Re How HONEST Dentists Are Treated
Jan
Bill Combs
> http://www.toxicteeth.net/MinnKipsSummary.pdf.
This article states:
"But in 1995, the Board sent Dr. Jacobson a 'notice of hearing'
charging him with fraud and incompetence. Of 21 patients whose files
were used as of the charges against him, the allegations about ten of
these patients mentioned mercury. In 1996, Dr. Jacobson gave up his
license."
If the "allegations about ten of these patients mentioned mercury,"
then what were the other eleven charges against Dr. Jacobson?
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.
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.
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.
His pattern of malpractice in non-mercury cases tends to refute the
point that the author seemingly tried to make: that he was unfairly
prosecuted due only to his stand on amalgams. Clearly, the other
eleven cases show that he wasn't.
Are there any cases on record that would better illustrate unfair
prosecution?
- dentaldoc
Joel M. Eichen
wrote:
>jdrew...@aol.com (Jan) wrote in message news:<20041015231507...@mb-m02.aol.com>...
>> http://www.toxicteeth.net/MinnKipsSummary.pdf.
>
>
>This article states:
>
>"But in 1995, the Board sent Dr. Jacobson a 'notice of hearing'
>charging him with fraud and incompetence. Of 21 patients whose files
>were used as of the charges against him, the allegations about ten of
>these patients mentioned mercury. In 1996, Dr. Jacobson gave up his
>license."
YUP those mercury fillings are no good. We kept telling him to add a
little silver powder so it would harden up.
Joel
Joel M. Eichen
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.
Most likely composite compatibility testing .......
Jan
>From: dent...@hotmail.com (Bill Combs)
>Date: 10/16/2004 1:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <42da265d.04101...@posting.google.com>
>
>jdrew...@aol.com (Jan) wrote in message
>news:<20041015231507...@mb-m02.aol.com>...
>> http://www.toxicteeth.net/MinnKipsSummary.pdf.
>
>
>This article states:
>
>"But in 1995, the Board sent Dr. Jacobson a 'notice of hearing'
>charging him with fraud and incompetence. Of 21 patients whose files
>were used as of the charges against him, the allegations about ten of
>these patients mentioned mercury. In 1996, Dr. Jacobson gave up his
>license."
>
>If the "allegations about ten of these patients mentioned mercury,"
>then what were the other eleven charges against Dr. Jacobson?
Oh, my, this is called desperation to find something wrong, and divert from the
issue.
Why do you dentists skip over the real issues and pick out something, you think
will dismiss the whole issue??
This is an example of a witch hunt, much like those of Barrett. If you were on
your toes, you will note the fraud charges thrown in are pretty much the same.
The real issue is, a dentist has a gag order, and should NOT tell his patients
of the risks.
This is the works of EVIL *organized medicine and dentistry.*
NOW, laws are being made that the dentists posts these risks in their office.
Why is it, the ADA and AMA don''t want people to know what is going IN their
mouths?????
>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.
Right on, that's how the trick is done. Always the same ole, same ole.
>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.
You mean *one* charge, like shhhhhhhhhhhhh, don't tell your patierts the
truth?!?!
>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?????
The words *mercury free* are below standards.
*His advoidance of mercury was considerated to be evidence of *incompetence and
fraud*
>His pattern of malpractice in non-mercury cases
Say what?!?!
Using no mercury is malpractice??????
tends to refute the
>point that the author seemingly tried to make: that he was unfairly
>prosecuted due only to his stand on amalgams. Clearly, the other
>eleven cases show that he wasn't.
Oh??? Like what?
Who made these charges???
Delta Dental employees???
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.
>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.
It is unbelievable you can't see it.
YOU learn the LIES well from dental school.
PATHETIC!!
Jan
Joel M. Eichen
>The real issue is, a dentist has a gag order, and should NOT tell his patients
>of the risks.
'Fraid not Jan. The rule is we cannot practice medicine.
If I believe amalgam is harmful, well I can recommend composite any
day of the week.
Joel
W_B
<joele...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>YUP those mercury fillings are no good. We kept telling him to add a
>little silver powder so it would harden up.
>
>Joel
Yep it just runs all over the place doesn't it ?
--
W_B
wubbab...@RBAGEyahoo.com
Take out the G'RBAGE
Joel M. Eichen
>On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:38:37 -0400, Joel M. Eichen
><joele...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>YUP those mercury fillings are no good. We kept telling him to add a
>>little silver powder so it would harden up.
>>
>>Joel
>
>Yep it just runs all over the place doesn't it ?
Especially while jogging ......
Jan
Idiot off the wall, blathering dumped.
Back to the subject:
Jan
Still waiting for a reply from dentaldoc.
His butchering of this case is pathetic.
Jan
StovePipe
> Still waiting for a reply from dentaldoc.
>
> His butchering of this case is pathetic.
>
> Jan
Have to admit, JD, your ad hominem attacks are getting hard to take.
Bill Coombs is one of the levelest heads here, and you cannot stay on an
objective level with even him.
