 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / March 2004It is amazing how fearful some people are:
Some people, particularly the debunker types here and those like them elsewhere, are just afraid to try something new and afraid to think for themselves. It is easier for them to slam others than it is for them to try something new like EFT; they risk the possibility that they may have made a mistake. This would be just too much for their little egos. There are a jillion other things that they won't ever try. And imagine, it is even threatening to these little, tiny, itsy, bitsy people that YOU would try something new and think for yourself. Science starts with little self-discoveries like EFT. Galileo had nay-sayers around him who refused to look through the telescope. They had all of these wonderful reasons why Galileo was wrong; but look through the telescope, no way! Little tiny people are like this. They always have reason on their side why they should not try something new. Their position always seems reasonable and logical to them, except for one little thing. They never look through the telescope. Excellent post. Sums it all up. > Some people, particularly the debunker types here and those like them > elsewhere, are just afraid to try something new and afraid to think [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > them, except for one little thing. They never look through the > telescope. > Some people, particularly the debunker types here and those like them > elsewhere, are just afraid to try something new and afraid to think > for themselves. Speak for YOURSELF. I have tried some of them. Debunkers? Why call anyone that simply because they don't believe the every utterance of every Quack coming down the Pike? Why should anyone? Why should you? -- Juvenile rant snipped --  SignatureKim Please note, I don't wish to get involved in any personal conflicts between the posters here. I'm simply looking for answers. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Some people, particularly the debunker types here and those like them > elsewhere, are just afraid to try something new and afraid to think [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > them, except for one little thing. They never look through the > telescope. Absolutely true hotmoon. You hit the nail on the head. > Some people, particularly the debunker types here and those like them > elsewhere, are just afraid to try something new and afraid to think > for themselves. Actually, it is alties like you who are afraid to think for yourselves and evaluate the actual evidence for or against their favorite alt-therapies. They are the ones who react violently when anyone questions them or voices skepticism about their views, labeling such people "debunkers." >It is easier for them to slam others than it is for > them to try something new like EFT; they risk the possibility that > they may have made a mistake. No, it is simply pointing out when there is no evidence to support a particular hypothesis. >This would be just too much for their > little egos. There are a jillion other things that they won't ever > try. And imagine, it is even threatening to these little, tiny, itsy, > bitsy people that YOU would try something new and think for yourself. Novelty does not equal efficacy. > Science starts with little self-discoveries like EFT. Galileo had > nay-sayers around him who refused to look through the telescope. They [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > them, except for one little thing. They never look through the > telescope. Ah, yes, the Galileo fallacy beloved of pseudoscientists of all stripes, not just alties. The problem is, it's a false analogy. It was no accident that Galileo ultimately prevailed. Galileo was ultimately able to show his view to be correct because he was a very meticulous scientist. He understood deeply the science of his day and used this understanding to recognize areas where the theories of his time were lacking. He made observations and did experiments to address those deficiencies and then developed a new model that fit his observations. Galileo's view ultimately prevailed and his naysayers shown to be wrong because he had the goods. He had the evidence. He had the science behind him. And it took him decades of work to get it. In contrast, quacks (like Hulda Clark, for instance) don't bother even to understand the science of their day--not even to identify areas where scientific understanding is lacking. They don't bother to do the work. They don't bother to do the experiments. They don't have the evidence. In short, they don't have the goods. Your analogy is false. SignatureOrac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you | inconvenience me with questions?" << Actually, it is alties like you who are afraid to think for yourselves and evaluate the actual evidence for or against their favorite alt-therapies. They are the ones who react violently when anyone questions them or voices skepticism about their views, labeling such people "debunkers." >> Are you writing, comedy, AGAIN, Orac? This is indeed BEYOND hilarious. << No, it is simply pointing out when there is no evidence to support a particular hypothesis. >> Orac, what is your main concern here? Why are you so *uckin