IMG_2361
Blog powered by Typepad

« Not so useless | Main | Misinformational cascade »

Comments

Here's the report...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=drrciHKm7TU

Steve, Your unbias opinion cannot be trusted as you are a moderator on a yahoo public chat group that is SO BIAS to Schwartz! You are also unethical in that you censor certain postings, and block others all together. You are a crony of Schwartz, and let me assure you not that very well informed on this matter.

There were NO ethics exams for mediums to take, and if he claims so, lets see a copy.

You posted yourself on testingmediums that you don't know for the life of you what the reasons are for some of these disbutes, so why the hell are you trying to get the facts this way?

You will get the facts, and your list, his postings and your censorship will be exposed too! I do recall a couple of years ago, when you actually went into the archives and deleted many hysterical, negative postings by Schwartz in the archives....hmmmm....BIAS???

Scvhwartz has allegedly stolen data from a number of people, and a lot of this evidence is documented. I have seen this myself, and I know you know very little about the situation....and what little you do know is distorted by Schwartz....and breaking orders by doing so...ie....speaking about any of his past subjects by name. Some people never learn.....the VERITAS will be known through the media.......And what about your buddy Beichsel? Why no comment from his "co-director"? Hmmmm....

Let's see. Gary Schwartz posted something about ethics testing for the mediums. Laurie in all caps says it never happened. Someone else and me, specifically, asked what this means? I framed two questions regarding this post and asked them of Laurie. Then along comes Linda who asks why I am trying to get information this way? Simply because, as I did say several days ago, I did not understand the nature of the dispute and there was a dispute between Laurie and Alison and Gary. Myself and a lot of other people are trying to learn what that is and how it relates to the action that culminated in Geraldo and additional threats such as the ones I have seen here.

I can conclude that you object to the disclosure of this information and that you feel Laurie should not be asked questions about remarks that she makes. That's fine but she hasn't said you speak for her and neither did you. Are you officially representing Laurie now?

So I will repeat the questions because I am trying to get information:

1. Are you and Laurie saying that the mediums working in the lab were never asked to take an exam designed to profile their ethics?

2. Or are you (mediums) saying you were asked and did not refuse?

And I'll add:

3. You (mediums) were asked and refused to take it?

4. You (mediums) were asked and you all gladly stepped up and took the exam?

You can simplify your answers with Yes or No answers or expand on them if you want.

It's very simple really. If this is suddenly such a big deal then it makes me and the others discussing this here wonder why and also why you are trying to suppress further discourse on this.

PS: Of course I am biased just as you are. I would like to see whatever is true emerge.

I would also like to see the stuff (I'll call it "stuff" right now because you didn't identify it) that you accuse Gary of stealing. This is a new charge that requires you to present evidence.

ok Steve, all in good time....you will have all the evidence you require to make up your own mind.

Please give this some time to unfold, and I will comment more precisely soon. I would like to hear a response from Schwartz soon.

Regarding the "ethics exam", I think I know what you are refering to....I will comment on this if necessary, yet his "IRM" guidelines were a bunch of BS, and another way he uses to deflect attention away from the TRUTH.

Also, this story is being investigated by media right now, and so it would not be appropriate for us to disclose information that reputable news outlets will cover themselves.

Peace.

I think it's misleading to use the term "ethics exam" to describe the guidelines Gary and Julie imposed on research mediums. This terminology makes it appear that the mediums objected to being held to any ethical standard.

In fact, the lab's guidelines were heavy on duties and responsibilities of mediums, and light on duties and responsibilities of the researchers. Notably, they required the mediums to donate time and services to the lab, but didn't guarantee them compensation for any time and services provided beyond those required.

I recall that these aspects of the guidelines were what the original mediums objected to, and what ultimately led to their quitting the program.

The "ethics exam" referred to was the so-called Rochester Exam, which was designed as part of a course in research ethics at the U. of Rochester. Though this test was designed for professional academic investigators, Gary required that mediums take it, because they might become involved in scoring trials.

I didn't hear any complaints from mediums about this aspect of the guidelines.

You make it sound Don lkike you have to be a professional scientific investigator to take this exam. Let me know if that's true or whether this is an exam that helps to evaluate ethics or honesty and integrity
with questions that you don't need a pHD to answer and which you can't really study for.

I wonder how someone caught cheating on this test would fare? --Just kidding.

