Dr Jones the mistakes so far
Mockingbird
of the complaint.
But many people still continue to rail against him.
In fact, it is proposed that Shapiro will sit on the panel deciding Dr
Jones' fate.
So the notion of sending hate mail to Shapiro, well, that might not be
the best idea? Never really a great idea to piss off the judge hearing
the case!
Next, someone advised contacting all reporters and media with the
story.
Whoops! That idea wasn't "approved at the highest levels" (whatever
that means).
Same person advised sending emails to the Ct Medical Board.
Whoops! That idea wasn't "approved at the highest levels" whatever that
means!
Dr Jones' letter, seems to indicate that the problem is that he began
prescribing antibiotics before ever seeing and examining the kids in
another state. It isn't clear if the charges involve his practicing
medicine in a State where he isn't licensed? (I don't know if he is
licensed in Utah?) or for not having conducted a physical exam? Or not
having properly documented this? or prescribing and diagnosing with
inadequate basis? Or all the facts--was it a doctor in Utah who
complained? The kid's parents (perhaps they had complications or were
later found not to have Lyme?) was Dr Jones working with a local doctor
out there and consulting (which probably would have been the way to go)
or what?
I think we need to know the facts here.
And I think we need to let Dr Jones and his legal team direct this NOT
a bunch of Lyme "activists" whose track record has been to consistently
screw things up and make things worse and who run around like chickens
without their freaking heads.
That is, IF you care about Dr Jones and really want to help him! And
the kids he has helped!
Make sure you only send information to his lawyers NOT to whoever the
Lyme "activists"
say.
Be careful. A thoughtful concerted approach is called for. Not a bunch
of ignorant self righteous ninnies scurrying about.
Just a word or two to the wise!
kathyk
prescribe a round of oral doxy {relatively harmless} until the kid
could get to see him in person {he's got a big backlog}, or did dr.
jones prescribe IV abx, which would have been very irresponsible. I
can't imagine an LLMD prescribing IV meds without seeing the patient
and ALSO having a local GP willing to work with Dr. Jones. My docs
certainly NEVER would do such a thing.
Mockingbird
kathyk wrote:
> well, the details here are what is important. for instance, did jones
> prescribe a round of oral doxy {relatively harmless} until the kid
> could get to see him in person {he's got a big backlog}, or did dr.
> jones prescribe IV abx, which would have been very irresponsible.
I hate to speculate but from his letter it appears that he Rxd
treatment for five or six months until the kid could get in to see him.
AND though I don't disagree with your SENTIMENT here, the standard is
NOT what YOU think.
So, if CT state board and accepted medical practice REQUIRES a physical
examination in person and/or proper documentation for a diagnosis, and
Dr Jones didn't have it, it doesn't matter what YOU think is
acceptable. Also, every state requires proper record keeping.
And there could be issues regarding insurance billiings which require
proper documentation.
> I can't imagine an LLMD prescribing IV meds without seeing the patient
> and ALSO having a local GP willing to work with Dr. Jones.
I've heard of IV being prescribed without seeing a patient. More than
once.
I do think that Dr Jones would have been well advised to work with a
local doctor, consulting UNTIL he could see the kid and then have a
local doctor available and on board in case something happened when the
kid was in Utah between Jones visits.
Greatcod
unless its laws specifically prohibit it.
Mockingbird
Greatcod wrote:
> This is about interstate medicine. The state cannot regulate that
> unless its laws specifically prohibit it.
For one thing, part of the point here is that we don't know the
specifics. And as the mental patient janitor noted, the details are
important. For once, he's right.
Oh? Is that your BRILLIANT legal opinion?
Dr Jones is licensed in CT.
If he Rxd medicine from CT for a patient in Utah why do you think--in
your legal opinon--LOL--that CT couldn't take action against him?
Or Utah?
And did you ever hear of a concept called reciprocity?
And, the fact of the matter is that unless the Federal Government
regulates something, the power to do so is reserved to the States (see
the US Constitution--look at the tenth Amendment.
And, sometimes things are regulated by the Federal government but
enforcement left up to the States.
Come on CLOD, give us your legal ANALysis here.
Greatcod
rather low.
I know I don't much about the law. Given that I don't, how can I be
expected to know whether or not you do?
I rest my case.
Mockingbird
Greatcod wrote:
> I argue my cases to the standards of SciMedLyme, where the "bar" is
> rather low.
As set by amateur lawyers such as kathLOON encouraged by those that do
not know any more than her who have declared her "RICO" action
righteous and legally valid (we'll soon see what a couple of actual
federal judges have to say--and I have news for you--the law IS
whatever they say it IS unless/until a higher court OF LAW says
otherwise).
> I know I don't much about the law.
Clearly.
Query: what DO you know anything about?
>Given that I don't, how can I be expected to know whether or not you do?
Look CLOD, I'm responding to your inane comments earlier.
> I rest my case.
Case dismissed.
Mockingbird
Here is some fodder for your oh so informed legal opinions CLOD.
The first two sections are the statutues providing the grounds for
discipline for physicians in CT. The third is the list of possible
penalties. I'll spare you the procedural rules for how complaints are
lodged, investigated and how hearings are held.
MY GUESS (and I do hate to speculate here) is that Dr Jones is/will be
charged under the VERY GENERAL headings of
"illegal, incompetent or negligent conduct in the practice of the
healing arts"
and the incompetent or negligent conduct would most likely (inferred
from his letter) be prescribing for patients (children) he never saw or
examined, and I quote from his letter:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Due to my very busy 10 hour per day,
6-7 day per week Lyme practice, there is a 5-6 month delay between
office contact and an actual office visit. In order to do no harm by
delaying evaluation and treatment, a history and lab test are obtained.
Treatment is initiated prior to an office visit if a probable diagnosis
can be made. Most of these children have already suffered from a delay
in diagnosis and/or inadequate treatment of their tick-bourne disease.
This is the background that led me to evaluate and treat two children
from Nevada prior to my seeing them. My diagnosis of probable
gestational Lyme disease and tick acquired Lyme disease was made on the
basis of the history presented by their mother and my over 30 years of
treating children with tick-bourne diseases. I have been reported to
the Connecticut licensing board and have been charged with making the
diagnosis of Lyme disease and initiating antibiotic treatment prior to
examining them in my office and therefore am in violation of the
"usual and customary standard of medical care". "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is also clear that Dr Shapiro is NOT the complaining witness but a
member of the hearing board (if he was the complaining witness he
wouldn't be a member of the hearing board):
>From Dr Jones' letter:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have been offered the opportunity to have these charges dropped by
retiring and surrendering my license to practice medicine in the state
of Connecticut or I can appear before a panel of the Connecticut
Medical Examining Board to include Martin Harwin, M.D. (a retired
pediatrician) and Eugene Shapiro, M.D. (Yale-New Haven Hospital) for a
formal hearing to take place in late January, 2006. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, all the name calling regarding Dr Shapiro that has already
occurred on LymeNUT is simply stupid, and based on the erroneous
ASSumption that Shapiro is behind the complaint.
As a matter of fact at the present time we do NOT KNOW who filed the
complaint. It could be a doctor in Nevada (I said Utah earlier in
error). It could be the parents of the children involved (I have seen
MANY times Lyme patients DEMAND treatment and then turn around and
complain about the treatment they got including suing LLMDs, sometimes
sucessfully, since it is actually easier to prove a malpractice case
AGAINST the LLMDs whose practices DO depart from the prevailing
standard of care, than against Dr Steere and his colleagues--who have
SET the standard of care. This is ironic because I happen to think the
standard of care is abysmal--however, medical malpractice cases are
about proving deviations from the standard NOT proving that the
standard of care is deviant or defective! And the Lyme patients who
begged for treatment, got it, and then sued are often doing so because
they're still sick and they're ungrateful for the help they got.
Sometimes though the care they got from the "llmds" has been
abysmal--use of bogus tests, use of unapproved and dangerous treatments
(the blood thinner stuff without proper monitoring for example or
recommending ICHT or other CRAP).
It is not a pretty picture in terms of the care that Lyme patients tend
to receive--from some of the "llmds" OR from the NON "llmds"
There's a lot of poor care, and the primary victims of the
"controversy" surrounding Lyme diagnosis and treatment have been the
patients!
But honestly, poor care has been provided by both "sides" too often.
Some of the "llmds" are not only sloppy in their practices but
downright whackos. The "ducks" or "quacks" are really on all sides of
Lyme. (the one guy prescribes a diabetes drug for EVERYTHING--including
and he posted this once--for an actual brown recluse spider bite! and
he used a computer/internet based test that couldn't possibly work--and
treated patients regardless of the results--honestly RELYING on ANY of
the testing is pretty dubious--and I see no reason to trust Igenex
MDlabs any more than anyone else's testing--getting positives is NOT
proof that the tests are good and the labs haven't provided proof that
their tests are valid. Then there was the Gensys testing--which turned
out to be a TOTAL scam and the Bowen testing seems beyond dubious to me
and they haven't provided validation studies and I fear that Bowen is
Gensys 2/Gensys Redux).