concerned? Keep your nose on your own face..... << Your analogy is false. >> And your analogy is laughable. "If you're gonna walk on thin ice, you may as well dance." (Jessie Winchester). > << > Actually, it is alties like you who are afraid to think for yourselves [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Are you writing, comedy, AGAIN, Orac? This is indeed BEYOND hilarious. Debbee, was it you who used to put the rubber crutches in the polio wards? > << > No, it is simply pointing out when there is no evidence to support a > particular hypothesis. >> > > Orac, what is your main concern here? Why are you so *uckin concerned? Keep > your nose on your own face..... Want to see something really funny? See http://tinyurl.com/37cwk Debbee just cannot stand it when someone says something she disagrees with. > << Your analogy is false. >> > > And your analogy is laughable. << Debbee just cannot stand it when someone says something she disagrees with. >> That would be Mark Probert....this newsgroup is for entertainment purposes only.....since the anti alts have destroyed it..... "If you're gonna walk on thin ice, you may as well dance." (Jessie Winchester). > << > Debbee just cannot stand it when someone says something she disagrees with. >> > > That would be Mark Probert....this newsgroup is for entertainment purposes > only.....since the anti alts have destroyed it..... And Debbee is the chief clown. > << > Debbee just cannot stand it when someone says something she disagrees with. >> > > That would be Mark Probert....this newsgroup is for entertainment purposes > only.....since the anti alts have destroyed it..... The real destructive force is Jan and her enablers. No real discourse on therapeutic modalities can take place here because the altie gang quickly smothers any thread in ad hominem invective and schoolyard name-calling. They accuse the rational people of being the destroyers merely for challenging the anti-science of the alties. --Rich > << > Actually, it is alties like you who are afraid to think for yourselves [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Are you writing, comedy, AGAIN, Orac? This is indeed BEYOND hilarious. I've been laughing at many of yours and Jan's writings for a long time now. Nice to see I could return the favor and provide amusement to you. However amused you might be, though, it doesn't change the validity of my words. > << > No, it is simply pointing out when there is no evidence to support a > particular hypothesis. >> > > Orac, what is your main concern here? That some alties push unproven and ineffective medications, remedies, and treatments. Aren't you concerned about that? >Why are you so *uckin concerned? Why are you? >Keep > your nose on your own face..... It never left. > << Your analogy is false. >> > > And your analogy is laughable. One notes you didn't show my analogy was not false. SignatureOrac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you | inconvenience me with questions?" >Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: >From: Orac orac@wabcmail.com >Date: 3/16/04 7:02 PM Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <orac-D88767.19021216032004@news4-ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> >> Orac, what is your main concern here? > >That some alties push unproven and ineffective medications, remedies, >and treatments. Aren't you concerned about that? What Orac should be concerned with is the unprovern and ineffective medications offered by him and the other MDs. Cures do not exist. Only palliation and treatments exists within modern medicine. Why not just admitt that, rather than continue to argue for something else? >remedies, What do you call your drugs,... cures? Yuk, Yuk, Yuk, Yuk, Yuk, Yuk, ...you brainwashed monopolist. >and treatments. What esle does modern medicine and the medicine man have too offer? Take this medicine, if it does not work and you are still alive, call me in three days. You call that healing? >. Aren't you concerned about that? I sure am. DrC PhD > >Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: > >From: Orac orac@wabcmail.com [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > DrC PhD And what "cures" do you have to offer, NotadoctorC? --Rich > > >Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: > > >From: Orac orac@wabcmail.com [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > And what "cures" do you have to offer, NotadoctorC? Absolutely none. "Dr." C talks a good line of BS criticizing conventional medicine, but notice how he almost never actually describes any treatments his philosophy advocates, nor does he ever discuss any evidence why he thinks they're better, other than because he thinks so and they aren't "conventional" medicine. SignatureOrac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you | inconvenience me with questions?" >Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: >From: Orac orac@wabcmail.com >Date: 3/21/04 6:46 PM Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <orac-D0D303.18465021032004@news4-ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> >Absolutely none. "Dr." C talks a good line of BS criticizing >conventional medicine, but notice how he almost never actually describes >any treatments his philosophy advocates, That is