Disappointing
SP
--
Not a real Addy, yet
Joel M. Eichen
>>From: Joel M. Eichen
>
>Idiot off the wall, blathering dumped.
Joel is always a gentleman ......
Jan
>Date: 10/17/2004 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <1gltbua.1fhiid35kbjcwN%Stoves...@sympatico.DOTnet>
>
>Jan <jdrew...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Still waiting for a reply from dentaldoc.
>>
>> His butchering of this case is pathetic.
>>
>> Jan
>
>Have to admit, JD, your ad hominem attacks are getting hard to take.
Yeah, yeah. Sorry you don't know the difference between as homiem and truth.
>Bill Coombs is one of the levelest heads here,
Bill Combs butchered the case.
I pointed that out.
> and you cannot stay on an
>objective level with even him.
>Disappointing
Did you wish to coment on the case?????
Or,,,,,,,,,,,,,is insulting, your only speciality???
Care to discuss how symtoms disappeared AFTER removal of amalgams??
Or the fact the dangers of mercury vapors have long been known, so Dr Jacobson
decided to discontinue using Mercury, he was immediated investigater after
placing a help want ad, using the words *mercury free*?
Bill Combs using the words, *below standards* *malpractice*????
Ah?
Jan
Joel M. Eichen
>Yeah, yeah. Sorry you don't know the difference between as homiem and truth.
I am scratching my head here .........
This is like ....
Yeah, yeah, Sorry you don't know the difference between oranges and
hippopotamuses .......
Jan
>Date: 10/17/2004 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <5616n0dqjl7mcoo8q...@4ax.com>
>
>On 17 Oct 2004 23:46:45 GMT, jdrew...@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>
>>Yeah, yeah. Sorry you don't know the difference between as homiem and truth.
>
>I am scratching my head here .......
LOL!
We know you are more than a tad bit slow.
Time to stop blathering and post proof of your claim.
Jan
StovePipe
>
> Yeah, yeah. Sorry you don't know the difference between as homiem and
> I pointed that out. Did you wish to coment on the case?????
> Or,,,,,,,,,,,,,is insulting, your only speciality???
> Care to discuss how symtoms disappeared AFTER removal of amalgams??
> Or the fact the dangers of mercury vapors have long been known, so Dr
> Jacobson decided to discontinue using Mercury, he was immediated
> investigater after placing a help want ad, using the words *mercury free*?
> Bill Combs using the words, *below standards* *malpractice*????
> Ah? Jan
Take a step back and read this in the light of objectivity. Do you see a
balanced person creating some cogent arguments here? FWIW, I happen to
think that you suffer from a disorder that has a neurglogical compenent,
perhaps cyclical in nature, and it has been well documented that
performing dental procedures on these types of patients often produces t
remission of symptoms. I hope that it is not MS that you suffer from,
but if I think back at the tone of many of your posts, I wouldn't rule
it out. I am in no way a neurologist, or a psychologist, but I have had
experience with some of these diseases in my Master's and that is what I
think may be the problem.
I hope I'm wrong, and that is the truth.
However, sick or not, injured or not, in litigation or not, you have an
attitude that doesn't leave much room for negotiation or discussion. I
sincerely regret the time I've wasted reading and trying to comprehend
your posts, as I could have been doing other things. I will not block
you, and if you answer me, I will read it; I owe you at least that
courtesy. I will not answer you again, as you know my postition on Am
and RCT and I know (at least for the most part) your own. I would just
leave you with one more gem of wisdom that comes from one of your own
USA-ian philosophers ( I _think_ it was Ben Franklin, but I'm not
sure)... He said, that Doubt may be a very unconfortable state to be in,
but certainty is a rediculous one.
Good Night
Joel M. Eichen
>>Subject: Re: Re How HONEST Dentists Are Treated
>>From: Joel M. Eichen joele...@yahoo.com
>>Date: 10/17/2004 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <5616n0dqjl7mcoo8q...@4ax.com>
>>
>>On 17 Oct 2004 23:46:45 GMT, jdrew...@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah, yeah. Sorry you don't know the difference between as homiem and truth.
>>
>>I am scratching my head here .......
>
>LOL!
>
>We know you are more than a tad bit slow.
An ad hominem argument may be true ... or it may be false ......
Ad hominem means ":against man" meaning blaming the messenger instead
of dealing with the issue.
Thanks for asking though!
Joel
Jan
>Date: 10/17/2004 5:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <1gltiod.16874brsgksa6N%Stoves...@sympatico.DOTnet>
>
>Jan <jdrew...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, yeah. Sorry you don't know the difference between as homiem and
>> truth. Bill Combs butchered the case.
>> I pointed that out. Did you wish to coment on the case?????
>> Or,,,,,,,,,,,,,is insulting, your only speciality???
>> Care to discuss how symtoms disappeared AFTER removal of amalgams??
>> Or the fact the dangers of mercury vapors have long been known, so Dr
>> Jacobson decided to discontinue using Mercury, he was immediated
>> investigater after placing a help want ad, using the words *mercury free*?
