Now for the points and questions you didn't address.
Please do so.
You wrote: >Evidently these other eleven charges did not mention mercury. They >> >must have been about other matters of malpractice or violations of >> >laws that did not relate to mercury.
I replied:
Uh huh, like I said, the same ole same ole. Was he also charged with using the wrong color of toliet paper??
It is your choice of the word malpractice, is it not?
Plus the words, violations of the law??
>One charge is sufficient to remove a license to practice dentistry. >> >Eleven charges, unrelated to mercury, would tend to show an >> >overwhelming pattern of substandard practice.
What overwheming pattern of substandard practice?
Substandard and overwhelming are your cloice of words, are they not?
Which is overwhelming and which is substandard??
>If indeed this author is correct, and eleven patients were treated >> >below standards with no relation to the mercury question, then this >> >dentist should not be allowed to practice on the public -- regardless >> >of any position he happened to take on dental amalgams. > *Below Standards* Standards set by whom????? >In most states, the standards are set by the state legislature.
And they get their standards from whom?
>>His pattern of malpractice in non-mercury cases >> Say what?!?!
> Using no mercury is malpractice?????? >I never said that.
>The reference I made was to the eleven NON-mercury cases in which he >was charged with malpractice/substandard practice by the board.
Well, no, those are your words.
>Since >these cases did not involve mercury, I refer to them as the >non-mercury cases. > Oh??? Like what? >Like the three cases you list below.
He didn't wash his hands.
>> Not seeing decay.
> Yelled at a patient.
That's malpracitice/substandard???
>Who made these charges???
>Didn't you know that when you posted the reference?
Yes, I knew, I am asking you if you knew? I should have posted, complaints.
>Generally, charges >are made by a branch of the state government. In most states this is >the government's dental board.
Uh huh, *organized dentistry*
> The 14 patients who files were used were friends of Dr Jacobson an made it >> clear to the board, in writing, they wanted nothing to do with this so called >> *investion* which started immediately after he placed an ad which used the >> words *mercury free*.
Concoeted charges, such as:
> He didn't wash his hands.
>> Not seeing decay.
>> Yelled at a patient. >Surely you don't mean to imply that these charges should be taken >lightly.
LOL!!!
My word this is certainly *fraud* and *incompetent* conduct.
> (I don't know what an *investion* is.)
Righto, ask someone to help you figure it out.
>With regard to the charge of "Yelled at a patient," this seems >unlikely to result in a loss of license.
Yes.
Along with , not washed his hands, and not seeing decay.
Those don't sound one bit made up/concocted. do they?
>But if his patients all >rallied to his defense, then HOW did the state learn that he had >yelled at a patient?
It was made up!
Did any of his patients say that??
>Perhaps at least one of his patients reported this to the board. I doubt that
the state had any other way of
>learning that he "Yelled at a patient" unless that patient complained to the
board.
Give me a break. A patient is going to a board because a dentist yelled at them.
You need to go back and read what the evidence showed about who made the complaints.
Then read how his patients knew this was a chop job and wantedd nothing to do with it.
>With regard to the charge of "Not seeing decay," this is more serious. >Many patients go to a dentist specifically to find out if they have >any tooth decay. If decay is present and the dentist misses it, >serious complications can potentially occur to the patient. If a >dentist continually misses an obvious diagnosis, state action is warranted.
In fact he did see it, he noted it in the file and made several attempts to get the patient to come back and get it fixed, the patient refused.
>By far, the most serious charge is that of "He didn't wash his hands." >In this age of deadly communicable diseases, the prevention of >infection must be foremost in the minds of all members of the health >care professions. It has been known since the 1880s that the simple >act of washing one's hands has a dramatic effect in lowering the rate >of disease transmission in the healthcare setting.
Who saw him not wash his hand??? Do your patients follow you in the bathroom??
I suggest to you, if everyone who didn't wash their hands, lost their licenses, we would have very few licensced people in any field.
Doctors can cut off the wrong leg and still keep their license.
<snip>
Cutting to the chase, the fact he used the words mercuy free is EXACTLY why he was harassed and the investigaters worked mighty hard to come up with this trumpted up charges. It took them over twelve years.
The board membesr made it clear tey were upset with his refusal of the use of mercury.
>Are there any cases on record that would better illustrate unfair >> >prosecution?
>> WOW!!!!! >The ENTIRE case was nothing, but a farce from those who are EVIL. >Even if we dismiss the amalgam-related charges as "nothing," what >about the other eleven charges?
I didn't see eleven, did you?
>It is unreasonable to say "The ENTIRE case was nothing" without >examining the charges that did not even involve amalgam.
No, it is totally unreasonable that the broad took twelve years to get these charges made up!!!
>Was it true >that he didn't diagnose dental caries? Was it true that he didn't even >wash his hands?
B I N G O!!!!
Was it true sixty of his patients jammed the hearing room??
WHAT does that tell you?
Did you read all the steps taken to get these charges made. UNFAIR and DISHONEST tactics.??
*Although the Humphrey's office and the board sought to peddle the notion that its investigation of Gary was not centered on his refusal to use amalgam, the Star Trubune was not fooled. The MN. broard of dentistry had accused the dentist of fraud and and misconduct for allegedly pushing an expensive that have never been proven to work, removing peoples' fillings call amalgams to free them of mercury poisoning*
I all comes back to the gag order.
> YOU learn the LIES well from dental school. >Is this meant as an ad hominem attack?
No, it is the TRUTH.
>What "lies" are in my posting?? >I can't find any.
WOW!!!!
Dentists have LIED for so long, they know longer know what is a LIE..
Your choice of words and DECEIVING are LIES.
There was NO fraud!!!
There was NO imcompetence!!!!!
There was NO Malpractice!!
There was NO substandards.
> PATHETIC!! >> Jan >No need to get insulting. I did not insult you.
There is a great need to get real and stop trying to deceive.
>My point remains -- are there any other cases that would better >illustrate the author's claim of unfair prosecution? This particular >case involved many charges, and only half of them seemed to involve >amalgam. Instead of defending a doctor who apparently was also charged >with failure to diagnose decay, and failure to practice infection >control for his patients, wouldn't it be more effective for an author >to put forward a case that involved ONLY amalgam-related issues?
>Now for the points and questions you didn't address.
>Please do so.
>You wrote:
>>Evidently these other eleven charges did not mention mercury. They >>> >must have been about other matters of malpractice or violations of >>> >laws that did not relate to mercury.
>I replied:
>Uh huh, like I said, the same ole same ole. Was he also charged with using the >wrong color of toliet paper??
>It is your choice of the word malpractice, is it not?
>>One charge is sufficient to remove a license to practice dentistry. >>> >Eleven charges, unrelated to mercury, would tend to show an >>> >overwhelming pattern of substandard practice.
>What overwheming pattern of substandard practice?
>Substandard and overwhelming are your cloice of words, are they not?
>Which is overwhelming and which is substandard??
