This is kind of like trying to defend and explain homeopathy to
someone who knows nothing about it and only knows allopathy
Just an allegory - I'm not saying you don't know anything about
homeopathy, just using it as an example.

Or someone who only knows the vaccine propaganda and hasn't explored
the other side.

You need to be up to speed with deep exploration of the other side of
the story - the non-virology, non-pHARMa, non-allopathic, non-corporate view.

>Sure, the most at-risk population.
>But tis doesn't even come close to explaining all of the cases.
>And more to-the-point, a male homosexual who does all of those
>things *except* exchange body fluids with an AIDS infected person,
>is not apt to develop AIDS.
>If you dispute this, please give me citations to back it up.
>Shannon

On Sep 10, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Knapp, Richard wrote:

>The so called at risk populations for AIDS are male homosexuals who
>engage in unprotected anal sex and people who are injecting drugs with
>shared needles - malnourished, toxic lifestyles if ever there were.
>
>Richard Knapp
>EAS - Data Warehouse Group
>University of Missouri
>615 Locust Street #300
>Columbia, MO 65201
>573-882-8856
>knappr (AT) umsystem (DOT) edu
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: homeopathy-bounces (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
>[mailto:homeopathy-bounces (AT) homeolist (DOT) com] On Behalf Of Robert & Shannon
>Nelson
>Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:26 AM
>To: homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
>Subject: Re: [H] Fear of the Invisible book on viruses & polio and AIDS
>and HIV
>
>I wasn't trying to say they are not factors--I honestly don't know
>whether or not they are, in the majority of *US* AIDS cases. We're a
>tad malnourished and toxic as a nation, and it's acknowledged that the
>(as it's called) AIDS virus is not *highly* infective; if I remember
>right it's said that perhaps a third of people who have the contact
>will actually develop the disease.
>
>What I am suggesting--what the US data seems to say--is that the
>*primary* factor is contagion; if absence of that contagion, the person
>would not have developed AIDS, and their overall health would not have
>declined as quickly or badly, and they would not have developed the
>AIDS-related symptoms.
>
>Which parts of that do you dispute?
>Shannon
>
>
>On Sep 10, 2008, at 9:49 AM, Knapp, Richard wrote:
>
>>Hi Shannon,
>>
>>Can you cite some cases where "malnutrition and toxicity" are not
>>factors?
>>
>>Richard Knapp
>>EAS - Data Warehouse Group
>>University of Missouri
>>615 Locust Street #300
>>Columbia, MO 65201
>>573-882-8856
>>knappr (AT) umsystem (DOT) edu
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: homeopathy-bounces (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
>>[mailto:homeopathy-bounces (AT) homeolist (DOT) com] On Behalf Of Robert &
>Shannon
>>Nelson
>>Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:38 AM
>>To: homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
>>Subject: Re: [H] Fear of the Invisible book on viruses & polio and
>AIDS
>>and HIV
>>
>>Hi Sheri,
>>I won't re-awaken the whole debate, except I'd like to try one more
>>time to understand this one point:
>>
>>On Sep 10, 2008, at 8:25 AM, Sheri Nakken wrote:
>>
>>>[...]
>>>Viruses NOT what you have been taught that they are
>>>Produced by our own bodies to do a job!
>>>
>>>And then she goes on into HIV and AIDS and the insanity of this link
>>
>>If AIDS is not contagious (which I *think* is part of what you've
>>asserted), then how is it that it's (almost) always been traceable,
>>back thru a chain of infected contacts?
>>
>>I do realize that very similar syndrome can be caused by agents which
>>are *not* infectious--malnutrition, and certain toxicities, for
>>instance. I don't dispute that; and I don't dispute that some cases
>>which are *called* AIDS may well have toxic origins.
>>
>>But most cases in the US, the only links--and they have generally been
>>very *clear* links--have been to also-infected contacts with whom body
>>fluid was shared.
>>
>>If we for the moment confine consideration to US cases where
>>malnutrition and toxicity are apparently not factors *and* where there
>>has been an undisputed sharing of body fluids with a (so-called)
>>AIDS-infected person, how do these folks explain the patterns?
>>
>>Shannon
>>
>>

On Sep 10, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Sheri Nakken wrote:

> This is kind of like trying to defend and explain homeopathy to
> someone who knows nothing about it and only knows allopathy

Yet you're apparently unable to explain how the mainstream observations
are accounted for, absent contagion.
Oh well...