probably because my medical philosophy does not have treatments, it only has the truth. The body is self healing, self repairing, and self re-generating if it is provided the means, the nutrition, and the time to do so. You would be surprised how valuable a two to three week vacation in Florida with no stress, and only quality food, sunshine, fresh air, and modest education for whatever disease you have been diagnosed with would be for you. Would you rather have a nice two week stay in your local hospital for the price tag of $200,000 and still have your disease, or would you rather return home from Florida with a tan, no disease, and be out maybe $1,000?? DrC PhD People are too anxious and untrusting to try it. Very good therapy though. My skin doctor tells me sun tanning machines are bad for my psoriasis and then I tell him the relaxation gained under a controlled programme is very good for my whole being, showing up on my skin. > >Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: > >From: Orac orac@wabcmail.com [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > DrC PhD > >Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: > >From: Orac orac@wabcmail.com [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That is probably because my medical philosophy does not have treatments, it > only has the truth. How do we know that your "medical philosophy" is the "truth," since you don't deign to explain it or provide evidence for it? > The body is self healing, self repairing, and self re-generating if it is > provided the means, the nutrition, and the time to do so. Conventional medicine has never denied this. However, what you seem unable to recognize is that this self-healing, self-repairing, and self-regenerating nature of the human body does have some limitations, no matter how good the nutrition and means provided. > You would be surprised how valuable a two to three week vacation in Florida > with no stress, and only quality food, sunshine, fresh air, and modest > education for whatever disease you have been diagnosed with would be for you. If I were diagnosed with a treatable stage I or II colon cancer, for instance, three weeks in Florida would do nothing for it, other than delay definitive surgical treatment. Besides, I don't even like Florida much as a vacation spot. Way too hot and humid. > Would you rather have a nice two week stay in your local hospital for the > price > tag of $200,000 and still have your disease, or would you rather return home > from Florida with a tan, no disease, and be out maybe $1,000?? This is utterly laughable, as you have shown no evidence whatsoever that a two or three week vacation in Florida would cure anything (even fatigue). Certainly, I wouldn't recommend it to a patient who has a serious disease requiring prompt treatment. SignatureOrac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you | inconvenience me with questions?" >Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: >From: Orac orac@wabcmail.com >Date: 3/22/04 12:53 AM Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <orac-2A6630.00533022032004@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> >If I were diagnosed with a treatable stage I or II colon cancer, for >instance, three weeks in Florida would do nothing for it, other than >delay definitive surgical treatment. Besides, I don't even like Florida >much as a vacation spot. Way too hot and humid. Tell that to Rev. Malkmus at hacres.com. Just read the foreword to his site and his comments about his diagnosed colon cancer. That was about 25 years ago, I think, when he was diagnosed. His results sure beats having your guts cut out and sh.tting in a bag. >This is utterly laughable, as you have shown no evidence whatsoever that >a two or three week vacation in Florida would cure anything (even >fatigue). Certainly, I wouldn't recommend it to a patient who has a >serious disease requiring prompt treatment. Not laughable in the least. All the practitioners of Orthopathy are located in the sun belt so that they have ready access to fresh air and sunshine. Their charges are a mere fraction of what you MDs charge for your cut-burn-poison type of medicine. DrC PhD >>Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: >>From: Orac orac@wabcmail.com [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >in >the sun belt so that they have ready access to fresh air and sunshine. Which explains why you live in Washington State. >Their charges are a mere fraction of what you MDs charge for your >cut-burn-poison type of medicine. Go outside and die, that will be $75.00 please. Thank you and if you survive, come again. >DrC PhD > >Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: > >From: Orac orac@wabcmail.com [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Just read the foreword to his site and his comments about his diagnosed colon > cancer. Of course, one notes that he didn't say how it was diagnosed, whether it was truly colon cancer or simply a dysplastic polyp, etc., etc. >That was about 25 years ago, I think, when he was diagnosed. His > results sure beats having your guts cut out and sh.tting in a bag. It is uncommon for a colon cancer operation to leave one "sh.tting in a bag." In general there are only two situations in which a colostomy