Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
ThoughtCriminal
Blumenthal's REAL findings show that the IDSA's Lyme Treatment
guidelines process was SEVERELY flawed and unprofessional.. In other
words, the boyz with bugz at IDSA were reprimanded publicly by the
State of Connecticut for shoddy work..... while ILADS was NOT
reprimanded..... Blumenthal's findings include the following, as
written on Blumenthal's website (my comments are followed by a ----):
1) The IDSA FAILED to conduct a CONFLICTS OF INTEREST review for any
of the panelists prior to their appointment to the 2006 Lyme disease
guideline panel; Subsequent disclosures demonstrate that several of
the 2006 Lyme disease panelists had CONFLICTS OF INTEREST;
--- er, um... CONFLICT OF INTEREST means that IDSA committee members
did not act in the interest of SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY (i.e. committee
members did not accept and review the many distinguished studies
which CONFIRM persistence of infection....) and they did not act in
the interest of PATIENTS... due to their commercial CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST in the INSURANCE, DRUG and BIOWAR industries.
2) The IDSA FAILED TO FOLLOW ITS OWN PROCEDURES for appointing the
2006 panel chairman and members, enabling the chairman, who held a
BIAS regarding the existence of chronic Lyme, to handpick a
LIKEMINDED panel without scrutiny by or formal approval of the IDSA's
oversight committee;
.----- that's both collusion, malfeasance and incompetence .. PLUS
utter disregard for patient welfare..worthy of lawsuits against the
misguided IDSA Epidemic Intelligence Officers who ignore persistent
infection for their own financial gain ---as well as to cover up
bioweapons "mistakes" they and their colleagues may have engaged in.
Sounds like "thank you for smoking" science to me... Long courses of
intravenous anitbiotics are EXPENSIVE... insurance does not want PAY
for LONG courses of treatment. .. OBVIOUS....despite 3rdshmuk and
Wormser's bizzare obsession to the contrary..... the panelists had
conflicts of interest, and the top legal authority in Connecticut
stated this VERY CLEARLY in his wonderful findings...
3) The IDSA's 2000 and 2006 Lyme disease panels refused to accept or
meaningfully consider information regarding the existence of chronic
Lyme disease, once removing a panelist from the 2000 panel who
dissented from the group's position on chronic Lyme disease to achieve
"consensus";
------YUP... no matter how much 3rdSHMUK may fantasize otherwise....
DOZENS of scientific articles ---and even many youtube videos have
demonstrated the existence of "persistence of infection" of the
spirochete and cysts... even WIKIPEDIA admits that there are numerous
"mechanisms of persistence" of the organism-- mechanisms that defy
standard short term treatment periods. A patient could sue IDSA on
the basis of the darkfield live blood VIDEOS ALONE showing living,
swiming spirochetes in patients' blood....so the JIG IS UP, 3rdshmuk.
4) The IDSA blocked appointment of scientists and physicians with
divergent views on chronic Lyme who sought to serve on the 2006
guidelines panel by informing them that the panel was fully staffed,
even though it was later expanded;
---yeeup... sounds like COLLUSION and MANIPULATION to me.... blocking
scientific evidence is FRAUD... by any definition of the word...
Blumenthal stated it... its now up to citizens to SUE and make sure
that these Epidemic Intelligence Officer IDSA FRAUDSTERS are held
accountable for their egregious scientific misconduct and disregard
for public health-- before more people are damaged by their
unprofessional, illegal conduct......Also, it is ILLEGAL for
intelligence agencies to operate domestically.. Ya know... You boys
are acting ILLEGALLY if you are covering up bioweapons mistakes....in
your positions as Epidemic Intelligence Officers....
5) The IDSA portrayed another medical association's Lyme disease
guidelines as corroborating its own when it knew that the two panels
shared several authors, including the chairmen of both groups, and
were working on guidelines at the same time. In allowing its panelists
to serve on both groups at the same time, IDSA violated its own
conflicts of interest policy.
....YEEEEEUP!!!... UNPROFESSIONAL, LYING BEHAVIOR RESULTING IN DAMAGE
TO PATIENTS THROUGH THE WITHHOLDING OF BOTH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON
PERSISTENCE OF INFECTION, AND TREATMENT PROTOCOLS BASED ON THE
IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF PERSISTENCE OF INFECTION...
Yup--- 3rd shmuk--- we ALL KNOW that this disease is a RELAPSING
FEVER. EXTENDED TREATMENT BUYS US TIME....but may not CURE US...
That's why we need the treatment research money from Congress.
3rdmoron--- You are unamerican, and you are not going to win at this
game... you are simply riling up very ill patients with your
ridiculous diatribes here .. causing them to act and post when maybe
they would not have otherwise done so...
....3rdwanker--- your bosses will soon fire you, I predict... but
then, that's what always happens to pathetic and arrogant schmucks
like you.
chroni...@yahoo.com
Ok, Kathleen you were right, well thankfully it was exposed and now we
all can live happily ever after. I feel real bad for those guys on the
IDSA, their lives have been ruined, I can imagine how grueling it must
be for them to revisit the guidelines.
the 3rd Man
Sorry.
I"m afraid not.
If you bother to read the terms of the settlement agreement (always
helpful) you will no doubt notice a section that says that the
agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the parties and
basically precludes any other actions between the parties.
You might also notice that the IDSA did NOT waive their rights to
contest the jusrisdiction of the Conn AG in the matter.
But, you see, the AG is simply an adversarial party that represnts the
State of Connecticut. And as such, the statements of the AG are not to
be taken as a "ruling", or "finding". They are merely assertions that
can be proven or disproven. In this case, neither, as they will never
be tried because of the settlement agreement between the parties.
Whatever Blumenthal's personal OPINIONS may be in regard to the
matter...they really are just that...and to be "rulings" or
"findings"...they must be presented to a COURT of competent
jurisdiction and be ruled upon BY A JUDGE.
NOT Blumenthal.
Understand?
The ONLY things that are legally enforceable are the written terms of
the agreement. Whatever Blumenthal says his office "found" is hearsay
and irrelevant. His statements are largely political...not legal. They
have NO legal meaning. They are simply contentions, assertions.
In addition, I would note that the IDSA is a PRIVATE organization and
that the legal ability of the AG's office to enforce or interpret the
internal rules of panel composition or ethical conduct has NOT been
established and would have to be demonstrated before a JUDGE in COURT.
Again, do you understand this? Blumenthal's office has to demonstrate
before a COURT that it has the legal ability to enforce and make
decisions on the internal affairs of what is a private, professional
organization. Don't really know, but I would be willing to bet that is
something the IDSA attorneys would not be too quick to concede.
In the beginning, this "investigation" was supposedly a matter of
purported civil antitrust.
According to Blumenthal, himself, his office had to show that there
was economic benefit being derived by the panel members'
recommendations and that this benefit was the reason WHY other
potential contrary voices were excluded from the panel.
This simply hasn't happened.
And I STILL want someone to explain HOW it ever could have been a
POSSIBILITY in the first place.
The essential question remains unanswered..."HOW COULD RECOMMENDING
GENERIC DRUGS OF SHORT TERM DURATION PROVIDE ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO THE
PANEL MEMBERS"?
the 3rd Man
>
> Ok, Kathleen you were right, well thankfully it was exposed and now we
> all can live happily ever after. I feel real bad for those guys on the
> IDSA, their lives have been ruined, I can imagine how grueling it must
Not Kathleen.
There are more of them out there, I'm afraid.
This one's name is Carla.
(And...actually none of the previous members of the panel will be
involved in the review, according to the terms of the settlement
agreement).
the 3rd Man
>
> Blumenthal's REAL findings show that the IDSA's Lyme Treatment
> guidelines process was SEVERELY flawed and unprofessional.. In other
> words, the boyz with bugz at IDSA were reprimanded publicly by the
> State of Connecticut for shoddy work..... while ILADS was NOT
> reprimanded..... Blumenthal's findings include the following, as
> written on Blumenthal's website (my comments are followed by a ----):
>
> 1) The IDSA FAILED to conduct a CONFLICTS OF INTEREST review for any
> of the panelists prior to their appointment to the 2006 Lyme disease
> guideline panel; Subsequent disclosures demonstrate that several of
> the 2006 Lyme disease panelists had CONFLICTS OF INTEREST;
What is the source of the legal authority of the Connecticut AG to
review the internal precedures of a private professional society and
make such a decision, please?
