 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Dentistry / October 2004Re How HONEST Dentists Are Treated
http://www.toxicteeth.net/MinnKipsSummary.pdf. > http://www.toxicteeth.net/MinnKipsSummary.pdf. This article states: "But in 1995, the Board sent Dr. Jacobson a 'notice of hearing' charging him with fraud and incompetence. Of 21 patients whose files were used as of the charges against him, the allegations about ten of these patients mentioned mercury. In 1996, Dr. Jacobson gave up his license." If the "allegations about ten of these patients mentioned mercury," then what were the other eleven charges against Dr. Jacobson? 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. 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. If indeed this author is correct, and eleven patients were treated 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. His pattern of malpractice in non-mercury cases tends to refute the point that the author seemingly tried to make: that he was unfairly prosecuted due only to his stand on amalgams. Clearly, the other eleven cases show that he wasn't. Are there any cases on record that would better illustrate unfair prosecution? - dentaldoc >> http://www.toxicteeth.net/MinnKipsSummary.pdf. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >these patients mentioned mercury. In 1996, Dr. Jacobson gave up his >license." YUP those mercury fillings are no good. We kept telling him to add a little silver powder so it would harden up. Joel >If the "allegations about ten of these patients mentioned mercury," >then what were the other eleven charges against Dr. Jacobson? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >- dentaldoc >YUP those mercury fillings are no good. We kept telling him to add a >little silver powder so it would harden up. > >Joel Yep it just runs all over the place doesn't it ? -- W_B wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com Take out the G'RBAGE >>YUP those mercury fillings are no good. We kept telling him to add a >>little silver powder so it would harden up. >> >>Joel > >Yep it just runs all over the place doesn't it ? Especially while jogging ...... >From: Joel M. Eichen Idiot off the wall, blathering dumped. Back to the subject: http://www.toxicteeth.net/MinnKipsSummary.pdf >>From: Joel M. Eichen > >Idiot off the wall, blathering dumped. Joel is always a gentleman ...... >Back to the subject: > >http://www.toxicteeth.net/MinnKipsSummary.pdf >Subject: Re: Re How HONEST Dentists Are Treated Still waiting for a reply from dentaldoc. His butchering of this case is pathetic. Jan > Still waiting for a reply from dentaldoc. > > His butchering of this case is pathetic. > > Jan Have to admit, JD, your ad hominem attacks are getting hard to take. Bill Coombs is one of the levelest heads here, and you cannot stay on an objective level with even him. Disappointing SP  SignatureNot a real Addy, yet >Subject: Re: Re How HONEST Dentists Are Treated >From: StovesNewAddy@sympatico.DOTnet (StovePipe) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Have to admit, JD, your ad hominem attacks are getting hard to take. Yeah, yeah. Sorry you don't know the difference between as homiem and truth. >Bill Coombs is one of the levelest heads here, Bill Combs butchered the case. I pointed that out. > and you cannot stay on an >objective level with even him. >Disappointing Did you wish to coment on the case????? Or,,,,,,,,,,,,,is insulting, your only speciality??? Care to discuss how symtoms disappeared AFTER removal of amalgams?? Or the fact the dangers of mercury vapors have long been known, so Dr Jacobson decided to discontinue using Mercury, he was immediated investigater after placing a help want ad, using the words *mercury free*? Bill Combs using the words, *below standards* *malpractice*???? Ah? Jan >Yeah, yeah. Sorry you don't know the difference between as homiem and truth. I am scratching my head here ......... This is like .... Yeah, yeah, Sorry you don't know the difference between oranges and hippopotamuses ....... >Subject: Re: Re How HONEST Dentists Are Treated >From: Joel M. Eichen joeleichen@yahoo.com [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I am scratching my head here ....... LOL! We know you are more than a tad bit slow. Time to stop blathering and post proof of your claim. Jan >>Subject: Re: Re How HONEST Dentists Are Treated >>From: Joel M. Eichen joeleichen@yahoo.com [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >We know you are more than a tad bit slow. An ad hominem argument may be true ... or it may be false ...... Ad hominem means ":against man" meaning blaming the messenger instead of dealing with the issue. Thanks for asking though! Joel >Time to stop blathering and post proof of your claim. > >Jan >>>>Yeah, yeah. Sorry you don't know the difference between as homiem and truth. >>We know you are more than a tad bit slow. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Joel But what is an "as homiem" ? -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com >>>>>Yeah, yeah. Sorry you don't know the difference between as homiem and truth. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >But what is an "as homiem" ? Not in my dictionary ...... WAIT! I get it. Its in Jan's ........ > >Ad hominem means ":against man" meaning blaming the messenger instead > >of dealing with the issue. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > W_B I would guess that it means 'like a human or humanoid' SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet >> >Ad hominem means ":against man" meaning blaming the messenger instead >> >of dealing with the issue. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I would guess that it means 'like a human or humanoid' >SP As in Soylent Green? > >> >Ad hominem means ":against man" meaning blaming the messenger instead > >> >of dealing with the issue. Actually it means "directed towards man", while "against man" would be "contra hominem". Though the actual meaning is the same. If arguments are "directed towards man" they usually are "against man". Peter Signature-History of fluorine, fluoride and fluoridation-: --- http://PMeiers.bei.t-online.de/index.htm --- ---------------------------------------------------- >> >> >Ad hominem means ":against man" meaning blaming the messenger instead >> >> >of dealing with the issue. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Though the actual meaning is the same. If arguments are "directed >towards man" they usually are "against man". Thanks! Makes sense. Reagan tried to get out of the Contra hominem problem so he changed it to AD hominem....... >Peter "Ad hominem means "against man" blaming the messenger instead of dealing with the issue" Beginning to notice a marked resemblence of this to my theory. The messenger being the bad guy if ever it is mentioned to someone showing the symptoms. (me, the messenger). Best thing is if someone else can pick it up and carry it to a conclusion. Trouble is DeNile is the byword for such an unpopular theory. Jan's theory is a beauty by comparison. Gail Gail >"Ad hominem means "against man" blaming the messenger instead of dealing with >the issue" >Beginning to notice a marked resemblence of this to my theory. The messenger >being the bad guy if ever it is mentioned to someone showing the symptoms. >(me, the messenger). Ahhhh, Kemo Sabe ......... me, the messenger too! >Best thing is if someone else can pick it up and carry it to a conclusion. >Trouble is DeNile is the byword for such an unpopular theory. Jan's theory [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Gail > As in Soylent Green? I personally found that SG was an ugly movie. The concept was interesting... people eating people... noble deaths, etc... but I don't think that C.Heston and the other guy (sorry, his hame just won't come to me- the one who finally does take the death option) were the guys for the movie. JMO SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet >>Yeah, yeah. Sorry you don't know the difference between as homiem and truth. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Yeah, yeah, Sorry you don't know the difference between oranges and >hippopotamuses ....... What is "as homiem" ? -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com >>>Yeah, yeah. Sorry you don't know the difference between as homiem and truth. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >What is "as homiem" ? Here's the sad part ....... Yeah we studied logic and all that crap in college. We hope that made us somewhat more effective in analyzing our own arguments and the arguments of others. Yet, the bulk of the population grabs the flag, hoists it, and expects others to wave at it. MY TAKE: A hypothesis may be TRUE or it may be FALSE. We test our hypothesis and develop our philosophy One hears, "THE EXCEPTION PROVES THE RULE." The exception does not PROVE (or eatablish) the rule. The exception TESTS the rule. - - - -> DEF. Put to the test, as for its quality, or give experimental use to Simply looking it up in a dictionary which took me 4 seconds with WordWeb establishes what this means ...... The exception does not prove (VERIFY AS TRUE) the rule .... as many so state. That is tautologic nonsense. An exception DISPROVES the universal truthfulness of the rule. OK, that's TRUE and FALSE. Now "ad hominem." People always slip into false argumentation. Jan is perhaps one of the most frequent violators of this rule of logic. If someone lies or not, it has no bearing on the truthfulness of the phrase, "amalgam is poison." It still could be true and it still could be false. It adds not to the argument. One might think that after reading on the internet for years and years about "ad hominem" that there would be more aware of what it means ....... or ask if its not clear! This demonstrates what an illusion communication really is! Joel >One might think that after reading on the internet for years and years >about "ad hominem" that there would be more aware of what it means >....... or ask if its not clear! > >This demonstrates what an illusion communication really is! Read closer... >What is "as homiem" ? -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com > One might think that after reading on the internet for years and years > about "ad hominem" that there would be more aware of what it means > ....... or ask if its not clear! > > This demonstrates what an illusion communication really is! This is false 'cause JME wears army boots.....!!!.... So theah..... ;-) SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time "Your mother wears army boots!" Signature~+--~+--~+--~+--~+-- Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S. Troy, Michigan, USA .................................................... This posting is intended for informational or conversational purposes only. Always seek the opinion of a licensed dental professional before acting on the advice or opinion expressed here. Only a dentist who has examined you in person can diagnose your problems and make decisions which will affect your health. ...................... > >> One might think that after reading on the internet for years and years [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So theah..... ;-) > SP >Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time > >"Your mother wears army boots!" This is because most of the mothers now wear engineers' boots as two jobs are required to put food on the table ..... >>Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time >> >>"Your mother wears army boots!" > >This is because most of the mothers now wear engineers' boots as two >jobs are required to put food on the table ..... Because taxes are too high. -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com > >>Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > W_B Mailed in my 11/02/2004 ballot yesterday. carabelli >> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:42:01 -0400, Joel M. Eichen <joeleichen@yahoo.