>> Bill Combs using the words, *below standards* *malpractice*????
>> Ah? Jan
Hmmmm.
Now for the *unbutched*posting.
>Jan <jdrew...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Still waiting for a reply from dentaldoc.
> His butchering of this case is pathetic.
> Jan
>Have to admit, JD, your ad hominem attacks are getting hard to take.
Yeah, yeah. Sorry you don't know the difference between as homiem and truth.
>Bill Coombs is one of the levelest heads here,
Bill Combs butchered the case.
I pointed that out.
> and you cannot stay on an
>objective level with even him.
>Disappointing
Did you wish to coment on the case?????
Or,,,,,,,,,,,,,is insulting, your only speciality???
Care to discuss how symtoms disappeared AFTER removal of amalgams??
Or the fact the dangers of mercury vapors have long been known, so Dr Jacobson
decided to discontinue using Mercury, he was immediated investigater after
placing a help want ad, using the words *mercury free*?
Bill Combs using the words, *below standards* *malpractice*????
Ah?
Jan
<snip insult>
>FWIW, I happen to
>think that you suffer from a disorder that has a neurglogical compenent,
>perhaps cyclical in nature, and it has been well documented that
>performing dental procedures on these types of patients often produces t
remission of symptoms.
>I hope that it is not MS that you suffer from,but if I think back at the tone
of many of your posts, I wouldn't rule it out.
FYI I have a diagnosis of both mercury poisoning and perihperal neuropathy,
from an MD and a EMG test.
> I am in no way a neurologist, or a psychologist, but I have had
>experience with some of these diseases in my Master's and that is what I
>think may be the problem.
You think wrong.
>I hope I'm wrong, and that is the truth.
>However, sick or not, injured or not, in litigation or not, you have an
>attitude that doesn't leave much room for negotiation or discussion.
I see you are angry. Guess it must be because I asked you if you wanted to
discuss the points above. It is clear you do not. You just wish to discuss
*me*.
>I sincerely regret the time I've wasted reading and trying to comprehend
>your posts,
*I*-don't-want-to-be-informed-attitude*
With insults thrown in, as usual.
>as I could have been doing other things.
Anything other than getting real, and facing the risks of amalgams.
I will not block
>you, and if you answer me, I will read it; I owe you at least that
>courtesy. I will not answer you again, as you know my postition on Am
>and RCT and I know (at least for the most part) your own. I would just
>leave you with one more gem of wisdom
LOL, one more? Where is the first one?
<snup rest>
Wow, it sure is hard to get a dentists here to discuss.
A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie
was believed…When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the
masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its
speaker, a raving lunatic. -Dresden James
Jan
Steven Fawks DDS
Fawks
Joel M. Eichen
>On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:08:04 -0400, Joel M. Eichen <joele...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>On 17 Oct 2004 23:46:45 GMT, jdrew...@aol.com (Jan) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, yeah. Sorry you don't know the difference between as homiem and truth.
>
>>>
>>>We know you are more than a tad bit slow.
>>
>>An ad hominem argument may be true ... or it may be false ......
>>
>>Ad hominem means ":against man" meaning blaming the messenger instead
>>of dealing with the issue.
>>
>>Thanks for asking though!
>>
>>Joel
>>
>
>But what is an "as homiem" ?
Not in my dictionary ......
WAIT! I get it. Its in Jan's ........
Joel M. Eichen
>What is "as homiem" ?
Here's the sad part .......
Yeah we studied logic and all that crap in college.
We hope that made us somewhat more effective in analyzing our own
arguments and the arguments of others.
Yet, the bulk of the population grabs the flag, hoists it, and expects
others to wave at it.
MY TAKE:
A hypothesis may be TRUE or it may be FALSE.
We test our hypothesis and develop our philosophy
One hears, "THE EXCEPTION PROVES THE RULE."
The exception does not PROVE (or eatablish) the rule. The exception
TESTS the rule.
- - - -> DEF. Put to the test, as for its quality, or give
experimental use to
Simply looking it up in a dictionary which took me 4 seconds with
WordWeb establishes what this means ......
The exception does not prove (VERIFY AS TRUE) the rule .... as many so
state. That is tautologic nonsense. An exception DISPROVES the
universal truthfulness of the rule.
OK, that's TRUE and FALSE.
Now "ad hominem."
People always slip into false argumentation.
Jan is perhaps one of the most frequent violators of this rule of
logic. If someone lies or not, it has no bearing on the truthfulness
of the phrase, "amalgam is poison."
It still could be true and it still could be false. It adds not to the
argument.
One might think that after reading on the internet for years and years
about "ad hominem" that there would be more aware of what it means
....... or ask if its not clear!
This demonstrates what an illusion communication really is!
Joel
StovePipe
> >Ad hominem means ":against man" meaning blaming the messenger instead
> >of dealing with the issue.
> >
> >Thanks for asking though!
