Re: We are up to 86 members, feel free to join
- From: "JanD" <JanD@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 23:18:19 GMT
"Bill" <dentaldoc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1140284165.654832.319620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
James wrote:
I have found the new URL panel much more effective and responsive than
this
Newsgroup. I highly recommend it.
--
James
_____________________
Like James, I find that the new forum generally allows more detailed
and more helpful discussions among both dentists and non-dentists.
The juvenile name-calling and personal insults (all the LIAR LIAR junk
seen so often here) have been replaced on the other forum with useful
discussion:
www.scimeddentistry.com/smd
There is still a place for this old-fashioned newsgroup here, but new
users of smd need to be reminded of the non-professional status of the
newsgroup abusers.
- dentaldoc
Is that right? You mean you have quit lying? And insulting?
No tough questions, you can't answer, huh? Like you couldn't here:
Calling Bill Combs. Hello
Say Bill,
Hello
Hello
It is noted you can't answer my questions
===
Do you remember why that was, Bill?
Well let me refresh your memory. It was because you LIED!
You wrote:
Evidently these other eleven charges did not mention mercury. They
must have been about other matters of malpractice or violations of
laws that did not relate to mercury.
I replied:
Uh huh, like I said, the same ole same ole. Was he also charged with using
the
wrong color of toilet paper??
It is your choice of the word malpractice, is it not?
Plus the words, violations of the law??
Bill >One charge is sufficient to remove a license to practice dentistry.
Eleven charges, unrelated to mercury, would tend to show an
overwhelming pattern of substandard practice.
Jan What overwhelming pattern of substandard practice?
Jan Substandard and overwhelming are your choice of words, are they not?
Jan Which is overwhelming and which is substandard??
Bill >If indeed this author is correct, and eleven patients were treated
*Below Standards* set by whom?????below standards with no relation to the mercury question, then this
dentist should not be allowed to practice on the public -- regardless
of any position he happened to take on dental amalgams.
In most states, the standards are set by the state legislature.
Jan And they get their standards from whom?
Bill >>His pattern of malpractice in non-mercury cases
Jan >> Say what?!?!
Jan > Using no mercury is malpractice??????
Bill>I never said that.
Bill >The reference I made was to the eleven NON-mercury cases in which he
was charged with malpractice/substandard practice by the board.
Jan Well, no, those are your words.
Bill >Since these cases did not involve mercury, I refer to them as the
non-mercury cases.
Jan > Oh??? Like what?
Bill >Like the three cases you list below.
Jan He didn't wash his hands.
Jan Not seeing decay.
Jan Yelled at a patient.
Jan That's malpractice/substandard???
Jan Who made these charges???
Bill Didn't you know that when you posted the reference?
Jan Yes, I knew, I am asking you if you knew? I should have posted,
complaints.
Bill >Generally, charges
are made by a branch of the state government. In most states this is
the government's dental board.
Jan Uh huh, *organized dentistry*
Bill > The 14 patients who files were used were friends of Dr Jacobson an
made it
calledclear to the board, in writing, they wanted nothing to do with this so
*investion* which started immediately after he placed an ad which used
the
words *mercury free*.
Jan Concocted charges, such as:
Jan He didn't wash his hands.
Not seeing decay.
Yelled at a patient.
Bill Surely you don't mean to imply that these charges should be taken
lightly.
Jan LOL!!!
Jan My word this is certainly *fraud* and *incompetent* conduct.
Bill (I don't know what an *investion* is.)
Jan Righto, ask someone to help you figure it out.
Jan With regard to the charge of "Yelled at a patient," this seems
unlikely to result in a loss of license.
Bill Yes.
Bill Along with , not washed his hands, and not seeing decay.
Jan Those don't sound one bit made up/concocted. do they?
Bill >But if his patients all
rallied to his defense, then HOW did the state learn that he had
yelled at a patient?
Jan It was made up!
Jan Did any of his patients say that??
Bill >Perhaps at least one of his patients reported this to the board. I
doubt that
the state had any other way of learning that he "Yelled at a patient" unless
that patient complained to the
board.
Jan Give me a break. A patient is going to a board because a dentist yelled
at
them.
Jan You need to go back and read what the evidence showed about who made the
complaints.
Jan Then read how his patients knew this was a chop job and wanted nothing
to do
with it.
Bill >With regard to the charge of "Not seeing decay," this is more serious.