>
> --- er, um... CONFLICT OF INTEREST means that IDSA committee members
> did not act in the interest of SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY (i.e. committee
> members did not accept and review the many distinguished studies
> which CONFIRM persistence of infection....) and they did not act in
> the interest of PATIENTS... due to their commercial CONFLICTS OF
> INTEREST in the INSURANCE, DRUG and BIOWAR industries.
Does the Connecticut AG have the legal authority to decide what does
or does not, constitute "scientific integrity"?
Doesn't that insert an elected official as the arbiter of complex
scientific controversy?
Is that soemthing that we should want, as a democratic society?
>
> 2) The IDSA FAILED TO FOLLOW ITS OWN PROCEDURES for appointing the
> 2006 panel chairman and members, enabling the chairman, who held a
> BIAS regarding the existence of chronic Lyme, to handpick a
> LIKEMINDED panel without scrutiny by or formal approval of the IDSA's
> oversight committee;
What is the source of the legal authority of the Connecticut AG to
review the internal precedures of a private professional society and
make such a decision, please?
>
> .----- that's both collusion, malfeasance and incompetence
LOL. And are these some sort of actionable "things", in your opinion?
.. PLUS
> utter disregard for patient welfare..worthy of lawsuits against the
> misguided IDSA Epidemic Intelligence Officers who ignore persistent
> infection for their own financial gain ---as well as to cover up
> bioweapons "mistakes" they and their colleagues may have engaged in.
> Sounds like "thank you for smoking" science to me... Long courses of
> intravenous anitbiotics are EXPENSIVE... insurance does not want PAY
> for LONG courses of treatment. .. OBVIOUS....despite 3rdshmuk and
> Wormser's bizzare obsession to the contrary..... the panelists had
> conflicts of interest, and the top legal authority in Connecticut
> stated this VERY CLEARLY in his wonderful findings...
The Connecticut AG is the state's top legal enforcement official.
But his opinions have to be ajudicated in Court, before a judge.
>
> 3) The IDSA's 2000 and 2006 Lyme disease panels refused to accept or
> meaningfully consider information regarding the existence of chronic
> Lyme disease, once removing a panelist from the 2000 panel who
> dissented from the group's position on chronic Lyme disease to achieve
> "consensus";
So?
It is a PRIVATE organization.
WHY do YOU think that they should be obligated to include people who
the majority does not agree with?
If I am a member of a scientific panel whose purpose is to propose
that the earth is round...you mean Blumenthal thinks he can force me
to include people who say it is flat?
From whence does the great Blumenthal presume to derive this awesome
power?
I have edited out all the rest of the personal attacks and other
nonsense.
You REALLY have NO business distributing legal advice, whatever. Your
comments reveal exactly how little you understand.
And you are NOT helping others understand with this kind of demented
diatribe.
the 3rd Man
> Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
>
>> ------YUP... no matter how much 3rdSHMUK may fantasize otherwise....
If, by any chance...this "shmuk" business is a reference to an
attorney from Philadelphia who used to post here...we have been over
and over this...and no, I am NOT that person.
As I have said many times, I live in Chicago ...and a simple IP
address check conforms that FACT.
You need to learn that you will never build yourself up by attempting
to tear others down. You wanna be a "player" in the whackjob games
these internet bag"ladies" pull? Is that it? You think they will
accept you if you routinely badmouthing and bashing McSweegan? Think
you can prove yourself like that? Well, what kind of an admission
ticket is that? What are you trying to gain entrance to, exactly? and
what kind of people would associate with that kind of behavior?
Well, try not to be so obvious about trying to elevate yourself by
attacking others and calling names.
To anyone with a half a brain, you're just shaming and discrediting
yourself.
lipanz
> On May 16, 6:07�pm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: �A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
>
> >> �------YUP... no matter how much 3rdSHMUK may fantasize otherwise....
>
> If, by any chance...this "shmuk" business is a reference to an
> attorney from Philadelphia who used to post here...we have been over
> and over this...and no, I am NOT that person.
>
> As I have said many times, I live in Chicago ...and a simple IP
> address check conforms that FACT.
>
The only thing is he works completely alone-- the schmukk's friend -
has no para-legal - does all his own sleuth work. A very good lawyer
- knows all the ropes and has been around.
This lawyer is an unbelievable crooked rattlesnake and I am beginning
to wonder -birds of a feather flock together.......so be it..........
lipanz
> Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: �A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
>
4) The IDSA blocked appointment of scientists and physicians with
divergent views on chronic Lyme who sought to serve on the 2006
guidelines panel by informing them that the panel was fully staffed,
even though it was later expanded;
---yeeup... sounds like COLLUSION and MANIPULATION to me.... blocking
scientific evidence is FRAUD... by any definition of the word...
Blumenthal stated it... its now up to citizens to SUE and make sure
Yes the class action lawsuit in ref. to the lyme vaccine- what
happened they lost. And when Steere was asked would he take the
vaccine -he replied he doesn't live in an epidemic area -Mass. not
epidemic ho ho. Good answer...............
that these Epidemic Intelligence Officer IDSA FRAUDSTERS are held
accountable for their egregious scientific misconduct and disregard
for public health-- before more people are damaged by their
unprofessional, illegal conduct......Also, it is ILLEGAL for
intelligence agencies to operate domestically.. Ya know... You boys
are acting ILLEGALLY if you are covering up bioweapons
mistakes....in
your positions as Epidemic Intelligence Officers....
5) The IDSA portrayed another medical association's Lyme disease What
was it per change the AMERICAN LYME FDTN.
guidelines as corroborating its own when it knew that the two panels
shared several authors, including the chairmen of both groups, and
were working on guidelines at the same time. In allowing its
panelists
to serve on both groups at the same time, IDSA violated its own
conflicts of interest policy.
....YEEEEEUP!!!... UNPROFESSIONAL, LYING BEHAVIOR RESULTING IN
DAMAGE
TO PATIENTS THROUGH THE WITHHOLDING OF BOTH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON
PERSISTENCE OF INFECTION, AND TREATMENT PROTOCOLS BASED ON THE
IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF PERSISTENCE OF INFECTION...
Thought criminal, I basically agee with you yes. But what I have seen
and experienced it comes to the answer that you can't fight city hall
and evil seems to 99% of the time wins out with it's deceit and double
talk in THIS WORLD. I don't know what happens to these deceitful
people in the next world - tho.
Mort Zuckerman
These crooks are not going to win this.
> I don't know what happens to these deceitful
> people in the next world - tho.
Oh, I do.
It's quite specific.
http://www.actionlyme.org/IGNORANT_MASS.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/EXORCISMS.htm
The malicious will certainly suffer, but they can't
unscramble their own confusion and *never* will.
You can see the elegance in God's plan.
They who lie and hate will in the end be doomed to
utter confusion about *why* they hate, and it will
always and forever be over petty imbecilic
nonsense- the kind we witness being posted by
this fake lawyer, Third Man.
Do you see how much effort he puts into nothing
productive?
That's the nature of the damned.
lipanz
> On May 17, 12:36 am, lipanz <lipanzmari...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Oh, I do.
> It's quite specific.http://www.actionlyme.org/IGNORANT_MASS.htmhttp://www.actionlyme.org/EXORCISMS.htm
>
> The malicious will certainly suffer, but they can't
> unscramble their own confusion and *never* will.
>
> You can see the elegance in God's plan.
>
> They who lie and hate will in the end be doomed to
> utter confusion about *why* they hate, and it will
> always and forever be over petty imbecilic
> nonsense- the kind we witness being posted by
> this fake lawyer, Third Man.
>
> Do you see how much effort he puts into nothing
> productive?
>
> That's the nature of the damned.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you for those 2 websites. Odd I am interested in that. Getting
late. But I will go more into them tomorrow. Exactly what I am
interested in due to certain circumstances. I wish I could e-mail you
personally. Thank you for those sites....