> >
> >Joel
> >
>
> But what is an "as homiem" ?
> --
>
> W_B
I would guess that it means 'like a human or humanoid'
StovePipe
This is false 'cause JME wears army boots.....!!!....
So theah..... ;-)
Dr Steve
"Your mother wears army boots!"
--
~+--~+--~+--~+--~+--
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.
......................
"StovePipe" <Stoves...@sympatico.DOTnet> wrote in message
news:1glvjvk.vcucvwk7bqe4N%Stoves...@sympatico.DOTnet...
Steven Fawks
Wait just one damn minute. WHO'S WRITING JOEL'S POSTS TODAY?!?!?
This one actually makes sense.
VBG,
Fawks
Joel M. Eichen
As in Soylent Green?
Joel M. Eichen
>Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time
>
>"Your mother wears army boots!"
This is because most of the mothers now wear engineers' boots as two
jobs are required to put food on the table .....
Joel M. Eichen
<tuthj...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>Wait just one damn minute. WHO'S WRITING JOEL'S POSTS TODAY?!?!?
>
>This one actually makes sense.
>
>VBG,
>Fawks
THANKS! I knew I could do it!
Joel
Dr Steve
{sound of applause in the background}
--
~+--~+--~+--~+--~+--
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.
......................
"Joel M. Eichen" <joele...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3iran013lsgh5jq6p...@4ax.com...
Peter Meiers
> >> >Ad hominem means ":against man" meaning blaming the messenger instead
> >> >of dealing with the issue.
Actually it means "directed towards man", while "against man" would be
"contra hominem".
Though the actual meaning is the same. If arguments are "directed
towards man" they usually are "against man".
Peter
--
-History of fluorine, fluoride and fluoridation-:
--- http://PMeiers.bei.t-online.de/index.htm ---
----------------------------------------------------
carabelli
"W_B" <no_...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:8q8dn0hfsdo2om1pp...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:42:01 -0400, Joel M. Eichen <joele...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> --
>
> W_B
Mailed in my 11/02/2004 ballot yesterday.
carabelli
Adenosine
>Because taxes are too high.
So do I vote for the guy who will tax us and spend money, or the guy
who will just spend money and use borrowed cash?
I think it's time to start throwing away my vote with a third party.
Adenosine
Advocate147
the issue"
Beginning to notice a marked resemblence of this to my theory. The messenger
being the bad guy if ever it is mentioned to someone showing the symptoms.
(me, the messenger).
Best thing is if someone else can pick it up and carry it to a conclusion.
Trouble is DeNile is the byword for such an unpopular theory. Jan's theory
is a beauty by comparison.
Gail
Gail
Joel M. Eichen
wrote:
>Joel M. Eichen wrote:
>
>> >> >Ad hominem means ":against man" meaning blaming the messenger instead
>> >> >of dealing with the issue.
>
>Actually it means "directed towards man", while "against man" would be
>"contra hominem".
>Though the actual meaning is the same. If arguments are "directed
>towards man" they usually are "against man".
Thanks! Makes sense.
Reagan tried to get out of the Contra hominem problem so he changed it
to AD hominem.......
>
>Peter
Joel M. Eichen
>"Ad hominem means "against man" blaming the messenger instead of dealing with
>the issue"
>Beginning to notice a marked resemblence of this to my theory. The messenger
>being the bad guy if ever it is mentioned to someone showing the symptoms.
>(me, the messenger).
Ahhhh, Kemo Sabe ......... me, the messenger too!
Joel M. Eichen
wrote:
For the 2000 election?
>
>carabelli
>
Joel M. Eichen
>Because taxes are too high.
... and benefits too low .......
Joel M. Eichen
wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:19:43 GMT, W_B <no_...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:42:01 -0400, Joel M. Eichen <joele...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:17:39 GMT, "Dr Steve" <nos...@home.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time
>>>>
>>>>"Your mother wears army boots!"
>>>
>>>This is because most of the mothers now wear engineers' boots as two
>>>jobs are required to put food on the table .....
>>>
>>>
>>Because taxes are too high.
>
>So do I vote for the guy who will tax us and spend money, or the guy
>who will just spend money and use borrowed cash?
Your grandchildren will revolt. Could be the end of the U.S.
Joel
Adenosine
>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:25:10 GMT, Adenosine <ad...@nospam4u.org> wrote:
>
>>>Because taxes are too high.
>>
>>So do I vote for the guy who will tax us and spend money, or the guy
>>who will just spend money and use borrowed cash?
>>
>>I think it's time to start throwing away my vote with a third party.
>>
>>Adenosine
>
>
>Thought you were in Canada...
>
>An economy can be grown out of deficit;
>
>you cannot tax your way to prosperity.
Canada? Do I sound Canadian to you? I'm not THAT close to BC, here in
WA.
I was actually planning on voting Libertarian. Sure, they may be a bit
radical, but anything to get the federal gov't back to the limited
enumerated powers in the constitution.