>>If indeed this author is correct, and eleven patients were treated >>> >below standards with no relation to the mercury question, then this >>> >dentist should not be allowed to practice on the public -- regardless >>> >of any position he happened to take on dental amalgams. >> *Below Standards* Standards set by whom????? >>In most states, the standards are set by the state legislature.
>And they get their standards from whom?
>>>His pattern of malpractice in non-mercury cases >>> Say what?!?!
>> Using no mercury is malpractice?????? >>I never said that.
>>The reference I made was to the eleven NON-mercury cases in which he >>was charged with malpractice/substandard practice by the board.
>Well, no, those are your words.
>>Since >>these cases did not involve mercury, I refer to them as the >>non-mercury cases. >> Oh??? Like what? >>Like the three cases you list below.
>He didn't wash his hands. >>> Not seeing decay.
>> Yelled at a patient.
>That's malpracitice/substandard???
>>Who made these charges???
>>Didn't you know that when you posted the reference?
>Yes, I knew, I am asking you if you knew? I should have posted, complaints.
>>Generally, charges >>are made by a branch of the state government. In most states this is >>the government's dental board.
>Uh huh, *organized dentistry*
>> The 14 patients who files were used were friends of Dr Jacobson an made it >>> clear to the board, in writing, they wanted nothing to do with this so >called >>> *investion* which started immediately after he placed an ad which used the >>> words *mercury free*. >Concoeted charges, such as:
>> He didn't wash his hands.
>>> Not seeing decay.
>>> Yelled at a patient. >>Surely you don't mean to imply that these charges should be taken >>lightly.
>LOL!!!
>My word this is certainly *fraud* and *incompetent* conduct.
>> (I don't know what an *investion* is.)
>Righto, ask someone to help you figure it out.
>>With regard to the charge of "Yelled at a patient," this seems >>unlikely to result in a loss of license.
>Yes.
>Along with , not washed his hands, and not seeing decay.
>Those don't sound one bit made up/concocted. do they?
>>But if his patients all >>rallied to his defense, then HOW did the state learn that he had >>yelled at a patient?
>It was made up!
>Did any of his patients say that??
>>Perhaps at least one of his patients reported this to the board. I doubt that >the state had any other way of >>learning that he "Yelled at a patient" unless that patient complained to the >board.
>Give me a break. A patient is going to a board because a dentist yelled at >them.
>You need to go back and read what the evidence showed about who made the >complaints.
>Then read how his patients knew this was a chop job and wantedd nothing to do >with it.
>>With regard to the charge of "Not seeing decay," this is more serious. >>Many patients go to a dentist specifically to find out if they have >>any tooth decay. If decay is present and the dentist misses it, >>serious complications can potentially occur to the patient. If a >>dentist continually misses an obvious diagnosis, state action is warranted.
>In fact he did see it, he noted it in the file and made several attempts to get >the patient to come back and get it fixed, the patient refused.
>>By far, the most serious charge is that of "He didn't wash his hands." >>In this age of deadly communicable diseases, the prevention of >>infection must be foremost in the minds of all members of the health >>care professions. It has been known since the 1880s that the simple >>act of washing one's hands has a dramatic effect in lowering the rate >>of disease transmission in the healthcare setting.
>Who saw him not wash his hand??? Do your patients follow you in the bathroom??
>I suggest to you, if everyone who didn't wash their hands, lost their licenses, >we would have very few licensced people in any field.
>Doctors can cut off the wrong leg and still keep their license.
><snip>
>Cutting to the chase, the fact he used the words mercuy free is EXACTLY why he >was harassed and the investigaters worked mighty hard to come up with this >trumpted up charges. It took them over twelve years.
>The board membesr made it clear tey were upset with his refusal of the use of >mercury.
>>Are there any cases on record that would better illustrate unfair >>> >prosecution?
>>> WOW!!!!! >>The ENTIRE case was nothing, but a farce from those who are EVIL. >>Even if we dismiss the amalgam-related charges as "nothing," what >>about the other eleven charges?
>I didn't see eleven, did you?
>>It is unreasonable to say "The ENTIRE case was nothing" without >>examining the charges that did not even involve amalgam.
>No, it is totally unreasonable that the broad took twelve years to get these >charges made up!!!
>>Was it true >>that he didn't diagnose dental caries? Was it true that he didn't even >>wash his hands?
>B I N G O!!!!
>Was it true sixty of his patients jammed the hearing room??
>WHAT does that tell you?
>Did you read all the steps taken to get these charges made. UNFAIR and >DISHONEST tactics.??
>*Although the Humphrey's office and the board sought to peddle the notion that >its investigation of Gary was not centered on his refusal to use amalgam, the >Star Trubune was not fooled. The MN. broard of dentistry had accused the >dentist of fraud and and misconduct for allegedly pushing an expensive that >have never been proven to work, removing peoples' fillings call amalgams to >free them of mercury poisoning*
>I all comes back to the gag order.
>> YOU learn the LIES well from dental school. >>Is this meant as an ad hominem attack?
>No, it is the TRUTH.
>>What "lies" are in my posting?? >>I can't find any.
>WOW!!!!
>Dentists have LIED for so long, they know longer know what is a LIE..
>Your choice of words and DECEIVING are LIES.
>There was NO fraud!!!
>There was NO imcompetence!!!!!
>There was NO Malpractice!!
>There was NO substandards.
>> PATHETIC!! >>> Jan >>No need to get insulting. I did not insult you.
>There is a great need to get real and stop trying to deceive.
>>My point remains -- are there any other cases that would better >>illustrate the author's claim of unfair prosecution? This particular >>case involved many charges, and only half of them seemed to involve >>amalgam. Instead of defending a doctor who apparently was also charged >>with failure to diagnose decay, and failure to practice infection >>control for his patients, wouldn't it be more effective for an author >>to put forward a case that involved ONLY amalgam-related issues?
Why would anyone respond to along list of questions Jan pastes in from someone else's writing, when she cannot engage in a two-way discussion even when the topic is not in conflict with her basic tenets?
>Subject: Re: When Is Bill Combs Going To Answer My Questions??? >From: "Dr Steve" nos...@home.net >Date: 11/9/2004 1:49 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <AXakd.17926$Rf1.12...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>
>Why would anyone respond
====
Now for the points and questions you didn't address.
Please do so.
You wrote: >Evidently these other eleven charges did not mention mercury. They >> >must have been about other matters of malpractice or violations of >> >laws that did not relate to mercury.
I replied:
Uh huh, like I said, the same ole same ole. Was he also charged with using the wrong color of toliet paper??
It is your choice of the word malpractice, is it not?
Plus the words, violations of the law??
>One charge is sufficient to remove a license to practice dentistry. >> >Eleven charges, unrelated to mercury, would tend to show an >> >overwhelming pattern of substandard practice.
What overwheming pattern of substandard practice?
Substandard and overwhelming are your cloice of words, are they not?
Which is overwhelming and which is substandard??
>If indeed this author is correct, and eleven patients were treated >> >below standards with no relation to the mercury question, then this >> >dentist should not be allowed to practice on the public -- regardless >> >of any position he happened to take on dental amalgams. > *Below Standards* Standards set by whom????? >In most states, the standards are set by the state legislature.