> Just an allegory - I'm not saying you don't know anything about
> homeopathy, just using it as an example.
>
> Or someone who only knows the vaccine propaganda and hasn't explored
> the other side.
>
> You need to be up to speed with deep exploration of the other side of
> the story - the non-virology, non-pHARMa, non-allopathic,
> non-corporate view.
>
>> Sure, the most at-risk population.
>> But tis doesn't even come close to explaining all of the cases.
>> And more to-the-point, a male homosexual who does all of those things
>> *except* exchange body fluids with an AIDS infected person, is not
>> apt to develop AIDS.
>> If you dispute this, please give me citations to back it up.
>> Shannon
>
> On Sep 10, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Knapp, Richard wrote:
>
>> The so called at risk populations for AIDS are male homosexuals who
>> engage in unprotected anal sex and people who are injecting drugs with
>> shared needles - malnourished, toxic lifestyles if ever there were.
>>
>> Richard Knapp
>> EAS - Data Warehouse Group
>> University of Missouri
>> 615 Locust Street #300
>> Columbia, MO 65201
>> 573-882-8856
>> knappr (AT) umsystem (DOT) edu
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: homeopathy-bounces (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
>> [mailto:homeopathy-bounces (AT) homeolist (DOT) com] On Behalf Of Robert &
>> Shannon
>> Nelson
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:26 AM
>> To: homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
>> Subject: Re: [H] Fear of the Invisible book on viruses & polio and
>> AIDS
>> and HIV
>>
>> I wasn't trying to say they are not factors--I honestly don't know
>> whether or not they are, in the majority of *US* AIDS cases. We're a
>> tad malnourished and toxic as a nation, and it's acknowledged that the
>> (as it's called) AIDS virus is not *highly* infective; if I remember
>> right it's said that perhaps a third of people who have the contact
>> will actually develop the disease.
>>
>> What I am suggesting--what the US data seems to say--is that the
>> *primary* factor is contagion; if absence of that contagion, the
>> person
>> would not have developed AIDS, and their overall health would not have
>> declined as quickly or badly, and they would not have developed the
>> AIDS-related symptoms.
>>
>> Which parts of that do you dispute?
>> Shannon
>>
>>
>> On Sep 10, 2008, at 9:49 AM, Knapp, Richard wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Shannon,
>>>
>>> Can you cite some cases where "malnutrition and toxicity" are not
>>> factors?
>>>
>>> Richard Knapp
>>> EAS - Data Warehouse Group
>>> University of Missouri
>>> 615 Locust Street #300
>>> Columbia, MO 65201
>>> 573-882-8856
>>> knappr (AT) umsystem (DOT) edu
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: homeopathy-bounces (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
>>> [mailto:homeopathy-bounces (AT) homeolist (DOT) com] On Behalf Of Robert &
>> Shannon
>>> Nelson
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:38 AM
>>> To: homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
>>> Subject: Re: [H] Fear of the Invisible book on viruses & polio and
>> AIDS
>>> and HIV
>>>
>>> Hi Sheri,
>>> I won't re-awaken the whole debate, except I'd like to try one more
>>> time to understand this one point:
>>>
>>> On Sep 10, 2008, at 8:25 AM, Sheri Nakken wrote:
>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>> Viruses NOT what you have been taught that they are
>>>> Produced by our own bodies to do a job!
>>>>
>>>> And then she goes on into HIV and AIDS and the insanity of this link
>>>
>>> If AIDS is not contagious (which I *think* is part of what you've
>>> asserted), then how is it that it's (almost) always been traceable,
>>> back thru a chain of infected contacts?
>>>
>>> I do realize that very similar syndrome can be caused by agents which
>>> are *not* infectious--malnutrition, and certain toxicities, for
>>> instance. I don't dispute that; and I don't dispute that some cases
>>> which are *called* AIDS may well have toxic origins.
>>>
>>> But most cases in the US, the only links--and they have generally
>>> been
>>> very *clear* links--have been to also-infected contacts with whom
>>> body
>>> fluid was shared.
>>>
>>> If we for the moment confine consideration to US cases where
>>> malnutrition and toxicity are apparently not factors *and* where
>>> there
>>> has been an undisputed sharing of body fluids with a (so-called)
>>> AIDS-infected person, how do these folks explain the patterns?
>>>
>>> Shannon
>>>
>>>

At 06:35 PM 9/10/2008, you wrote:

>On Sep 10, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Sheri Nakken wrote:
>
>>This is kind of like trying to defend and explain homeopathy to
>>someone who knows nothing about it and only knows allopathy
>
>Yet you're apparently unable to explain how the mainstream
>observations are accounted for, absent contagion.
>Oh well...


The mainstream observations?

You can continue to believe in contagion because that is just what it
is - a belief, not based on fact.
Sheri


Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm & http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood
Diseases - next classes start in September

In his well known report WHO MURDERED AFRICA, Dr. William Campbell Douglass, M.D., wrote that HIV was finally produced (genetically engineered) in 1974, after having been PREDICTED and REQUESTED! He tells us that the AIDS virus by the WHO (World Health Organization), was not just a diabolical scientific exercise that got out of hand. It was a cold-blooded successful attempt to create a killer virus which was then used in a successful experiment in Africa. African AIDS was the result of the smallpox eradication vaccine program conducted by the World Health Organization during the 1970s. It was not an accident. It was deliberate! Alan Cantwell, MD - "The mixing of AIDS facts and fallacies has long been apparent to researchers like myself who are convinced that HIV did not come from Mother Nature and “species jumping,” but was most likely introduced via contaminated vaccine experiments exclusively targeting the Black African and the American Gay community." more

The Secret Origins of AIDS: Facts, Fallacies & Conspiracy Theories

By Alan Cantwell, MD

The epidemic did not begin in Africa. The first AIDS cases were uncovered in Manhattan in 1979. At that time there were no reported African cases. In fact, the AIDS epidemic in Africa did not begin until the autumn of 1982 at the earliest.

How was HIV introduced exclusively into the gay community in the late 1970s? The exclusive introduction of HIV into the homosexual population of New York City is an unprecedented event in the history of medicine. This biologic phenomenon has never been fully explained scientifically. There is certainly no evidence to indicate white gay men were the only people exposed to sexual contact with Africans, particularly at a time when the epidemic did not exist in Africa. Furthermore, it is biologically impossible for a purported sexually-transmitted and blood borne “virus out of Africa” to infect only young, white, healthy men in Manhattan! Yet, the impossible did happen.

Despite these facts, we are repeatedly told that AIDS began in Africa, even though the American epidemic began before the African epidemic.

The mixing of AIDS facts and fallacies has long been apparent to researchers like myself who are convinced that HIV did not come from Mother Nature and “species jumping,” but was most likely introduced via contaminated vaccine experiments exclusively targeting the Black African and the American Gay community.

Before exploring the man-made theory of AIDS, it is important to note a small but highly vocal group who believes the cause of AIDS is still unknown, that the AIDS blood test is worthless, and that HIV is a harmless virus that is not sexually transmitted. This group, headed by retrovirologist Peter Duesberg and other well-credentialed scientific “dissidents,” believes AIDS is a toxic and nutritional syndrome.

They blame AIDS on recreational drug use among gays – and poverty and malnutrition in Africa for the disease.

As a medical doctor and AIDS and cancer researcher, I am certainly not in accord with this group, but they have been quite successful politically, influencing world leaders like President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, much to the chagrin of the World Health Organisation. For more information, go to Google and type in “VirusMyth” or “The Perth Group”. more: Genetic Engineering and the AIDS Epidemic Alan Cantwell, MD On The ManMade Origin Of AIDS

Governments are always seeking new biological warfare agents, just as they are always seeking more powerful military weapons. Bioweapons are indeed the cheapest form of warfare.