Adenosine
Jan
>From: "Dr Steve" nos...@home.net
>Date: 10/19/2004 5:17 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Tt8dd.10460$9e1....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>
>
>Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time
>
>"Your mother wears army boots!"
Irrelevant!
How HONEST dentists are treated is both disgusting and UNFAIR.
Jan
Jan
>Date: 10/19/2004 8:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Jybdd.1060$KJ6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Glad to see Joel knows it is the truth.
>> It still could be true and it still could be false.
Nope. It is TRUE.
Joel M. Eichen
>Glad to see Joel knows it is the truth.
>
>>> It still could be true and it still could be false.
>
>Nope. It is TRUE.
Thanks Jan. Now I understand!
Joel
StovePipe
>
> Thought you were in Canada...
>
> An economy can be grown out of deficit;
>
> you cannot tax your way to prosperity.
> --
>
> W_B
Amen...
StovePipe
>
> Perhaps I have mistaken you for someone else.
> --
>
> W_B
There is no Adenosine in Kanada... we all have perfect cardiac health
StovePipe
> >Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time
> >
> >"Your mother wears army boots!"
>
> This is because most of the mothers now wear engineers' boots as two
> jobs are required to put food on the table .....
It was meant as a joke ad hominem, and it's true, we don't say that much
here either... it's usually a variant of go fudge yourself..
Cheeahs
StovePipe
> Because taxes are too high.
> --
>
> W_B
Sheesh... You-all should try living in Kanada with our tax system...
StovePipe
> As in Soylent Green?
I personally found that SG was an ugly movie. The concept was
interesting... people eating people... noble deaths, etc... but I don't
think that C.Heston and the other guy (sorry, his hame just won't come
to me- the one who finally does take the death option) were the guys for
the movie.
JMO
Steven Fawks
I'm going to wait and punch my chads the old fashioned way.
;-)
Fawks
Joel M. Eichen
<tuthj...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>I'm going to wait and punch my chads the old fashioned way.
>
>;-)
>Fawks
But please do not leave any "hanging."
Joel
Dr Steve
-- >>Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time
>>
>>"Your mother wears army boots!"
>
> Irrelevant!
?????????
Advocate147
Is that the criteria for voting. No where has anyone said, which candidate is
most likely to save soldier's lives.
George Bush has a beautiful way of saying directly to the extremists, "We will
see this to the end" What he means, we will see this to the end no matter how
many lives it takes."
Not endorsing any candidate but Bush has a way of making the extremists angry,
no respect can be expected, but perhaps a little more diplomacy might elicit a
human response. Vote as you will.
Gail
Dr. Steve
<joele...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:17:39 GMT, "Dr Steve" <nos...@home.net> wrote:
>
>>Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time
>>
>>"Your mother wears army boots!"
>
>This is because most of the mothers now wear engineers' boots as two
>jobs are required to put food on the table .....
>
>
I always thought the insult regarding a mother & army boots was a
reference to being too poor to afford "real" shoes & the family had
to re-cycle old military surplus.
Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S.
Troy, Michigan, USA
Writing on a tablet PC,so forgive me if the PC misreads my poor handwriting.
Dr. Steve
>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:19:43 GMT, W_B <no_...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:42:01 -0400, Joel M. Eichen <joele...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:17:39 GMT, "Dr Steve" <nos...@home.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time
>>>>
>>>>"Your mother wears army boots!"
>>>
>>>This is because most of the mothers now wear engineers' boots as two
>>>jobs are required to put food on the table .....
>>>
>>>
>>Because taxes are too high.
>
>So do I vote for the guy who will tax us and spend money, or the guy
>who will just spend money and use borrowed cash?
>
>I think it's time to start throwing away my vote with a third party.
>
>Adenosine
Probably should vote along Party lines. Consider how the Presidential
election will influence congress and vote to put balance where you
think it will help most.
Dr. Steve
our borders. the rest should all be local.
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:06:28 -0400, Joel M. Eichen
<joele...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:19:43 GMT, W_B <no_...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:42:01 -0400, Joel M. Eichen <joele...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:17:39 GMT, "Dr Steve" <nos...@home.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time
>>>>
>>>>"Your mother wears army boots!"
>>>
>>>This is because most of the mothers now wear engineers' boots as two
>>>jobs are required to put food on the table .....
>>>
>>>
>>Because taxes are too high.
>
>... and benefits too low .......
>
>
Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S.
Jan
>Date: 10/20/2004 5:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <b9udd.10381$5b1....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>
You can stop with the games now.
The explanation was in what you snipped.
Are you being *polite*??
carabelli
"Dr. Steve" <drs...@no-spam.com> wrote..........
> Probably should vote along Party lines. Consider how the Presidential
> election will influence congress and vote to put balance where you
> think it will help most.
> Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S.
> Troy, Michigan, USA
"help most"? That assumes two good choices. I don't ever recall casting a
presidential vote for anyone - just against the other guy.
carabelli
carabelli
"Advocate147" <advoc...@aol.com> ............
Vote as you will.