And they get their standards from whom?
>>His pattern of malpractice in non-mercury cases >> Say what?!?!
> Using no mercury is malpractice?????? >I never said that.
>The reference I made was to the eleven NON-mercury cases in which he >was charged with malpractice/substandard practice by the board.
Well, no, those are your words.
>Since >these cases did not involve mercury, I refer to them as the >non-mercury cases. > Oh??? Like what? >Like the three cases you list below.
He didn't wash his hands.
>> Not seeing decay.
> Yelled at a patient.
That's malpracitice/substandard???
>Who made these charges???
>Didn't you know that when you posted the reference?
Yes, I knew, I am asking you if you knew? I should have posted, complaints.
>Generally, charges >are made by a branch of the state government. In most states this is >the government's dental board.
Uh huh, *organized dentistry*
> The 14 patients who files were used were friends of Dr Jacobson an made it >> clear to the board, in writing, they wanted nothing to do with this so called >> *investion* which started immediately after he placed an ad which used the >> words *mercury free*.
Concoeted charges, such as:
> He didn't wash his hands.
>> Not seeing decay.
>> Yelled at a patient. >Surely you don't mean to imply that these charges should be taken >lightly.
LOL!!!
My word this is certainly *fraud* and *incompetent* conduct.
> (I don't know what an *investion* is.)
Righto, ask someone to help you figure it out.
>With regard to the charge of "Yelled at a patient," this seems >unlikely to result in a loss of license.
Yes.
Along with , not washed his hands, and not seeing decay.
Those don't sound one bit made up/concocted. do they?
>But if his patients all >rallied to his defense, then HOW did the state learn that he had >yelled at a patient?
It was made up!
Did any of his patients say that??
>Perhaps at least one of his patients reported this to the board. I doubt that
the state had any other way of
>learning that he "Yelled at a patient" unless that patient complained to the
board.
Give me a break. A patient is going to a board because a dentist yelled at them.
You need to go back and read what the evidence showed about who made the complaints.
Then read how his patients knew this was a chop job and wantedd nothing to do with it.
>With regard to the charge of "Not seeing decay," this is more serious. >Many patients go to a dentist specifically to find out if they have >any tooth decay. If decay is present and the dentist misses it, >serious complications can potentially occur to the patient. If a >dentist continually misses an obvious diagnosis, state action is warranted.
In fact he did see it, he noted it in the file and made several attempts to get the patient to come back and get it fixed, the patient refused.
>By far, the most serious charge is that of "He didn't wash his hands." >In this age of deadly communicable diseases, the prevention of >infection must be foremost in the minds of all members of the health >care professions. It has been known since the 1880s that the simple >act of washing one's hands has a dramatic effect in lowering the rate >of disease transmission in the healthcare setting.
Who saw him not wash his hand??? Do your patients follow you in the bathroom??
I suggest to you, if everyone who didn't wash their hands, lost their licenses, we would have very few licensced people in any field.
Doctors can cut off the wrong leg and still keep their license.
<snip>
Cutting to the chase, the fact he used the words mercuy free is EXACTLY why he was harassed and the investigaters worked mighty hard to come up with this trumpted up charges. It took them over twelve years.
The board membesr made it clear tey were upset with his refusal of the use of mercury.
>Are there any cases on record that would better illustrate unfair >> >prosecution?
>> WOW!!!!! >The ENTIRE case was nothing, but a farce from those who are EVIL. >Even if we dismiss the amalgam-related charges as "nothing," what >about the other eleven charges?
I didn't see eleven, did you?
>It is unreasonable to say "The ENTIRE case was nothing" without >examining the charges that did not even involve amalgam.
No, it is totally unreasonable that the broad took twelve years to get these charges made up!!!
>Was it true >that he didn't diagnose dental caries? Was it true that he didn't even >wash his hands?
B I N G O!!!!
Was it true sixty of his patients jammed the hearing room??
WHAT does that tell you?
Did you read all the steps taken to get these charges made. UNFAIR and DISHONEST tactics.??
*Although the Humphrey's office and the board sought to peddle the notion that its investigation of Gary was not centered on his refusal to use amalgam, the Star Trubune was not fooled. The MN. broard of dentistry had accused the dentist of fraud and and misconduct for allegedly pushing an expensive that have never been proven to work, removing peoples' fillings call amalgams to free them of mercury poisoning*
I all comes back to the gag order.
> YOU learn the LIES well from dental school. >Is this meant as an ad hominem attack?
No, it is the TRUTH.
>What "lies" are in my posting?? >I can't find any.
WOW!!!!
Dentists have LIED for so long, they know longer know what is a LIE..
Your choice of words and DECEIVING are LIES.
There was NO fraud!!!
There was NO imcompetence!!!!!
There was NO Malpractice!!
There was NO substandards.
> PATHETIC!! >> Jan >No need to get insulting. I did not insult you.
There is a great need to get real and stop trying to deceive.
>My point remains -- are there any other cases that would better >illustrate the author's claim of unfair prosecution? This particular >case involved many charges, and only half of them seemed to involve >amalgam. Instead of defending a doctor who apparently was also charged >with failure to diagnose decay, and failure to practice infection >control for his patients, wouldn't it be more effective for an author >to put forward a case that involved ONLY amalgam-related issues?
> >Subject: Re: When Is Bill Combs Going To Answer My Questions??? >>From: "Dr Steve" nos...@home.net >>Date: 11/9/2004 1:49 PM Pacific Standard Time >>Message-id: <AXakd.17926$Rf1.12...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>
>>Why would anyone respond > ====
> Now for the points and questions you didn't address.
> Please do so.
> You wrote:
>>Evidently these other eleven charges did not mention mercury. They >>> >must have been about other matters of malpractice or violations of >>> >laws that did not relate to mercury.
That is lie. I never said those things. You have to learn to cut and paste better.
>From: "Dr Steve" > When Is Bill Combs Going To Answer My Questions???
You name isn't Bill Combs, kindly butt out.
Now for the points and questions you didn't address.
Please do so.
You wrote: >Evidently these other eleven charges did not mention mercury. They >> >must have been about other matters of malpractice or violations of >> >laws that did not relate to mercury.
I replied:
Uh huh, like I said, the same ole same ole. Was he also charged with using the wrong color of toliet paper??
It is your choice of the word malpractice, is it not?
Plus the words, violations of the law??
>One charge is sufficient to remove a license to practice dentistry. >> >Eleven charges, unrelated to mercury, would tend to show an >> >overwhelming pattern of substandard practice.
What overwheming pattern of substandard practice?
Substandard and overwhelming are your cloice of words, are they not?
Which is overwhelming and which is substandard??
>If indeed this author is correct, and eleven patients were treated >> >below standards with no relation to the mercury question, then this >> >dentist should not be allowed to practice on the public -- regardless >> >of any position he happened to take on dental amalgams. > *Below Standards* Standards set by whom????? >In most states, the standards are set by the state legislature.