Mort Zuckerman
> On May 17, 12:50�am, Mort Zuckerman <morph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 12:36 am, lipanz <lipanzmari...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh, I do.
>
> > The malicious will certainly suffer, but they can't
> > unscramble their own confusion and *never* will.
>
> > You can see the elegance in God's plan.
>
> > They who lie and hate will in the end be doomed to
> > utter confusion about *why* they hate, and it will
> > always and forever be over petty imbecilic
> > nonsense- the kind we witness being posted by
> > this fake lawyer, Third Man.
>
> > Do you see how much effort he puts into nothing
> > productive?
>
> > That's the nature of the damned.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Thank you for those 2 websites. Odd I am interested in that. Getting
> late. But I will go more into them tomorrow. Exactly what I am
> interested in due to certain circumstances. I wish I could e-mail you
> personally. Thank you for those sites....
Got more.
the 3rd Man
>
> Thought criminal, I basically agee with you yes. But what I have seen
> and experienced it comes to the answer that you can't fight city hall
> and evil seems to 99% of the time wins out with it's deceit and double
> talk in THIS WORLD. I don't know what happens to these deceitful
> people in the next world - tho.
"L":
It is NOT enough that there may have been "conflicts of interest",
perceived or actual.
In this instance, IF this had gone to Court...Blumenthal would have
had to have been able to convince a Judge that these conflicts
influenced the panel memebrs to make their recommendations.
Understand? They would still have to have acted upon this
conflict...tried to further their economic interests. It is NOT a
"crime" to have an undisclosed "conflict". It might be a simple
oversight.
This is why I keep repeating the question about how could recommending
short courses of generic drugs constitute a "conflict".
And...I STILL am not getting any answers...
the 3rd Man
On May 16, 11:50 pm, Mort Zuckerman <morph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Oh, I do.
> It's quite specific.
That's good to hear.
What does it say about those who bear false witness against their
neighbors?
What does it say about "judge not...lest ye be judged"?
LOL.
I can't profess to be so divinely-connected as to predict fates in the
afterlife...but I do think that people who violate the terms of Google
Groups terms of service will probably get their e-mail acount banned
in the here and now.
This includes impersonating other people...like Mort Zuckerman. (for
God-only-knows what psychotic reason).
Abuse reports sent.
Mort Zuckerman
ROTFL
the 3rd Man
>
> - Show quoted text -
Another abuse report sent.
the 3rd Man
>> ROTFL-
You think this is FUNNY?
Glad you're amused.
Why don't you enlighten us, then?
But don't blame me...I don't make the rules.
Blumenthal is on record as to what the standard of review was to be.
(Abuse report sent as to the Zuckerman thing).
the 3rd Man
Here you go, "Mort":
This is what Blumenthal, himself, said:
==============================================
"I have a legal obligation to investigate these serious allegations,
including possible antitrust violations that would arise if insurers
or others improperly influenced the process by excluding competing
views and information for their economic benefit".
==============================================
Just go ahead and R all over TF...and L your A off, too...
lipanz
>
> The malicious will certainly suffer, but they can't
> unscramble their own confusion and *never* will.
>
> You can see the elegance in God's plan.
>
> They who lie and hate will in the end be doomed to
> utter confusion about *why* they hate, and it will
> always and forever be over petty imbecilic
> nonsense- the kind we witness being posted by
> this fake lawyer, Third Man.
>
> Do you see how much effort he puts into nothing
> productive?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes I know exactly. I always did say I think the devil has his hand
in this disease in more ways than one. FROM PART OF ROMANS 12:This
is very difficult but :12:19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but
leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I
will repay, says the Lord."
lipanz
In reference to the abuse report Zuckerman thing I thought that was
Charlie (Woodchuck) Adams job. He always claimed he the the chief
head of this website. Gee wonder what happened to him-oh maybe he's
on vacation.....
the 3rd Man
> In reference to the abuse report Zuckerman thing...
The Google Groups Terms of Service prohibit the impersonation of
another person or entity.
Ms. Dickson knows this.
She is an enormous hypocrite.
The rules are for others...not her. She accuses...but doesn't have to
follow the rules, herself.
I understand that she has "difficulties". But apparently, she is aware
enough to undertsand that she shouldn't be doing this...and continues.
It's a minor thing...but indicative of her overall attitude. The
attitude that landed her butt in jail.
Since she has so little respect for others...I don't know why others
should show any towards her.
lipanz
Sounds like "thank you for smoking" science to me... Long courses of
************************************************************************
intravenous anitbiotics are EXPENSIVE... insurance does not want PAY
******************************************************************
for LONG courses of treatment. .. OBVIOUS....despite 3rdshmuk and
Wormser's bizzare obsession to the contrary..... the panelists had
conflicts of interest, and the top legal authority in Connecticut
stated this VERY CLEARLY in his wonderful findings...
Right --------long term courses off & on of intravenous antibiotics
are EXPENSIVE. Usually there is not problem with orals & IM's.
So what's all this about short courses of orals .Same with the blood
tests -highly insensitive and unrealiable. Who controls the criteria
for those Steere of course. False negatives are much more common than
false positives.. A false positive is rare unless maybe one has
syphlis. So therefore the blood tests are set up so cheesy and a lot
of people don't even know about that 2 tiered testing that was
compiled by Steere in 1995.
It is stated that some people could show a false Elisa and then
that's it dumped in the garbage can "Dr. says "You don't have Lyme -
your blood test was negative." but if given a Western Blot which they
don't even get a chance at they could show positive or even some
highly specific bands and in the meantime they take their doctors
word and end up going to a rhematologist getting steriods and end up a
cripple with a suppressed immune system and secondary infections.
The less people diagnosed ------the less the insurance companys have
to pay.
Also that's why the IDSA is promoting there is no such thing as
chronic lyme disease.
Mort Zuckerman
Under the guise of forcing a dialogue, 3rdschmuk, the fake lawyer,
is trying to see what Blumenthal knows about the cabal, since it's
always best to know exactly what your opponent knows.
WE KNOW what is going on and what Blumenthal knows, which
resulted in IDSA caving.
I KNOW what statements and facts made the crooks go hysterical.
Much of it had to do with Shapiro's perjury at the Jones Hearings
and false statements about congenital Lyme in the movie, UNDER
OUR SKIN.
The crooks know Blumenthal's office is *furious* at Yale's Eugene
Shapiro.
NOW BACK TO THE ORIGINAL RICO COMPLAINT:
It's 1) the patent profiteers and 2) Kaiser, et al.
The crooks clearly are serving two masters and their agenda boils
down to this:
"Let's say there's no disease until the vaccine is ready, and then
we'll talk about how serious the disease is, and that everyone
should get the vaccine."
It was a deal made with Kaiser at New York Medical College.
It was a deal involving the little enterprise, ALDF.com for the
venture caps we know about:
http://www.actionlyme.org/ALDF_BOARD.htm
It was a deal involving John J. Connolly and CastleConnolly.com
which is a Kaiser entity, serving Kaiser's agenda.
Much data is still in the US Attorney's office in New HellHaven,
Corrupticut that includes published statements by John J. Connolly
about how doctors groups are going to get have to get used to the idea
that HMOs are taking over medicine.
They are narrowing disease definitions, deploying psychiatry
until it is too late, forcing people to have Uncle Sam pay all
their expenses, and getting rid of people who the corporations
think they have agreed with with BigInsurance under Long
Term Disability claims.
NONE of these crimes can be achieved without psychiatry,
which is a religion and not a medical practice. It does not take
a genius to see that sex and pee-pee whacking never cured Lyme's
even worse twin, the other spirochetal disease, syphilis. In fact,
too much of Psychiatry's Medicine - Pee-Pee-Whacking - caused
Syphilis, while their other "medicine" renders people literally brain
dead, since their mechanisms of action are identical to anesthesia.
They're all either receptor or transporter blockers.
When the day comes that psychiatry can admit that none of what
they do has anything to do with health (clearly it is the opposite),
Medicine has a chance at redemption. But we do not ever expect
psychiatry to come forward and admit they are too stupid to see
that their own practice is scientifically invalid, since part and
parcel
of psychiatry is their primary self-deception that egotism is
"normal."