>
> Gail
That would be past tense for me - mailed it in last Monday
carabelli
Adenosine
wrote:
>the only Federal benefit we need is a strong military & defense of
>our borders. the rest should all be local.
>
So do agree with the Liberatian platform then?
Adenosine
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> the only Federal benefit we need is a strong military & defense of
> our borders. the rest should all be local.
You of course were not in the country. But just a generation or so
ago, "states rights" had a very specific meaning in this country. If it
hadn't been for the Voting Rights act and other federal legislation, why
would things have changed?
Steve
>
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Adenosine
<bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>Dr. Steve wrote:
>
>> the only Federal benefit we need is a strong military & defense of
>> our borders. the rest should all be local.
>
> You of course were not in the country. But just a generation or so
>ago, "states rights" had a very specific meaning in this country. If it
>hadn't been for the Voting Rights act and other federal legislation, why
>would things have changed?
>
>Steve
>
Because the supreme court has decided that 'interstate commerce'
applies to a wide variety of things?
I'm suprised at the number of laws that have been found constitutional
under 'interstate commerce'.
Adenosine
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
So its: 1) Strong Military
2) defense of borders
3) regulation of interstate commerce.
;-)
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Dr. Steve
wrote:
My point is forget the candidate, & vote for the party you think
should have more control in congress. You way want a party to win for
veto purposes.
Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S.
Troy, Michigan, USA
Writing on a tablet PC,so forgive me if the PC misreads my poor handwriting.
Dr. Steve
wrote:
Too much other baggage & weird ideas there.
StovePipe
> >> Because taxes are too high.
> >> --
> >>
> >> W_B
> >
> >Sheesh... You-all should try living in Kanada with our tax system...
> >SP
>
>
> Well at least you pay your taxes in Kanadian dollars. 8^]]
> --
>
> W_B
Oh Yeah? Youse: paid in valuable USA-ian dollars, low tax rates. Us:
paid in cheaper Kannanaadian dollarettes, high tax rates. Therefore, Us
are worse off than Youse.
Y'all heah wut Ah say
SP
PS: I *never* lie.
StovePipe
> I always thought the insult regarding a mother & army boots was a
> reference to being too poor to afford "real" shoes & the family had
> to re-cycle old military surplus.
> Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S.
> Troy, Michigan, USA
>
> Writing on a tablet PC,so forgive me if the PC misreads my poor handwriting.
That is also my take on this expletive.... All the Russian descendants
are supposed to answer: 'so what's wrong with that...?...'
SP
Quebec, Kaannnaaadaaa
Writing on a Macintosh iBook, so excuse the smell (Crap....intosh)
StovePipe
>
> >Vote as you will.
> >
> >Gail
>
>
> Thanks but I don't need your permission.
> --
>
> W_B
I would, but.... Kanada.... Is Ralph Nader still running this time?
Just curious
SP
Bill Combs
> >Subject: Re: Re How HONEST Dentists Are Treated
> >Date: 10/16/2004 1:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <42da265d.04101...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >jdrew...@aol.com (Jan) wrote in message
> >news:<20041015231507...@mb-m02.aol.com>...
> >> http://www.toxicteeth.net/MinnKipsSummary.pdf.
> >
> >
> >This article states:
> >
> >"But in 1995, the Board sent Dr. Jacobson a 'notice of hearing'
> >charging him with fraud and incompetence. Of 21 patients whose files
> >were used as of the charges against him, the allegations about ten of
> >these patients mentioned mercury. In 1996, Dr. Jacobson gave up his
> >license."
> >
> >If the "allegations about ten of these patients mentioned mercury,"
> >then what were the other eleven charges against Dr. Jacobson?
>
> Oh, my, this is called desperation to find something wrong, and divert from the
> issue.
>
> Why do you dentists skip over the real issues and pick out something, you think
> will dismiss the whole issue??
When a url is posted on this newsgroup, the contents of that url
become subject to examination and discussion.
My comments did not "dismiss" your issue of amalgam use. I only raised
another issue which is obvious in this case: what are the other eleven
charges, which did not even involve amalgam?
>
> >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.
>
> >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.
>
> >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.
>
> >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. Since
these cases did not involve mercury, I refer to them as the
non-mercury cases.
>
> tends to refute the
> >point that the author seemingly tried to make: that he was unfairly
> >prosecuted due only to his stand on amalgams. Clearly, the other
> >eleven cases show that he wasn't.
>
> Oh??? Like what?
Like the three cases you list below.
>
> Who made these charges???
Didn't you know that when you posted the reference? Generally, charges
are made by a branch of the state government. In most states this is
the government's dental board.
>
> 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. (I don't know what an *investion* is.)
With regard to the charge of "Yelled at a patient," this seems
unlikely to result in a loss of license. But if his patients all
rallied to his defense, then HOW did the state learn that he had
yelled at a patient? 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.
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.
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.
The need for a dentist to wash his hands between patients is in the
CDC infection control guidelines, and many states have placed those
guidelines into their dental practice laws. And I can't imagine any
patient being happy with a dentist who doesn't wash his hands before
putting those hands in the patient's mouth!