And they get their standards from whom?
>>His pattern of malpractice in non-mercury cases >> Say what?!?!
> Using no mercury is malpractice?????? >I never said that.
>The reference I made was to the eleven NON-mercury cases in which he >was charged with malpractice/substandard practice by the board.
Well, no, those are your words.
>Since >these cases did not involve mercury, I refer to them as the >non-mercury cases. > Oh??? Like what? >Like the three cases you list below.
He didn't wash his hands.
>> Not seeing decay.
> Yelled at a patient.
That's malpracitice/substandard???
>Who made these charges???
>Didn't you know that when you posted the reference?
Yes, I knew, I am asking you if you knew? I should have posted, complaints.
>Generally, charges >are made by a branch of the state government. In most states this is >the government's dental board.
Uh huh, *organized dentistry*
> The 14 patients who files were used were friends of Dr Jacobson an made it >> clear to the board, in writing, they wanted nothing to do with this so called >> *investion* which started immediately after he placed an ad which used the >> words *mercury free*.
Concoeted charges, such as:
> He didn't wash his hands.
>> Not seeing decay.
>> Yelled at a patient. >Surely you don't mean to imply that these charges should be taken >lightly.
LOL!!!
My word this is certainly *fraud* and *incompetent* conduct.
> (I don't know what an *investion* is.)
Righto, ask someone to help you figure it out.
>With regard to the charge of "Yelled at a patient," this seems >unlikely to result in a loss of license.
Yes.
Along with , not washed his hands, and not seeing decay.
Those don't sound one bit made up/concocted. do they?
>But if his patients all >rallied to his defense, then HOW did the state learn that he had >yelled at a patient?
It was made up!
Did any of his patients say that??
>Perhaps at least one of his patients reported this to the board. I doubt that
the state had any other way of
>learning that he "Yelled at a patient" unless that patient complained to the
board.
Give me a break. A patient is going to a board because a dentist yelled at them.
You need to go back and read what the evidence showed about who made the complaints.
Then read how his patients knew this was a chop job and wantedd nothing to do with it.
>With regard to the charge of "Not seeing decay," this is more serious. >Many patients go to a dentist specifically to find out if they have >any tooth decay. If decay is present and the dentist misses it, >serious complications can potentially occur to the patient. If a >dentist continually misses an obvious diagnosis, state action is warranted.
In fact he did see it, he noted it in the file and made several attempts to get the patient to come back and get it fixed, the patient refused.
>By far, the most serious charge is that of "He didn't wash his hands." >In this age of deadly communicable diseases, the prevention of >infection must be foremost in the minds of all members of the health >care professions. It has been known since the 1880s that the simple >act of washing one's hands has a dramatic effect in lowering the rate >of disease transmission in the healthcare setting.
Who saw him not wash his hand??? Do your patients follow you in the bathroom??
I suggest to you, if everyone who didn't wash their hands, lost their licenses, we would have very few licensced people in any field.
Doctors can cut off the wrong leg and still keep their license.
<snip>
Cutting to the chase, the fact he used the words mercuy free is EXACTLY why he was harassed and the investigaters worked mighty hard to come up with this trumpted up charges. It took them over twelve years.
The board membesr made it clear tey were upset with his refusal of the use of mercury.
>Are there any cases on record that would better illustrate unfair >> >prosecution?
>> WOW!!!!! >The ENTIRE case was nothing, but a farce from those who are EVIL. >Even if we dismiss the amalgam-related charges as "nothing," what >about the other eleven charges?
I didn't see eleven, did you?
>It is unreasonable to say "The ENTIRE case was nothing" without >examining the charges that did not even involve amalgam.
No, it is totally unreasonable that the broad took twelve years to get these charges made up!!!
>Was it true >that he didn't diagnose dental caries? Was it true that he didn't even >wash his hands?
B I N G O!!!!
Was it true sixty of his patients jammed the hearing room??
WHAT does that tell you?
Did you read all the steps taken to get these charges made. UNFAIR and DISHONEST tactics.??
*Although the Humphrey's office and the board sought to peddle the notion that its investigation of Gary was not centered on his refusal to use amalgam, the Star Trubune was not fooled. The MN. broard of dentistry had accused the dentist of fraud and and misconduct for allegedly pushing an expensive that have never been proven to work, removing peoples' fillings call amalgams to free them of mercury poisoning*
I all comes back to the gag order.
> YOU learn the LIES well from dental school. >Is this meant as an ad hominem attack?
No, it is the TRUTH.
>What "lies" are in my posting?? >I can't find any.
WOW!!!!
Dentists have LIED for so long, they know longer know what is a LIE..
Your choice of words and DECEIVING are LIES.
There was NO fraud!!!
There was NO imcompetence!!!!!
There was NO Malpractice!!
There was NO substandards.
> PATHETIC!! >> Jan >No need to get insulting. I did not insult you.
There is a great need to get real and stop trying to deceive.
>My point remains -- are there any other cases that would better >illustrate the author's claim of unfair prosecution? This particular >case involved many charges, and only half of them seemed to involve >amalgam. Instead of defending a doctor who apparently was also charged >with failure to diagnose decay, and failure to practice infection >control for his patients, wouldn't it be more effective for an author >to put forward a case that involved ONLY amalgam-related issues?
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 22:57:48 GMT, "Dr Steve" <nos...@home.net> wrote:
>"Jan" <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote in message >news:20041109173907.00405.00000488@mb-m17.aol.com... >> >Subject: Re: When Is Bill Combs Going To Answer My Questions??? >>>From: "Dr Steve" nos...@home.net >>>Date: 11/9/2004 1:49 PM Pacific Standard Time >>>Message-id: <AXakd.17926$Rf1.12...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>
>>>Why would anyone respond >> ====
>> Now for the points and questions you didn't address.
>> Please do so.
>> You wrote:
>>>Evidently these other eleven charges did not mention mercury. They >>>> >must have been about other matters of malpractice or violations of >>>> >laws that did not relate to mercury.
>That is lie. I never said those things. You have to learn to cut and paste >better.
Take a class in cut&paste from j**D666 ? Perish the thought.
Now for the points and questions you didn't address.
Please do so.
You wrote: >Evidently these other eleven charges did not mention mercury. They >> >must have been about other matters of malpractice or violations of >> >laws that did not relate to mercury.
I replied:
Uh huh, like I said, the same ole same ole. Was he also charged with using the wrong color of toliet paper??
It is your choice of the word malpractice, is it not?
Plus the words, violations of the law??
>One charge is sufficient to remove a license to practice dentistry. >> >Eleven charges, unrelated to mercury, would tend to show an >> >overwhelming pattern of substandard practice.
What overwheming pattern of substandard practice?
Substandard and overwhelming are your cloice of words, are they not?
Which is overwhelming and which is substandard??
>If indeed this author is correct, and eleven patients were treated >> >below standards with no relation to the mercury question, then this >> >dentist should not be allowed to practice on the public -- regardless >> >of any position he happened to take on dental amalgams. > *Below Standards* Standards set by whom????? >In most states, the standards are set by the state legislature.