They propose that humanism is about humans, when in fact, it is
about becoming Christ like, completely disregarding the fact that old
warriors are almost always filled with regret. 'As if it is not
obvious that
people age-out of vanity and self-glory as their primary operating
principle and in later life, have tended, in the past, anyway, to
become
more interested pursuits related to the betterment of society.
'In volunteering.
To understand psychiatry is to understand the main medical frauds
conducted by BigInsurance. A "psychological evaluation" does not
prove or disprove physiological elements that are out of range. You
cannot look at a person and see that they have antibodies and other
biomarkers of illness.
The most profound marker that psychiatrists are insane is that
the American Psychiatric Association makes no attempt to
atone for how they are abused by HMOs and the "courts," despite
knowing they are the hired whores.
They NEVER come forward and say in a public forum, that "WE ARE
NOT QUALIFIED TO PERFORM A MEDICAL EVALUATION OF A
PERSON WHO CLAIMS TO BE ILL," even though it is obvious. This
behavior and attitude on the part of psychiatry and psychology is
known
as "delusional."
They literally defend this illegal and insane practice by saying, "I
have
experience."
So, they know what they are doing is wrong, but propose the validity
of the assumption that they're "innate and acquired god-like creatures
whose human experience exceeds that of every other human."
Even worse, they sometimes try to defend what they do as "scientific."
The last time I checked, science involves laboratory, and that lab
science
was meant to be the thing that trumped crystal balls and the various
magical incantations and machinations that in the past were
considered
treatments for health conditions.
No matter how you scientifically analyze their proposals, they come
out "DELUSIONAL."
Remember the attempts by Roy Meadows to prove that women
were poisoning their children by saying that "infant mortality is not
related to any genetic defects," and that "there is no such thing as
vaccine injury," despite the cause of vaccine injury being written
right in the MMR monograph, under "ADVERSE NEUROLOGICAL
EVENTS." Meadows claims: "Genetics is not a science," and that
"Vaccines do not have any adverse events listed in their monographs."
If Psychiatry does not in the near future excuse themselves from a
claim to "MEDICINE," the AMA had better do it for them, or lose all
credibility along with psychiatry. If they do not, the AMA will
otherwise
have to openly admit that, also, that "No medical school can teach us
more
than BigInsurance knows." The AMA is right close to that admission
now,
since they do not publicly admit they drank the Yale Kool-Aid on
"Lyme
Disease."
The AMA *partially* admits it here in a Veterinarian's forum:
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/aug07/070801b.asp
but that is not good enough. Such an admission has to be front
and center on every medical journal, along with a complete analysis
on what kind of a mental defect has allowed them all to be so
incompetent to science overall, especially in the years since
the establishment of the ALDF and HMOs.
The blame in that case - if the AMA members grow brain cells
as well as develop courage - will fall on psychiatry, since if we are
making up diseases, psychiatry would have been the entity which
deluded them- the AMA - into thinking psychiatry had some mystical
ability to read all future and potential lab tests not yet performed
and
that psychiatrists and psychologists know in advance their outcomes.
The longer the AMA postpones declaring psychiatrists to be nothing
other
than self-alleged mystics or oracles, the less hope we have that they
intend to regain control of US Medicine from BigInsurance and
BigPharma.
http://www.sffaith.com/ed/articles/1998/1098cz2.htm
Insane Psychiatry
IT REPLACES RELIGION, SAYS DOCTOR
By Christopher Zehnder
Can modern psychiatry be reconciled with the Christian faith? No, says
Doctor George Maloof, a Bay Area psychiatrist with over 28 years of
experience in the field.
Maloof, 57, married and the father of six children, has a private
practice in San Francisco and works for the parole department of the
state prison system, counseling patients out of its Oakland office.
Maloof's severe view of modern psychiatry stems not from his practice,
but from his education. "Before I even started training as a
psychiatrist," he says, "I was very much involved in the Catholic
faith and studying philosophy and theology. I went to Harvard and
Georgetown medical school [and through Opus Dei] I was studying
Thomistic philosophy and theology. So I applied those disciplines to
psychiatry when I first started studying it in medical school, and
pretty much dismissed all schools of psychiatry. I went through the
whole handbook of psychiatry, and none of [the schools] really
appealed to me."
Maloof concluded that Freud's influence over psychiatry militated
against Christianity. Freud's system eliminates "responsibility for
one's behavior. There's a whole structure that was concocted by Freud
to explain how behavior is not responsible. So guilt is not
legitimate; it needs to be eliminated by eliminating religion -- and
any moral code that people seem to be influenced by. It's an attempt
to overthrow morality, and specifically Catholic morality."
Freud saw religion as basically "a wishful-thinking system to escape
the dreariness of reality and the meaninglessness of life. Freud
basically said [life] was meaningless and anybody who tries to make
meaning out of it is sick. It's a very despairing kind of philosophy,
but that's what psychiatry is."
Freud's influence in psychology and psychiatry, according to Maloof,
extends even to the work of Catholic psychiatrists and psychologists.
"There was a Catholic psychiatry society," says Maloof, "connected
with the American Psychiatric Association for many years. You would
think that that group would develop some Catholic notions within the
field of psychiatry. They, at least the leaders, dissented from
Humanae Vitae and basically followed Jung rather than any Catholic
thought. They disbanded a couple of years ago. So there is no Catholic
psychiatry in the official world of psychiatric associations. There
have been other groups that have tried to form Catholic psychology or
psychiatry groups, and I think there is a real problem becaue I see
psychiatry as being an attempt to usurp the role of religion --
especially in its analytic, Freudian approach, which, I think, is
really at the bottom of all psychiatry. So I don't see any Catholic
group now that considers itself [a] psychiatric association as being
distinctly Catholic."
"One of the things I learned recently, to my dismay, is that Gregory
Zilbourg [a psychiatrist and analyst] commented in the 1950s that
psychoanalysis was being taught in the seminaries. He thought that was
good, that there would be a rapprochement and an appreciation by the
Church of psychoanalysis and psychiatry. Zilbourg was saying there's
no problem -- psychiatry is different from confession, and won't
replace confession. Well, I think if he were living today, he would
have to eat those words. The seminaries that are now rife with
Freudian concepts and Jungian concepts are unable to select out people
who are prone to sexual disorders because there's an acceptance of
perversion. Freud said as much -- we're all perverted, basically, and
we become neurotic if we suppress our perversion. So if you release
your inhibitions, you won't be neurotic; you will be healthy, in his
view, but you will be a pervert. So we're educating society and even
people in the Church. When you see all the priestly sexual abuses and
the millions of dollars spent trying to cover their abuse, I think you
see the devastation that's been wreaked by Freud, which, I think, was
his intention all along."
In order to repair this devastation, Maloof says that psychiatry and
psychology must return to "what the Church has been teaching about
man," namely, that man is responsible for his acts. "When I was in
training 30 years ago, I formulated my own view of what mental illness
was, and I wrote up an extensive outline. I was going to spend the
rest of my life explaining it. I considered mental illness the
consequence of the unwillingness to accept the responsibility for
one's acts. This is what sin is, what the consequences were of the sin
of our first parents. They didn't say, 'Yeah I want to be like you,
God; I ate this apple, and me and my wife are going to take over, and
you can take a hike!' They didn't say that...They knew what they did,
and why they did it."
"We still don't face up to our responsibility; [and so] we develop
mental illness. If we don't, we're ill in other ways, but our whole
being just rebels against our not wanting to take responsiblity for
our acts. Most of the cases that Freud and Jung and other
psychiatrists talk about have pointed this out -- their patients have
done something wrong and are punishing themselves for it through their
symptoms. For people who don't want to follow God's law, they just
find other ways to help people get around their symptoms. If you are
not helping people accept responsibility for what they've done, that's
basically bad treatment."
What constitutes good treatment? "I see psychiatry," Maloof says, "as
basically preparing someone for confession. I think Freud said, you
can come and confess your sins to me and you will be able to keep
sinning and won't feel as bad! It never worked, and I don't think he
has ever been able to cure anyone with that approach. A lot of people
have committed suicide that have been associated with him. He even
admitted that psychoanalysis just hasn't satisfied the problem of the
need for punishment, and so what that means is that we are deserving
punishment, so we must have done something wrong. Psychiatry has said
we haven't -- its the standards of civilization or church or your
superego that are imposing things on you. [If you free yourself],
you'll be a happy pervert. [But] perverts aren't that happy."
