derdrittemann2003

No, for God's sakes--I do not represent Allen Steere or anyone one of
the enemies of Kathleen--or anyone else for that matter--despite the
extremely witty and tasteful suggestion that umm, we are very, very
close. How nice.

In fact, I have often fantasized (more often than I would like to
admit) about getting him under oath and asking him, "Tell us doctor,
why it is that you have such disdain and distrust of your fellow human
beings that when they tell you that they are feeling better when they
take antibiotics--that you don't believe them--don't consider these
reports "evidence". What do you do in your own practice? Do you ask
them, "how are you feeling today"--or--"let me run some lab tests and
I'll TELL YOU how you're feeling today"?

I remember the famous New York Times interview that a lot of us
snickered about--"Stalking Steere", wasn't it--or something like
that--I remember him saying that a lot of what was being spread around
about him on the internet was "quite libellous".

And while I may think he is an arrogant egomaniac who would rather let
people's health deteriorate than admit his errors--I remember
thinking--"yeah, well, he is right about that".

It's true, you know, what they say about repeating an untruth so many
times it comes to be accepted as fact. So, the conclusion I draw from
that--is that he is very much aware of what is being said about
him--but figures he's a big player on a big stage--and that this is
part of the price that you sometimes have to pay for doing business,
and that as long as it's just confined to the internet--no real harm.
At least that's the way I would look at it if I actually WERE his
counsel.

But it has been with some alarm that I have been watching this
discussion about "RICO" as we are now talking about criminal conduct
and conspiracy--and again, if I actually WERE his counsel--now I would
be somewhat more concerned.

I honestly don't know. I cannot tell you that the people who are
saying this aren't right. I guess we all look at situations like this
through the prisms of our own life experiences. My experiences would
suggest to me that those allegations are highly UNLIKELY to be true.
In real life, people just don't behave that way. In any event, until
there is proof--you should start with the idea--as with anyone--that
they are untrue. What troubles me deeply here, is that one of the
proponents of this idea suggested that she was going to pursue the
idea--that those who would not follow were "wimps"--and that she would
force them to prove the charges were untrue. Exactly the opposite,
unfortunately, of what has to be done--she has to prove them true.

There's a lot of difference, I would suggest, between shared values,
commonality of interest and purpose--and conspiracy. Sure,
conspiracies exist--"just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean
they're not out to get you".

Here's a thought: one of the most oft-repeated examples of proof of
financial misconduct--the cash for protocol deal--insurance companies
hiring "the boys" to write their treatment guidelines. Well, what if
you worked for an insurance company(God forbid)and it was your job to
hire the expert to write the guidelines--and you want to keep your
job--do you hire one of the boys--save the company big bucks--or hire
Joe Burrascano?

It's only "conflict of interest" if they tailor their opinions for
cash--arguably--there's nothing wrong with accepting payment for their
previously-held opinions. It always gets turned around.

I have been trying to educate myself--to be able to form an opinion. I
want to try to think for myself--and not just accept everything I
hear--ask questions.

Here's one--remember Malawista? Like in Steere, Malawista--that one?
Know what he says about persistence of infection versus autoimmune
theories? Might want to have a look. Can't say I would buy into
everything he says--but when I ran across this awhile ago--and
realized he was still at Yale--the alleged epicenter of Lyme evil--I
was a little stunned. I find it hard to believe that institutions like
Yale are such monoliths as some would propose. Actually, they're the
MOST diverse places for difference of opinion--that's what they are
about. Why hasn't Malawista been let go?

I have never met Dr. Burrascano. I would like to, someday--like to be
able to shake his hand and say, "thank you". But I would also like to
ask him if he now regrets what he said in front of Congress. Why? For
the simple reason that the temperature went up dramatically at that
point. In my view--I'm caught in the middle and don't care for it all
that much. With all due respect--he's a Doctor--is expertise is in
medicine. I reserve the right to form my own opinion. What he said
about the domination of the "boys" is unquestionably true. The
motivations behind that domination--see--now THAT'S the question.

But it's bad enough without a huge libel suit--or a bunch of them--and
so I came into this forum--and got cussed and insulted--and questioned
as to who I was--and we don't know who you are. I have never, ever
seen Lymies act like that to one another.

Interesting--on another,calmer, friendlier board--we were discussing
some stuff--and I had the opportunity to question the ALDF as to some
statements on their website via e-mail. Know what? David Weld himself
responded--twice--agreed that I was right--said the site would be
corrected. He NEVER asked me who I was. I was actually very surprised.
And then, I asked the CDC the same questions--someone told me "don't
hold your breath"--got three separate responses--they also agreed the
ALDF was wrong. They also never asked who I was. Just the other day I
talked with a representative of the C6 ELISA test-- marketers--he
spent some 20 minutes with me--never demanded to know who I was.