Due to the serious nature of transmissable diseases, this charge alone
can sustain the necessity of discipline for a holder of a dental
license.
>
> >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? Failure to follow infection-control
guidelines puts patients at risk of infection. It is the duty of
government to enforce the laws regarding infection control.
It is unreasonable to say "The ENTIRE case was nothing" without
examining the charges that did not even involve amalgam. Was it true
that he didn't diagnose dental caries? Was it true that he didn't even
wash his hands?
>
> YOU learn the LIES well from dental school.
Is this meant as an ad hominem attack? What "lies" are in my posting??
I can't find any.
>
> PATHETIC!!
>
> Jan
No need to get insulting. I did not insult you.
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?
- dentaldoc
Jan
>Message-id: <42da265d.04102...@posting.google.com>
You can plainly see what they are, the same ole same ole used for every witch
hunt.
>>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.
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?
>
>- dentaldoc
Your point is a LIE.
Jan
Joel M. Eichen
>You can plainly see what they are, the same ole same ole used for every witch
>hunt.
True Break Dancing is alive and well.
Clinton C Zimmerman
>
> My comments did not "dismiss" your issue of amalgam use. I only raised
> another issue which is obvious in this case: what are the other eleven
> charges, which did not even involve amalgam?
>
>
The post states that he was under investigation for 12 years! What
dentist
in America wouldn't have some errors in treatment found after a 12
year investigation. One small error per year equals 12 charges.
>
> > >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.
Have you ever made a diagnositc error?
>
> > >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.
Interesting, now the legislatures are dentists.
>
>
> Didn't you know that when you posted the reference? Generally, charges
> are made by a branch of the state government. In most states this is
> the government's dental board.
And let me guess, usually the board is composed of..Dentists.
>
>
> Surely you don't mean to imply that these charges should be taken
> lightly. (I don't know what an *investion* is.)
>
> With regard to the charge of "Yelled at a patient," this seems
> unlikely to result in a loss of license. But if his patients all
> rallied to his defense, then HOW did the state learn that he had
> yelled at a patient? Perhaps at least one of his patients reported
Because the case gained widespread publicity. Imagine Channel 9 news
is running
a story on Dr. Combs. If any patients have been mistreated by Dr.
Combs
please contact your state dental board immediately!
> 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.
>
> With regard to the charge of "Not seeing decay," this is more serious.
If you go through hundreds of x-rays you will always finds things that
were missed. Who is kidding who?
StovePipe
> >> Thanks but I don't need your permission.
> >> --
> >>
> >> W_B
> >
> >I would, but.... Kanada.... Is Ralph Nader still running this time?
> >Just curious
> >SP
>
>
> Yeah but not in all states.
> --
>
> W_B
?!?!?! What kind of cockameme platform is THAT???? All he'll do is spoil
the vote in the states where he's taken seriously.
'scuse the Crap...intosh
Steven Bornfeld
My wife, perusing the map of "blue and red" states, saw that he just
might do that in Ohio, where Nader is polling 3% and Bush and Kerry are
dead even.
Steve
Tony Bad
"Steven Bornfeld" <dentaltw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:41791BC3...@earthlink.net...
>
> My wife, perusing the map of "blue and red" states, saw that he just
> might do that in Ohio, where Nader is polling 3% and Bush and Kerry are
> dead even.
>
> Steve
>
last week, he seems like the only one of the bunch who I'd actually like to vote
for!
T
Joel M. Eichen
If Bush wins then we shipping all the leftover Chevettes to Ohio.
Joel
Steven Bornfeld
Well, having no expectation of winning certainly lessens the incentive
to pander, which is probably why he seems so good.
Steve
Tony Bad
>
>
> Well, having no expectation of winning certainly lessens the incentive
> to pander, which is probably why he seems so good.
>
> Steve
>
That and not having to put party interests first, people second.
T
John Chewter
Bill Combs
(question asked by Jan:)
> > > *Below Standards* Standards set by whom?????
> >
(question answered by dentaldoc:)
> > In most states, the standards are set by the state legislature.
(comment by clintonz:)
> Interesting, now the legislatures are dentists.
Interesting indeed. I can see how this could be a little confusing for
people who don't know the difference between dental boards, which are
merely appointed branches of the state governments, and the dental
associations, which are voluntary organizations with no connection to
government, and no government powers.
In my state the legislature jealously guards its complete control over
all legislation and routinely flaunts its power regardless of the
position of any professional associations.
-dentaldoc
Bill Combs
> >
> >
> > are made by a branch of the state government. In most states this is
> > the government's dental board.
>
> And let me guess, usually the board is composed of..Dentists.
I can see that you guessed, before researching the answer.
Although there are some dentists on the board, you certainly don't
have to be a dentist to be on the state dental board.
The position of board member is a politically-appointed position, not
a dental one.