Maloof, while emphasizing the need for therapy centered upon personal
responsibility, says that medication is necessary for certain
patients, but warns that it is a short-term cure -- "like a wet
blanket; there's a fire raging -- you're out of control, your thinking
patterns are out of control, and so we have to stop your thinking, or
slow your thinking organ, and that's really what medication does."
The long-term cure is religion, says Maloof. In therapy, Maloof tries
to get his patients "to see what they're doing, and to admit
responsiblity for what they're doing and to go to confession." If they
are Catholic, he says "I tell them as much and if they're not, I
encourage them to go to church and try to practice a faith and ask God
for forgiveness. And that basically is helpful and relieves them, the
ones that will go along with it."
TOP
the 3rd Man
> On May 19, 12:03 am, lipanz <lipanzmari...@aol.com> wrote:
> Under the guise of forcing a dialogue, 3rdschmuk, the fake lawyer,
> is trying to see what Blumenthal knows about the cabal, since it's
> always best to know exactly what your opponent knows.
Oh, SHUT UP and take your meds.
Please stop interrupting people who are trying to have a conversation.
(Shouldn't you be somewhere faxing or e-mailing government officials
or Chavez or that guy in the windbreaker in Iran)?
>
> WE KNOW what is going on and what Blumenthal knows, which
> resulted in IDSA caving.
LOL. You IDIOT.
READ THE DAMN THING. The IDSA admitted NOTHING.
If Blumenthal "knows" something...then WHY didn't he file any
proceedings?
(ABUSE REORT SENT).
the 3rd Man
> ******************************************************************
>
> Right --------long term courses off & on of intravenous antibiotics
> are EXPENSIVE. Usually there is not problem with orals & IM's.
Yeah? SO? What's your point?
The IDSA recommends short courses of antibiotics...either oral or
intravenous, depending on the patient situation.
If you are suggesting that the insurance companies will allow oral
antibiotics, but refuse IVs because of expense, then why don't so-
called "LLMD"s just treat with orals?
Huh? Donta does. In other words, is there some sort of justification
for the IV as opposed to the oral?
> So what's all this about short courses of orals
What do you mean?
> Also that's why the IDSA is promoting there is no such thing as
> chronic lyme disease.
Well, that seems to be a conclusion on your part.
Do you have any evidence that would tend to suggest that this is not
an honest difference of medical/scientific opinion?
lipanz
> On May 19, 1:04�am, Mort Zuckerman <morph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 12:03 am, lipanz <lipanzmari...@aol.com> wrote:
>
the 3rd Man
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, I understand. That is the same stupid, childish garbage that she
has been relentlessly spreading all over the internet for years,
now...and doesn't seem to understand that she has been proven wrong.
There is no reason for anyone to pick Blumenthal's brain...to find out
what he knows...he has just waived whatever his options may have been
within the settlement Agreement.
Kathleen is utterly and completely clueless. She should NOT be
encouraged.
And just for the record, I am not angry, here...just asking you to
clarify your position.
The business about "short courses of generic drugs" is directed at
pointing out that it is unlikely that IDSA panel members stood to
benefit from their recommendations...(and that is what Blumenthal,
himself, said he had to prove).
Mort Zuckerman
I don't think anyone supposes you did.
Besides, what difference does it make?
You think the crooks are going to come after
you with false criminal charges?
All is said and done and resolved and there
is nothing the crooks can do. There will
be murder charges against them over
the testing and it will be about *what* Schoen
knew *when.*
lipanz
> On May 18, 11:03�pm, lipanz <lipanzmari...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > ******************************************************************
>
> > Right --------long term courses off & on of intravenous antibiotics
> > are EXPENSIVE. � Usually there is not problem with orals & IM's.
>
>
> The IDSA recommends short courses of antibiotics...either oral or
>
> If you are suggesting that the insurance companies will allow oral
> antibiotics, but refuse IVs because of expense, then why don't so-
Also it is basically a clinical diagnosis off course ruling out other
diseases first and cking ones' history were they bitten - rashes any?
do they do a lot of outdoor work etc. esp as if one is healthy as a
horse etc. before they get the symptoms. 99% of all infectious
disease drs. ignore those things and one can be half dead even with
the tick feeding in their arm and if the blood test isn't 100%
positive to that rigid criteria they won't treat at least what I
observed. Maybe it's different in your area.
Even if a person shows on WB a couple of specific bands - they rule it
out.Anyone with half a brain would know that those specific bands did
not just fly in their on their own.
And that baloney about so many IGG's and IGM's. It doesn't matter
whether the specific bands are IGG or IGM. One can be ok for a while
then have a sudden relapse and that would be as as IGM. Yet they act
as IGM's are in earlier stage.
>
> Huh? Donta does. In other words, is there some sort of justification I KNOW- DOESN'T DONTA USE LONG TERM DOXY. I GUESS THAT'S HIS VIEW. WHO KNOWS MAYBE HE IS RIGHT.
> for the IV as opposed to the oral? I CAN ONLY SAY IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE PERSON - EVERYONE'S SITUATION IS DIFFERENT. .
A LOT OF DRS. NOW ARE AFRAID TO USE IV IN LATER STAGES AS THEY ARE
AFRAID OF BEING REPORTED TO THE STATE MED. BOARD BY SOMETIMES
RHEUMATOLOGISTS. A PERSON CAN BE HALF DEAD, SWOLLEN, IN PAIN, AND SHOW
3 SPEC. BANDS EVEN AND THEY CAN'T GET ANY IV BECAUSE THE BLOOD TEST
DOESN'T MEET THE RIGID CRITERIA. I AGREE THO SOME CASES CAN BE
CONTROLLED OFF AND ON WITH VARIOUS ORALS AND IM'S AND SOME OTHER
SUPPLEMENTS.
> > So what's all this about short courses of orals �
>
> What do you mean? JUST WHAT I SAID.
>
> > � Also that's why the IDSA is promoting there is no such thing as
> > chronic lyme disease. I RECEIVED AN ARTICLE ON THAT SENT TO ME. AND I BELIEVE IT IS IN THEIR NEW GUIDELINES......ISN'T IT. OR PERHAPS I AM WRONG... I DO THINK THO IN VERY VERY RARE CASES SOMETIMES THE DISEASE COULD END UP WITH SOME AUTOIMMUNE AND INFECTION AT THE SAME TIME. VERY RARE THO.
>
> Well, that seems to be a conclusion on your part.
> WE KNOW IT IS A VERY COMPLICATED SITUATION. I'M NOT TRYING TO BE SMART 3RD MAN BUT-----------but what I've seen a real pitiful pitiful horror story.
> Do you have any evidence that would tend to suggest that this is not
> an honest difference of medical/scientific opinion? SORRY , BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY MEDICAL EVIDENCE THAT IT IS..... OH I FORGOT WHY IS IT IN THE EARLY 90'S AND 89 ONE CAN FIND ARTICLES BY STEERE =-DATTYLER ETC. STATING LATE STAGE LYME IS LIKE TERTIARY SYPHILIS AND ALSO IN 89 AN ARTICLE BY THE 2 PLUS OTHER ARTICLES ON SERONEGATIVE LYME DISEASE IN THE NEJM. I THINK ONLY THE ABSTRACT IS AVAILABLE IF AT ALL EVEN IF ONE IS A SUSCRIBER. HOW CAN ONE ALL OF A SUDDEN HAVE A COMPLETE DIFFERENT OPINION- A FEW YRS LATER-
YES IT STARTED THE DIFF. OPINION RIGHT AFTER A CERTAIN DR. PRESENTED
HIS FINDINGS AND OPINIONS AT A HEARING IN WASHINGTON IN 1993.
I'VE EVEN HEARD A IDIOT DR. SAY ONCE YOU'VE BEEN TREATED ALL THE
BACTERIA IS IRADICATED -NO MATTER IF TREATED EARLY OR LATE. WHAT A
JERK.
the 3rd Man
YOU are NOT a lawyer.