With that said, CLOD, here's the relevant statutes. Have fun. Go
nuts--oh well, that ain't a long trip for you is it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.G.S.A. § 20-13c
Connecticut General Statutes Annotated Currentness
Title 20. Professional and Occupational Licensing, Certification, Title
Protection and Registration. Examining Boards (Refs & Annos)
Chapter 370. Medicine and Surgery (Refs & Annos)
§ 20-13c. Restriction, suspension or revocation of physician's right
to practice. Grounds
The board is authorized to restrict, suspend or revoke the license or
limit the right to practice of a physician or take any other action in
accordance with section 19a-17, for any of the following reasons: (1)
Physical illness or loss of motor skill, including, but not limited to,
deterioration through the aging process; (2) emotional disorder or
mental illness; (3) abuse or excessive use of drugs, including alcohol,
narcotics or chemicals; (4) illegal, incompetent or negligent conduct
in the practice of medicine; (5) possession, use, prescription for use,
or distribution of controlled substances or legend drugs, except for
therapeutic or other medically proper purposes; (6) misrepresentation
or concealment of a material fact in the obtaining or reinstatement of
a license to practice medicine; (7) failure to adequately supervise a
physician assistant; (8) failure to fulfill any obligation resulting
from participation in the National Health Service Corps; (9) failure to
maintain professional liability insurance or other indemnity against
liability for professional malpractice as provided in subsection (a) of
section 20-11b; (10) failure to provide information requested by the
department for purposes of completing a health care provider profile,
as required by section 20-13j; (11) engaging in any activity for which
accreditation is required under section 19a-690 or 19a-691 without the
appropriate accreditation required by section 19a-690 or 19a-691; (12)
failure to provide evidence of accreditation required under section
19a-690 or 19a-691 as requested by the department pursuant to section
19a-690 or 19a-691; (13) failure to comply with the continuing medical
education requirements set forth in section 24 of public act 05-275; or
(14) violation of any provision of this chapter or any regulation
established hereunder. In each case, the board shall consider whether
the physician poses a threat, in the practice of medicine, to the
health and safety of any person. If the board finds that the physician
poses such a threat, the board shall include such finding in its final
decision and act to suspend or revoke the license of said physician.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.G.S.A. § 20-45
Connecticut General Statutes Annotated Currentness
Title 20. Professional and Occupational Licensing, Certification, Title
Protection and Registration. Examining Boards (Refs & Annos)
Chapter 374. Medical Examining Boards
§ 20-45. Suspension, revocation or annulment of license. Disciplinary
proceedings
The license of any licensed practitioner of the healing arts in this
state, except a physician as defined in section 20-13a, may be revoked,
suspended or annulled, or such practitioner may be reprimanded or
otherwise disciplined, after notice and hearing, on the recommendation
of the examining board representing the branch of the healing arts
practiced by such practitioner for any cause named below. Proceedings
relative to the revocation, suspension or annulment of a license or
toward disciplinary action may be begun by the filing of written
charges, verified by affidavit, by the Commissioner of Public Health
with the examining board representing the branch of the healing arts
practiced by the practitioner. The causes for which a license may be
revoked, suspended or annulled or for which a practitioner may be
reprimanded or otherwise disciplined are as follows: Conviction in a
court of competent jurisdiction, either within or without this state,
of any crime in the practice of his profession; fraudulent or deceptive
conduct in the course of professional services or activities; illegal,
incompetent or negligent conduct in the practice of the healing arts;
habitual intemperance in the use of spirituous stimulants or addiction
to the use of morphine, cocaine or other habit-forming drugs; aiding or
abetting the unlawful practice of any branch of the healing arts;
failure to record a license as required by law; physical or mental
illness, emotional disorder or loss of motor skill, including but not
limited to deterioration through the aging process of the practitioner;
fraud or material deception in obtaining a license; or violation of any
applicable statute or regulation. The clerk of any court in this state
in which a person practicing any profession under the jurisdiction of
any of the examining boards for the healing arts has been convicted of
any crime as described in this section shall, immediately after such
conviction, transmit a certified copy, in duplicate, of the information
and judgment, without charge, to the Department of Public Health,
containing the name and address of the practitioner, the crime of which
he was convicted and the date of conviction. The Commissioner of Public
Health may order a practitioner to submit to a reasonable physical or
mental examination if his physical or mental capacity to practice
safely is the subject of an investigation. Said commissioner may
petition the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford to
enforce such order or any action taken pursuant to section 19a-17.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.G.S.A. § 19a-17
Connecticut General Statutes Annotated Currentness
Title 19A. Public Health and Well-being (Refs & Annos)
Chapter 368A. Department of Public Health (Refs & Annos)
§ 19a-17. Disciplinary action by department, boards and commissions
(a) Each board or commission established under chapters 369 to 376,
inclusive, [FN1] 378 to 381, inclusive, [FN2] and 383 to 388,
inclusive, [FN3] and the Department of Public Health with respect to
professions under its jurisdiction which have no board or commission
may take any of the following actions, singly or in combination, based
on conduct which occurred prior or subsequent to the issuance of a
permit or a license upon finding the existence of good cause:
(1) Revoke a practitioner's license or permit;
(2) Suspend a practitioner's license or permit;
(3) Censure a practitioner or permittee;
(4) Issue a letter of reprimand to a practitioner or permittee;
(5) Place a practitioner or permittee on probationary status and
require the practitioner or permittee to:
(A) Report regularly to such board, commission or department upon the
matters which are the basis of probation;
(B) Limit practice to those areas prescribed by such board, commission
or department;
(C) Continue or renew professional education until a satisfactory
degree of skill has been attained in those areas which are the basis
for the probation;
(6) Assess a civil penalty of up to ten thousand dollars; or
(7) Summarily take any action specified in this subsection against a
practitioner's license or permit upon receipt of proof that such
practitioner has been:
(A) Found guilty or convicted as a result of an act which constitutes a
felony under (i) the laws of this state, (ii) federal law or (iii) the
laws of another jurisdiction and which, if committed within this state,
would have constituted a felony under the laws of this state; or
(B) Subject to disciplinary action similar to that specified in this
subsection by a duly authorized professional agency of any state, the
District of Columbia, a United States possession or territory or a
foreign jurisdiction. The applicable board or commission, or the
department shall promptly notify the practitioner or permittee that his
license or permit has been summarily acted upon pursuant to this
subsection and shall institute formal proceedings for revocation within
ninety days after such notification.
(b) Such board or commission or the department may withdraw the
probation if it finds that the circumstances which required action have
been remedied.
(c) Such board or commission or the department where appropriate may
summarily suspend a practitioner's license or permit in advance of a
final adjudication or during the appeals process if such board or
commission or the department finds that a practitioner or permittee
represents a clear and immediate danger to the public health and safety
if he is allowed to continue to practice.
(d) Such board or commission or the department may reinstate a license
which has been suspended or revoked if, after a hearing, such board or
commission or the department is satisfied that the practitioner or
permittee is able to practice with reasonable skill and safety to
patients, customers or the public in general. As a condition of
reinstatement, the board or commission or the department may impose
disciplinary or corrective measures authorized under this section.
(e) As used in this section, the term "license" shall be deemed to
include the following authorizations relative to the practice of any
profession listed in subsection (a) of this section: (1) Licensure by
the Department of Public Health; (2) certification by the Department of
Public Health; and (3) certification by a national certification body.
(f) As used in this chapter, the term "permit" includes any
authorization issued by the department to allow the practice, limited
or otherwise, of a profession which would otherwise require a license;
and the term "permittee" means any person who practices pursuant to a
permit.
Yukon King the wonder dog
Mockingbird wrote:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Due to my very busy 10 hour per day,
> 6-7 day per week Lyme practice, there is a 5-6 month delay between
> office contact and an actual office visit. In order to do no harm by
> delaying evaluation and treatment, a history and lab test are obtained.
>
> Treatment is initiated prior to an office visit if a probable diagnosis
>
> can be made. Most of these children have already suffered from a delay
> in diagnosis and/or inadequate treatment of their tick-bourne disease.
>
>
> This is the background that led me to evaluate and treat two children
> from Nevada prior to my seeing them. My diagnosis of probable
> gestational Lyme disease and tick acquired Lyme disease was made on the
>
> basis of the history presented by their mother and my over 30 years of
> treating children with tick-bourne diseases. I have been reported to
> the Connecticut licensing board and have been charged with making the
> diagnosis of Lyme disease and initiating antibiotic treatment prior to
> examining them in my office and therefore am in violation of the
> "usual and customary standard of medical care". "
I think THIS is VERY interesting!
In other words...the delay in seeing a patient will do them harm...
...my obligation is to rduce the risk of injury caused by this delay!
Duty to the patient's welfare is supreme, isn't it?
In fact, in my case...when I first started to exhibit tremors, I was
instructed to make an appointment with a particular neurologist...whose
office gave me the first available opening...THREE MONTHS later.
Think about what that delay means in practical terms in the ability to
effectively deal with a Lyme infection.