is necessary. For someone presenting with high grade colonic obstruction due to tumor, it is sometimes necessary to do a temporary diverting colostomy, which can then later be reversed. For very low rectal lesions, occasionally an abdomino-perineal resection (commonly known as the APR, an operation in which the entire rectum and anal sphincter complex are removed, the anus sewed shut, and a permanent colostomy constructed) is needed. However, these days it's fairly uncommon for this to be necessary. Quite simply, we don't do APRs very often anymore. The reason is that, even for those patients with quite low-lying cancers, the rate of anal sphincter preservation can be quite good using a regimen of preoperative chemotherapy and radiation, to shrink the tumor enough to allow a sphincter-sparing operation and preservation of continence. > >This is utterly laughable, as you have shown no evidence whatsoever that > >a two or three week vacation in Florida would cure anything (even [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not laughable in the least. All the practitioners of Orthopathy are located in > the sun belt so that they have ready access to fresh air and sunshine. Or so that they have ready access to old people, who tend to use their services more. > Their charges are a mere fraction of what you MDs charge for your > cut-burn-poison type of medicine. And in your case, the patient likely gets what he pays for, I bet. SignatureOrac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you | inconvenience me with questions?" > Of course, one notes that he didn't say how it was diagnosed, whether it > was truly colon cancer or simply a dysplastic polyp, etc., etc. =================== It was diagnosed by Ms Clark and her magic machine down in Tijuana Mexico. ;-) SignatureKim The most amazing BS artists there are: http://members.rogers.com/kirkkolas/index.html http://www.geocities.com/naturopathicmafia/Quackery.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Of course, one notes that he didn't say how it was diagnosed, whether it > > was truly colon cancer or simply a dysplastic polyp, etc., etc. > =================== > It was diagnosed by Ms Clark and her magic machine down in Tijuana Mexico. > ;-) It wouldn't surprise me, although I don't know if Hulda was up to her tricks yet 25 years ago, when this person claims to have been diagnosed with colon cancer. SignatureOrac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you | inconvenience me with questions?" > > >Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: > > >From: Orac orac@wabcmail.com [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Of course, one notes that he didn't say how it was diagnosed, whether it > was truly colon cancer or simply a dysplastic polyp, etc., etc. It seems to me that what you are saying is that if a diagnosed victim does something apart from what his doc wants and recovers, well then, he never had the diagnosed disease. Or is it that you think all you MD peers are incompetents. Have you given any thought to being an "expert" witness in malpractice cases? You could make a fortune convincing juries that your fellow MDs are quacks and incometents. Misdiagnosing a disease is a legal basis for malpractice, is it not? DrC PhD > > > >Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: > > > >From: Orac orac@wabcmail.com [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > does something apart from what his doc wants and recovers, well then, > he never had the diagnosed disease. Straw man. What I said is that Malkmus produced no evidence that he ever had colon cancer. >Or is it that you think all you > MD peers are incompetents. Straw man. What I said is that Malkmus produced no evidence that he ever had colon cancer. [Snip] SignatureOrac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you | inconvenience me with questions?" No > > > >Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: > > > >From: Orac orac@wabcmail.com [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > DrC PhD > No > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > > > DrC PhD "No" what, you sillyass top poster? No, you haven't given any thought to being an "expert" witness? No MDs are not quacks and incompetents? No, Misdiagnosing a disease is a not legal basis for malpractice? If it is the latter, as I suspect it is, you are wrong. If a doctor fails to make a correct diagnosis that a "reasonable and prudent" doctor conforming to the standards of practice in his community would have made, he is guilty of malpractice, particularly if he failed to order the laboratory and imaging studies that would have confirmed the diagnosis. --Rich -->who is not a lawyer and who's comments and opinions as expressed in this newsgroup should not in any way be construed as legal advice. (But they are right anyway.) >Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: >From: "Gymmy Bob" NoThanx@spam.com >Date: 3/25/04 9:10 PM Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <ReKdnezoAOfkDP7d4p2dnA@golden.net> >No The answer is yes. Supposedly, that is why the docs make the big bucks. If they get it wrong, that is malpractice. I won my malpractice case based upon that premise when they misdiagnosed my mother and treated her to death for the wrong