You have NO idea what you are talking about.
Blumenthal's office looked at it.
IF they had seen anything that even remotely lent itself to what you
say, they would have been obligated to pursue it.
THEY DID NOT. If you don't like it, or have questions about it...why
don't you take it up with them? I think you may even be acquainted
with some of the assisstant AGs...wassername? Oh, yeah...Gauvin...I'll
bet she will be willing to help you.
You're living in a fantasy world...and you need to stop accusing
innocent people and bearing false witness and LYING.
ABUSE REPORT SENT.
lipanz
"Let's say there's no disease until the vaccine is ready, and then
we'll talk about how serious the disease is, and that everyone
should get the vaccine." Right ------and now they say 'IT'S EASY TO
TREAT AND HARD TO CATCH" Why do we need a vaccine then- could it
possibly be MONEY....Sounds like double talk to me............
the 3rd Man
IT'S OBVIOUS - A LOT OF PEOPLE NEED OFF & ON IV ANTIBIOTICS ESP WHEN
THEY HAVE A SERIOUS RELAPSE OR EXTREMELY ILL AND DIAGNOSED IN A LATE
STAGE.
Who says so?
Where, please? Who says that IV antibiotics have better outcomes than
orals?
(I am talking about in excess of the IDSA Guidelines).
>
> > The IDSA recommends short courses of antibiotics...either oral or
> > intravenous, depending on the patient situation.
I WOULDN'T MIND SEEING THE QUOTE ON THAT-----
What? Then why don't you look at it? Do you need help finding the IDSA
Guidelines?
BUT ANYWAY THEY STILL HAVE THE CONTROL UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE
SITUATION BY PROMOTING THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CHRONIC LYME OR
REOCCURING LYME. THE CONTROL THE SITUATION PERIOD.
Well, what they have said is that there is no persuasive evidence that
the infection survives a short course of antibiotics...intravenous in
some cases (neuro and cardiac complications)...and repeat ivs in those
cases.
They have consistently maintained that a debilitating syndrome does
persist, in some cases, and that there is doubt as to whether
continued courses of antibiotics are successful in resolving those
symptoms.
That is NOT to say that some Lyme patients do not experience severely
debilitating symptoms after treatment. It simply disputes the CAUSE of
those symptoms.
My understanding is that research more or less commissioned by the
LDA, conducted by Brian Fallon, tends to support that conclusion.
But, according to the Guidelines, themselves, compliance with them is
mandatory. In other words, I would have to imagine that most doctors
have little to fear in the way of a disciplinary hearing for treating
a resistant case of Lyme with multiple courses of antibiotics.
It is more the case that doctors who have attempted to specialize in
the longterm use of antibiotic therapy...who present problems.
Simple question for you is...if it is true, as you say, that insurnace
companies will most likely not refuse coverage of repeat courses of
oral antibiotics...then, WHY do so-called "LLMD"s prescribe IVs and
run the risk of incurring the wrath of the State boards?
Understand the question? What is the medical jsutifiction for that? If
they can't show a commensurate benefit to the patient from that...and
I do NOT mean through anecdotal reports...then WHY do they continue to
do it?
Some might suspect they do it because it benefits them...financially.
>
> > If you are suggesting that the insurance companies will allow oral
> > antibiotics, but refuse IVs because of expense, then why don't so-
> > called "LLMD"s just treat with orals?
YOU SHOULD KNOW WHY -
I am looking for something more than argument here...do you have any
studies that show that longterm IVs are more effective?
SOME PEOPLE ARE SO SICK THE ORALS WON'T HELP
What? Says who? Why do you think that IVs are so vastly superior in
this situation?
.............. 1. A LOT OF THEM DO NOW DEPENDING ON THE SITUATION AND
ALSO A LOT ARE AFRAID TO USE IV BECAUSE OF BEING REPORTED FOR OVER
DIAGNOSING AND OVER TREATING AND IF THEY ACCEPT INS. ESP THE HMO'S USE
THE IDSA'S GUIDLINES THEREFORE THEY WON'T PAY
I don't think that patients should expect the healthcare industry to
foot the bill for ineffective treatements, do you?
The cost of that simply gets passed along to everyone in the form of
higher premiums.
in later stages in ref. to serious replapses. You ask why they
don't use orals then well it's common sense certain cases need IV.
WHY is this "common sense"?
Aren't we suppsoed to be making decsions based upon "scientific
sense"?
> > And that baloney about so many IGG's and IGM's. It doesn't matter
> whether the specific bands are IGG or IGM. One can be ok for a while
> then have a sudden relapse and that would be as as IGM. Yet they act
> as IGM's are in earlier stage.
>
> > Well, that seems to be a conclusion on your part.
> > WE KNOW IT IS A VERY COMPLICATED SITUATION. I'M NOT TRYING TO BE SMART 3RD MAN BUT-----------but what I've seen a real pitiful pitiful horror story.
> > Do you have any evidence that would tend to suggest that this is not
> > an honest difference of medical/scientific opinion?
SORRY , BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY MEDICAL EVIDENCE THAT IT IS.....
LOL. The burden is on those who would suggest otherwise.
You just suggested that this is something other than an honest
difference of opinion. That places a burden on you to explain, prove
your point. This is called the "affirmative".
>
> YES IT STARTED THE DIFF. OPINION RIGHT AFTER A CERTAIN DR. PRESENTED
> HIS FINDINGS AND OPINIONS AT A HEARING IN WASHINGTON IN 1993.
Those were his OPINIONS.
Only.
His opinion might be more interesting if they had been backed up with
something like FACTS.
Big problem when you hear that kind of talk...if you have information
to back that sort of thing up...then WHY don't you take it to the
appropriate authorities?
lipanz
>
>
> They have consistently maintained that a debilitating syndrome does
> persist, in some cases, and that there is doubt as to whether
> continued courses of antibiotics are successful in resolving those
I READ OF SEVERAL TRUE CASES AND ACTUALLY OBSERVED ONE WHERE THE
PATIENT ACTUALLY THEN ENDED UP DYING. NOW MAYBE IF THESE PATIENTS WERE
DIAGNOSED PROPERLY CLINICALLY AND NOT JUST TOLD THEY DO NOT HAVE LYME
IN THE BEGINNING BECAUSE OF A FAULTY BLOOD TEST THESE THINGS WON'T
HAPPEN.
I don't think that patients should expect the healthcare industry to
> foot the bill for ineffective treatements, do you?
>
> The cost of that simply gets passed along to everyone in the form of
> higher premiums.
ALSO I KNOW OF ANOTHER PATIENT DIAGNOSED WITH POLY MYALGIA RHEUMATICA -
THE CHEAPIE LYME TEST DIDN'T PICK UP ANYTHING. ONE OTHER LAB PICKED
UP BAND 83 VERY SPECIFIC - & ANOTHER A 41-23 & 25. PATIENT. OTHER
THINGS WERE CKED BY REUMATOLOGIST AND REG. MD. NOTHING. OH PATIENT
HAD A SO CALLED IDIOPATHIC NEUROPATHY IN FT. ALSO. IDIOPATHIC YEA.
NO DIABETES.
PATIENT WAS HEALTHY AS A HORSE BEFORE. OH THERE TOO RHEUMATOLOGIST
WAS GIVEN TYPICAL LYME RASH PHOTOS ON LEGS AND BACK OF NECK.
PATIENT WAS NAIVE AND HAD FAITH IN THIS RHEUMATOLOGIST - STERIODS
STERIODS AND A DIAGNOSIS OF RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS.
WHY IS IT A PERSON CAN HAVE A NEG. RF AND BE DIAGNOSED WITH RA AND
THE INS. PAYS FOR ALL THESE STERIODS -KNEE DRAINAGES ETC. AND THOSE
CHARGES AREN'T SMALL EITHER.
BUT WITH LYME CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS DOESN'T COUNT EVEN WITH SEV.
PACIFIC BANDS..............................
>
> That is NOT to say that some Lyme patients do not experience severely
> debilitating symptoms after treatment.
