.
>
> Having spent the last several years studying and experimenting
regarding
> electrical pollution, I have quite a bit of useful information to
share, and
> I know that other list members do too. I request that we move
forward
> with better “listening” to each other, as it certainly would not
promote our
> welfare to get caught up in squabbles. There is so much to learn
and so much to
> be done. Let's focus on that.
>
> Regards,
> Shivani Arjuna Small
>      
>      
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Marc,

As you know, I like the Quantum Power strip and Quantum Byte software
myself, but so far my husband's reaction to the Quantum Pro has been
to get a very bad headache -- not unlike your reaction to the Graham
Stetzer filters. I didn't return the product to the manufacturer,
though; it's still sitting in my kitchen waiting to be returned to
active duty. I am wondering if, as my husband gradually improves
(from nutritional supplements, "detox") he might be able to benefit
from using the Quantum Pro... Does anyone have any experience with
this? Testing the Quantum Pro at different stages of recovery, with
varying results?

Thanks,
Cara

--- In [hidden email], Marc Martin <marc@u...> wrote:

I myself had a huge improvement from using
> filters from quantumproducts.com.

> As you know, I like the Quantum Power strip and Quantum Byte software
> myself, but so far my husband's reaction to the Quantum Pro has been
> to get a very bad headache -- not unlike your reaction to the Graham
> Stetzer filters.

Well, there are different kinds of headaches... :-)

Is it a headache that comes on slowly, and also might be accompanied
by nausea and fatigue? Or is the kind of headache that comes on
quickly, and seems like it's coming from some source of irritation?

(or is it none of the above?)

Frankly, I think the Quantum Pro is overkill for most situations.
In my house, just one or two of the power strips placed in
different parts of the house seemed plenty (and I don't even
use these anymore). I used to use the Quantum Pro at work,
but even now I just use a power strip.

Marc

Immediate, splitting headache, as soon as I turned on the Quantum Pro
at the lowest setting. I left it on for 30 minutes just to be sure,
and the effect was debilitating - my husband ended up miserable in
bed for hours trying to recover.

The slow kind of headache is just background noise for us,
unfortunately. I think my husband barely notices those any more. :-(

Cara

--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@u...> wrote:
> > As you know, I like the Quantum Power strip and Quantum Byte
software
> > myself, but so far my husband's reaction to the Quantum Pro has
been
> > to get a very bad headache -- not unlike your reaction to the
Graham

> Immediate, splitting headache, as soon as I turned on the Quantum Pro
> at the lowest setting.

Okay, that's the same reaction I had to the Graham-Stetzer filters. :-)

I think I'd return it and get my money back.

What is his reaction to the Quantum power strip?

Marc

> Does anyone have any experience with
> this? Testing the Quantum Pro at different stages of recovery, with
> varying results?

Now, to answer your original question. The way I used the Quantum
Products initially was very close to ideal, in that I just happened
to purchase the weakest of their products first (the Quantum Companion),
then bought stronger ones (power strips), then finally the Quantum
Pro. So even before I started using the Quantum Pro, I had essentially
been "ramping up" my tolerance for this energy. And then when I started
using the Quantum Pro, I had to start a low settings and only have
it on for a couple hours, as it would provoke detox-like symptoms
(fatigue, nausea, etc.). I eventually just used this at work, as
my cats will not tolerate any household EMF remediation solutions.
It seemed to be ideally suited for work, as it seems to have a long
range of effectiveness and is good for really nasty environments.
However, as time went on, I really found that I wanted solutions
that didn't tie me to a power outlet, and I also found that the
Quantum Products were never 100% effective against everything,
even after you had fully adjusted to them. So I now just use
minimal (as needed) Quantum Products to supplement whatever
shortcomings the portable Springlife Polarizers have.

Marc

Honestly Marc, I don't know the answer to that yet. We're a little
skittish about changing any setup that works (or that isn't
actively/violently a problem ) so I am still working up the nerve to
install the Quantum Power strip at my husband's desk. We haven't
modified that particular setup since we first grounded his office
electrical outlets, which as I mentioned before was noticeably
helpful...

I've got the Quantum Power plugged into the bedroom, but there
usually isn't anything attached to it there -- only a DVD player
occasionally, for an hour or so at a time. So that's not much of a
test.

But, I think the time has come. I'll plug the Quantum Power strip
into the office outlet and plug all the computer equipment into it
tonight... We'll see what happens.

Cara

--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@u...> wrote:

What is his reaction to the Quantum power strip?

> Honestly Marc, I don't know the answer to that yet.

Yeah, it really can take time to come to a good conclusion
about anything. You have to look for short term effects,
long term effects, and possibly attributing a reaction
to one thing, when something else is responsible.

For example, I've been taking the PCA-Rx mercury detox
spray for over a month, but I'm still unclear about
whether I should continue taking it. It's obviously
provoking a detox, but one must consider whether or
not incorporating it into my daily routine is a step
forwards or a step backwards from the daily routine
I already had. And the stuff has such a strong,
long-lasting effect on me, that I'm only taking
1 spray every 3 days (well below the recommended
amount)

Marc

Cara, I had a difficult time with the Quantum Home unit and had to
return it. I do have some minor positive results with the Quantum
Power strip. From previous commentary, I'd say I'm much more ES
overall than Marc or yourself, more along the level of what your
husband is at. I did write Quantum Products a letter about the
possibility of tailoring a unit to the user's specific needs but they
never responded.

Beau

--- In [hidden email], "Cara" <cara_evangelista@h...> wrote: