>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?

>>- dentaldoc

>Your point is a LIE.

>Jan