"the VERITAS will be known through the media"

Yes, a trustworthy and unbiased provider of information if ever there was one.

I think it might have been the Bryer Miggs/Personality Test he wanted to give his subjects.....however this is not the issue at hand, and NOT what the uproar is about. When Schwartz brings this point up, over and over again, know that this is his attempt to deflect attention away from the real points and facts. And as I said earlier, hold tight, I will be much more specific very soon.... It is my opinion, because Schwartz has a PhD in Personality Psychology, and because some experience him as highly manipulative, that they did not trust him on why he wanted them to take this "test". Some hold the opinion(some of the subjects) that he wanted the information to even better manipulate and mold them....this coupled with the strick pressures of mandating them to donate at least 4 hours of their professional time to service him and his lab was not something certain mediums were able to comfortably commit to. In addition I do not know what the labor laws are in AZ, but I do not believe you can force some one to work for free, or else......this is more along the lines of what the TRUTH is.

Stay tuned......

Linda:

Let's see, Laurie brought up the testing by quoting what Gary wrote elsewhere on a private forum to which she appended a denial of ocurrence. Now it's no longer important.
Fine. I am glad. So I guess the questions regarding this testing will not be answered.

Let's see if you could answer a few other questions about matters your broought up:

Subject: Mediums donation of time to lab.

You state this as a request for 4 hours of
time. Can you elaborate?

4 hours per day, 4 hours per week, 4 hours per month? Or 4 hr per some other time frame I didn't mention. Thank you.

And if the mediums were not "comfortable" with this does it mean they are entitled to do what exactly? Can they quit? Can they negotiate? If there is little or no funding to pay them (Laurie charges $400 an hour according to her website) what do you suggest?

And if they quit, what does that mean for the blurbs on their websites or in their brochures about participating in this research? Would they have to take it down? Revise it to say "formerly" participated?

Yes I am trying to get the mediums' side since you seem to be so knowledegeable about it. Thanks in advance for your responses.

So what IS the 'uproar' about? People say Schwartz is lying, but all I hear from the other side are vague statements and emotional rants about him. The only specifics presented (he wanted them to dedicate 4 hours (per week?) to the lab) seem pretty benign, while the unsupported insinuations (he stole data, he is highly manipulative, he "forced" people to work for free (what, at gunpoint?)) all seem pretty harsh.

If there's some genuine big secret here, someone should come out with it.

Yes, I can elaborate on the time required, as I neglected to put it in my last post. The requirement was for 4 hours a MONTH, MINIMUM; of course if one were a highly enthusiastic "IRM" one could always donate more time....

Actually, there were attempts to resolve this unrealistic demand on their time; one suggestion was grandfathering in the more experienced mediums with the lab to not be required to take entry tests etc....since they had clearly proven themselves over and over again, as the raw data shows. Yet, Schwartz made a BIG deal about everyone having to follow his new guidelines, or essentially they were out.....fired!

I am not saying that Dr. Schwartz's research is all bad. In fact I think, particularly early on, he did some very thoughtful experiments. I believe in this work. In my opinion the trouble started when he became more "popular".

I hope that helps.

Four hours a month doesn't sound like that much to me ...

My post may be superfluous, but as a Medium devoted to scientific inquiry, I was fully aware of the VERITAS requirements when I contacted them about serving as a research medium. It was made clear that some type of ethics questionnaire would be presented and that I would be asked to donate some time to the project.

Unfortunately, at the time of my interest in volunteering, the program was overwhelmed with applications from other mediums, and additional applications were not being accepted.

One issue that I see raised in this discussion, but not fully explored, is the fine line that exists between public science and public entertainment, and how easily that line can be crossed.

Two years ago, I was contacted by the History Channel and asked to participate in a new TV program they were developing that combined psychics and history. At first I thought, "wow, the History Channel, I'm sure they have higher standards than most."

However, when I asked about the protocol they intended to use, I knew immediately that this new program would require fabricated truth vs. scientific or historical truth.

I know it may seem obvious to most, but "if it's on TV, it's entertainment folks!"