Many patients go to a dentist specifically to find out if they have
any tooth decay. If decay is present and the dentist misses it,
serious complications can potentially occur to the patient. If a
dentist continually misses an obvious diagnosis, state action is warranted.
Jan In fact he did see it, he noted it in the file and made several attempts
to get
the patient to come back and get it fixed, the patient refused.
Bill >By far, the most serious charge is that of "He didn't wash his hands."
In this age of deadly communicable diseases, the prevention of
infection must be foremost in the minds of all members of the health
care professions. It has been known since the 1880s that the simple
act of washing one's hands has a dramatic effect in lowering the rate
of disease transmission in the healthcare setting.
Jan Who saw him not wash his hand??? Do your patients follow you in the
bathroom??
Jan I suggest to you, if everyone who didn't wash their hands, lost their
licenses,
we would have very few licensed people in any field.
Jan Doctors can cut off the wrong leg and still keep their license.
<snip>
Jan Cutting to the chase, the fact he used the words mercury free is EXACTLY
why he
was harassed and the investigators worked mighty hard to come up with this
trumpeted up charges. It took them over twelve years.
Jan The board members made it clear they were upset with his refusal of the
use of
mercury.
Bill >Are there any cases on record that would better illustrate unfair
prosecution?
Jan WOW!!!!!
The ENTIRE case was nothing, but a farce from those who are EVIL.
Bill >Even if we dismiss the amalgam-related charges as "nothing," what
about the other eleven charges?
Jan I didn't see eleven, did you?
Bill >It is unreasonable to say "The ENTIRE case was nothing" without
examining the charges that did not even involve amalgam.
Jan No, it is totally unreasonable that the broad took twelve years to get
these
charges made up!!!
Bill >Was it true
that he didn't diagnose dental caries? Was it true that he didn't even
wash his hands?
Jan B I N G O!!!!
Jan Was it true sixty of his patients jammed the hearing room??
Jan WHAT does that tell you?
Jan Did you read all the steps taken to get these charges made. UNFAIR and
DISHONEST tactics.??
Jan *Although the Humphrey's office and the board sought to peddle the
notion that
its investigation of Gary was not centered on his refusal to use amalgam,
the
Star Tribune was not fooled. The MN. board of dentistry had accused the
dentist of fraud and misconduct for allegedly pushing an expensive that
have never been proven to work, removing peoples' fillings call amalgams to
free them of mercury poisoning*
Jan It all comes back to the gag order.
Jan > YOU learn the LIES well from dental school.
Bill Is this meant as an ad hominem attack?
Jan No, it is the TRUTH.
Bill >What "lies" are in my posting??
I can't find any.
Jan WOW!!!!
Jan Dentists have LIED for so long, they know longer know what is a LIE..
Your choice of words and DECEIVING are LIES.
There was NO fraud!!!
There was NO incompetence!!!!!
There was NO Malpractice!!
There was NO substandards.
PATHETIC!!
Jan
Bill >No need to get insulting. I did not insult you.
Jan There is a great need to get real and stop trying to deceive.
Bill >My point remains -- are there any other cases that would better
illustrate the author's claim of unfair prosecution? This particular
case involved many charges, and only half of them seemed to involve
amalgam. Instead of defending a doctor who apparently was also charged
with failure to diagnose decay, and failure to practice infection
control for his patients, wouldn't it be more effective for an author
to put forward a case that involved ONLY amalgam-related issues?
- dentaldoc
Your point is a LIE.
Jan
What happened to Dr. Gary Jacobson is below. The FACT is, Bill Combs
complains about the word liar.
However he fails to mention, the reason for seeing it is he in FACT is a
LIAR. If he were truthful, there would be no need to see the word.
Anyone can easily see, Bill added the HIS LYING words to the story.
http://www.toxicteeth.net/MinnKipsSummary.pdf
.
- References:
- We are up to 86 members, feel free to join
- From: Amatus Cremona
- Re: We are up to 86 members, feel free to join
- From: James E.
- Re: We are up to 86 members, feel free to join
- From: Bill
- We are up to 86 members, feel free to join
- Prev by Date: Re: AMALGAM IS POISON - no safe level
- Next by Date: Re: We are up to 86 members, feel free to join
- Previous by thread: Re: We are up to 86 members, feel free to join
- Next by thread: Re: We are up to 86 members, feel free to join
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