Come to my state, work in some legislator's election campaign, and
remember to donate lots of money to him too. Then that legislator will
owe you a favor, and you can suggest that he get the governor to
appoint you to the dental board. If you're not a dentist, no problem.
Even though our former governor has been removed by a recall vote of
the people, his politically-connected appointees remain, and as usual,
the dental association has no power over the current state of affairs.
- dentaldoc
Jan
>Message-id: <42da265d.04102...@posting.google.com>
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.
Joel M. Eichen
wrote:
>Interesting indeed. I can see how this could be a little confusing for
>people who don't know the difference between dental boards, which are
>merely appointed branches of the state governments, and the dental
>associations, which are voluntary organizations with no connection to
>government, and no government powers.
>
>In my state the legislature jealously guards its complete control over
>all legislation and routinely flaunts its power regardless of the
>position of any professional associations.
>
>-dentaldoc
YUP, Jan Drew believes that the ADA pays dentists a monthly stipend to
push amalgam.
Joel
Joel M. Eichen
>I replied:
>
>Uh huh, like I said, the same ole same ole. Was he also charged with using the
>wrong color of toliet paper??
Jan, toilet paper is always white or lightly colored pastels to make
it easier to ....... NEVER MIND!
Clinton C Zimmerman
>
> >
> > And let me guess, usually the board is composed of..Dentists.
>
>
> I can see that you guessed, before researching the answer.
>
> Although there are some dentists on the board, you certainly don't
> have to be a dentist to be on the state dental board.
>
Come on,
The majority of board members are dentists or dental professionals.
Here is the list for what I am guessing is your state,CA:
Newton Gordon, DDS 1/15/05 President
George SooHoo, DDS 1/15/06 Vice President
La Donna Drury-Klein, RDA 1/15/06 Secretary
David I. Baron, Public 1/1/06 Board Member
Richard Benveniste, DDS 1/1/04 Board Member
Kevin Biggers, Public 1/1/07 Board Member
Brandon Hernandez, Public 1/1/05 Board Member
Lawrence Hundley, DDS 1/15/06 Board Member
Alan H Kaye, DDS 1/15/06 Board Member
Patricia Osuna, RDH 1/1/06 Board Member
Michael Pinkerton, Public 1/1/06 Board Member
Kamran Sahabi, DDS 1/1/07 Board Member
Ariane Terlet, DDS 1/1/04 Board Member
Chester Yokoyama, DDS 1/1/05 Board Member
Now, Chester Yokoyama was supposed to have been in charge
of a new materials fact sheet when appointed by Gray Davis,
but, I understand the committe voted to prevent him from
doing this after Gray Davis left office.
Notice that even if Yokoyama and the members of the public
all vote together, they still are in the minority.
> The position of board member is a politically-appointed position, not
> a dental one.
>
To be honest I believe that politicians and the public
have been lax in letting dentists on dental boards abuse their power.
It's sad but the Dental and medical communities don't seem
to have the ability to regulate themselves for the best
interests of the patient.
> Come to my state, work in some legislator's election campaign, and
> remember to donate lots of money to him too. Then that legislator will
> owe you a favor, and you can suggest that he get the governor to
> appoint you to the dental board. If you're not a dentist, no problem.
>
> Even though our former governor has been removed by a recall vote of
> the people, his politically-connected appointees remain, and as usual,
> the dental association has no power over the current state of affairs.
>
Be careful. I'm pretty sure Arnold has already signed a Bill to ban
thimersol. Being from Austria and considering the attitudes about
amalgam in Europe
he may soon finish what Gray Davis started.
> - dentaldoc
Steven Bornfeld
Wasn't the California Dental board recently replaced?
Steve
>
Bill Combs
> >Subject: Re: Re How HONEST Dentists Are Treated
> >From: dent...@hotmail.com (Bill Combs)
>
> >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?
> >
> >- dentaldoc
>
> Your point is a LIE.
>
> Jan
There can be no doubt that resorting to name-calling and insults is a
poor substitute for intelligent discussion.
I never insulted you.
My point is that the author's case is better served by presenting an
example that involves ONLY the subject at hand. According to the
author's own writing, this particular case involves eleven charges
that did NOT have anything to do with mercury or amalgam.
That information was contained in the url that YOU posted.
Was that a lie?
Thanks,
dentaldoc
Clinton C Zimmerman
> Clinton C Zimmerman wrote:
> > dent...@hotmail.com (Bill Combs) wrote in message > > > the government's dental board.
> > thimersol. Being from Austria and considering the attitudes about
> > amalgam in Europe
> > he may soon finish what Gray Davis started.
> >
> >
> >
> >>- dentaldoc
>
> Wasn't the California Dental board recently replaced?
>
> Steve
That is the new dental board. Dr. Yokoyama was specifically
appointed by Governer Davis as an anti-amalgam Dentist. He was
supposed to draw up a new fact sheet, but then as you know Davis was
recalled and there was some kind of revolt on the board by the
pro-amalgam dentists.
I don't know the details but there is more information about it at the
http://www.toxicteeth.org website