>
> My understanding is that research more or less commissioned by the
> LDA, conducted by Brian Fallon, tends to support that conclusion. I NEVER DID SEE HIS STUDY OUTCOME- IS THERE A WEBSITE FOR IT ANYWHERE. I UNDERSTOOD BRIAN FALLON WORKS FOR THE LYME CLINIC AND OR ASSOC. OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. WHEN ONE SAYS LDA PERIOD--- IT MAKES ME THINK OF THE LDA OF CONN.THE ORIGINAL & FIRST LDA.
>
>>.DO YOU HAVE ANY WEB SITE OF FALLON'S STUDY FINDINGS-------------
>
> Simple question for you is...if it is true, as you say, that insurnace
> companies will most likely not refuse coverage of repeat courses of
> oral antibiotics...then, WHY do so-called "LLMD"s prescribe IVs and
> run the risk of incurring the wrath of the State boards?
>
>
> NOT TOO MANY DOING IT NOW. AND SOME WHO DO IT DON'T TAKE INS. YOU HAVE TO PAY OUTRIGHT. YES THERE ARE A FEW OF THOSE DRS. WHO ARE RIP OFFS. IN PARTICULAR ONE IN COLMAR PA. THEY DON'T TAKE INS.
PATIENT PAYS OUT OF POCKET (INFLATED CHARGES) THEREFORE THEN THE LYME
DR. CAN'T GET REPRIMANDED. YES THERE ARE A FEW WHO DO THAT AND IT IS
NOT RIGHT AT ALL.
>
> Some might suspect they do it because it benefits them...financially. A FEW YES ---THERE IS GOOD & BAD IN ALL FIELDS OF PRACTICE.
SEVERAL SO CALLED LYME DRS. I MYSELF DIDN'T GO TO THEM EXCEPT 1.
BUT I KNOW THAT THERE ARE A FEW WEIRDOS WHO DO TREAT LYME. THEY LIVE
IN THESE OLD RICH LIKE ANTIQUE IN HSES IN NJ. OR ARE LOCATED (LIKE
A CLINIC WAY OUT IN THE COUNTRY AND IN THE WOODS)
>
> ALSO I HAVE MY PROS AND CONS TOO. LIKE A CERTAIN LADY FROM BASKING RIDGE NJ. ILADS - THEY PREACH CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS. PATIENT GOES TO HER USING A WALKER - HAVE SEV. DIAGNOSIS FROM A COUPLE OF OTHER DRS. OF LYME. AT TIMES SHOWED REATIVE IGG ELISA PLUS EVEN 31 41 66 23 PREV. ON Wb. PATIENT HAS KNOWLEDGE OF TICKS FEEDING ETC. 2 KNOWN WITHIN A COUPLE OF WKS.
PHOTOS OF MIGRANS RASHES, PHOTOS OF EYE PROBLEMS AND MORE. HER
TESTS CAME BACK NEG. AT THAT TIME. SO SHE DROPS THE PATIENT LIKE A
HOT POTATO. GREAT LYME DR. WHILE PATIENT AND HER HUSBAND ARE
SITTING IN WAITING RM. HER RECEPTIONIST SAYS "OH PEOPLE COME TO HER
FROM FRANCE AND ALL OVER".....----------
YET AS THEY LEAVE HER OFFICE SHE SAYS YOU PROBABLY WOULD FEEL BETTER
WITH IV AND GIVES THEM A RECEIPT STATING VASCULITIS AND LYME DISEASE.
YET THE INTERNATIONAL LYME FDTN PREACHES CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS. IS SHE
AFRAID OF SOMETHING......STILL THAT IS MAKING A FOOL OF THE
PATIENT..........DON'T PRACTICE THEN-------------- AS SHE IS NOT
PRACTICING WHAT SHE PREACHES.
>
> �
>
> >
> I am looking for something more than argument here...do you have any
> studies that show that longterm IVs are more effective? I HAVE READ SEVERAL CASES WHERE IT DID HELP. FOR INSTANCE EVAN WHITE-. I THINK HIS STORY IS POSTED SOMEWHERE ON THIS SITE PLUS IT WAS IN A NEWLETTER. BUT OF COURSE THAT DOESN'T APPLY TO ALL CASES.
ALSO I KNOW OF 2 PERSONAL STORIES. THE QUESTION IS ALSO WHAT IS
REALLY CONSIDERED LONG TERM? IS IT MORE THAN 2 ROUNDS OF IV - 1 ROUND
OR WHAT.........I never read the guidelines thoroughly. I don't
even know if I still have a copy of them..........
I AM NOT SAYING ALL CASES --LIKE I SAID A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE SO SO FAR
GONE WITH IT. IT IS HOPELESS. PLUS THE CDC PREACHES OH IT IS A
CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS HIDDEN BETWEEN THE LINES BUT ---------NO INFECTIOUS
DISEASE DR. WILL EVER TREAT BASED ON A CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS - PLUS MOST
MD'S WON'T EITHER. BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES OF
THE HIGHLY INSENSITIVE BLOOD TESTS. THAT'S ALL.
>
> I don't think that patients should expect the healthcare industry to
> foot the bill for ineffective treatements, do you?
>
> The cost of that simply gets passed along to everyone in the form of
> higher premiums. STRANGE HOW HIV PATIENTS ARE TREATED WITH SUCH RESPECT. FREE PILLS - HIGH GOVERNMENT FUNDING IS THERE A CURE FOR THAT. I FEEL SORRY FOR THE INNOCENT CHILD WHO GETS IT OR SOMEONE INNOCENTLY GETS IT THRU A BLOOD TRANSFUSION BUT ------GEE -
>
>
> > > Do you have any evidence that would tend to suggest that this is not
> > > an honest difference of medical/scientific opinion?
>
>DO YOU? I DO SEE SOME OF YOUR POINTS...........END....
the 3rd Man
> On May 19, 3:07�pm, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > They have consistently maintained that a debilitating syndrome does
> > persist, in some cases, and that there is doubt as to whether
> > continued courses of antibiotics are successful in resolving those
> > symptoms. WELL I GUESS IF IT IS IN SUCH A LATE STAGE AND THE PATIENT WAS NEVER DIAGNOSED CORRECTLY - I GUESS THE LONG COURSES AT THE LATE LATE STAGE & PATIENT LOADED WITH SECONDARY SYMPTOMS FROM LYME AND SECONDARY INFECTIONS FROM THE LYME AND ALSO A SUPPRESSED IMMUNE SYSTEM. IT IS HOPELESS. BUT IF TREATED PREVIOUSLY AND IT DID HELP- THE IV- THEN AT LEAST IF A BIG RELAPSE AND IN TERRIBLE SHAPE THEY SHOULD BE GIVEN AT LEAST ANOTHER CHANCE.
Well, with all due respect...I don't think that the objective here is
to "guess". I understand that some patients may be more willing to
experiment with unproven therapies. But I do NOT agree that healthcare
providers should be expected to reimburse them for that if the
benefits of the therpay are not generally accepted as being
beneficial.
In other words...you wanna try it? Okay...but YOU pay for it.
>
>
> > My understanding is that research more or less commissioned by the
> > LDA, conducted by Brian Fallon, tends to support that conclusion.
I NEVER DID SEE HIS STUDY OUTCOME- IS THERE A WEBSITE FOR IT
ANYWHERE. I UNDERSTOOD BRIAN FALLON WORKS FOR THE LYME CLINIC AND OR
ASSOC. OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. WHEN ONE SAYS LDA PERIOD--- IT MAKES
ME THINK OF THE LDA OF CONN.THE ORIGINAL & FIRST LDA.
>
> >>.DO YOU HAVE ANY WEB SITE OF FALLON'S STUDY FINDINGS-------------
I think it was widely available ata the time...the synopsis. Did you
try the archives, here?
lipanz
>
What is the source of the legal authority of the Connecticut AG to
review the internal precedures of a private professional society and
make such a decision, please?
Reply: The Attorney General's Office in the state I live in has a
comlaint dept for professional non-compliance and it deals with
medical items like this subject plus also medical malpractice
complaints. I guess there were complaints in ref. to this subject
so he investigated so-----------------------He has the right. It is
his job.
the 3rd Man
No.