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Mailed in my 11/02/2004 ballot yesterday. For the 2000 election? >carabelli I'm going to wait and punch my chads the old fashioned way. ;-) Fawks >>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:42:01 -0400, Joel M. Eichen <joeleichen@yahoo.com> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > carabelli >I'm going to wait and punch my chads the old fashioned way. > >;-) >Fawks But please do not leave any "hanging." Joel >>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:42:01 -0400, Joel M. Eichen <joeleichen@yahoo.com> >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >> carabelli >>I'm going to wait and punch my chads the old fashioned way. >> >>;-) >>Fawks > >But please do not leave any "hanging." or pregnant -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com Me three, punch those Chads right in the nose ! >I'm going to wait and punch my chads the old fashioned way. > >;-) >Fawks -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com >>>Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >Because taxes are too high. So do I vote for the guy who will tax us and spend money, or the guy who will just spend money and use borrowed cash? I think it's time to start throwing away my vote with a third party. Adenosine >>>>Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >So do I vote for the guy who will tax us and spend money, or the guy >who will just spend money and use borrowed cash? Your grandchildren will revolt. Could be the end of the U.S. Joel >I think it's time to start throwing away my vote with a third party. > >Adenosine >>Because taxes are too high. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Adenosine Thought you were in Canada... An economy can be grown out of deficit; you cannot tax your way to prosperity. -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com >>>Because taxes are too high. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >you cannot tax your way to prosperity. Canada? Do I sound Canadian to you? I'm not THAT close to BC, here in WA. I was actually planning on voting Libertarian. Sure, they may be a bit radical, but anything to get the federal gov't back to the limited enumerated powers in the constitution. Adenosine >>>>Because taxes are too high. >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Adenosine Perhaps I have mistaken you for someone else. -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com > Perhaps I have mistaken you for someone else. > -- > > W_B There is no Adenosine in Kanada... we all have perfect cardiac health ... ;-) SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet > Thought you were in Canada... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > W_B Amen... SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet >>>>Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Adenosine Probably should vote along Party lines. Consider how the Presidential election will influence congress and vote to put balance where you think it will help most. Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S. Troy, Michigan, USA Writing on a tablet PC,so forgive me if the PC misreads my poor handwriting. "Dr. Steve" <drsteve@no-spam.com> wrote.......... > Probably should vote along Party lines. Consider how the Presidential > election will influence congress and vote to put balance where you > think it will help most. > Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S. > Troy, Michigan, USA "help most"? That assumes two good choices. I don't ever recall casting a presidential vote for anyone - just against the other guy. carabelli >"Dr. Steve" <drsteve@no-spam.com> wrote.......... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >carabelli Jaded. -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com >"Dr. Steve" <drsteve@no-spam.com> wrote.......... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >carabelli My point is forget the candidate, & vote for the party you think should have more control in congress. You way want a party to win for veto purposes. Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S. Troy, Michigan, USA Writing on a tablet PC,so forgive me if the PC misreads my poor handwriting. >>>Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >Because taxes are too high. ... and benefits too low ....... >>>>Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >... and benefits too low ....... We don't need benefits, we just need to keep more of what we earn. -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com "We don't need benefits. we just need to keep more of what we earn" Is that the criteria for voting. No where has anyone said, which candidate is most likely to save soldier's lives. George Bush has a beautiful way of saying directly to the extremists, "We will see this to the end" What he means, we will see this to the end no matter how many lives it takes." Not endorsing any candidate but Bush has a way of making the extremists angry, no respect can be expected, but perhaps a little more diplomacy might elicit a human response. Vote as you will. Gail "Advocate147" <advocate147@aol.com> ............ Vote as you will. > Gail That would be past tense for me - mailed it in last Monday carabelli >Vote as you will. > >Gail Thanks but I don't need your permission. -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com > >Vote as you will. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > W_B I would, but.... Kanada.... Is Ralph Nader still running this time? Just curious SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet >> >Vote as you will. >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Just curious >SP Yeah but not in all states. -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com > >> Thanks but I don't need your permission. > >> -- [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > W_B ?!?!?! What kind of cockameme platform is THAT???? All he'll do is spoil the vote in the states where he's taken seriously. 