Very interesting...it appears that he is doing the right thing by his
patient's health...but the wrong thing according to a technical
interpretation of the rules.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It is also clear that Dr Shapiro is NOT the complaining witness but a
> member of the hearing board (if he was the complaining witness he
> wouldn't be a member of the hearing board):
>
Yes, but is Shapiro still practicing...seeing patients at Yale? If so,
isn't he in a competitive conflict, of sorts?
It would seem that he might be considered to have an interest in
removing a practioner whose practice is in direct competition? Or, even
if not...to remove a competitor whose practice could then be exploited?
That doesn't look very good... appearance of impropriety, I think.
Mockingbird
Mockingbird wrote:
> Greatcod wrote:
> > This is about interstate medicine. The state cannot regulate that
> > unless its laws specifically prohibit it.
>
> For one thing, part of the point here is that we don't know the
> specifics. And as the mental patient janitor noted, the details are
> important. For once, he's right.
>
> Oh? Is that your BRILLIANT legal opinion?
>
> Dr Jones is licensed in CT.
>
> If he Rxd medicine from CT for a patient in Utah why do you think--in
> your legal opinon--LOL--that CT couldn't take action against him?
>
> Or Utah?
>
> And did you ever hear of a concept called reciprocity?
>
> And, the fact of the matter is that unless the Federal Government
> regulates something, the power to do so is reserved to the States (see
> the US Constitution--look at the tenth Amendment.
Here is the tenth amendment:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people.
But, actually, more to the point is something called the Federal
Preemption Doctrine. Simply put, we have a system of dual sovereignty,
with both the Federal Government and the State governements having
power to legislate and regulate. The power of the Federal Government is
LIMITED to powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Those
powers can be VERY BROAD and usually the "commerce clause" is cited as
the basis for Federal Regulation--even of what seems to be entirely
local activities, see, for example, Raich v Ashcroft
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1454
but compare, FindLaw's Writ -HILDEN-- Supreme Court Nominee John
Roberts's Controversial Environmental Law Dissent:
It Reveals Him As An Extreme Proponent of "States' Rights" Federalism,
To the Detriment Of Endangered Species
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20050801.html
To continue, these are issues of FEDERALISM--the relationship between
the Federal Government and the State Governments (and the people) in
our system of dual sovereignty.
Now preemption doctrine can be VERY complex and preemption analysis in
specific instances even more complex.
But the general principle is: if the Federal Government has the power
to regulate, and chooses to do so, Federal law/regulation PREEMPTS
those of the States--as a result of the Supremacy Clause of the US
Constitution.
HOWEVER, if the US government has the power to regulate AND CHOOSES NOT
TO, OR DOESN'T, then the States are free to regulate--subject only to
the limits of their own constitutions and any applicable US
COnstitutional provisions or laws (for example, see the full faith and
credit clause of the Constitution; see laws on "restraint of trade"
and/or monopoly).
And the analysis can be complex. The US Government might choose to
regulate GENERALLY or SPECIFICALLY and if so, they might or might not
preempt a State regulation in the same area but not specifically on the
same precise topic. And a Federal law might contain a provision saying
whether or not it is intended to preempt state regulations in a
particular area,
So, CLOD, feel free to google or go to a law library or take a law
course or pol sci 101 or even go to law school.
Until then, please shut the fuck up!
Mockingbird
Well I don't think that "competitive conflicts" of such a general
nature are used to prevent doctors with an expertise in a certain area
from sitting on such boards. On this theory ALL DOCTORS, particularly
within a speciality or within a geographic region (not necessarily
limited by State borders) would have such conflicts.
I think that in such prosecutions doctors with expertise in a given
area are sought to review the actions of the accused (pediatricians for
pediatricians; a Lyme "specialist" to review a Lyme case--in this case
both are selected).
Now Dr Jones could always raise issues specific to Shapiro who has
views that are VERY WELL KNOWN and ENTRENCHED and to some
extent--extreme--about Lyme disease--though he comes with impressive
credentials.
To some extent, recalling the Burrascano case, the Board found the
views of one "expert" so extreme as to be INcredible--and this worked
to Burrascano's favor.
So Jones might do well (on appeal if needed) as Burrascano did, because
of how extreme Shapiro's views are.
I think that there is a general assumption that any such "competitive
conflicts" are theoretical and that a Doctor sitting on a hearing panel
swears to decide a case on the facts and free from any such bias.
I've never heard of such a generalized conflict being cited--and since
Shapiro is at Yale, I don't think the "competitive conflict" is as
specific as if it were a pediatrician in a competing practice. He's a
Professor at the medical school and his clinical practice is probably
very limited (thank goodness for patients!). And he is both a
pediatrician AND an infectious disease "specialist" with a long resume
regarding Lyme, so I don't think he's going to be removed for a
"competitive conflict"
But perhaps he has made comments specifically about Dr Jones or Lyme in
general that might be used to conflict him out?
Though remember the Burrascano guy--sometimes you might be better off
with the extremists against you.
> It would seem that he might be considered to have an interest in
> removing a practioner whose practice is in direct competition? Or, even
> if not...to remove a competitor whose practice could then be exploited?
See above. I get your point. Don't think that dog will hunt.
> That doesn't look very good... appearance of impropriety, I think.
See above.
Yukon King the wonder dog
Mockingbird wrote:
> See above. I get your point. Don't think that dog will hunt.
Not at all sure about that. At least, it is something you would want to
pursue.
And I certainly don't think either of us are equipped to argue the
point...and that certainly was not my intent.
And, I certainly was aware of those other considerations.
I think you are missing the point, however, so far as the reaction to
Shapiro sitting on the board. Not only is he philosophically
opposed...but possibly stands to profit indirectly...PERHAPS. I DON'T
KNOW.
But that certainly is an issue that his attorneys will probably want to
explore. That's a call for his lawyers...and why people (including
myself, shouldn't speculate with incomplete information).
Look...ultimately, it probably doesn't matter...because if you managed
to get Shapiro booted...he would just be replaced with someone of
equally conservative attitude...and will windup doing exactly what
Shapiro would have done. With Shapiro there...at least you can see what
he's doing.
And THAT is why legislation cannot work...you simply can't force people
to change their opinions by passing a law.
Greatcod
has faced this
or a similiar charge? And how it turned out?
You have read all the applicable Conneticut law? All the cases?
Or are you just blowing your own horns to impress yourselves.
Mockingbird
Yukon King the wonder dog wrote:
>
> > See above. I get your point. Don't think that dog will hunt.
>
>
>
> Not at all sure about that. At least, it is something you would want to
> pursue.
Maybe, maybe not. As you say, it is really a strategic consideration
for his lawyers.
> And I certainly don't think either of us are equipped to argue the
> point...and that certainly was not my intent.
>
> And, I certainly was aware of those other considerations.
I thought you were--just explicated it for the benefit of others. Not
that they'll get it anyway.
So, I guess I did it "for the record"
> I think you are missing the point, however, so far as the reaction to
> Shapiro sitting on the board. Not only is he philosophically
> opposed...but possibly stands to profit indirectly...PERHAPS. I DON'T
> KNOW.
I got that point. I just don't think it would be grounds for
conflicting someone out--or, as I said, all doctors could be considered
to be "in competition" with all others. So where would the doctors come
from to sit on the board?
Arguably, such "competitive conflicts" might not even end at the border
between States. A doctor in NYS might have a "competitive conflict"
with a doctor in S CT. One in MA might have one with a doctor in N Ct.
etc. And the more specialized a field, the more potential for broad
"competitive conflicts."
> But that certainly is an issue that his attorneys will probably want to
> explore. That's a call for his lawyers...and why people (including
> myself, shouldn't speculate with incomplete information).
Probably true (notwithstanding the above).
> Look...ultimately, it probably doesn't matter...because if you managed
> to get Shapiro booted...he would just be replaced with someone of
> equally conservative attitude...
Exactly! Good point.
>and will windup doing exactly what
> Shapiro would have done. With Shapiro there...at least you can see what
> he's doing.
The devil you know...
> And THAT is why legislation cannot work...you simply can't force people
> to change their opinions by passing a law.
And that is why the push for legislation is a bad idea, It could only
really help if it a) FORCED doctors to treat in a way that we approved
of b) forced insurance companies to pay and c) was NOT preempted by
ERISA.
And I disagree with any notion that doctors should be forced to think a
certain way-it is inherently UNamerican. And seeking it is a bad
idea--for many reasons--legislatures are NOT experts about medicine and
not equipped to choose between different schools of thought; different
schools of though is a GOOD thing in that innovation will come from new
ideas and prohibiting them sticks us with the existing standard of care
and codifying it legislative is worse--anti intellectual as well as
UNamerican--very chilling intellectually and professionally AND if any
school of thought WAS mandated of course it would NOT be Burrascano but
it would be Steere--as almost happened in MD--because Steere is in the
distinct majority (probably over 99% agree with him and NOT
burrascano).
I just hate to see everyone scurrying about AGAIN. Without a freaking
clue.