And they get their standards from whom?
>>His pattern of malpractice in non-mercury cases >> Say what?!?!
> Using no mercury is malpractice?????? >I never said that.
>The reference I made was to the eleven NON-mercury cases in which he >was charged with malpractice/substandard practice by the board.
Well, no, those are your words.
>Since >these cases did not involve mercury, I refer to them as the >non-mercury cases. > Oh??? Like what? >Like the three cases you list below.
He didn't wash his hands.
>> Not seeing decay.
> Yelled at a patient.
That's malpracitice/substandard???
>Who made these charges???
>Didn't you know that when you posted the reference?
Yes, I knew, I am asking you if you knew? I should have posted, complaints.
>Generally, charges >are made by a branch of the state government. In most states this is >the government's dental board.
Uh huh, *organized dentistry*
> The 14 patients who files were used were friends of Dr Jacobson an made it >> clear to the board, in writing, they wanted nothing to do with this so called >> *investion* which started immediately after he placed an ad which used the >> words *mercury free*.
Concoeted charges, such as:
> He didn't wash his hands.
>> Not seeing decay.
>> Yelled at a patient. >Surely you don't mean to imply that these charges should be taken >lightly.
LOL!!!
My word this is certainly *fraud* and *incompetent* conduct.
> (I don't know what an *investion* is.)
Righto, ask someone to help you figure it out.
>With regard to the charge of "Yelled at a patient," this seems >unlikely to result in a loss of license.
Yes.
Along with , not washed his hands, and not seeing decay.
Those don't sound one bit made up/concocted. do they?
>But if his patients all >rallied to his defense, then HOW did the state learn that he had >yelled at a patient?
It was made up!
Did any of his patients say that??
>Perhaps at least one of his patients reported this to the board. I doubt that
the state had any other way of
>learning that he "Yelled at a patient" unless that patient complained to the
board.
Give me a break. A patient is going to a board because a dentist yelled at them.
You need to go back and read what the evidence showed about who made the complaints.
Then read how his patients knew this was a chop job and wantedd nothing to do with it.
>With regard to the charge of "Not seeing decay," this is more serious. >Many patients go to a dentist specifically to find out if they have >any tooth decay. If decay is present and the dentist misses it, >serious complications can potentially occur to the patient. If a >dentist continually misses an obvious diagnosis, state action is warranted.
In fact he did see it, he noted it in the file and made several attempts to get the patient to come back and get it fixed, the patient refused.
>By far, the most serious charge is that of "He didn't wash his hands." >In this age of deadly communicable diseases, the prevention of >infection must be foremost in the minds of all members of the health >care professions. It has been known since the 1880s that the simple >act of washing one's hands has a dramatic effect in lowering the rate >of disease transmission in the healthcare setting.
Who saw him not wash his hand??? Do your patients follow you in the bathroom??
I suggest to you, if everyone who didn't wash their hands, lost their licenses, we would have very few licensced people in any field.
Doctors can cut off the wrong leg and still keep their license.
<snip>
Cutting to the chase, the fact he used the words mercuy free is EXACTLY why he was harassed and the investigaters worked mighty hard to come up with this trumpted up charges. It took them over twelve years.
The board membesr made it clear tey were upset with his refusal of the use of mercury.
>Are there any cases on record that would better illustrate unfair >> >prosecution?
>> WOW!!!!! >The ENTIRE case was nothing, but a farce from those who are EVIL. >Even if we dismiss the amalgam-related charges as "nothing," what >about the other eleven charges?
I didn't see eleven, did you?
>It is unreasonable to say "The ENTIRE case was nothing" without >examining the charges that did not even involve amalgam.
No, it is totally unreasonable that the broad took twelve years to get these charges made up!!!
>Was it true >that he didn't diagnose dental caries? Was it true that he didn't even >wash his hands?
B I N G O!!!!
Was it true sixty of his patients jammed the hearing room??
WHAT does that tell you?
Did you read all the steps taken to get these charges made. UNFAIR and DISHONEST tactics.??
*Although the Humphrey's office and the board sought to peddle the notion that its investigation of Gary was not centered on his refusal to use amalgam, the Star Trubune was not fooled. The MN. broard of dentistry had accused the dentist of fraud and and misconduct for allegedly pushing an expensive that have never been proven to work, removing peoples' fillings call amalgams to free them of mercury poisoning*
I all comes back to the gag order.
> YOU learn the LIES well from dental school. >Is this meant as an ad hominem attack?
No, it is the TRUTH.
>What "lies" are in my posting?? >I can't find any.
WOW!!!!
Dentists have LIED for so long, they know longer know what is a LIE..
Your choice of words and DECEIVING are LIES.
There was NO fraud!!!
There was NO imcompetence!!!!!
There was NO Malpractice!!
There was NO substandards.
> PATHETIC!! >> Jan >No need to get insulting. I did not insult you.
There is a great need to get real and stop trying to deceive.
>My point remains -- are there any other cases that would better >illustrate the author's claim of unfair prosecution? This particular >case involved many charges, and only half of them seemed to involve >amalgam. Instead of defending a doctor who apparently was also charged >with failure to diagnose decay, and failure to practice infection >control for his patients, wouldn't it be more effective for an author >to put forward a case that involved ONLY amalgam-related issues?
Smoking a Boston Butt (stolen off the net with comments) Most Boston Butts are in the range of 8 pounds with the bone in. The process is barbecuing a butt is pretty simple. Rub it, cook it, pull it.
*carabelli aside (don't even consider doing this without wood on the fire, apple, hickory, pecan, cherry, oak in a pinch - just nothing with resins (PINE!!!)), if you don't see a butt at the store ask the butcher - they'll cut one for you. If you don't have a smoker it can be done on a Weber - they make a deal that holds the charcoal on two sides to allow you to cook the butt indirect (not directly over the coals). A pain - you will be adding charcoal and wood way too often - get a cheap bullet smoker*
First, start you barbecue and get it up to temperature, 220 to 275F.
*carabelli aside - If you let the temp go over 275F I will turn you in* - really don't worry too much - just low and slow.
Open the package and give the butts a rub with cheap yellow mustard. This adds some flavor and helps the 'butt rub' to stay on the outside of the meat. As for rubs, most any barbecue rub will do. However, I like to use a rub with little of no sugar in it as the butt turns out a deep red color instead of black, as it will if you use a rub with a lot of sugar in it.
*carabelli aside - NO SUGAR*
Whatever butt rub you use, give the outside of the meat a generous rub with the spice blend.
*carabelli aside - looks good to me - add anything else you think would be good - spices are legal*
Mix ingredients and store in an air-tight bottle.
There are many commercial rubs available that are very good on pork butts.
OK, so you've got your butt rubbed, put the meat on the cooking grill and covered the barbecue. Every 2 hours, turn the butts over and rotate so no side gets too much heat. I no longer mop or baste my pork butts as the fat on and within the meat self bastes them. If you want to mop, by all means go ahead. You can use a mixture of 50:50 canola oil, apple juice and a tablespoons of your butt rub. Mop the butts when you turn them.