'scuse the Crap...intosh SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet >>>>Thanks but I don't need your permission. >>>>-- [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 'scuse the Crap...intosh > SP My wife, perusing the map of "blue and red" states, saw that he just might do that in Ohio, where Nader is polling 3% and Bush and Kerry are dead even. Steve > My wife, perusing the map of "blue and red" states, saw that he just > might do that in Ohio, where Nader is polling 3% and Bush and Kerry are > dead even. > > Steve He may very well prove to be the spoiler, but after seeing him on a talk show last week, he seems like the only one of the bunch who I'd actually like to vote for! T >> My wife, perusing the map of "blue and red" states, saw that he just >> might do that in Ohio, where Nader is polling 3% and Bush and Kerry are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >T If Bush wins then we shipping all the leftover Chevettes to Ohio. Joel >>My wife, perusing the map of "blue and red" states, saw that he just >>might do that in Ohio, where Nader is polling 3% and Bush and Kerry are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > T Well, having no expectation of winning certainly lessens the incentive to pander, which is probably why he seems so good. Steve > Well, having no expectation of winning certainly lessens the incentive > to pander, which is probably why he seems so good. > > Steve That and not having to put party interests first, people second. T the only Federal benefit we need is a strong military & defense of our borders. the rest should all be local. >>>>Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >... and benefits too low ....... Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S. Troy, Michigan, USA Writing on a tablet PC,so forgive me if the PC misreads my poor handwriting. >the only Federal benefit we need is a strong military & defense of >our borders. the rest should all be local. So do agree with the Liberatian platform then? Adenosine >>the only Federal benefit we need is a strong military & defense of >>our borders. the rest should all be local. > >So do agree with the Liberatian platform then? > >Adenosine Too much other baggage & weird ideas there. Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S. Troy, Michigan, USA Writing on a tablet PC,so forgive me if the PC misreads my poor handwriting. Hear, hear !!! >the only Federal benefit we need is a strong military & defense of >our borders. the rest should all be local. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Writing on a tablet PC,so forgive me if the PC misreads my poor handwriting. -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com > the only Federal benefit we need is a strong military & defense of > our borders. the rest should all be local. You of course were not in the country. But just a generation or so ago, "states rights" had a very specific meaning in this country. If it hadn't been for the Voting Rights act and other federal legislation, why would things have changed? Steve SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 >> the only Federal benefit we need is a strong military & defense of >> our borders. the rest should all be local. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Steve Because the supreme court has decided that 'interstate commerce' applies to a wide variety of things? I'm suprised at the number of laws that have been found constitutional under 'interstate commerce'. Adenosine >>>the only Federal benefit we need is a strong military & defense of >>>our borders. the rest should all be local. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Adenosine So its: 1) Strong Military 2) defense of borders 3) regulation of interstate commerce. ;-) Steve SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 > >>Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > W_B Sheesh... You-all should try living in Kanada with our tax system... SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet >> >>Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time >> >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Sheesh... You-all should try living in Kanada with our tax system... >SP Well at least you pay your taxes in Kanadian dollars. 8^]] -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com > >> Because taxes are too high. > >> -- [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > W_B Oh Yeah? Youse: paid in valuable USA-ian dollars, low tax rates. Us: paid in cheaper Kannanaadian dollarettes, high tax rates. Therefore, Us are worse off than Youse. Y'all heah wut Ah say SP PS: I *never* lie. SignatureNot a real Addy, yet > >Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time > > > >"Your mother wears army boots!" > > This is because most of the mothers now wear engineers' boots as two > jobs are required to put food on the table ..... It was meant as a joke ad hominem, and it's true, we don't say that much here either... it's usually a variant of go fudge yourself.. Cheeahs SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet >>Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time >> >>"Your mother wears army boots!" > >This is because most of the mothers now wear engineers' boots as two >jobs are required to put food on the table ..... I always thought the insult regarding a mother & army boots was a reference to being too poor to afford "real" shoes & the family had to re-cycle old military surplus. Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S. Troy, Michigan, USA Writing on a tablet PC,so forgive me if the PC misreads my poor handwriting. > I always thought the insult regarding a mother & army boots was a > reference to being too poor to afford "real" shoes & the family had [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Writing on a tablet PC,so forgive me if the PC misreads my poor handwriting. That is also my take on this expletive.... All the Russian descendants are supposed to answer: 'so what's wrong with that...?...' SP Quebec, Kaannnaaadaaa Writing on a Macintosh iBook, so excuse the smell (Crap....intosh) SignatureNot a real Addy, yet >Subject: Re: Re How HONEST Dentists Are Treated >From: "Dr Steve" nospam@home.net [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >"Your mother wears army boots!" Irrelevant! How HONEST dentists are treated is both disgusting and UNFAIR. Jan -- >>Boy, I have not heard that one in a long time >>"Your mother wears army boots!" > > Irrelevant! ????????? >Subject: Re: Re How HONEST Dentists Are Treated >From: "Dr Steve" nospam@home.net [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >????????? You can stop with the games now. The explanation was in what you snipped. Are you being *polite*?? Wait just one damn minute. WHO'S WRITING JOEL'S POSTS TODAY?!?!? This one actually makes sense. VBG, Fawks > Here's the sad part ....... > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Joel >Wait just one damn minute. WHO'S WRITING JOEL'S POSTS TODAY?!?!? > >This one actually makes sense. > >VBG, >Fawks THANKS! I knew I could do it! Joel >> Here's the sad part ....... >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >> >> Joel Keep up the good work Joel!! {sound of applause in the background} Signature~+--~+--~+--~+--~+-- Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S. Troy, Michigan, USA .................................................... This posting is intended for informational or conversational purposes only. Always seek the opinion of a licensed dental professional before acting on the advice or opinion expressed here. Only a dentist who has examined you in person can diagnose your problems and make decisions which will affect your health. ...................... > >>Wait just one damn minute. WHO'S WRITING JOEL'S POSTS TODAY?!?!? [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] >>> >>> Joel >Subject: Re: Re How HONEST Dentists Are Treated >From: Steven Fawks tuthjockey@earthlink.net [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >> logic. If someone lies or not, it has no bearing on the truthfulness >> of the phrase, "amalgam is poison." Glad to see Joel knows it is the truth. >> It still could be true and it still could be false. Nope. It is TRUE. >Glad to see Joel knows it is the truth. > >>> It still could be true and it still could be false. > >Nope. It is TRUE. Thanks Jan. Now I understand! Joel > Yeah, yeah. Sorry you don't know the difference between as homiem and > truth. Bill Combs butchered the case. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Bill Combs using the words, *below standards* *malpractice*???? > Ah? Jan Take a step back and read this in the light of objectivity. Do you see a balanced person creating some cogent arguments here? FWIW, I happen to think that you suffer from a disorder that has a neurglogical compenent, perhaps cyclical in nature, and it has been well documented that performing dental procedures on these types of patients often produces t remission of symptoms. I hope that it is not MS that you suffer from, but if I think back at the tone of many of your posts, I wouldn't rule it out. I am in no way a neurologist, or a psychologist, but I have had experience with some of these diseases in my Master's and that is what I think may be the problem. I hope I'm wrong, and that is the truth. However, sick or not, injured or not, in litigation or not, you have an attitude that doesn't leave much room for negotiation or discussion. I sincerely regret the time I've wasted reading and trying to comprehend your posts, as I could have been doing other things. I will not block you, and if you answer me, I will read it; I owe you at least that courtesy. I will not answer you again, as you know my postition on Am and RCT and I know (at least for the most part) your own. I would just leave you with one more gem of wisdom that comes from one of your own USA-ian philosophers ( I _think_ it was Ben Franklin, but I'm not sure)... He said, that Doubt may be a very unconfortable state to be in, but certainty is a rediculous one. Good Night SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet >Subject: Re: Re How HONEST Dentists Are Treated >From: StovesNewAddy@sympatico.DOTnet (StovePipe) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> Bill Combs using the words, *below standards* *malpractice*???? >> Ah? Jan Hmmmm. Now for the *unbutched*posting. > Still waiting for a reply from dentaldoc. > His butchering of this case is pathetic. > Jan >Have to admit, JD, your ad hominem attacks are getting hard to take. Yeah, yeah. Sorry you don't know the difference between as homiem and truth. >Bill Coombs is one of the levelest heads here, Bill Combs butchered the case. I pointed that out. > and you cannot stay on an >objective level with even him. >Disappointing Did you wish to coment on the case????? Or,,,,,,,,,,,,,is insulting, your only speciality??? Care to discuss how symtoms disappeared AFTER removal of amalgams?? Or the fact the dangers of mercury vapors have long been known, so Dr Jacobson decided to discontinue using Mercury, he was immediated investigater after placing a help want ad, using the words *mercury free*? Bill Combs using the words, *below standards* *malpractice*???? Ah? Jan <snip insult> >FWIW, I happen to >think that you suffer from a disorder that has a neurglogical compenent, >perhaps cyclical in nature, and it has been well documented that >performing dental procedures on these types of patients often produces t remission of symptoms. >I hope that it is not MS that you suffer from,but if I think back at the tone of many of your posts, I wouldn't rule it out. FYI I have a diagnosis of both mercury poisoning and perihperal neuropathy, from an MD and a EMG test. > I am in no way a neurologist, or a psychologist, but I have had >experience with some of these diseases in my Master's and that is what I >think may be the problem. You think wrong. >I hope I'm wrong, and that is the truth. >However, sick or not, injured or not, in litigation or not, you have an >attitude that doesn't leave much room for negotiation or discussion. I