And honestly if EVERYONE who is sincerely concerned contacts Dr Jones'
lawyer--that's gonna eat up a LOT of legal expenses for his time--for
probably little gain. And the guy is NOT going to get a good impression
of Lymies--gee I am sure kathLOON is already harassing him with her
"data binders" and INSISTING that she adopt whatever conspiracy theory
driven strategy comes out of her "mind"--probably urging him to sue the
MOssad for Rico or something....VERY HELPFUL!!!!
Honestly, Dr Jones and his lawyer oughta put out a clear statement
saying EXACTLY what they want and saying they do NOT want anything else
done on his behalf--such as rallies or letters or calls for hearings
etc.
Mockingbird
Greatcod wrote:
> And you know that this is the very first time that a Conneticut doctor
> has faced this or a similiar charge?
For one thing, as I said, we don't know the specifics of the charge. We
only know what Dr Jones told us, and that might not be exactly the
facts charged (not saying he is lying, just that his comments were
relatively general).
Of course I don't know that. I assume there has been disciplinary
hearings in CT before. And given the grounds in the statute, I'd assume
that similar charges have been brought before--though not that I know
of involving Lyme disease treatment. Although I thought there was
something a few years back involving Katz? Or Phillips? Don't
rememeber.
I doubt that the facts were the same anyway.
>And how it turned out?
No idea.
> You have read all the applicable Conneticut law?
What do you mean by the term "all applicable Connecticut law?"
DO you mean all cases on medical discipline? Procedural rights in the
medical disciplinary process? Cases involving due process generally?
And the answer to all would be NO OF COURSE NOT.
>All the cases?
> Or are you just blowing your own horns to impress yourselves.
What blowing of horns? All we said--in response to your nonsensical
post about "interstate medicine" not being witthin the ambit of the CT
medical board's disciplinary pervue.
Mockingbird
Dr Jones, through his attorney, should say EXACTLY what it is that they
want and that NO ONE should do anything other than that.
Meaning, that NO RALLIES, NO MEDIA CAMPAIGN, NO EMAILS, NO CALLS FOR
HEARINGS, NO BARRAGE OF "HELPFUL CALLS" OR "DATA BINDERS" UNLESS THEY
ASK FOR THEM!!!
The typical response of Lymeland to things like this--knee jerk, angry,
ill considered, poorly planned, poorly executed, ill advised (but
typically well meaning) would be a mistake. And one BIG problem is NOT
learning from mistakes of the past.
This is Dr Jones' life, career and HIS decision and HIS decision (as
counselled by his attorney) to make on how to proceed.
Yes, I KNOW that others are affected by the availability of his care
and would be severely impacted by the absence of it. But it is still
all up to him. I'm sure he will be grateful if people respond to his
calls for specific actions, and just as grateful that people don't act
on their own!
It should be that plain and simple!
Yukon King the wonder dog
Mockingbird wrote:
>
> Maybe, maybe not. As you say, it is really a strategic consideration
> for his lawyers.
Yes.
>
> > I think you are missing the point, however, so far as the reaction to
> > Shapiro sitting on the board. Not only is he philosophically
> > opposed...but possibly stands to profit indirectly...PERHAPS. I DON'T
> > KNOW.
>
> I got that point. I just don't think it would be grounds for
> conflicting someone out--or, as I said, all doctors could be considered
> to be "in competition" with all others. So where would the doctors come
> from to sit on the board?
Well, in general terms, yes, I agree...but I think you are overlooking
how specialized a "Lyme guru" is, or has become, even in Connecticut,
as I understand it.
First, you have to define what you mean by having a practice that is
competing with another...and bias and fundamental fairness is an
important consideration in any judicial process.
>
> Arguably, such "competitive conflicts" might not even end at the border
> between States. A doctor in NYS might have a "competitive conflict"
> with a doctor in S CT. One in MA might have one with a doctor in N Ct.
> etc. And the more specialized a field, the more potential for broad
> "competitive conflicts."
Sure...but a nonsensical point, because a doctor whose practice is in
state "Y", is certainly not going to be sitting on a board in state
"X".
>
> And I disagree with any notion that doctors should be forced to think a
> certain way-it is inherently UNamerican.
Yes. When all is said and done...WHY would someone want to do something
like that?
And seeking it is a bad
> idea--for many reasons--legislatures are NOT experts about medicine and
> not equipped to choose between different schools of thought; different
> schools of though is a GOOD thing in that innovation will come from new
> ideas and prohibiting them sticks us with the existing standard of care
> and codifying it legislative is worse--anti intellectual as well as
> UNamerican--very chilling intellectually and professionally AND if any
> school of thought WAS mandated of course it would NOT be Burrascano but
> it would be Steere--as almost happened in MD--because Steere is in the
> distinct majority (probably over 99% agree with him and NOT
> burrascano).
>
> I just hate to see everyone scurrying about AGAIN. Without a freaking
> clue.
Yes...predictable, though.
>
> And honestly if EVERYONE who is sincerely concerned contacts Dr Jones'
> lawyer--that's gonna eat up a LOT of legal expenses for his time--for
> probably little gain. And the guy is NOT going to get a good impression
> of Lymies--gee I am sure kathLOON is already harassing him with her
> "data binders" and INSISTING that she adopt whatever conspiracy theory
> driven strategy comes out of her "mind"--probably urging him to sue the
> MOssad for Rico or something....VERY HELPFUL!!!!
>
> Honestly, Dr Jones and his lawyer oughta put out a clear statement
> saying EXACTLY what they want and saying they do NOT want anything else
> done on his behalf--such as rallies or letters or calls for hearings
> etc.
Seems like they are already off to a good start on their own...seems to
me that there is a legitimate issue in preserving the patient's health
until they can be seen.
Maybe KathLOON can come in and file a "Motion for Advice".(?!).
Mockingbird
Yukon King the wonder dog wrote:
> >
> > Maybe, maybe not. As you say, it is really a strategic consideration
> > for his lawyers.
>
> Yes.
> >
> > > I think you are missing the point, however, so far as the reaction to
> > > Shapiro sitting on the board. Not only is he philosophically
> > > opposed...but possibly stands to profit indirectly...PERHAPS. I DON'T
> > > KNOW.
> >
> > I got that point. I just don't think it would be grounds for
> > conflicting someone out--or, as I said, all doctors could be considered
> > to be "in competition" with all others. So where would the doctors come
> > from to sit on the board?
>
> Well, in general terms, yes, I agree...but I think you are overlooking
> how specialized a "Lyme guru" is, or has become, even in Connecticut,
> as I understand it.
No I get that. But there's a slew of self proclaimed ones at Yale
(there was an article in a Yale Publication in which they were called
then "Yale Lyme Brigade"
> First, you have to define what you mean by having a practice that is
> competing with another...and bias and fundamental fairness is an
> important consideration in any judicial process.
Well yes you'd have to define what was meant by that. Probably harder
to argue a Yale practice "competes" with a private doctor solo
practitioner or that the (blessfully small) amount of time that Shapiro
spends in his clinical practice (as opposed to teaching and resarch) is
"competing" with Jones.
> > Arguably, such "competitive conflicts" might not even end at the border
> > between States. A doctor in NYS might have a "competitive conflict"
> > with a doctor in S CT. One in MA might have one with a doctor in N Ct.
> > etc. And the more specialized a field, the more potential for broad
> > "competitive conflicts."
>
> Sure...but a nonsensical point, because a doctor whose practice is in
> state "Y", is certainly not going to be sitting on a board in state
> "X".
No actually that is why using "competitive conflicts" to disqualify
doctors within a State is problematic--you're going to conflict out
pretty much all those with applicable expertise!
I think that the rule would be that they swear an oath to decide a case
on the facts and law without bias or prejudice and if they felt they
couldn't they'd refuse an appointment/recuse themselves.
Unless a specific conflict could be brought up--perhaps Shapiro has
opined about Jones--maybe in a specific pediatric case they both worked
on previously???
However, as we agreed, Jones might be better off with this devil he
knows. The alternatives probably aren't any better.
>
> >
> > And I disagree with any notion that doctors should be forced to think a
> > certain way-it is inherently UNamerican.
>
> Yes. When all is said and done...WHY would someone want to do something
> like that?
Uh because they're clueless and mad as hell and intent on not taking it
anymore?
> And seeking it is a bad
> > idea--for many reasons--legislatures are NOT experts about medicine and
> > not equipped to choose between different schools of thought; different
> > schools of though is a GOOD thing in that innovation will come from new
> > ideas and prohibiting them sticks us with the existing standard of care
> > and codifying it legislative is worse--anti intellectual as well as
> > UNamerican--very chilling intellectually and professionally AND if any
> > school of thought WAS mandated of course it would NOT be Burrascano but
> > it would be Steere--as almost happened in MD--because Steere is in the
> > distinct majority (probably over 99% agree with him and NOT
> > burrascano).
> >
> > I just hate to see everyone scurrying about AGAIN. Without a freaking
> > clue.
>
> Yes...predictable, though.
Yes predictable.
> >
> > And honestly if EVERYONE who is sincerely concerned contacts Dr Jones'
> > lawyer--that's gonna eat up a LOT of legal expenses for his time--for
> > probably little gain. And the guy is NOT going to get a good impression
> > of Lymies--gee I am sure kathLOON is already harassing him with her
> > "data binders" and INSISTING that she adopt whatever conspiracy theory
> > driven strategy comes out of her "mind"--probably urging him to sue the
> > MOssad for Rico or something....VERY HELPFUL!!!!