*carabelli aside - if you really want to check it - open a beer, pour 1/4 over the butt - drink the rest - maybe turn it once if you remember -don't be peeking at it all the time - the lid needs to be on!!*
After 8 hours of cooking, I will usually stick the Polder temperature probe into the meat. It's done when the internal temperature in above 190F. This temperature will arrive faster the higher the temperature you keep the cooking chamber. I usually no longer bother checking the temperature as I have barbecued so many butts, I can now tell by a fork jab if the meat is ready to come off the smoker.
*carabelli aside - 10-12 hours, forget the thermometer, poke it with your finger and if it feels like it will fall apart you're home*
Let the butts rest for about an hour and then with gloves on your hands begin to tear it apart, discarding the bone, the fat, connective tissue and gristle as you go along.
Barbecued pork butt can be eaten sliced, pulled or pulled and chopped. I like it all three ways and especially in Pulled Pork Sandwiches.
I like to use 'gourmet' style hamburger buns to serve the pulled pork on, resulting in a pulled pork sandwich. Open the bun, squirt on some sauce, heap on some pulled pork and add some more sauce and put the top in the bun. the pulled pork sandwich should be dripping sauce as you eat it.
I like to serve pulled pork with a Kansas City style sauce.
*carabelli aside - I like this guy*
When I use this sauce for pulled pork sandwiches, I often will add a tablespoon of apple cider vinegar to a cup of this sauce to give it a little more 'tang' and a pinch of cayenne chile powder to give it a little more 'bite'.
In the Carolinas, the pulled pork sandwiches are served with a scoop of coleslaw on the sandwich or on the side. A real Carolina pulled pork sandwich will also use a very different sauce, consisting of vinegar and hot peppers. this sauce is something you need to grow up with and is not very popular with Californians.
*carabelli aside - they're not stupid in North Carolina - try it this way too - really good!!)
> Smoking a Boston Butt (stolen off the net with comments) > Most Boston Butts are in the range of 8 pounds with the bone in. The > process is barbecuing a butt is pretty simple. Rub it, cook it, pull it.
> *carabelli aside (don't even consider doing this without wood on the fire, > apple, hickory, pecan, cherry, oak in a pinch - just nothing with resins > (PINE!!!)), if you don't see a butt at the store ask the butcher - they'll > cut one for you. If you don't have a smoker it can be done on a Weber - > they make a deal that holds the charcoal on two sides to allow you to cook > the butt indirect (not directly over the coals). A pain - you will be > adding charcoal and wood way too often - get a cheap bullet smoker*
> First, start you barbecue and get it up to temperature, 220 to 275F.
> *carabelli aside - If you let the temp go over 275F I will turn you in* - > really don't worry too much - just low and slow.
> Open the package and give the butts a rub with cheap yellow mustard. This > adds some flavor and helps the 'butt rub' to stay on the outside of the > meat. As for rubs, most any barbecue rub will do. However, I like to use a > rub with little of no sugar in it as the butt turns out a deep red color > instead of black, as it will if you use a rub with a lot of sugar in it.
> *carabelli aside - NO SUGAR*
> Whatever butt rub you use, give the outside of the meat a generous rub with > the spice blend.
> *carabelli aside - looks good to me - add anything else you think would be > good - spices are legal*
> Mix ingredients and store in an air-tight bottle.
> There are many commercial rubs available that are very good on pork butts.
> OK, so you've got your butt rubbed, put the meat on the cooking grill and > covered the barbecue. Every 2 hours, turn the butts over and rotate so no > side gets too much heat. I no longer mop or baste my pork butts as the fat > on and within the meat self bastes them. If you want to mop, by all means > go ahead. You can use a mixture of 50:50 canola oil, apple juice and a > tablespoons of your butt rub. Mop the butts when you turn them.
> *carabelli aside - if you really want to check it - open a beer, pour 1/4 > over the butt - drink the rest - maybe turn it once if you remember -don't > be peeking at it all the time - the lid needs to be on!!*
> After 8 hours of cooking, I will usually stick the Polder temperature probe > into the meat. It's done when the internal temperature in above 190F. This > temperature will arrive faster the higher the temperature you keep the > cooking chamber. I usually no longer bother checking the temperature as I > have barbecued so many butts, I can now tell by a fork jab if the meat is > ready to come off the smoker.
> *carabelli aside - 10-12 hours, forget the thermometer, poke it with your > finger and if it feels like it will fall apart you're home*
> Let the butts rest for about an hour and then with gloves on your hands > begin to tear it apart, discarding the bone, the fat, connective tissue and > gristle as you go along.
> Barbecued pork butt can be eaten sliced, pulled or pulled and chopped. I > like it all three ways and especially in Pulled Pork Sandwiches.
> I like to use 'gourmet' style hamburger buns to serve the pulled pork on, > resulting in a pulled pork sandwich. Open the bun, squirt on some sauce, > heap on some pulled pork and add some more sauce and put the top in the bun. > the pulled pork sandwich should be dripping sauce as you eat it.
> I like to serve pulled pork with a Kansas City style sauce.
> *carabelli aside - I like this guy*
> When I use this sauce for pulled pork sandwiches, I often will add a > tablespoon of apple cider vinegar to a cup of this sauce to give it a little > more 'tang' and a pinch of cayenne chile powder to give it a little more > 'bite'.
> In the Carolinas, the pulled pork sandwiches are served with a scoop of > coleslaw on the sandwich or on the side. A real Carolina pulled pork > sandwich will also use a very different sauce, consisting of vinegar and hot > peppers. this sauce is something you need to grow up with and is not very > popular with Californians.
> *carabelli aside - they're not stupid in North Carolina - try it this way > too - really good!!)
>Smoking a Boston Butt (stolen off the net with comments) >Most Boston Butts are in the range of 8 pounds with the bone in. The >process is barbecuing a butt is pretty simple. Rub it, cook it, pull it.
-- ~+--~+--~+--~+--~+-- Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S. Troy, Michigan, USA ....................................................
This posting is intended for informational or conversational purposes only. Always seek the opinion of a licensed dental professional before acting on the advice or opinion expressed here. Only a dentist who has examined you in person can diagnose your problems and make decisions which will affect your health. ......................
"carabelli" <huer...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> Smoking a Boston Butt (stolen off the net with comments) > Most Boston Butts are in the range of 8 pounds with the bone in. The > process is barbecuing a butt is pretty simple. Rub it, cook it, pull it.
> *carabelli aside (don't even consider doing this without wood on the fire, > apple, hickory, pecan, cherry, oak in a pinch - just nothing with resins > (PINE!!!)), if you don't see a butt at the store ask the butcher - they'll > cut one for you. If you don't have a smoker it can be done on a Weber - > they make a deal that holds the charcoal on two sides to allow you to cook > the butt indirect (not directly over the coals). A pain - you will be > adding charcoal and wood way too often - get a cheap bullet smoker*
> First, start you barbecue and get it up to temperature, 220 to 275F.