see you are angry. Guess it must be because I asked you if you wanted to discuss the points above. It is clear you do not. You just wish to discuss *me*. >I sincerely regret the time I've wasted reading and trying to comprehend >your posts, *I*-don't-want-to-be-informed-attitude* With insults thrown in, as usual. >as I could have been doing other things. Anything other than getting real, and facing the risks of amalgams. I will not block >you, and if you answer me, I will read it; I owe you at least that >courtesy. I will not answer you again, as you know my postition on Am >and RCT and I know (at least for the most part) your own. I would just >leave you with one more gem of wisdom LOL, one more? Where is the first one? <snup rest> Wow, it sure is hard to get a dentists here to discuss. A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed…When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker, a raving lunatic. -Dresden James Jan Disappointing, yet quite revealing. Fawks > Bill Coombs is one of the levelest heads here, and you cannot stay on an > objective level with even him. > Disappointing > SP >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. Most likely composite compatibility testing ....... >Subject: Re: Re How HONEST Dentists Are Treated >From: dentaldoc@hotmail.com (Bill Combs) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >If the "allegations about ten of these patients mentioned mercury," >then what were the other eleven charges against Dr. Jacobson? Oh, my, this is called desperation to find something wrong, and divert from the issue. Why do you dentists skip over the real issues and pick out something, you think will dismiss the whole issue?? This is an example of a witch hunt, much like those of Barrett. If you were on your toes, you will note the fraud charges thrown in are pretty much the same. The real issue is, a dentist has a gag order, and should NOT tell his patients of the risks. This is the works of EVIL *organized medicine and dentistry.* NOW, laws are being made that the dentists posts these risks in their office. Why is it, the ADA and AMA don''t want people to know what is going IN their mouths????? >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. Right on, that's how the trick is done. Always the same ole, same ole. >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. You mean *one* charge, like shhhhhhhhhhhhh, don't tell your patierts the truth?!?! >If indeed this author is correct, and eleven patients were treated >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. *Below Standards* Standards set by whom????? The words *mercury free* are below standards. *His advoidance of mercury was considerated to be evidence of *incompetence and fraud* >His pattern of malpractice in non-mercury cases Say what?!?! Using no mercury is malpractice?????? tends to refute the >point that the author seemingly tried to make: that he was unfairly >prosecuted due only to his stand on amalgams. Clearly, the other >eleven cases show that he wasn't. Oh??? Like what? Who made these charges??? Delta Dental employees??? The 14 patients who files were used were friends of Dr Jacobson an made it clear to the board, in writing, they wanted nothing to do with this so called *investion* which started immediately after he placed an ad which used the words *mercury free*. Concoeted charges, such as: He didn't wash his hands. Not seeing decay. Yelled at a patient. >Are there any cases on record that would better illustrate unfair >prosecution? WOW!!!!! The ENTIRE case was nothing, but a farce from those who are EVIL. It is unbelievable you can't see it. YOU learn the LIES well from dental school. PATHETIC!! Jan >The real issue is, a dentist has a gag order, and should NOT tell his patients >of the risks. 'Fraid not Jan. The rule is we cannot practice medicine. If I believe amalgam is harmful, well I can recommend composite any day of the week. Joel Tuesday ok with you? > >Subject: Re: Re How HONEST Dentists Are Treated > >From: dentaldoc@hotmail.com (Bill Combs) [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Why do you dentists skip over the real issues and pick out something, you think > will dismiss the whole issue?? When a url is posted on this newsgroup, the contents of that url become subject to examination and discussion. My comments did not "dismiss" your issue of amalgam use. I only raised another issue which is obvious in this case: what are the other eleven charges, which did not even involve amalgam? > >Evidently these other eleven charges did not mention mercury. They > >must have been about other matters of malpractice or violations of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > *Below Standards* Standards set by whom????? In most states, the standards are set by the state legislature. > >His pattern of malpractice in non-mercury cases > > Say what?!?! > > Using no mercury is malpractice?????? I never said that. The reference I made was to the eleven NON-mercury cases in which he was charged with malpractice/substandard practice by the board. Since these cases did not involve mercury, I refer to them as the non-mercury cases. > tends to refute the > >point that the author seemingly tried to make: that he was unfairly > >prosecuted due only to his stand on amalgams. Clearly, the other > >eleven cases show that he wasn't. > > Oh??? Like what? Like the three cases you list below. > Who made these charges??? Didn't you know that when you posted the reference? Generally, charges are made by a branch of the state government. In most states this is the government's dental board. > The 14 patients who files were used were friends of Dr Jacobson an made it > clear to the board, in writing, they wanted nothing to do with this so called [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Yelled at a patient. Surely you don't mean to imply that these charges should be taken lightly. (I don't know what an *investion* is.) With regard to the charge of "Yelled at a patient," this seems unlikely to result in a loss of license. But if his patients all rallied to his defense, then HOW did the state learn that he had yelled at a patient? 