> >
> > Honestly, Dr Jones and his lawyer oughta put out a clear statement
> > saying EXACTLY what they want and saying they do NOT want anything else
> > done on his behalf--such as rallies or letters or calls for hearings
> > etc.
>
> Seems like they are already off to a good start on their own...seems to
> me that there is a legitimate issue in preserving the patient's health
> until they can be seen.
Well, that might be true BUT it will come down to what the basis for
making the diagnosis was--he's a little unclear there, the antibiotic
prescribed, the term, his availability to respond to calls (it has been
very hard to reach his office for the last couple of years--and that is
a bad thing), the monitoring for the therapy and his response to
anything out of whack.
Surely it would have been best to work with a local Nevada doctor.
Hopefully he did?
And it may come down to who filed the complaint and why--what happened?
Did something adverse happen to either of the patients? I don't mean
that it matters if a Yale doctor filed it (because bias of the filer is
irrelevant IMHO--it comes down to whether the complaint is founded or
not).
I do wonder why such a drastic alternative was offered--surrender of
license. One would think if nothing adverse happened to the patients
that any discipline would be on the mild side rather than a
professional death penalty?
IF discipline is warranted, there are many alternatives short of
license suspension or surrender.
And face it--lots of doctors call in Rxs by phone (though usually for
established patients).
Hopefully Jones found out what the kids were allergic to, what other
drugs they were on and there were no problems such as adverse
reactions.
Although I wonder--maybe an adverse reaction led to a nevada doctor
filing this complaint?
There's a LOT of specifics that we don't know.
> Maybe KathLOON can come in and file a "Motion for Advice".(?!).
Uh yuh, that would be helpful (rolling eyes). Currently she's yelling
at everyone to DEMAND AN EMERGENCY HEARING FROM THE GOVERNOR!!!
Mockingbird
See Phyllis' post "The REAL issue in the Jones case"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_thread/thread/95ce98abdd257399/5d196934b27f70d8#5d196934b27f70d8
Compound it by listening to anything she or her fellow "activists" have
to say!
Yukon King the wonder dog
Mockingbird wrote:
I don't mean
> that it matters if a Yale doctor filed it (because bias of the filer is
> irrelevant IMHO--it comes down to whether the complaint is founded or
> not).
Yeah. Echo...strongly, echo.
That's the bottom line.
But...I sure as hell wouldn't want Shapiro on that board judging
me...and I doubt if you would, either.
Greatcod
This from Dr. Jones' letter.
"In order to do no harm by delaying evaluation and treatment, a history
and lab test are obtained. Treatment is initiated prior to an office
visit if a probable diagnosis can be made. Most of these children have
already suffered from a delay in diagnosis and/or inadequate treatment
of their tick-bourne disease."
So if he does it for kids from the Northeast, he can't do it for a kid
from Nevada?
Makes me wonder why the Navada kid is the focus.
Yukon King the wonder dog
Yukon King the wonder dog wrote:
> Mockingbird wrote:
> >
> "data binders" and INSISTING that she adopt whatever conspiracy
theory
> > "--probably urging him to sue the
> > MOssad..."
If she will stop referring to it...I will stop mis-spelling it. (The
MOssad. that is).
Greatcod
stop you.
My point is that for some reason, his practice of his
prescribing before an office visit has never been challenged before.
You want to play the "legal expert" to this board, get a license to
practice in CT.
Mockingbird
Greatcod wrote:
> Spare me the expertise...
Yeah don't let the facts or the law get in the way of your OPINIONS no
matter how typically baseless.
>you don't know what's going on, but it doesn't
> stop you.
Right back atcha. You have even less of a clue.
> My point is that for some reason, his practice of his
> prescribing before an office visit has never been challenged before.
Maybe no one has complained? And the reason there was a complaint here,
may be critical--as I already said--perhaps there was some adverse
outcome--which doesn't mean he was negligent, but it will come down to
the facts of what he did, what his basis for doing it was, and whether
he monitored appropriately etc.
In other words, it will depend on the facts.
It ain't no defense that "he's done it before" nor would it be a
defense if "everyone else does it." In fact, defending by saying this
is his practice--would be STUPID since it would open him up to further
investigation and more charges potentially--one instance is not as bad
as doing it regularly.
> You want to play the "legal expert" to this board, get a license to
> practice in CT.
I wasn't trying to play legal expert, I was just cautioning that we
should LET THE LEGAL EXPERTS DECIDE NOT A BUNCH OF SELF IMPORTANT
NITWITS!
Mockingbird
We don't know. We don't know who filed the complaint, or why. And that
might be very important--there might have been an adverse outcome in
this case and then the question will be whether Dr Jones was
responsible for it.
Greatcod
Mockingbird
As to "playing legal expert" I want to point out that YOU made an
inaccurate and misleading statement about the law.
I actually explained, in detail, why it was wrong. I explained federal
preemption doctrine and the supremacy clause and preemption analysis in
a relatively brief nutshell--brief considering the complexity of the
topic.
I then provided the actual statutes which say what the grounds are for
discipline in CT.
I cautioned that we do NOT know the facts and the facts are very
important.
Dritte and I engaged in a somewhat tangential discussion between the
two of us regarding grounds for disqualification.
BOTH OF US agreed that Dr Jones and his lawyer ought to dictate actions
and strategy.
Despite what Phyllis said, I did NOT advise doing nothing.
I advised letting Dr Jones and his lawyer say what was to be done and
that people respond to that and do nothing more.
There are MANY ways that well intended but ill advised misdirected
poorly conceived reactionary angry actions can hurt.
Here's two:
1) people without knowing the facts and apparently based on a
misinterpretation decided that Shapiro was the complainant rather than
the decision maker (one of them). People were urged to write letters to
Shapiro, and many talked about writing nasty polemical letters
lambasting Shapiro.
Do you think that pissing off one of the decision makers is likely to
be a good idea?
2) Rallies and making this high profile might be a HUGE mistake. Let's
say, hypothetically, that Dr Jones despite being a wonderful, caring,
careful doctor, made a mistake here. The possibility exists. Now the
possibilies for discipline range from a warning, education/remedial
approaches, all the way to suspension or even the professional death
penatly. Let's say that his lawyer could negotiate for a penalty less
than the ulimate one. Making it high profile then could backfire by
forcing the Ct Medical board to make an example of him--rather than
resolving this case in an informal fashion. That's just a possibility.
But it is exactly why the strategy should be dictated by Dr Jones and
his lawyer, on the basis of the actual facts which will dictate to them
defenses and strategies. No sense making something high profile if that
could backfire. And it might well NOT be that Dr Jones was in any way
targeted by the CT medical board because of Lyme disease and his
treatment approach. The CT board does NOT have any history of doing
that. (*NYS and NJ do--it has happened elsewhere, like in Oregon and MI
but not for a long time!). So it doesn't make sense to assume that.
That's just a couple of examples.
Also, listen, as I said before, it is Dr Jones' license and his life
and thus his decision. NOT that of Phyllis Mervine or Pat Smith or
KathLOON.
IF DR JONES AND HIS LAWYER ASK FOR SOMETHING, THEN PEOPLE SHOULD DO
THAT AND ONLY THAT (if they choose to do so).
Nothing more. Nothing less if they want to help.
Does that make sense? Sure sounds reasonable to me!
oklahomaisfo...@yahoo.com
Yukon King the wonder dog wrote:
Nope. I sure wouldn't. I suspect that Shapiro (who is VERY opinionated
and very public about it) has almost certainly opined about Dr Jones in
the past and that it was most likely in public and that might be worthy
of investigation.
I'd be willing to bet that patients that have seen Shapiro have (been
lucky and smart enough) to go on to see Jones--and that there is
probably some history of disagreement over those cases between the two.
And THAT would probably be enough to disqualify him for bias--as he
would have prior experience and differences of opinon with Jones in
past cases of the very nature that this case that would come before the
hearing panel would be about--pediatric Lyme disease and the diagnosis
and treatment thereof.
pm...@direcway.com
"Also, listen, as I said before, it is Dr Jones' license and his life
and thus his decision. NOT that of Phyllis Mervine or Pat Smith or
KathLOON.
IF DR JONES AND HIS LAWYER ASK FOR SOMETHING, THEN PEOPLE SHOULD DO
THAT AND ONLY THAT (if they choose to do so). "
Your statements here and in other threads imply that I may take some
action that has not been discussed and authorized by Dr. Jones and his
lawyer. I am not an idiot and I don't intend to do anything that has
not been agreed to by Dr. Jones and his lawyer. However despite your
accusations that I am a dictator, I actually don't have any control
over anyone else.
Mockingbird
Look Phyllis, you have titled a thread "the real issue in the Jones
case" where you identify things that are NOT the "real issue"
There has already been a "call to action" issued on LymeNUT and the
typical confusion and overreaction. As I said, clearly based on
misinformation and confusion people were already urged to write to
Shapiro--and you KNOW what kind of letters would be sent. And to write
to the media. A rally is already "being planned."