Obviously, I respectfully declined the History Channel's offer. I would say that I declined because I am ethical and honest, but now I am afraid to say that since Matthew Cromer pointed out on this thread that people who overtly claim to be honest and ethical are more likely to be hiding something. So, I 'll just say that I declined the invitation because I refused to sleep with the casting director. :-)

Lastly, I am a medium, and I know how difficult it is to avoid all controversy in this field. Accusations of cold readings aren't just part of a skeptics arsenal, it's a real problem with medium readings. Personally, I'm constantly trying to improve my communication habits in order to eliminate this accusation from being used against me.

So, should researchers continue to use mediums to uncover truths about consciousness? My instincts say, "no."

Mediums are too unreliable for replicable evidence, and the majority of anomaly procured is highly subjective to be useful in objective research.

However, as Rupert Sheldrake pointed out, "at least 1% of public research should actually be public (democratic)." To that aim, medium research is a great PR tool. It may in the end help bring more serious consciousness survival research into the university setting.

Especially since the mediums seemed to benefit from participating in the research as well--if they were good, then they could claim 'academic proof' of their abilities, which would no doubt increase their potential client list.

Sounds mutually beneficial to me. I assume there most be more to it.


Especially since the mediums seemed to benefit from participating in the research as well--if they were good, then they could claim 'academic proof' of their abilities, which would no doubt increase their potential client list.

Sounds mutually beneficial to me. I assume there most be more to it.


Yes Linda thank you it does. A half a day a month hardly seems onerous. When you Linda
were doing research or undergoing training, especially if it meant your name on a publication which is so very important to
professionals, particularly at universities,
weren't you ever asked to contribute some extra time, put in a little extra effort, go the mile? For professionals such as yourself it helps bolster your CV, for these mediums it it adds to their credibility. I think they were getting something in return for their work that money couldn't buy... but yeah, that's my opinion. Folks can agree or disagree.

Oops, sorry for the double-post

4 x $400=$1600
$1600 x 12 = $19,200

I don't make that kind of charitable donation each year to anyone, why should they if they cannot afford to?

Of course, the assumption here, Linda, is that Laurie's $400/hr. for a phone reading is a fair and equitable price exchange for the services offered.

Though I do not judge her for her pricing, I do think one can argue that Laurie's prices are directly linked to her fame, which is directly linked to her connection to Dr. Schwartz.

In fact, Laurie's current TV show can be attributed to her participation in Dr. Schwartz's experiments.

I think this personal squabble with Dr. Schwartz should have been kept at the university level.

Personally, my ethics would never have allowed me to assist Geraldo in vilifying Dr. Schwartz on the public airwaves, especially not after he made me a household name.

Actually Marcel, it is more about supply and demand. When a medium has the rare gifts that someone like Ms. Campbell has they have very little time, not to mention the drain on their energy.

Mediums like Laurie Campbell have solved crimes, helped heal bereaved families, and I would argue is the most scientifically documented as far as her results are concerned than any other modern medium today.

And Marcel, don't be confused, her research with Schwartz did not put her on the map, she put him on the map.

Cheers.

>4 x $400=$1600
>$1600 x 12 = $19,200

>I don't make that kind of charitable donation each year to anyone, why should they if they cannot afford to?

Lots of people volunteer 4 hours a month - or even 4 hours a week - delivering meals to the elderly, being a Big Brother, working at an animal shelter, etc.

They are not forced to do this. They do it because they are committed to helping out.

If the mediums working for Schwartz thought four hours a month was too much of a commitment, then I'd have to say that they weren't all that committed, to begin with.

This squabble over Schwartz's terms seems petty. On the other hand, the charges made on the Geraldo program are very serious. Now the question is: Are the charges true, or are they just part of a vendetta by an anti-Schwartz faction that has spun out of control?

I'm not sure what to think.

By the way, I once purchased a telephone reading from Laurie Campbell. I wouldn't have contacted her if I had not read about her in Schwartz's book The Afterlife Experiments. I can't be the only one who learned of her in this manner, so she certainly owes something of her success to her work with Schwartz.

I don't understand the problem LC had with GS. If she didn't want to work 4 hours a month 'pro bono', then why didn't she just refuse? If she was threatened with dismissal, then quit and go out and make
$400 per hour. If she wanted to keep the job, then file a complaint with the UA administration. If the administration ruled in her favor, then she doesn't work the extra 4 hours. If they rule against her, then maybe her complaint had no merit.

she did resign May 2005.

Rest assured her complaints have merit.