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. 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. 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. The need for a dentist to wash his hands between patients is in the CDC infection control guidelines, and many states have placed those guidelines into their dental practice laws. And I can't imagine any patient being happy with a dentist who doesn't wash his hands before putting those hands in the patient's mouth! Due to the serious nature of transmissable diseases, this charge alone can sustain the necessity of discipline for a holder of a dental license. > >Are there any cases on record that would better illustrate unfair > >prosecution? > WOW!!!!! > > The ENTIRE case was nothing, but a farce from those who are EVIL. Even if we dismiss the amalgam-related charges as "nothing," what about the other eleven charges? Failure to follow infection-control guidelines puts patients at risk of infection. It is the duty of government to enforce the laws regarding infection control. It is unreasonable to say "The ENTIRE case was nothing" without examining the charges that did not even involve amalgam. Was it true that he didn't diagnose dental caries? Was it true that he didn't even wash his hands? > YOU learn the LIES well from dental school. Is this meant as an ad hominem attack? What "lies" are in my posting?? I can't find any. > PATHETIC!! > > Jan No need to get insulting. I did not insult you. 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 >Subject: Re: Re How HONEST Dentists Are Treated >From: dentaldoc@hotmail.com (Bill Combs) [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >When a url is posted on this newsgroup, the contents of that url >become subject to examination and discussion. >My comments did not "dismiss" your issue of amalgam use. I only raised >another issue which is obvious in this case: what are the other eleven >charges, which did not even involve amalgam? You can plainly see what they are, the same ole same ole used for every witch hunt. >>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. Uh huh, like I said, the same ole same ole. Was he also charged with using the wrong color of toliet paper?? It is your choice of the word malpractice, is it not? Plus the words, violations of the law?? >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. What overwheming pattern of substandard practice? Substandard and overwhelming are your cloice of words, are they not? Which is overwhelming and which is substandard?? >If indeed this author is correct, and eleven patients were treated >> >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. > *Below Standards* Standards set by whom????? >In most states, the standards are set by the state legislature. And they get their standards from whom? >>His pattern of malpractice in non-mercury cases >> > Say what?!?! >> > Using no mercury is malpractice?????? >I never said that. >The reference I made was to the eleven NON-mercury cases in which he >was charged with malpractice/substandard practice by the board. Well, no, those are your words. >Since >these cases did not involve mercury, I refer to them as the >non-mercury cases. > Oh??? Like what? >Like the three cases you list below. He didn't wash his hands. > Not seeing decay. >> > Yelled at a patient. That's malpracitice/substandard??? >Who made these charges??? >Didn't you know that when you posted the reference? Yes, I knew, I am asking you if you knew? I should have posted, complaints. >Generally, charges >are made by a branch of the state government. In most states this is >the government's dental board. Uh huh, *organized dentistry* > The 14 patients who files were used were friends of Dr Jacobson an made it >> clear to the board, in writing, they wanted nothing to do with this so >called >> *investion* which started immediately after he placed an ad which used the >> words *mercury free*. Concoeted charges, such as: > He didn't wash his hands. >> >> Not seeing decay. >> >> Yelled at a patient. >Surely you don't mean to imply that these charges should be taken >lightly. LOL!!! My word this is certainly *fraud* and *incompetent* conduct. > (I don't know what an *investion* is.) Righto, ask someone to help you figure it out. >With regard to the charge of "Yelled at a patient," this seems >unlikely to result in a loss of license. Yes. Along with , not washed his hands, and not seeing decay. Those don't sound one bit made up/concocted. do they? >But if his patients all >rallied to his defense, then HOW did the state learn that he had >yelled at a patient? It was made up! Did any of his patients say that?? >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. Give me a break. A patient is going to a board because a dentist yelled at them. You need to go back and read what the evidence showed about who made the complaints. Then read how his patients knew this was a chop job and wantedd nothing to do with it. >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. 