And look what happened here. Some just assumed because they didn't
know me--and I asked questions--that I was a threat. I would suggest
that shows the mindset at work--the filters of their world view, the
prism from which this allegation has emerged.

As to the course of action they are now proposing--letters to the
DOJ--well, I for one, am not going there. If they get hit with a libel
suit--they can plead insanity--I can't.

I thank everyone--even those who did their best to hurt me--for at
least listening to what I had to say--I have said a lot here
lately--view myself as a guest only--

Gotta go, now--auf wiedersehen!

Harry.

Ende.

P.S. Lisa--for God's sakes--try to behave yourself. Don't make me come
back here.

sinaj101

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/June2001/StalkDocSteereReLymeDis.htm

I lost this and found it the other day. Just thought I would post it for
anyone new to be able to see. I don't know why but for some reason the
pictures of him don't come up for me anymore.

greatcod

What about Steere Inc telling the world that it's all in on our heads;
publishing that Lyme is overdiagnosed, denying to this day that we
are really sick people. Is that slanderous or libelous--is that actionable.
Or is that just science?
C'mon, these bastards have destroyed thousands of lives and gotten away with it.
The women's anger is more than justified. Their lives, and their children's
lives are being trashed--who wouldn't be furious--except,of course, that fury
is unamerican unless its from 30,000 feet.

lisam01502

I wouldn't take on a job, that required me to deceive people and condemn them
to a life of suffering , just so the shareholders of my employer can make a fat
bundle (with a nice salary for me too, because they reward such "productive"
individuals.)

No, I wouldn't want such a job,I would not be able to look myself in the eye at
the end of the day. I am not like you and your pathological friend Weisman, who
are full of sympathy for those who have caused so much suffering.

Perhaps Dr. Phillips of Yale has a potion for you? Something nice and strong,
that will shut your offensive mouths forever.
Lisa

derdrittemann2003

Everyone should decide what's best for themselves--make their own
choices.

In my opinion, the best thing that could happen at this point is that
DOJ will laugh hysterically and "roundfile" whatever nonsense she sent
them--if she actually did.

If, on the other hand, they contact the named "conspirators"--and
some, even a fraction get pissed off (I would think that would be
expected)--then understand that these folks have the capacity and
assets to retain-- oh--a majority of the lawyers in the United
States--that's all.

It would be like a semi-trailer truck hitting a g**** at 90 miles an
hour.

And the proponents of this "plan" at that point-- will be somewhere,
no doubt, where they aren't allowed to butter their own toast--and the
truck will slam into a g**** other than them.

Wanna be a g****?

lisam01502

Well, there is another way of looking at this.
That big fat truckload of fraudsters is roaring down the freeway, after a
g****.

But suddenly the drivers (counsel for Driver Steere, Driver Rowland,Driver
Johnson, Driver Klempne etc etc) realize that behind the solitary g****
(biochemist Kathleen ****son) is something unexpected:

TENS OF THOUSANDS OF G****S.

The truck skids over all those g****s and ends up ass over wheels in a ditch.

The rest is history : ))
Lisa

a_weisman

Science or not, sounds like his opinion. Isn't he entitled to that,
even if he's wrong?

Being angry isn't the same as being effective. These women are angry
enough for everyone. Angry hostile irrational nasty. Their anger isn't
helping them keep their kids. Their anger isn't helping them win
friends. Looks like it is helping them lose their kids because they're
more angry than smart about strategy. Blinded by anger is more like
it. Justified or not it is hurting them and hurting their cause.

You forgot to tell us how did all of the bogus complaints against
steere to the mass medical board turn out. Your anger didn't win the
day there did it. Try being smart next time instead of venting your
anger irrationally. You might get somewhere.


There is some difference between furious and psychotic. They're over
the line from furious. Way over the line.

Cany you say that you really think their letters are helping anyone or
maybe their letters make everyone look as psychotic as them?

a_weisman

I never could get this straight.

Should this be "me and allan steere"

Or should it be "allan steere and I"

Maybe it depends on the context it is used in? Did I finish that
sentence with a preposition? Is that wrong?

Grammatically confused today.

rmagricola

It should be Steere and me or Steere and I depending on the usage.

Martha A.

lisam01502

Thank you Weisman, for revealing exactly what and your friend Dirt Ritteman
really are. You are not so much a Steere apologist, as obsessive Steere-lover.

Now, what "BOGUS" complaints against Steere are you referring to?
Lisa