Re: Dr Jones the mistakes so far


Yukon King the wonder dog wrote:
> 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.

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!!!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Judge Delays Action In Lyme Disease Case (and the typical lymenut overreaction thereto)
    ... FIRST BART COMMENT: ... It seems something wonderful is stirring for Dr. Charles Ray Jones ... ... He's a hero doctor! ... in which Steere showed that Lyme was ineradicable in mice if treatment ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Re: An observation- Is Devin a real MD?
    ... As far as coming along on doctor visits I can swear it really does help ... I agree with you that I am not a patient but a "client of medical ... I still say FMS progresses otherwise I ... that engaged in such a wide variety of specialties of practice ...
    (alt.med.fibromyalgia)
  • Re: is Dr. Devin Starlanyl a real m.d.?
    ... you aren't entitled to use 'doctor'. ... 'active' practice of medicine, ... there was even an issue of why she was simply referred to as 'devin' ... An Intern can be called doctor but is not an MD until they graduate and get ...
    (alt.med.fibromyalgia)
  • Re: Dr Jones IS a living Saint!
    ... But if you don't know about Dr Jones then seriously--cut it out. ... Jones does NOT automatically diagnose everyone with Lyme and every ... prepares novice patients for the entry of Jones himself: ... Stone requested the doctor perform a Lyme disease test, ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Dr Jones IS a living Saint
    ... But if you don't know about Dr Jones then seriously--cut it out. ... Jones does NOT automatically diagnose everyone with Lyme and every ... prepares novice patients for the entry of Jones himself: ... Stone requested the doctor perform a Lyme disease test, ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)