Has Dr Jones OR his legal team asked for ANY of this?
Has he asked for a defense fund?
You ARE an idiot. You've made that emminently clear in word and deed.
You already responded a half dozen times and indicated that you've got
this all figured out and intend to use it to advance YOUR agenda.
Now you claim that you're not going to do anything that wasn't asked?
Well then what was your argument with me in the first place? Because
that is all that I said!
This post just amounts to more of your lies.
pm...@direcway.com
insults them for things he imagines they do or think wrote:
'Has Dr Jones OR his legal team asked for ANY of this?
Has he asked for a defense fund?
You ARE an idiot. You've made that emminently clear in word and deed.
You already responded a half dozen times and indicated that you've got
this all figured out and intend to use it to advance YOUR agenda.
Now you claim that you're not going to do anything that wasn't asked?
Well then what was your argument with me in the first place? Because
that is all that I said!
This post just amounts to more of your lies. "
This post just amounts to more of your lies and insults.
Yukon King
Who is addressing whom in this post, please?
Can you use quotation marks or something to indicate what you are
responding to, please?
This is unintelligible.
Mockingbird
mistakenly attributed to Phyllis. I posted it as appears below:
Has he asked for a defense fund?
You ARE an idiot. You've made that emminently clear in word and deed.
You already responded a half dozen times and indicated that you've got
this all figured out and intend to use it to advance YOUR agenda.
Now you claim that you're not going to do anything that wasn't asked?
Well then what was your argument with me in the first place? Because
that is all that I said!
This post just amounts to more of your lies. .
Yukon King
Mockingbird wrote:
> Sorry dritte, don't know why the reply came out that way or was
> mistakenly attributed to Phyllis. I posted it as appears below:
Thanks for that...
...and sorry for the confusion to Phyllis.
pm...@direcway.com
disease everywhere. You were the one who went off on whatever it was
you thought I was going to do. I never said I was going to do anything.
As far as I know he has not asked for a defense fund. However that
should not preclude someone from taking the initiative and finding out
whether a defense fund would be welcomed. Many people do not feel
comfortable asking others for financial support. It might be a kindness
if someone offered.
Mockingbird
pm...@direcway.com wrote:
> I have no agenda other than to help Dr. Jones and people with Lyme
> disease everywhere.
Well what if the two are not the same?
This is about D>r Jones first and foremost. NOT ABOUT LYME PATIENTS
EVERYWHERE.
And anyone and everyone can read what you wrote about your agenda--in
your own words, no matter what you say now.
>You were the one who went off on whatever it was
> you thought I was going to do.
Nope--I went off on what was already foolishly being done AND what you
said--it was YOU who titled a thread "the REAL issue in the Jones case"
Phyllis.
And the "plans for a rally" and call for "emails" etc. were not made by
you--my message was that NO ONE SHOULD BE ACTING ON THEIR OWN, it was
YOU who decided to take it personally (probably because you WERE
planning to act on your own--as is clear from your other post where YOU
think YOU are framing the agenda and defining the issues and YOU made
clear that YOU considered this an opportunity to "inject patient
issues" (even if that meant martyring Dr Jones for YOUR cause).
People can read it and decide for themselves.
IF you actually agree with me that NO ACTION should be taken UNLESS AND
UNTIL DR JONES AND HIS LEGAL TEAM direct it, and then the only things
that should be done is/are EXACTLY WHAT THEY ASK FOR AND NO MORE, then
why do you keep arguing about it?
And MIScharacterizing what I clearly said which was not "do nothing"
but do NOTHING unless and until Dr Jones and his legal team ask for
something.
Plain and simple.
If you agree with that, which is what I've said and YOU'VE BEEN ARGUING
ABOUT AS EVERYONE CAN SEE FOR THEMSELVES then SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!
>I never said I was going to do anything.
Whatever.
> As far as I know he has not asked for a defense fund. However that
> should not preclude someone from taking the initiative and finding out
> whether a defense fund would be welcomed.
Sure, ask him. And then have his lawyer direct the details NOT YOU.
>Many people do not feel
> comfortable asking others for financial support. It might be a kindness
> if someone offered.
Fine. That ain't what's been happening.
And this is a complete change from what you've been saying.
But if you abide by this, you will be doing no harm. And doing what
I've said--which is NOT "do nothing" but do ONLY what Dr Jones and his
legal team ask for--and then do ONLY that and no more.
pm...@direcway.com
"And this is a complete change from what you've been saying"
No it isn't. You made a lot of assumptions and then attacked your own
straw man. By the time you are done, there's so much dust no one can
see anything.
Mockingbird
Yes it is a complete change. Face it: what I wrote in the beginning was
RIGHT and now is EXACTLY what Dr Jones' legal team is saying. EXACTLY.
ALmost word for word.
And YOU came along in your pompous self important way and picked fights
about it. MIScharacterized what I was saying, accusing me of advocating
that everyone "do nothing." Then you continued to argue with me.
And everyone can read the thread, it is still here. Even if you go and
delete your posts, as you did in the past on the NIH thread, your
responses are archived when they were responded to. So no covering your
trail this time Phyllis.
> No it isn't. You made a lot of assumptions and then attacked your own
> straw man.
Nope. I didn't make ANY ASSumptions. I posted a letter purporting to be
from Dr Jones. I cautioned that people NOT just run about like chickens
without their heads (as they usually do). I pointed out a few actions
that had already been urged--and which some people had already taken
upon themselves (see LymeNUT: a rally IS being planned; people ARE
making plans to attend; people WERE urged to write to every media
outlet; people WERE urged to write to Shapiro and the CT medical
board--email and contact info WAS provided; and kathLOON has
urged--DEMANDED--that EVERYONE contact Governor Rell of CT and DEMAND
AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY HEARING).
I cautioned that some of these actions could EASILY be
counterproductive. I even explained how, hypothetically, they could
hurt.
These were NOT "straw men" but real live idiots.
I NEVER said that YOU urged those things.
But YOU took it personally. YOU decided those cautions were about YOU.
YOU then ARGUED that I was advocating that everyone "do nothing: Which
was not true.
THEN YOU titled a thread "the REAL issue in the Jones case" and
purported to be defining the real issue--with NO understanding of the
facts and what the REAL issue might be. IN fact, you then INSISTED that
you DID know the "real issue" :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...@direcway.com
Nov 29, 8:41 pm hide options
Newsgroups: sci.med.diseases.lyme
From: p...@direcway.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 29 Nov 2005 17:41:04 -0800
Local: Tues, Nov 29 2005 8:41 pm
Subject: Re: the real issue in the Jones case
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
This is consistent with your usual posture of never doing anything. I
know what the case is about. Why should we let our enemies frame the
issue? This is about access to care, which we have a HUGE problem with
because of the IDSA. The standard of care is indeed relevant here if
you consider the practical options for the child in Nevada, where there
are NO LLMDs. Or the options for any other patient who has to wait for
months or travel hundreds of miles to see an LLMD. Why should anyone
wish to see that child's health deteriorate further while he waits for
his/her appointment with the only pediatric LLMD in America, or in the
world, as far as I know? The law is made for man, not man for the law,
remember.
Somebody has already added to the original list:
* You can't possible have Lyme disease because we don't have it here.
* You finally get to your far distant, too busy Lyme doctor, but
can't pay for the appt. because your insurance won't cover it.
* Or, the LLMD can't afford to keep accepting Medicare, so after
having been misdiagnosed for years so that you are now disabled,
the
only medical coverage you have will not pay for the treatment you
need.
* Even when you figure out how to pay for the LLMD appt., your
insurance refuses to cover the medications that are required
because
it isn't "medically indicated."
* You have an EM rash? Oh, that's really ringworm, or eczema, or
hives, or nerves, or a spider bite. So you don't need antibiotics.
See, it went away
by itself! Oh, no, it doesn't have anything to do with the pain you
feel, or your exhaustion, or your trouble thinking. No, that is
probably depression, or menopause.
I don't expect you to agree with me and other people will have to make
their own decision about which "leaders" to follow. I think setting up
a legal defense fund for Dr. Jones would be a good first step.
ps I do know the saying but we translate it, Not always right, but
never in doubt. Surely that applies to you in your often strident
assertions? "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now Phyllis, YOU INSISTED on MIScharacterizing MY position there.
CLEARLY. AND, further,. you INSISTED that YOU DID KNOW what the case
was about (in those words) and that "why should we let our enemies
frame the issues"
Which it is NOT about "our enemies" at all but someone who filed a
complaint--who was NOT by the way "our enemies" and it wasn't about
them "framing the issues" and it had nothing to do with Yale vs Dr
Jones. The complaint did NOT come from Yale. The complaint was NOT
about "treatment of Lyme disease" per se--but a doctor diagnosing two
patients and beginning treatment of those patients, for a period of
MONTHS--when he had never seen them. Which IS considered to fall below
the standards of appropriate medical care.