She did refuse to follow his new guidelines, after she generously donated HUNDREDS of hours to him over the years, to which he went off and wrote popular books in which he financially benefited and she received nothing.....fair? Confidential? Research? Science?

Linda: I am not saying that Dr. Schwartz's research is all bad. In fact I think, particularly early on, he did some very thoughtful experiments. I believe in this work. In my opinion the trouble started when he became more "popular".


--------------------------------------------
I found the research by Paul Pearsall, Gary Schwartz and, of course, Linda Russek very compelling and often overlooked by people interested in mediumship. Here's a URL for the abstract of one paper on this work:


http://www.springerlink.com/content/k51335l4k4676577/

http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/detrm_letrs/YR07/jun07a.pdf
This document says a lot, soon they will post the U of A's latest response....and their latest findings, and this represents only a fraction of the bigger unresolved issues...

My 2 cents or more. I'm Pam Blizzard and I run the "paranormal" group mentioned earlier in this thread. Yes, we discussed our dismay with Schwartz, and Angelina Diana at greath length on my board. My name was also used in by Gary Schwartz in his book "Medium" with little regard for my confidentiality also, though the harm was much less than others suffered, still he didn't ask my permission to use my name, or the information in the emails that he received. When I voiced my displeasure, I got nothing but "debate" from him -- a brick wall. I absolutely believe that after death communication happens and can be a positive, healing experience, but that all "research" on mediumship should just stop. It belongs to the realm of the heart, not the realm of the laboratory. I look forward to the facts coming to light about this case, so that we can fairly decide for ourselves.

>all "research" on mediumship should just stop.

I think there are ways of doing it right. Charles Drayton Thomas seems to have handled it just right in his extensive work with Gladys Osborn Leonard. But such cases are rare.

Linda wrote:

"4 x $400=$1600
$1600 x 12 = $19,200

I don't make that kind of charitable donation each year to anyone, why should they if they cannot afford to?"

It looks like a huge donation, but using your same maths: if we assume conservatively 3 readings a day, 5 days a week, that's $6000 per week. Times 4 = $24000 per month. Times 12 = $288,000 per year. If you just said they would prefer to make an extra $20,000 a year, that's fair enough - but your statement "why should they if they cannot afford to?" rings a little hollow when we look at a conservative $300,000 per year wage.

More pertinently, it seems it was 1 hour per week? That to me isn't a huge investment of time (it takes me 2 hours to take my daughter to dancing class).

But as Michael points out, this is just a squabble over terms - the more important question is whether the Geraldo accusations about preying on bereaved families, suggestions of mediumship in the shower etc. are true. Far more serious allegations, and ones that require answers from Dr Schwartz or 'the authorities' (rather than tabloid TV shows).

I agree with Michael and Greg, and I am sure that in the next days we are going to hear Dr. Schwartz's side of the story. In fact, Dr. Schwartz posted this comment on the testingmediums discussion group earlier today...

As a wise person once told me, there are three sides to every story - her side, his side, and the truth. I personally care about the bigger truth....Thus far, we have the Geraldo story, plus diverse comments made by others - which very greatly in their veracity....we have yet to hear "his" side....
Also, Linda wrote this about Laurie Cambell,
When a medium has the rare gifts that someone like Ms. Campbell has they have very little time, not to mention the drain on their energy.
Linda, I am a medium, and though i don't live in the public eye like Laurie, I feel that my 23+ years as a medium allows me just as much knowledge and right to comment on my craft as you or Laurie. That said, your assertion that Laurie has a "rare gift" is the biggest load of crap I've heard in awhile.

The continued promotion by TV mediums that they possess "rare and supernatural" gifts is one of those self-promoting lies that flies in the face of Laurie's assertion that she's seriously interested in "true" scientific research.

Consciousness survival and communication between the carnate and discarnate is something available to all who seek it. Laurie's mediumship skill, and mine as well, are merely well developed talents, not gifts.

Linda said: And Marcel, don't be confused, her research with Schwartz did not put her on the map, she put him on the map.

First-time poster, here, chiming in to add my voice to Michael's as one who would not know the name Laurie Campbell but for Dr. Shwartz' high praises via written and spoken (radio) word.

Not that it may not have happened the other way around for others. I'm just saying that's the way it was for me, your average jo(sephine) blow, software developer, non-psychic, after-life hobbyist. (And that's the first and last time I describe myself thus!)