That is a different matter. There, you are talking about the power of
the state to regulate the professions...and this is not in dispute.
The state has the authority to license and regulate INDIVIDUAL
misconduct through stautory authority.
Here, I am asking what the legal basis is for intervening in what the
AG himself describes as "procedural deficiencies" of a private
professional medical organization.
I was not previously aware that the AG of any state had the authority
to enforce violations of Robert's Rules of Order...
The question is largely rhetorical...I am trying to suggest that the
authority of the AG to intercede here, was of questionable merit in
the first instance...that this authority would have to be later duly
established...
...and might not have been able to be properly established.
lipanz
That is a different matter. There, you are talking about the power of
the state to regulate the professions...and this is not in dispute.
The state has the authority to license and regulate INDIVIDUAL
misconduct through stautory authority.
What does stautory authority mean - state -it has nothing to do with
statute of limitations does it?
Does it mean like authority of the state. Hmmm - do mean like
hospital drs. etc. Well yes they do that. This is another subject but
----- Am I correct that if a doctor or doctors do not release
(example) two important records to a spouse or next of kin (because
they are hiding their errors) we will say --Isn't that office of the
Power of state to regulate the professional misconduct which is
connected to the Attorney Gen.'s Office supposed get those records for
the plaintiff- we will use that word plaintiff.
Isn't it illegal for doctors who work for a hospital to withhold
certain records from the spouse or next of kin etc.
lipanz
COULD SEARCH FOR IT IN SEARCH.
Mort Zuckerman
http://www.actionlyme.org/FALLON_DANGEROUS_TERROTIST.htm
LDA was never in Corrupticut until Pat Smith recruited the morons
Deb Siciliano and Diane Blanchard.
You must be talking about the LDF.
http://www.lyme.org
the 3rd Man
> On May 19, 10:26�pm, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> That is a different matter. There, you are talking about the power of
> the state to regulate the professions...and this is not in dispute.
> The state has the authority to license and regulate INDIVIDUAL
> misconduct through stautory authority.
>
> What does stautory authority mean - state -it has nothing to do with
> statute of limitations does it?
Statutory authority simply means a law as laid down by
statute...passed by the legislature and published. A staute.
States have the authority to license and regulate certain professions,
notably medicine and law, in order to protect the public from harm.
States also have the authority to punish unlicensed people from
attempting to dispense legal or medical advice without having
satisfied the State's licensing requirements. It is illegal to
practice law without a license to do so.
Malpractice issues are usually matters of private civil litigation
based upon negligence standards.
the 3rd Man
>
> DO YOU RECALL IF IT WAS IN ANY JOURNAL. ODD IT WASN'T IN THE NEJM. I
Published online before print October 10, 2007
(Neurology 2007, doi:10.1212/01.WNL.0000284604.61160.2d)
Received February 12, 2006
Accepted June 26, 2007
A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of repeated IV antibiotic
therapy
for Lyme encephalopathy
B. A. Fallon MD, J. G. Keilp PhD, K. M. Corbera MD, E. Petkova PhD,
C.
B. Britton MD, E. Dwyer MD, I. Slavov PhD, J. Cheng MD, PhD, J.
Dobkin
MD, D. R. Nelson PhD, and H. A Sackeim PhD
From the Department of Psychiatry (B.A.F., J.G.K., K.M.C., E.P.,
I.S.,
J.C., H.A.S.), Department of Biostatistics (E.P.), Department of
Neurology (C.B.B.), Department of Medicine (E.D., J.D.), and New York
State Psychiatric Institute (B.A.F., J.G.K., K.M.C., E.P., I.S.,
J.C.,
H.A.S.), Columbia University, New York; and Department of Cell and
Molecular Biology, University of Rhode Island, Kingston (D.R.N.).
Background: Optimal treatment remains uncertain for patients with
cognitive impairment that persists or returns after standard IV
antibiotic therapy for Lyme disease.
Methods: Patients had well-documented Lyme disease, with at least 3
weeks of prior IV antibiotics, current positive IgG Western blot, and
objective memory impairment. Healthy individuals served as controls
for
practice effects. Patients were randomly assigned to 10 weeks of
double-masked treatment with IV ceftriaxone or IV placebo and then no
antibiotic therapy. The primary outcome was neurocognitive
performance
at week 12—specifically, memory. Durability of benefit was evaluated
at
week 24. Group differences were estimated according to longitudinal
mixed-effects models.
Results: After screening 3368 patients and 305 volunteers, 37
patients
and 20 healthy individuals enrolled. Enrolled patients had mild to
moderate cognitive impairment and marked levels of fatigue, pain, and
impaired physical functioning. Across six cognitive domains, a
significant treatment-by-time interaction favored the antibiotic-
treated
group at week 12. The improvement was generalized (not specific to
domain) and moderate in magnitude, but it was not sustained to week
24.
On secondary outcome, patients with more severe fatigue, pain, and
impaired physical functioning who received antibiotics were improved
at
week 12, and this was sustained to week 24 for pain and physical
functioning. Adverse events from either the study medication or the
PICC
line were noted among 6 of 23 (26.1%) patients given IV ceftriaxone
and
among 1 of 14 (7.1%) patients given IV placebo; these resolved
without
permanent injury.
Conclusion: IV ceftriaxone therapy results in short-term cognitive
improvement for patients with posttreatment Lyme encephalopathy, but
relapse in cognition occurs after the antibiotic is discontinued.
Treatment strategies that result in sustained cognitive improvement
are
needed.
lipanz
> On May 20, 12:11 am, lipanz <lipanzmari...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, the Lyme Fdtn. of Conn. The first and true Lyme Fdtn who helped
many people in the past. L
lipanz
>
> based upon negligence standards. Yes I know that.
You didn't answer this question tho since you do seem to have so much
LEGAL knowledge------
Isn't it illegal for doctors who work for a hospital to withhold
certain records from the spouse or next of kin etc.
It is my understanding that the State Dept that regulates different
areas of professional misconduct handle things like this like as I
mentioned above and if someone complains to that dept and fills out
the form entitled "refusal to release certain records --"aren't they
are required to retreive those records for the person.?
Attorney's use the excuse you have to have a case first as they don't
want to get involved....In the state I live in the Dept of
Professional Misconduct is under the Attorney Gen's Office and from
what I've seen -the dept of professional misconduct is "Crooked" as
Ben Laden's walking stick if not more so -too.
.
This question has nothing to do with the Bleumenthal thing. Just an
off topic question.
lipanz
THANKS, I'LL READ IT MORE THOROUGHLY......
the 3rd Man
>
> You didn't answer this question tho since you do seem to have so much
> LEGAL knowledge------
Well, please understand that just because I am online here and speking
in broad general terms in order to try to help others understand some
issues...that I would rather not deal with specifc questions dealing
with specific fact circumstances...nor should I.
In other words, I don't really wish to engage in dispensing off-the-
cuff legal advice.
I saw the question.
> Isn't it illegal for doctors who work for a hospital to withhold
> certain records from the spouse or next of kin etc.
Generally, the patient has a right to his/her own records. If not the
patient...then you are probably going to have to produce some
documentation that you are the patient's legal representative. They
need this for privacy reasons. They can't release records based upon
someone's insistence that they are the patient's Uncle John...they
need to cover their behinds.
> It is my understanding that the State Dept that regulates different
> areas of professional misconduct handle things like this like as I
> mentioned above and if someone complains to that dept and fills out
> the form entitled "refusal to release certain records --"aren't they
> are required to retreive those records for the person.?
Do you mean is the State agency that oversees licensing and
professional discipline required to force the turning over of a
patient's records?
I would think not, no.
> Attorney's use the excuse you have to have a case first as they don't
> want to get involved....In the state I live in the Dept of
> Professional Misconduct is under the Attorney Gen's Office and from
> what I've seen -the dept of professional misconduct is "Crooked" as
> Ben Laden's walking stick if not more so -too.
Well, that sort of talk really doesn't advance your cause, much. I
think that many state boards are woefully underbudgeted.
> .
> This question has nothing to do with the Bleumenthal thing. Just an
> off topic question.
Right. But please, I'm here because I'm a Lyme patient...and to
discuss Lyme-related issues, okay?