Now it IS up to Dr Jones in consultation with his legal team IF he
wants to make the argument that he had no choice to do it because Lyme
patients have no other choices. Personally, I'd say that would be a
MISTAKE--since the answer is, if it is that urgent, the Doctor has to
make time for the patient on an emergency basis. AND, further, in
arguing before the medical board, it will NOT be accepted that the
patient had NO CHOICE other than to see Dr Jones to get treated for
Lyme disease--because many doctors would treat, albeit not in a fashion
that Dr Jones would. So, not only does this NOT constitute a valid
defense (so far as the medical board is concerned) BUT it puts at issue
his controversial treatment--which, even if vindicated probably is NOT
an excuse for diagnosis and treatment for MONTHS before seeing two
patients. Arguing that this is his practice only makes it worse.
Further, it forces a defense of the diagnosis, which may or may not be
well founded in a case of gestational Lyme which itself is a
controversial medical issue.
(For the record: I PERSONALLY believe that gestational Lyme is NOT
uncommon. I am familiar with documented cases of it. And, by the way,
gestational babesiosis! And, I agree with Dr Jones treatment, and, that
the patients had no practical alternative but to see him for
treatment--who else would they see? And I KNOW that given the fact that
there are few if any alternatives, and the long hard hours that Dr
Jones still works at age 77 or 78, that it is NOT practical to insist
that he sees every patient on an emergency basis--UNFORTUNATELY I can
also tell you that, as the saying goes, "that dog won't hunt" as a
"defense" here).
YOU then wrote in another response:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
p...@direcway.com
Nov 29, 10:57 pm hide options
Newsgroups: sci.med.diseases.lyme
From: p...@direcway.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 29 Nov 2005 19:57:45 -0800
Local: Tues, Nov 29 2005 10:57 pm
Subject: Re: the real issue in the Jones case
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
Rude strident person wrote:
"And, the truth is that you don't know that your "access to care"
defense has ANY RELEVANCE OR VALIDITY to the specifics of the charge
here."
And you don't know that the "access to care" argument WON'T buy
something, so why not use it? You waste energy battling chimeras - the
lawyers WILL handle it. DUH. However if patients can start thinking of
what the IDSA is doing to us in terms of reducing our already limited
access to care, I think that is a valuable message that needs to get
out there, in news stories, whenever we have an opportunity. We are
anticipating new IDSA guidelines in the spring - what do you think -
will they be better or worse? My guess is, worse. What are YOU doing
about it? My guess would be, nothing. Do you think we should do nothing
about that, also? Just let them kick us again, thank you very much.
There are many scenarios that can play out with the Jones case, and
many possible points where patient interests could be inserted if
people are thinking about it, thinking about who they know or
connections they have. If you and your friends hadn't monopolized this
board maybe we could have a productive discussion about it here. But
I'm not expecting anything except the usual abuse from you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Focusing on the last paragraph, YOU think it is okay to "insert"
patient issues into Dr Jones' case. And you verge on advocating that
people try to use their "connections" to influence the case. You also
mention "what the IDSA is doing to us" when that has NOTHING to do with
the charges here, NOTHING. The IDSA is NOT instituting the charges. The
charges are NOT about Lyme per se.
But that isn't YOUR agenda.
Now ALL THREE notions are wrong. THe first--inserting patient issues is
about YOUR agenda. The second, implies that people should use their
connections to somehow influence the case--which could constitute
"tampering" "obstruction" or other criminal activity. The last is wrong
because the IDSA has NOTHING to do with it--that's YOUR agenda item.
But you were already changing your tune--saying "of couse the lawyers
will handle it duh" but still MIScharacterizing what I was adovacting.
Picking fights with me for no good reason.
> By the time you are done, there's so much dust no one can
> see anything.
Nope it is all still there Phyllis for everyone to see. I was NOT
"battling chimeras" I WAS responding to things actually posted and some
already begun notwithstanding your denials--and I WAS responding to
your IDIOTIC assertions as to "the real issue" and your assertion about
this being an opportunity to "insert patient issues."
See this is NOT an OPPORTUNITY for YOU. It is Dr Jones case, his
license, his life. It is NOT up to you to choose to make him a martyr
for the cause.
As a matter of fact, the MOST IMPORTANT THING here is NOT that Dr Jones
be vindicated and cleared of any and all wrongdoing and that the CT
medical board hearing panel put their seal of approval on his diagnosis
and treatment of Lyme generally. THe most IMPORTANT THING is that he
keep his license and be able to continue to treat patients. Rather than
martyring him for a cause and trying to make a "point" which is likely
to end up with him LOSING and perhaps losing the right to treat
unfettered, if he gets a slap on the wrist but can continue to see Lyme
patients, who cares? THAT would be a good practical result--even if it
does NOT advance YOUR anti IDSA agenda or permit the "insertion of
patient issues."
We're better off with a living saint able to continue treating Lyme
kids than a dead martyr.
But in all your zeal and rushing to judgment and in the profound depths
of your utter ignorance, you don't "get it."
Because you're self righteous, pompous, self important, ignorant but
Errabundi Saepe, Semper Certi. (Often Wrong, Always Certain.)
And that is plain as day.
Now there is a REASON that his lawyers have now asked that WHILE THEY
FORM THEIR STRATEGY NO ONE DO ANYTHING BUT WHAT THEY'VE ASKED.
And it is because THEY know the facts here and THEY are the ONLY ONES
in a position to understand the REAL ISSUES (NOT YOU), to decide their
goals here, and to decide how best to achieve their goalsm. NOT YOU.
So SHUT UP AND DO NO HARM!
Mockingbird
pm...@direcway.com wrote:
> I have no agenda other than to help Dr. Jones and people with Lyme
> disease everywhere.
Well if your agenda to "help people with Lyme disease everywhere"
conflicts with your agenda to "help Dr Jones" then what, Phyllis?
You made it very clear that YOU think the "real issue" is about IDSA
and YOU want to frame it that way and make it about Lyme and "insert
patient interests."
But that might well (and probably DOES) conflict with the best way to
help Dr Jones.
> You were the one who went off on whatever it was
> you thought I was going to do. I never said I was going to do anything.
LOL Oh "do nothing" LOL I thought that was what you said MY approach
was. WHICH I NEVER EVER SAID
And it was YOU who ASSumed that I was talking about YOU--I was
originally talking about the idiotic and premature "planning a rally;
starting a defense fund' planning trips and travel to the rally;
sending letters to the CT medical board; contacting ALL media; sending
letters to Dr Shapiro; calling for emergency hearings and contacting
the Governor of CT and speaker of the CT house; contacting the
international criminal court and dept of justice; etc."
And THEN I was responding to YOU "framing the issues"
But up till that point it was NOT about you.
And I NEVER SAID DO NOTHING.
> As far as I know he has not asked for a defense fund. However that
> should not preclude someone from taking the initiative and finding out
> whether a defense fund would be welcomed.
That's different from someone already saying they're starting one.
> Many people do not feel
> comfortable asking others for financial support. It might be a kindness
> if someone offered.
Yes it might. If someone OFFERED.
pm...@direcway.com
the lawyers are responsible for the legal strategy. Any PR strategy
should mesh with the legal strategy and be approved by the lawyers. No
one wants to risk harming Dr. Jones. There may be things that patients
can do that would help the resolution of the case. Any proposal that
the lawyers think will damage their legal case should not go forward.
All I am saying is that these ideas should be put forward and discussed
in a rational way. Promising ideas should be developed and run by the
lawyers. However it is difficult to have a discussion about issues when
people immediately start to shout and accuse, insult and abuse, read
into statements, bring up old dead issues that no one can do anything
about now, etc.
"Framing the Issue" refers to a PR strategy, not a legal strategy, and
was offered only to get people to think, possibly in a new way, about
what is happening to us and to consider what they, personally, can do
about it. This is also why sometimes I post about something I have done
- not as a self-aggrandizing gesture (how wonderful after all is a mere
letter to the editor?) but to suggest to others simple things that they
might be able to do to help. Anyone who suggests otherwise is off base.
Many people are put off by the strident statements and accusations on
this board and are intimidated from posting their own ideas, lest they
are attacked. This is a shame. We have an international forum that
basically is wasted. Also, many good ideas are lost because they are
couched in such inflammatory language, or the excessive length of some
posts, combined with the diatribe, also deters people from going to the
effort of searching for any real nugget of worth.
Finally, we should be able to disagree with someone's ideas without
insulting the person. From my experience here though, I would say that
this is not going to happen any time soon. Therefore, many stay away,
probably preferring other, moderated boards.
For further discussion of strategies, either PR or legal, please tune
in to www.lymenet.org or www.lymenews.com.
Mockingbird
pm...@direcway.com wrote:
> Two strategies, one legal and one PR, can exist side by side. Obviously
> the lawyers are responsible for the legal strategy. Any PR strategy
> should mesh with the legal strategy and be approved by the lawyers.
Phyllis you fucking know it all busybody, you STILL do NOT get it, do
you?
Nowadays, lawyers handle legal strategies and, in the appropriate case,
PR is part of that!
So the two mesh, yes, but are BOTH directed by the legal team NOT YOU!