Have enjoyed reading Michael's and Marcel's sites for a few months now. Thanks, guys!

Marcel have you been tested under double blind conditions? Have you proven your skills in a laboratory? Just what I thought, NO!

Please don't compare yourself to someone who has!

And have you had a reading by Ms. Campbell? NO! You have no grounds for your statements. I on the other hand have tested dozens of mediums, and have seen many of your types over the years....thinking you are just as good as those few with RARE GIFTS.

What is your track record?

Oh, and for those commenting of mediums rate....rarely do the best mediums I know do more than 2 reading a day, and many times it is just one a day, due to the immense drain of working with bereaved grieving people, and holding the energy as mediums do.

>And Marcel, don't be confused, her research with Schwartz did not put her on the map, she put him on the map.

I also never heard of Laurie Campbell until I saw Dr. Schwartz's work. Nothing against Ms. Campbell, but I do think GS was the one that placed Laurie on the map, not the other way around. They were not doing television specials about Laurie in the beginning, it was about Schwartz and Linda Russek's work.

I am not going to engage in these petty discussions any longer. The matter at hand is not about whether Laurie Campbell got famous from Schwartz or visa versa. The legal matter is that he published books about her, and others without their permission. Pam Blizzard posted that her name too was included in one of his books without her permission. He did this to many....and in the case of some of those mediums he listed in his book as tested, he had not even met! The OHRP findings document is serious, it is a Federal Government oversight compliance organization under DHHS.....many more issues that are currently being investigated with come to light soon.

As for the credibility of these claims, a major AZ newspaper is currently working on the bigger story for you all to read and make up your own minds.

Greg L wrote:

" They were not doing television specials about Laurie in the beginning, it was about Schwartz and Linda Russek's work. "


Greg ...the Linda here you are debating should be especially aware of this since she is Linda Russek.

>Marcel have you been tested under double blind conditions? Have you proven your skills in a laboratory? Just what I thought, NO!
>Please don't compare yourself to someone who has!

I've had phone readings by both Laurie Campbell and Marcel Cairo. Both readings were interesting, but Marcel's impressed me more.

In an earlier post on this thread, Linda refers to a 'Bryer Miggs' Personality Test. I took that as a joke. I think she was referring to the Myers-Briggs Personality Test, which is very familiar to even first year psychology students. If 'Linda' is indeed Linda Russek, the psychologist, it makes me wonder about her own credentials.

I am NOT Linda "Russek".

"Petty" is a good word to use, Linda, the exact word I thought of after reading your petty attacks on me and other mediums who have not participated in research study.

It is a well known fact that the Veritas program could not process or test mediums fast enough.

Anyway, the fact that some mediums are more talented than others does not validate the "rare gift" concept.

To your point, however, this isn't just a story about the allegations against Dr. Schwartz, it is also a story of how both researchers and research subjects (mediums) have migrated from the quest for scientific inquiry to the quest of fame and fortune.

A sad and pathetic story in my opinion.

>As for the credibility of these claims, a major AZ newspaper is currently working on the bigger story for you all to read and make up your own minds.

I really think this is the key point. If the allegations are true, there should be some follow-up in the media before long. The facts will come out, and then we can judge. Until then, there is little point in arguing about it.

Linda you say you have tested dozens of mnediums. Since we all seem to be interested in this area can you tell us when and where you tested these mediums? If you could disclose any medium's identity whom you tested that would be helpful also. If not
that's okay too.

And did you publish yourtest results anywhere?

I've had phone readings by both Laurie Campbell and Marcel Cairo. Both readings were interesting, but Marcel's impressed me more.

I have also had a very interesting reading with Marcel. You can read about it here, although a couple of the most evidentiary parts of the reading were removed for privacy reasons.

Thank you Michael and Matthew for your kind support, but honestly, I do not want this discussion to digress into a medium vs. medium challenge.

I do not know Ms. Cambpell or her work personally, so I can't make any comments about them. She has been tested repeatedly by Dr. Schwartz and therefore I have to believe she is good at what she does.

My whole beef with Linda's comments is that she is promoting an idea ("rare gift") which I not only find counterproductive to open and honest scientific inquiry, but an idea which has allowed charlatans like Sylvia Browne and David Thompson to thrive.