__________________
"Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein

On Sep 10, 2008, at 1:11 PM, Sheri Nakken wrote:

> At 06:35 PM 9/10/2008, you wrote:
>
>> On Sep 10, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Sheri Nakken wrote:
>>
>>> This is kind of like trying to defend and explain homeopathy to
>>> someone who knows nothing about it and only knows allopathy
>>
>> Yet you're apparently unable to explain how the mainstream
>> observations are accounted for, absent contagion.
>> Oh well...
>
>
> The mainstream observations?
>
> You can continue to believe in contagion because that is just what it
> is - a belief, not based on fact.

Well, just for a moment, moving from AIDS is not contagious" to
"nothing is contagious"...
The whole thing with the pump handle that supposedly spread an epidemic
(was it cholera?) thru London in Hahnemann's time, which stopped only
when the pump handle was moved--was that coincidence too?

Playdates so kids can "catch" chicken pox from each other, is that just
coincidence too?
Shannon

> Sheri
>
>
> Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
> http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm &
> http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm
> ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood
> Diseases - next classes start in September
>

At 09:32 PM 9/10/2008, you wrote:

>On Sep 10, 2008, at 1:11 PM, Sheri Nakken wrote:
>
>>At 06:35 PM 9/10/2008, you wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 10, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Sheri Nakken wrote:
>>>
>>>>This is kind of like trying to defend and explain homeopathy to
>>>>someone who knows nothing about it and only knows allopathy
>>>
>>>Yet you're apparently unable to explain how the mainstream
>>>observations are accounted for, absent contagion.
>>>Oh well...
>>
>>
>>The mainstream observations?
>>
>>You can continue to believe in contagion because that is just what
>>it is - a belief, not based on fact.
>
>Well, just for a moment, moving from AIDS is not contagious" to
>"nothing is contagious"...
>The whole thing with the pump handle that supposedly spread an
>epidemic (was it cholera?) thru London in Hahnemann's time, which
>stopped only when the pump handle was moved--was that coincidence too?


Makes a nice story.


>Playdates so kids can "catch" chicken pox from each other, is that
>just coincidence too?


We know so little about so-called viruses and what it is that happens
- what contagion really is.
New research showing cells producing viruses and retrovirals that are
actually communication links - part of an information super highway.

We have no clue, yet, the reality of this all, regarding viruses and
so-called contagion. We are operating in a newtonian way in a
quantum or beyond world.

But this is a different story - something blamed on a virus when it
is a toxin - there was some research showing anti-toxins cured. I'll
see if I can find that. The index in Roberts book isn't very good so
makes it difficult to find what I want.

Same as when the used to think Pellegra was a caused by a infectious -
Several commissions, appointed during the first quarter of this
century to investigate the cause of pellagra, concluded from their
studies that pellagra was an infectious, contagious disease. Harris
(1913) was able to inject Berkefeld filtered tissue material from
pellagra victims into monkeys to cause a corresponding disease in
these animals. He concluded from these experiments that a virus was
present in the injected material and that it was the cause of
pellagra. If the work of Harris had been followed exclusively,
various strains of this "virus" might have been discovered and a
vaccine, effective in experimental animals, might have been
developed, as in the case of poliomyelitis. Today, as a result of
unlimited research, however, we know conclusively that pellagra is
not caused by a virus but rather that it is a vitamin deficiency
disease. It is obvious that if the investigations of pellagra had
been restricted to the virus theory, it would still be a mystery.
<http://www.wellwithin1.com/scobpois.htm#MistakesMadeInThePast>(R.
Scobey, 1952) http://www.wellwithin1.com/harrisPellag.htm

http://www.wellwithin1.com/smon.htm and that a conditon called SMON
(Sub-Acute-Myelo-Optical-Neuropathy) was infectious and later found
to be a drug reaction



How many others like this? Polio and DDT and other toxic exposure.
How does that leave us with measles, mumps, chickenpox,
etc.................maybe we don't know the whole story

Sheri

On Sep 10, 2008, at 3:48 PM, Sheri Nakken wrote:

> [...]
>> Well, just for a moment, moving from AIDS is not contagious" to
>> "nothing is contagious"...
>> The whole thing with the pump handle that supposedly spread an
>> epidemic (was it cholera?) thru London in Hahnemann's time, which
>> stopped only when the pump handle was moved--was that coincidence
>> too?
>
>
> Makes a nice story.

Mm, that's a nice non-response... I guess you mean that you don't
consider it a historical event. Moving right along...
>
>
>> Playdates so kids can "catch" chicken pox from each other, is that
>> just coincidence too?
>
>
> We know so little about so-called viruses and what it is that happens
> - what contagion really is.

Forget viruses. All I'm talking about at the moment is "contagion"--is
anything contagious.
Can you catch herpes from a partner?
Can you get sick from e-coli contaminating spinach?
Can you get sick from drinking out of a pond?
Are the STDs in fact sexually transmitted?

I'm serious in asking these--what would you say?

> New research showing cells producing viruses and retrovirals that are
> actually communication links - part of an information super highway.
>
> We have no clue, yet, the reality of this all, regarding viruses and
> so-called contagion. We are operating in a newtonian way in a quantum
> or beyond world.

I realize that.
But how do you feel that's relevant to questions of contagion, or
anything else in this current discussion?

>
> But this is a different story - something blamed on a virus when it is
> a toxin - there was some research showing anti-toxins cured.

I hadn't heard that, but I'm not sure it's relevant.
Where is the toxin coming from?
There are some "infections" where the actual damage is not directly
from the bacteria (or whatever), but instead from toxins that they
produce. I think that's the case with candida too.

> I'll see if I can find that. The index in Roberts book isn't very
> good so makes it difficult to find what I want.
>
> Same as when the used to think Pellegra was a caused by a infectious -
> Several commissions, appointed during the first quarter of this
> century to investigate the cause of pellagra, concluded from their
> studies that pellagra was an infectious, contagious disease. Harris
> (1913) was able to inject Berkefeld filtered tissue material from
> pellagra victims into monkeys to cause a corresponding disease in
> these animals.

That's curious.
How could that injection give rise to pellagra--was that ever explained?

> He concluded from these experiments that a virus was present in the
> injected material and that it was the cause of pellagra. If the work
> of Harris had been followed exclusively, various strains of this
> "virus" might have been discovered and a vaccine, effective in
> experimental animals, might have been developed, as in the case of
> poliomyelitis. Today, as a result of unlimited research, however, we
> know conclusively that pellagra is not caused by a virus but rather
> that it is a vitamin deficiency disease. It is obvious that if the
> investigations of pellagra had been restricted to the virus theory, it
> would still be a mystery.
> <http://www.wellwithin1.com/scobpois.htm#MistakesMadeInThePast>(R.
> Scobey, 1952) http://www.wellwithin1.com/harrisPellag.htm
>
> http://www.wellwithin1.com/smon.htm and that a conditon called SMON
> (Sub-Acute-Myelo-Optical-Neuropathy) was infectious and later found to
> be a drug reaction
>
>
>
> How many others like this? Polio and DDT and other toxic exposure.
> How does that leave us with measles, mumps, chickenpox,
> etc.................maybe we don't know the whole story

Okay, sure. But if you're saying one can't "catch" any of these, then
I'd like to hear how you explain the observations. Never mind
re-explaining how one needs susceptibility, and not everyone will
"catch" it, etc. All of that's familiar territory. I'm not saying (no
one is saying) that contagion is the *full* explanation for any
illness.

Shannon
>
> Sheri

I remembered reading about the transmission by blood aspect, and did a
search and found it so thought would offer it here Shannon -- but I am
only providing the link and cannot vouch that this person being
interviewed is correct (although it sounds convincing if you can bring
yourself to read the complete and very long interview). Also, it is from
1997, so may not still be current.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aids/hivexist/

here is an exerpt from that link on the haemophiliac issue -- but it is
advisable to read the whole thing to get a better perspective on the
'knob' issue:

"........CJ: Then how do you explain HIV antibodies and AIDS in
haemophiliacs?