> *carabelli aside - If you let the temp go over 275F I will turn you in* - > really don't worry too much - just low and slow.
> Open the package and give the butts a rub with cheap yellow mustard. This > adds some flavor and helps the 'butt rub' to stay on the outside of the > meat. As for rubs, most any barbecue rub will do. However, I like to use > a rub with little of no sugar in it as the butt turns out a deep red color > instead of black, as it will if you use a rub with a lot of sugar in it.
> *carabelli aside - NO SUGAR*
> Whatever butt rub you use, give the outside of the meat a generous rub > with the spice blend.
> *carabelli aside - looks good to me - add anything else you think would be > good - spices are legal*
> Mix ingredients and store in an air-tight bottle.
> There are many commercial rubs available that are very good on pork butts.
> OK, so you've got your butt rubbed, put the meat on the cooking grill and > covered the barbecue. Every 2 hours, turn the butts over and rotate so no > side gets too much heat. I no longer mop or baste my pork butts as the > fat on and within the meat self bastes them. If you want to mop, by all > means go ahead. You can use a mixture of 50:50 canola oil, apple juice > and a tablespoons of your butt rub. Mop the butts when you turn them.
> *carabelli aside - if you really want to check it - open a beer, pour 1/4 > over the butt - drink the rest - maybe turn it once if you remember -don't > be peeking at it all the time - the lid needs to be on!!*
> After 8 hours of cooking, I will usually stick the Polder temperature > probe into the meat. It's done when the internal temperature in above > 190F. This temperature will arrive faster the higher the temperature you > keep the cooking chamber. I usually no longer bother checking the > temperature as I have barbecued so many butts, I can now tell by a fork > jab if the meat is ready to come off the smoker.
> *carabelli aside - 10-12 hours, forget the thermometer, poke it with your > finger and if it feels like it will fall apart you're home*
> Let the butts rest for about an hour and then with gloves on your hands > begin to tear it apart, discarding the bone, the fat, connective tissue > and gristle as you go along.
> Barbecued pork butt can be eaten sliced, pulled or pulled and chopped. I > like it all three ways and especially in Pulled Pork Sandwiches.
> I like to use 'gourmet' style hamburger buns to serve the pulled pork on, > resulting in a pulled pork sandwich. Open the bun, squirt on some sauce, > heap on some pulled pork and add some more sauce and put the top in the > bun. the pulled pork sandwich should be dripping sauce as you eat it.
> I like to serve pulled pork with a Kansas City style sauce.
> *carabelli aside - I like this guy*
> When I use this sauce for pulled pork sandwiches, I often will add a > tablespoon of apple cider vinegar to a cup of this sauce to give it a > little more 'tang' and a pinch of cayenne chile powder to give it a little > more 'bite'.
> In the Carolinas, the pulled pork sandwiches are served with a scoop of > coleslaw on the sandwich or on the side. A real Carolina pulled pork > sandwich will also use a very different sauce, consisting of vinegar and > hot peppers. this sauce is something you need to grow up with and is not > very popular with Californians.
> *carabelli aside - they're not stupid in North Carolina - try it this way > too - really good!!)
Did someone say "butt out"? And it's carabelli to the finish line with the first prize for Boston Butt!
TW
In article <nospamattmjiatroepidemicnospam-8A9F57.19563309112...@orngca-news03.soca l.rr.com>, The Webby <nospamattmjiatroepidemicnos...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> > >> You name isn't Bill Combs, kindly butt out.
> > Smoking a Boston Butt (stolen off the net with comments) > > Most Boston Butts are in the range of 8 pounds with the bone in. The > > process is barbecuing a butt is pretty simple. Rub it, cook it, pull it.
> > *carabelli aside (don't even consider doing this without wood on the fire, > > apple, hickory, pecan, cherry, oak in a pinch - just nothing with resins > > (PINE!!!)), if you don't see a butt at the store ask the butcher - they'll > > cut one for you. If you don't have a smoker it can be done on a Weber - > > they make a deal that holds the charcoal on two sides to allow you to cook > > the butt indirect (not directly over the coals). A pain - you will be > > adding charcoal and wood way too often - get a cheap bullet smoker*
> > First, start you barbecue and get it up to temperature, 220 to 275F.
> > *carabelli aside - If you let the temp go over 275F I will turn you in* - > > really don't worry too much - just low and slow.
> > Open the package and give the butts a rub with cheap yellow mustard. This > > adds some flavor and helps the 'butt rub' to stay on the outside of the > > meat. As for rubs, most any barbecue rub will do. However, I like to use > > a > > rub with little of no sugar in it as the butt turns out a deep red color > > instead of black, as it will if you use a rub with a lot of sugar in it.
> > *carabelli aside - NO SUGAR*
> > Whatever butt rub you use, give the outside of the meat a generous rub with > > the spice blend.
> > *carabelli aside - looks good to me - add anything else you think would be > > good - spices are legal*
> > Mix ingredients and store in an air-tight bottle.
> > There are many commercial rubs available that are very good on pork butts.
> > OK, so you've got your butt rubbed, put the meat on the cooking grill and > > covered the barbecue. Every 2 hours, turn the butts over and rotate so no > > side gets too much heat. I no longer mop or baste my pork butts as the fat > > on and within the meat self bastes them. If you want to mop, by all means > > go ahead. You can use a mixture of 50:50 canola oil, apple juice and a > > tablespoons of your butt rub. Mop the butts when you turn them.
> > *carabelli aside - if you really want to check it - open a beer, pour 1/4 > > over the butt - drink the rest - maybe turn it once if you remember -don't > > be peeking at it all the time - the lid needs to be on!!*
> > After 8 hours of cooking, I will usually stick the Polder temperature probe > > into the meat. It's done when the internal temperature in above 190F. > > This > > temperature will arrive faster the higher the temperature you keep the > > cooking chamber. I usually no longer bother checking the temperature as I > > have barbecued so many butts, I can now tell by a fork jab if the meat is > > ready to come off the smoker.
> > *carabelli aside - 10-12 hours, forget the thermometer, poke it with your > > finger and if it feels like it will fall apart you're home*
> > Let the butts rest for about an hour and then with gloves on your hands > > begin to tear it apart, discarding the bone, the fat, connective tissue and > > gristle as you go along.
> > Barbecued pork butt can be eaten sliced, pulled or pulled and chopped. I > > like it all three ways and especially in Pulled Pork Sandwiches.
> > I like to use 'gourmet' style hamburger buns to serve the pulled pork on, > > resulting in a pulled pork sandwich. Open the bun, squirt on some sauce, > > heap on some pulled pork and add some more sauce and put the top in the > > bun. > > the pulled pork sandwich should be dripping sauce as you eat it.
> > I like to serve pulled pork with a Kansas City style sauce.
> > *carabelli aside - I like this guy*
> > When I use this sauce for pulled pork sandwiches, I often will add a > > tablespoon of apple cider vinegar to a cup of this sauce to give it a > > little > > more 'tang' and a pinch of cayenne chile powder to give it a little more > > 'bite'.
