 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Dentistry / April 2006NICO stuff
"NICO" kingpin sued for fraud. University of Texas professor Jerry E. Bouquot, D.D.S., six other dentists, and the manufacturer of the "Cavitat" device have been sued by a woman who had sought help for jaw pain and various other symptoms. The suit alleges: **All of the defendants conspired to commit fraud by promoting the bogus diagnosis of neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis ("NICO"). **Six of the dentists misdiagnosed the woman's problem, and five extracted healthy teeth and portions of the surrounding jawbone in futile attempts to help her. **Bouquot, who is an oral pathologist, examined tissue specimens from the other dentists and reported that they contained "cavitations." **Several of the defendants committed research improprieties and misrepresented the legal status of the Cavitat device. The lawsuit is posted at http://www.casewatch.org/mal/bn.shtml. For detailed information about NICO, see http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/cavitation.htm -- Joel34 This poor woman, like many others, apparently has been defrauded by taking the word of "alt." dentists instead of REAL dentists who practice within the normal, accepted bounds of dental health. Too bad she hadn't consulted dentists with better reputations. - dentaldoc > "NICO" kingpin sued for fraud. > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Joel344's Profile: http://dentalcom.net/forum/member.php?userid=12 > View this thread: http://dentalcom.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4211 > "NICO" kingpin sued for fraud. > > University of Texas professor Jerry E. Bouquot, > D.D.S., six other > View this thread: http://dentalcom.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4211 Sounds like a witch hunt, and why if unsatified would someone go to 3 different doctors? Just so you can sue them all? however I notice that surgies were deemed unnecessary? By who exactly? A dentist who read the x-rays before surgery...we all know how accurate those panorexss are. Certainly misreading a biopsy is a serious charge but I notice that no evidence if given that they were misread, just that they were "misused for research" It's also interesting that if an oral surgeon leaves infected material in the jaw based on false negative x-rays that isn't malpractice. Yo Clint .... First study the meaning of "infected material" then come back to discuss ..... Clinton Wrote: > > "NICO" kingpin sued for fraud. > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > It's also interesting that if an oral surgeon leaves infected material > in the jaw based on false negative x-rays that isn't malpractice -- Joel34 > Yo Clint .... > > First study the meaning of "infected material" then > come back to discuss ..... Yo Joel, I'm talking about "real" infection left in commonly by dentists too scared to touch anything which doesn't light up an x-ray. Interesting how even the AAe admits radiographs are not accurate to detect raetners cavities and it's common knowledge that x-rays are not close to 100% diagnostic for many kinds of infection, including tooth decay. But if an infection eventually spreads aftering first not showing on a radiograph Is that malpractice? Of course not. The infection only "exists" when the dentist see's it on the x-ray, by ADA definition.. Now if someone begs a dentist to extract a toothbecause they are in pain and they do, and the tooth IS infected, then they are a hero. Otherwise they get slapped with a lawsuit claiming "disfigurement"! > "NICO" kingpin sued for fraud. Another observation: If the patient is upset that the biopsy was used as an unathorized teaching aid, why would someone use an uninfected biopsy sample as instruction material...?? To show what uninfected bone looks like? Thanks ... I had it mixed up with pretend infection ..... Joel Yo Joel, I'm talking about "real" infection left in commonly by dentists too scared to touch anything which doesn't light up an x-ray. Interesting how even the AAe admits radiographs are not accurate to detec raetners cavities and it's common knowledge that x-rays are not close to 100% diagnostic for many kinds of infection, including tooth decay. But if an infection eventually spreads aftering first not showing on a radiograph Is that malpractice? Of course not. The infection only "exists" when the dentist see's it on the x-ray, by ADA definition.. Now if someone begs a dentist to extract a toothbecause they are in pain and they do, an the tooth IS infected, then they are a hero. Otherwise they get slapped with a lawsuit claiming "disfigurement" -- Joel34 > Thanks ... I had it mixed up with pretend infection ..... Photons that can't be directly measured are "virtual". Similarly a real infection that doesn't show on bite wings is a "virtual" infection. Treating virtual infections is highly unethical until 50% of bone is destroyed. > Thanks ... I had it mixed up with pretend infection ..... > > Joel Many internet dentists are pretend dentists Joel wrote: This lawsuit is posted at.... == Quack Quack LIES. And HE is eager to believe these LIES.... Another *witch hunt*! >Joel wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Another *witch hunt*! Notice how Jan accepts that lawsuits against Dr Barrett and me must have validity because someone has taken court action, thereby proving guilt, but court actions against quacks are always witch hunts? But she's not a hypocrite, of course.  SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com >Notice how Jan <snip> This thread is NOT about Jan >>Notice how Jan > ><snip> > >This thread is NOT about Jan You made it about you when you said "QUACK QUACK lies" as a response to news of a court challenge. SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com Peter Bowditch cyberstalking still "Jan" <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote: >Peter Bowditch cyberstalking wrote: >>Notice how Jan ><snip> >This thread is NOT about Jan You made it about you when you <snip> NO, YOU made it about *me*! As usual.... > >Joel wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Notice how Jan accepts that lawsuits against Dr Barrett and me must > have validity True validity only if the lawsuit case is also published in the national enquirer >> >Joel wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >True validity only if the lawsuit case is also published in the >national enquirer We don't get the National Enquirer down here in Paradise, but I am familiar with the genre. Hell, if I read in the NE that I was being sued I would know that I was guilty without question. Twice as guilty if I was being sued by an alien. SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com |
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
|
©2008 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.