ELENI: My colleagues and I have published several papers discussing
alternative explanations including a detailed analysis of haemophilia in
an invited paper in the 1995 special issue of Genetica (17) devoted to
the HIV/AIDS controversy.

CJ: I must confess I find it very hard to accept that haemophiliacs have
not been infected through contaminated clotting concentrates. And I bet
haemophiliacs do too.

ELENI: Unfortunately that is true but perhaps I can persuade you with
one quick and simple explanation. Tell me this. If someone HIV positive
is cut and bleeds how long does the blood remain infectious? Outside the
body?

CJ: According to what I've read, for only a few hours at the most.

ELENI: And why is that?

CJ: Because HIV dries out and dies. Certainly that's what the CDC says.
(18)

ELENI: OK. Let me ask you this. How is factor VIII made?

CJ: From donated blood.

ELENI: Right. Have you ever seen a vial of factor VIII?

CJ: No.

ELENI: All right I'll tell you. It comes as a dry, flaky, yellowish
powder and by the time it's used it's at least a couple of months old.
Do you see the problem?

CJ: I do. If it's dry and that old any HIV in it should be long dead.

ELENI: Exactly. So how does factor VIII cause HIV infection and AIDS in
haemophiliacs?......"

Thanks Robjna (why the name change? :-) )
I'll try to read the full article--tomorrow! (rubs eyes)...
Maybe this question is answered there, but I had assumed that the
transfusions were of whole blood. What's Factor VIII? (Clotting
factor?)
Shannon

On Sep 10, 2008, at 7:32 PM, Robjna wrote:

> I remembered reading about the transmission by blood aspect, and did a
> search and found it so thought would offer it here Shannon -- but I am
> only providing the link and cannot vouch that this person being
> interviewed is correct (although it sounds convincing if you can bring
> yourself to read the complete and very long interview). Also, it is
> from
> 1997, so may not still be current.
>
> http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aids/hivexist/
>
> here is an exerpt from that link on the haemophiliac issue -- but it is
> advisable to read the whole thing to get a better perspective on the
> 'knob' issue:
>
> "........CJ: Then how do you explain HIV antibodies and AIDS in
> haemophiliacs?
>
> ELENI: My colleagues and I have published several papers discussing
> alternative explanations including a detailed analysis of haemophilia
> in
> an invited paper in the 1995 special issue of Genetica (17) devoted to
> the HIV/AIDS controversy.
>
> CJ: I must confess I find it very hard to accept that haemophiliacs
> have
> not been infected through contaminated clotting concentrates. And I bet
> haemophiliacs do too.
>
> ELENI: Unfortunately that is true but perhaps I can persuade you with
> one quick and simple explanation. Tell me this. If someone HIV positive
> is cut and bleeds how long does the blood remain infectious? Outside
> the
> body?
>
> CJ: According to what I've read, for only a few hours at the most.
>
> ELENI: And why is that?
>
> CJ: Because HIV dries out and dies. Certainly that's what the CDC says.
> (18)
>
> ELENI: OK. Let me ask you this. How is factor VIII made?
>
> CJ: From donated blood.
>
> ELENI: Right. Have you ever seen a vial of factor VIII?
>
> CJ: No.
>
> ELENI: All right I'll tell you. It comes as a dry, flaky, yellowish
> powder and by the time it's used it's at least a couple of months old.
> Do you see the problem?
>
> CJ: I do. If it's dry and that old any HIV in it should be long dead.
>
> ELENI: Exactly. So how does factor VIII cause HIV infection and AIDS in
> haemophiliacs?......"
>
>

On Sep 10, 2008, at 10:15 AM, Sheri Nakken wrote:

> This is kind of like trying to defend and explain homeopathy to
> someone who knows nothing about it

Good analogy - your book author is just as ignorant about virology:-)
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."