disease. Very similar to amputating the left leg when it was the right leg that was to be amputated. DrC PhD > >Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: > >From: "Gymmy Bob" NoThanx@spam.com [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > wrong disease. Very similar to amputating the left leg when it was the right > leg that was to be amputated. That is not the definition of malpractice. http://dictionary.law.com/ malpractice n. An act or continuing conduct of a professional which does not meet the standard of professional competence and results in provable damages to his/her client or patient. Such an error or omission may be through negligence, ignorance (when the professional should have known), or intentional wrongdoing. However, malpractice does not include the exercise of professional judgment even when the results are detrimental to the client or patient. Except in cases of extremely obvious or intentional wrongs, in order to prove malpractice there must be testimony of an expert as to the acceptable standard of care applied to the specific act or conduct which is claimed to be malpractice and testimony of the expert that the professional did not meet that standard. The defendant then can produce his/her own expert to counter that testimony. . . . The principal reason is that most cries of malpractice are unfounded and are based on unhappiness with the result of the original services no matter how well handled, a breakdown in communication between attorney or doctor and client or patient, anger with the professional, retaliation for attempts to collect unpaid fees or greed. Medical mistakes are normal medical practice and part of the course...not malpractice. Negligence to use information or training when knowledge dictates another course howver is malpractice. Doctors make mistakes every day and there is no MALpractice. I don't know what country you are from but you no legal practicioner. > >Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: > >From: "Gymmy Bob" NoThanx@spam.com [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > DrC PhD >Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: >From: "Gymmy Bob" NoThanx@spam.com >Date: 3/26/04 5:48 PM Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <JqednXrwj53-L_ndRVn-jw@golden.net> >Medical mistakes are normal medical practice and part of the course...not >malpractice. Not in the USA if you can prove it. >Negligence to use information or training when knowledge dictates another >course howver is malpractice. It could also be called murder or at least manslaughter. >Doctors make mistakes every day and there is no MALpractice Only if the patients and the lawyers are asleep. > I don't know >what country you are from but you no legal practicioner. That is true. However, to mis-diagnose a disease is malpractice in the USA. The docs are paid the big money to diagnose corectly. If they get it wrong, it is malpractice in the USA. Get a clue guy. DrC PhD > That is true. However, to mis-diagnose a disease is malpractice in the USA. > The docs are paid the big money to diagnose corectly. If they get it wrong, > it > is malpractice in the USA. Not quite true. To get it wrong is only malpractice if the doctor showed gross negligence or practiced outside of the standard of care. If the doctor practiced within the currently accepted standard of care and failed to make a correct diagnosis, it is not necessarily malpractice, unless negligence was involved. SignatureOrac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you | inconvenience me with questions?" >Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: >From: Orac orac@wabcmail.com >Date: 3/27/04 8:31 AM Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <orac-64F65E.08315727032004@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> >Not quite true. To get it wrong is only malpractice if the doctor showed >gross negligence or practiced outside of the standard of care. If the >doctor practiced within the currently accepted standard of care and >failed to make a correct diagnosis, it is not necessarily malpractice, >unless negligence was involved. Sorry, but this makes not sense at all. Either you guys are paid the big bucks to get it right or you are not. If you do not get it right, you are not only incompetent, but negligent, in legal terms at least. Failure to diagnose CORRECTLY is malpractice. I call it incompetence, but the lawyers like malpractice. DrC PhD. Not being perfect is not a malpractice offence otherwise there would be no medical practicioners. You have stated many incorrect things, as have I. Does this mean we should be put to death or in prison? This is why some charge more money...reputation and skill. 