> > In the Carolinas, the pulled pork sandwiches are served with a scoop of > > coleslaw on the sandwich or on the side. A real Carolina pulled pork > > sandwich will also use a very different sauce, consisting of vinegar and > > hot > > peppers. this sauce is something you need to grow up with and is not very > > popular with Californians.
> > *carabelli aside - they're not stupid in North Carolina - try it this way > > too - really good!!)
>Subject: Re: When Is Bill Combs Going To Answer My Questions??? >From: "Dr Steve" nos...@home.net >Date: 11/10/2004 5:34 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <ENokd.18188$Rf1.7...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>
>Immature rambling snipped
Translation:
Jan is once again asking pointed questions.
We cowards just hate that.
Now for the points and questions you didn't address.
Please do so.
You wrote: >Evidently these other eleven charges did not mention mercury. They >> >must have been about other matters of malpractice or violations of >> >laws that did not relate to mercury.
I replied:
Uh huh, like I said, the same ole same ole. Was he also charged with using the wrong color of toliet paper??
It is your choice of the word malpractice, is it not?
Plus the words, violations of the law??
>One charge is sufficient to remove a license to practice dentistry. >> >Eleven charges, unrelated to mercury, would tend to show an >> >overwhelming pattern of substandard practice.
What overwheming pattern of substandard practice?
Substandard and overwhelming are your cloice of words, are they not?
Which is overwhelming and which is substandard??
>If indeed this author is correct, and eleven patients were treated >> >below standards with no relation to the mercury question, then this >> >dentist should not be allowed to practice on the public -- regardless >> >of any position he happened to take on dental amalgams. > *Below Standards* Standards set by whom????? >In most states, the standards are set by the state legislature.
And they get their standards from whom?
>>His pattern of malpractice in non-mercury cases >> Say what?!?!
> Using no mercury is malpractice?????? >I never said that.
>The reference I made was to the eleven NON-mercury cases in which he >was charged with malpractice/substandard practice by the board.
Well, no, those are your words.
>Since >these cases did not involve mercury, I refer to them as the >non-mercury cases. > Oh??? Like what? >Like the three cases you list below.
He didn't wash his hands.
>> Not seeing decay.
> Yelled at a patient.
That's malpracitice/substandard???
>Who made these charges???
>Didn't you know that when you posted the reference?
Yes, I knew, I am asking you if you knew? I should have posted, complaints.
>Generally, charges >are made by a branch of the state government. In most states this is >the government's dental board.
Uh huh, *organized dentistry*
> The 14 patients who files were used were friends of Dr Jacobson an made it >> clear to the board, in writing, they wanted nothing to do with this so called >> *investion* which started immediately after he placed an ad which used the >> words *mercury free*.
Concoeted charges, such as:
> He didn't wash his hands.
>> Not seeing decay.
>> Yelled at a patient. >Surely you don't mean to imply that these charges should be taken >lightly.
LOL!!!
My word this is certainly *fraud* and *incompetent* conduct.
> (I don't know what an *investion* is.)
Righto, ask someone to help you figure it out.
>With regard to the charge of "Yelled at a patient," this seems >unlikely to result in a loss of license.
Yes.
Along with , not washed his hands, and not seeing decay.
Those don't sound one bit made up/concocted. do they?
>But if his patients all >rallied to his defense, then HOW did the state learn that he had >yelled at a patient?
It was made up!
Did any of his patients say that??
>Perhaps at least one of his patients reported this to the board. I doubt that
the state had any other way of
>learning that he "Yelled at a patient" unless that patient complained to the
board.
Give me a break. A patient is going to a board because a dentist yelled at them.
You need to go back and read what the evidence showed about who made the complaints.
Then read how his patients knew this was a chop job and wantedd nothing to do with it.
>With regard to the charge of "Not seeing decay," this is more serious. >Many patients go to a dentist specifically to find out if they have >any tooth decay. If decay is present and the dentist misses it, >serious complications can potentially occur to the patient. If a >dentist continually misses an obvious diagnosis, state action is warranted.
In fact he did see it, he noted it in the file and made several attempts to get the patient to come back and get it fixed, the patient refused.
>By far, the most serious charge is that of "He didn't wash his hands." >In this age of deadly communicable diseases, the prevention of >infection must be foremost in the minds of all members of the health >care professions. It has been known since the 1880s that the simple >act of washing one's hands has a dramatic effect in lowering the rate >of disease transmission in the healthcare setting.
Who saw him not wash his hand??? Do your patients follow you in the bathroom??
I suggest to you, if everyone who didn't wash their hands, lost their licenses, we would have very few licensced people in any field.
Doctors can cut off the wrong leg and still keep their license.
<snip>
Cutting to the chase, the fact he used the words mercuy free is EXACTLY why he was harassed and the investigaters worked mighty hard to come up with this trumpted up charges. It took them over twelve years.
The board membesr made it clear tey were upset with his refusal of the use of mercury.
>Are there any cases on record that would better illustrate unfair >> >prosecution?
>> WOW!!!!! >The ENTIRE case was nothing, but a farce from those who are EVIL. >Even if we dismiss the amalgam-related charges as "nothing," what >about the other eleven charges?
I didn't see eleven, did you?
>It is unreasonable to say "The ENTIRE case was nothing" without >examining the charges that did not even involve amalgam.
No, it is totally unreasonable that the broad took twelve years to get these charges made up!!!
>Was it true >that he didn't diagnose dental caries? Was it true that he didn't even >wash his hands?
B I N G O!!!!
Was it true sixty of his patients jammed the hearing room??
WHAT does that tell you?
Did you read all the steps taken to get these charges made. UNFAIR and DISHONEST tactics.??
*Although the Humphrey's office and the board sought to peddle the notion that its investigation of Gary was not centered on his refusal to use amalgam, the Star Trubune was not fooled. The MN. broard of dentistry had accused the dentist of fraud and and misconduct for allegedly pushing an expensive that have never been proven to work, removing peoples' fillings call amalgams to free them of mercury poisoning*
I all comes back to the gag order.
> YOU learn the LIES well from dental school. >Is this meant as an ad hominem attack?
No, it is the TRUTH.
>What "lies" are in my posting?? >I can't find any.
WOW!!!!
Dentists have LIED for so long, they know longer know what is a LIE..
Your choice of words and DECEIVING are LIES.
There was NO fraud!!!
There was NO imcompetence!!!!!
There was NO Malpractice!!
There was NO substandards.
> PATHETIC!! >> Jan >No need to get insulting. I did not insult you.
There is a great need to get real and stop trying to deceive.
>My point remains -- are there any other cases that would better >illustrate the author's claim of unfair prosecution? This particular >case involved many charges, and only half of them seemed to involve >amalgam. Instead of defending a doctor who apparently was also charged >with failure to diagnose decay, and failure to practice infection >control for his patients, wouldn't it be more effective for an author >to put forward a case that involved ONLY amalgam-related issues?