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. >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. Who saw him not wash his hand??? Do your patients follow you in the bathroom?? I suggest to you, if everyone who didn't wash their hands, lost their licenses, we would have very few licensced people in any field. Doctors can cut off the wrong leg and still keep their license. <snip> Cutting to the chase, the fact he used the words mercuy free is EXACTLY why he was harassed and the investigaters worked mighty hard to come up with this trumpted up charges. It took them over twelve years. The board membesr made it clear tey were upset with his refusal of the use of mercury. >Are there any cases on record that would better illustrate unfair >> >prosecution? > >> WOW!!!!! >The ENTIRE case was nothing, but a farce from those who are EVIL. >Even if we dismiss the amalgam-related charges as "nothing," what >about the other eleven charges? I didn't see eleven, did you? >It is unreasonable to say "The ENTIRE case was nothing" without >examining the charges that did not even involve amalgam. No, it is totally unreasonable that the broad took twelve years to get these charges made up!!! >Was it true >that he didn't diagnose dental caries? Was it true that he didn't even >wash his hands? B I N G O!!!! Was it true sixty of his patients jammed the hearing room?? WHAT does that tell you? Did you read all the steps taken to get these charges made. UNFAIR and DISHONEST tactics.?? *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 Trubune was not fooled. The MN. broard of dentistry had accused the dentist of fraud and 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* I all comes back to the gag order. > YOU learn the LIES well from dental school. >Is this meant as an ad hominem attack? No, it is the TRUTH. >What "lies" are in my posting?? >I can't find any. WOW!!!! 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 imcompetence!!!!! There was NO Malpractice!! There was NO substandards. > PATHETIC!! >> Jan >No need to get insulting. I did not insult you. There is a great need to get real and stop trying to deceive. >My point remains -- are there any other cases that would better >illustrate the author's claim of unfair prosecution? This particular [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >- dentaldoc Your point is a LIE. Jan >You can plainly see what they are, the same ole same ole used for every witch >hunt. True Break Dancing is alive and well. dentaldoc@hotmail.com (Bill Combs) wrote in message news:<42da265d.0410211056.58beacbe@posting.> become subject to examination and discussion. > My comments did not "dismiss" your issue of amalgam use. I only raised > another issue which is obvious in this case: what are the other eleven > charges, which did not even involve amalgam? The post states that he was under investigation for 12 years! What dentist in America wouldn't have some errors in treatment found after a 12 year investigation. One small error per year equals 12 charges. > > > >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. Have you ever made a diagnositc error? > > > >If indeed this author is correct, and eleven patients were treated [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > In most states, the standards are set by the state legislature. Interesting, now the legislatures are dentists. > Didn't you know that when you posted the reference? Generally, charges > are made by a branch of the state government. In most states this is > the government's dental board. And let me guess, usually the board is composed of..Dentists. > Surely you don't mean to imply that these charges should be taken > lightly. (I don't know what an *investion* is.) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > rallied to his defense, then HOW did the state learn that he had > yelled at a patient? Perhaps at least one of his patients reported Because the case gained widespread publicity. Imagine Channel 9 news is running a story on Dr. Combs. If any patients have been mistreated by Dr. Combs please contact your state dental board immediately! > 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. > > With regard to the charge of "Not seeing decay," this is more serious. If you go through hundreds of x-rays you will always finds things that were missed. Who is kidding who? (question asked by Jan:) > > > *Below Standards* Standards set by whom????? (question answered by dentaldoc:) > > In most states, the standards are set by the state legislature. (comment by clintonz:) > Interesting, now the legislatures are dentists. Interesting indeed. I can see how this could be a little confusing for people who don't know the difference between dental boards, which are merely appointed branches of the state governments, and the dental associations, which are voluntary organizations with no connection to government, and no government powers. In my state the legislature jealously guards its complete control over all legislation and routinely flaunts its power regardless of the position of any professional associations. -dentaldoc >Subject: Re: Re How HONEST Dentists Are Treated >From: dentaldoc@hotmail.com (Bill Combs) [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >-dentaldoc Now for the points and questions you didn't address. Please do so. 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 toliet paper?? It is your choice of the word malpractice, is it not? Plus the words, violations of the law?? >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. What overwheming pattern of substandard practice? Substandard and overwhelming are your cloice of words, are they not? Which is overwhelming and which is substandard?? >If indeed this author is correct, and eleven patients were treated >> >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. > *Below Standards* Standards set by whom????? >In most states, the standards are set by the state legislature. And they get their standards from whom? >>His pattern of malpractice in non-mercury cases >> > Say what?!?! >> > Using no mercury is malpractice?????? >I never said that. >The reference I made was to the eleven NON-mercury cases in which he >was charged with malpractice/substandard practice by the board. Well, no, those are your words. >Since >these cases did not involve mercury, I refer to them as the >non-mercury cases. > Oh??? Like what? >Like the three cases you list below. He didn't wash his hands. > Not seeing decay. >> > Yelled at a patient. That's malpracitice/substandard??? >Who made these charges??? >Didn't you know that when you posted the reference? Yes, I knew, I am asking you if you knew? I should have posted, complaints. >Generally, charges >are made by a branch of the state government. In most states this is >the government's dental board. Uh huh, *organized dentistry* |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message