50% of the medics graduated in the bottom half of their class. > >Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: > >From: Orac orac@wabcmail.com [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > DrC PhD. >Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: >From: "Gymmy Bob" NoThanx@spam.com >Date: 3/28/04 9:38 AM Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <gaydnTQHsuH-f_vd4p2dnA@golden.net> >Not being perfect is not a malpractice offence otherwise there would be no >medical practicioners. My attorney does not agree. What does your attorney say? Failure to diagnose correctly is malpractice. Think of it as not practicing correctly. Failure to diagnose correctly kills up to 100,000 Americans per year. I call that malpractice. DrC PhD >>Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: >>From: "Gymmy Bob" NoThanx@spam.com [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >DrC PhD ####################################### From Flame Warriors: Profundus Maximus Profundus Maximus eagerly holds forth on all subjects, but his thin knowledge will not support a sustained assault and therefore his attacks quickly peter out. Profundus Maximus often uses big words, obscure terms and...ahem...even Latin to bluff his way through battle. Blowhard Blowhard feels the need to present his credentials before entering the fray - even if they are irrelevant to the discussion. For example, in a movie forum conflict he might attempt to settle the matter by saying, "As a Ph. D. candidate in particle physics I believe I can say with some authority that the 'Beavis and Butthead' movie represents the emergence of a new cultural paradigm." Huh? -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com mal "practice" > >Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: > >From: "Gymmy Bob" NoThanx@spam.com [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > DrC PhD >Not being perfect is not a malpractice offence otherwise there would be no >medical practicioners. > >You have stated many incorrect things, as have I. Does this mean we should >be put to death or in prison? No, you should just be flogged. Chuck is the one who would get the death sentence. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT) >>Not being perfect is not a malpractice offence otherwise there would be no >>medical practicioners. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >No, you should just be flogged. Corporal Punishment reporting for duty, Sir! >Chuck is the one who would get the death sentence. He's eating himself into an early grave. > >Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: > >From: Orac orac@wabcmail.com [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Sorry, but this makes not sense at all. Compared to your blather, it makes perfect sense. > Either you guys are paid the big bucks to get it right or you are not. > If you do not get it right, you are not only incompetent, but negligent, in > legal terms at least. No medical test is 100% sensitive or specific. No physician is infallible. It is unreasonable to expect perfection in any human enterprise, medicine included. It is reasonable to expect practice within the prevailing standard of care and the best due diligence the physician can provide. > Failure to diagnose CORRECTLY is malpractice. I call it incompetence, but the > lawyers like malpractice. Actually, no they wouldn't call it malpractice, unless the standard of care were violated or gross negligence were involved. SignatureOrac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you | inconvenience me with questions?" >Subject: Re: It is amazing how fearful some people are: >From: Orac orac@wabcmail.com >Date: 3/28/04 11:50 PM Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <orac-3C7464.23502728032004@news05.east.earthlink.net> >> Failure to diagnose CORRECTLY is malpractice. I call it incompetence, but >the >> lawyers like malpractice. > >Actually, no they wouldn't call it malpractice, unless the standard of >care were violated or gross negligence were involved. Get an expert opinion. Ask your lawyer. If he is competent, he will tell you that failure to diagnose correctly is malpractice, particularly if the patient dies. DrC PhD << However amused you might be, though, it doesn't change the validity of my words. This is even more hilarious....:>) << That some alties push unproven and ineffective medications, remedies, and treatments. Aren't you concerned about that? >> Gosh, aren't you describing a little of the conventional world too? All of those doctors who push drugs that weren't made for everyone to take? I'm concerned about this. << Why are you? >> I'm not concerned......I'm laughing at this horse pucky. << One notes you didn't show my analogy was not false. >> Only one? I'm sure there are other alties that are laughing as hard as I am.... "If you're gonna walk on thin ice, you may as well dance." (Jessie Winchester). > << One notes you didn't show my analogy was not false. >> > > Only one? I'm sure there are other alties that are laughing as hard as I > am.... Again, you fail to show that my analogy was false. SignatureOrac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you | inconvenience me with questions?" > << However amused you might be, though, it doesn't change the validity of > my words. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > those doctors who push drugs that weren't made for everyone to take? > I'm concerned about this. No medication is "made for everyone to take." No need for your concern, because no conventional physician is prescibing any medication for everyone. Some alties, on the other hand, would like to sell ginseng, or pond scum, or colloidal silver, or coral calcium, or any of a plethora of other concoctions to EVERYONE. I'm concerned about this. --Rich |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.