IF a PR strategy is decided upon and they want someone's input, the
lawyers will hire a PR firm--and lawyers often do.
THEY WILL NOT HIRE A BLITHERING SELF IMPORTANT POMPOUS MORON LIKE YOU
OR ANYONE IN LYMELAND!
The DISASTROUS PR efforts of Lymeland have CONSISTENTLY resulted in BAD
PRESS and for almost thirty years Lyme patients have PROVEN time and
again that they DO NOT understand how to handle the media and know
NOTHING about PR--in fact the track record is one that could be used to
teach people HOW NOT TO DO IT!
> No one wants to risk harming Dr. Jones.
Then BUTT THE FUCK OUT!
READ WHAT THE LAWYERS SAID: DO NOTHING UNLESS THEY TELL YOU TO!
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
>There may be things that patients
> can do that would help the resolution of the case.
IF AND ONLY IF THE LEGAL TEAM ASKS YOU TO DO SOMETHING!
DO DR JONES AND ALL OF US A BIG FAVOR AND DON'T TRY TO DEVISE
STRATEGIES!!!
JUST BUTT THE FUCK OUT!
>Any proposal that
> the lawyers think will damage their legal case should not go forward.
> All I am saying is that these ideas should be put forward and discussed
> in a rational way.
NO they should NOT. They should NOT be discussed publicly or at all.
Leave it alone. Stop "trying to help."
You can help by DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE ASKED TO DO AT THIS POINT:
NOTHING FURTHER!
WHICH PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
Nothing. Zero. Cut it the fuck out.
> Promising ideas should be developed and run by the lawyers.
NO, they should NOT. Leave his legal team ALONE. Do NOT waste their
time and Dr Jones Money.
DO NOTHING FURTHER!
NOTHING.
>However it is difficult to have a discussion about issues when
> people immediately start to shout and accuse, insult and abuse, read
> into statements, bring up old dead issues that no one can do anything
> about now, etc.
YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT'S IDIOT!
SHUT THE FUCK UP! RIGHT NOW. SAY NOTHING AND DO NOTHING FURTHER. LEAVE
IT ALONE. CUT IT OUT. GIVE IT UP.
>> "Framing the Issue" refers to a PR strategy, not a legal strategy, and
> was offered only to get people to think, possibly in a new way, about
> what is happening to us and to consider what they, personally, can do
> about it. This is also why sometimes I post about something I have done
> - not as a self-aggrandizing gesture (how wonderful after all is a mere
> letter to the editor?) but to suggest to others simple things that they
> might be able to do to help. Anyone who suggests otherwise is off base.
>
>
> Many people are put off by the strident statements and accusations on
> this board and are intimidated from posting their own ideas, lest they
> are attacked. This is a shame. We have an international forum that
> basically is wasted. Also, many good ideas are lost because they are
> couched in such inflammatory language, or the excessive length of some
> posts, combined with the diatribe, also deters people from going to the
> effort of searching for any real nugget of worth.
GO FUCK YOURSELF! iT DOESN'T MATTER HOW IT IS PUT, YOU DO NOT LISTEN,
SO THERE IS NO SENSE WASTING TIME PUTTING THINGS DELICATELY OR
DIPLOMATICALLY.
And the people to blame for ruining this board are: kathLOON and Lisa
and people like YOU who sat idly by and let it happen--but now presume
to come and lecture us!
> Finally, we should be able to disagree with someone's ideas without
> insulting the person. From my experience here though, I would say that
> this is not going to happen any time soon. Therefore, many stay away,
> probably preferring other, moderated boards.
Good. Go fuck yourself.
>> For further discussion of strategies, either PR or legal, please tune
> in to www.lymenet.org or www.lymenews.com.
I see that you folks at CALDA STILL are NOT listening. You STILL think
you know better about how to handle this matter about which you really
do not even know the basic and essential facts.
This was sent out by a CALDA person:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As many of you know Dr. Jones is up on charges before the medical board
for treating children with long term antibiotics. He is also facing
charges of prescribing without having first examining a patient. We all
know that there are few physicians who treat children and that many
children travel great distances to see Dr. Jones. It is critical that
the medical board understand that we have a crises in treating
physicians that have it impossible for children to receive medical
treatment from pediatricians in their state. In addition, if you or
any child you know has been helped by Dr. Jones, please take the time
to write a letter and send it to the attorney representing Dr. Jones.
Lorraine Johnson
California Lyme Disease Assn
***************
Dear friend,
We have received your email and thank you for the same. The outpouring
of response has been tremendous. We are currently in discussions about
the case & are forming a strategy to proceed. We will contact you as
soon as we are ready to recommend a specific course of action. You will
be an important part of Dr. Jones's defense.
Please do not take any action until we have a recommendation as it may
adversely affect the case.
In the meantime, if you have a child or children who have been
treated by Dr. Jones or have information that might be helpful about
the
case or the witnesses, please write us a letter detailing the same
which
we can review & if we do not call you as a witness, we can introduce
into evidence if given the opportunity.
Please do not send emails as we need letters.
Thank you again,
Chris R. Nelson, Esq.
Parrett, Porto, Parese & Colwell, P.C.
2319 Whitney Avenue, Suite 1-D
Hamden, CT 06518
Ph # 230.281.2700
Fax # 203.281.0700
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1 by CALDA is NOT consistent with Part 2 by the legal team. You do
NOT know what is essential or what it is that the "medical board
understands"
NOPE. The second part asks you to do NOTHING FURTHER. That includes
embelleshing upon the information they specifically asked for.
By asking people to include information that YOU THINK Is part of the
case, you may be ruining the information they will receive and making
it UNusable.
Let me explain: the legal team asked for information if you or your
child has been treated by Dr Jones. Apparently they are looking for
testimonial type evidence. By asking people to insert "patient issues"
(as you referred to it earlier) and including YOUR AGENDA, you may be
having them include information that is NOT HELPFUL.
And, once received, it is POSSIBLE that the defense may have an
obligation of reciprocal discovery--meaning they could be forced to
turn this over.
So, people may say things that could HURT, such as "Well Dr Jones
treated my child for months before we ever saw him too" (which could
result in additonal charges, harsher penalties, and/or ruin any
negotiations towards a resolution of this case without a trial).
Also: it is NOT clear that Dr Jones is facing ANY charges about
treating patients long term with antibiotics. WHERE DID THAT
INFORMATION COME FROM???
That is something that YOU apparently created out of thin air!
Apparently because it is a "patient issue" and part of YOUR agenda.
If so, you need to IMMEDIATELY RETRACT that and correct it and tell
people to follow the legal team's instructions EXACTLY.
Did you see where I said earlier that you need to do what they say AND
ONLY WHAT THEY SAY AND NOTHING MORE, ABSOLUTELY NOT A THING MORE!
Which part of NOTHING do you not understand?
And that is one BIG part of this PROCESS that you apparently DO NOT
understand or have ANY clue about. Negotiations.
>From the standpoint of the medical board it ABSOLUTELY IS NOT TRUE THAT
CHILDREN CANNOT RECEIVE TREATMENT FROM PEDIATRICIANS IN THEIR STATES!
Pediatricians in pretty much ANY AND EVERY STATE will treat patients
for Lyme disease according to the PREVAILING MEDICAL STANDARD. By
sayinng that Dr Jones IS THE ONLY ONE IN THE COUNTRY WHO TREATS THE WAY
HE DOES, YOU ARE MAKING HIM LOOK LIKE HE IS SO FAR OUT OF THE MEDICAL
MAINSTREAM THAT HIS TREATMENT DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE!
That is NOT A HELPFUL PICTURE here (even IF, in reality, it is the
truth).
PLEASE DO NOT DECIDE FACTS OR CHARGES OR STRATEGIES!
You are so clueless you don't even realize how clueless you are!
STOP IT STOP IT NOW BEFORE YOU DO MORE HARM!
DO NO HARM!
Let the professionals handle it.
You are NO MORE equipped to devise a PR strategy to dovetail with a
legal strategy than kathLOON is to litigate a case in Federal Court or
Frank is to analyze why the World Trade Center towers collapsed..
IF the legal team is able to negotiate a resolution of this matter,
your "PR" strategy may not only be UNnecessary but may run completely
counter to that potentially desirable resolution.
CALDA needs to BUTT OUT! You are NOT lawyers and DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU
ARE DOING. Even if there are lawyers at CALDA, if they don't handle
this type of work, they STILL need to BUTT THE FUCK OUT!
Sending out the message from the legal team is FINE. The introduction
needs to be retracted. IMMEDIATELY.
STOP IT STOP IT NOW DO NOTHING FURTHER DO NO HARM BUTT THE FUCK OUT
LISTEN TO THE LEGAL TEAM DO NOTHING FURTHER
Do you get it?
I'm betting the answer is STILL NO.
You're STILL sure you know best. You still think you are in charge of
this. You still think that you know how to help. You are so obstinate,
so stubborn, you just don't know how to leave well enough alone as you
have made abundantly clear on all these threads where you argue over
NOTHING.
Because you remain, Errabundi Saepe, Semper Certi. (Often Wrong, Always
Certain.)
BUTT OUT!