I am sorry if my personal crusade against fallacy in mediumship has spurred negativity on this blog. I did not mean it to. I am now going to enforce a gag rule on myself until Dr. Schwartz has responded to the allegations.

Anyway, thanks again Michael and Matthew.

Pam helps to see the pattern of abuse of other Mediums. Sad to see a Medium use this place to just promote themselves.

I did not mean Pam was in here to promote herself. MC seems to have a problem with other Mediums. Pam helps us to understand her experience, and maybe that can help to understand GS.

Jenny wrote:
"Keep in mind, We are looking at the foundation of a journalist who once tried to uncover The vault of Al Capone. Talk about shotty investgations- Sensationalism"

This was my first thought when I saw the post the other day. Say the name Geraldo to me and it brings up an image of that empty vault. And I couldn't watch because I don't subscribe to Fox News and have no desire to.

But I don't think Michael was wrong to post this. Not at all. I've personally been impressed with what I know of Schwartz's research, but if there's something wrong with it, I want to know.

I'd read there was some kind of problem between Du Bois and him, but I didn't know about Lori Campbell falling out with him. I wonder what keeps putting off the mediums who worked with him early on.

The allegations sound so fishy though. He contacted someone out of the blue and that person let him stay at his house? Who would let a stranger do that, no matter who they are or claim to be, and the whole "corporation in the afterlife" goes against what his research seems to imply about the afterlife. I just find it bizarre and out of synch with what I've read of his writings.

What I got from his writing (and I could be wrong) that might translate as zeal were some deep underlying emotions behind his motivation to do this research. That can definitely get in the way of objectivity, but most scientists won't even touch this subject. I thought he did well to keep that in check, and seemed to compensate for it in his dedication to making the studies progressively more objective and less vulnerable to cheating. But that's just my take, and I certainly don't know.

As for his refusal to rebut, I don't think if it were me I'd give Geraldo the time of day. I'd respond to such questions from Anderson Cooper. Maybe even Regis Filbin. Not Geraldo!

So I just don't know what to think about this.

Please let us wait for Dr. Schwartz formal statement which should be available soon pending approval of the University. This statement will surely answer many of the questions that have been raised here.

>I couldn't watch because I don't subscribe to Fox News

You can see the story on YouTube now, if you wish.

Barbara wrote:

"As for his refusal to rebut, I don't think if it were me I'd give Geraldo the time of day. I'd respond to such questions from Anderson Cooper. Maybe even Regis Filbin. Not Geraldo!"

While I echo your sentiments, Gary did not refuse to rebut. He was called by the producer at home on Friday evening but neither he nor his wife were there. Both were traveling out of town. They also called his office at the University. They left messages which would not be picked up until Monday morning or well after the show aired.

By implying he was not available for comment, Geraldo was fibbing a bit. This is SOP for such programs where they really don't want to get their target's response if they are afraid there is going to be one.
It could ruin the whole show and the show's the thing. They much prefer targets who curse them out or punch their cameramen trying to ambush them in the street.

Now Dr. Schwartz has every intention of responding and is doing so in writing
so there's no misunderstanding.

Barbara wrote: "The allegations sound so fishy though. He contacted someone out of the blue and that person let him stay at his house? Who would let a stranger do that, no matter who they are or claim to be, and the whole "corporation in the afterlife" goes against what his research seems to imply about the afterlife. I just find it bizarre and out of synch with what I've read of his writings."

Firstly, I think the "corporation from the afterlife" thing is getting misconstrued...the wording of the report seems to suggest a corporation in the physical world that would be administered or guided by those on the other side.

But you raise a good point about the fishiness - if Sgrenar's earlier post on this thread is correct, in that Laurie Campbell was already working with the 'victim' and introduced him and Schwartz, then Geraldo's report would seem to be plain deceptive. They paint Schwartz as 'ambulance chasing' the victim out of the blue, but if Sgrenar is correct, this is not the case - and what's worse, Geraldo then interviewed the actual medium who introduced Schwartz to the victim, as if she was simply an interested observer with no ties to the victim.

On the other hand, many would say there's no smoke without fire. So I guess we should all wait to see what Dr Schwartz's response will be.

There is already a reponse at Dr Gary Schwartz website www.drgaryschwartz.com or directly go here:
http://www.drgaryschwartz.com/response.htm

The comments to this entry are closed.