 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / November 2004Rapid Weight Gain
I am 51 years old, male, 5 foot 9 inches tall and weight 282lbs. I wasn't always like this. Seven years ago I weight 165 lbs. I had plenty of energy and I was one of those guys that just never stopped. All my problems started when I had my gall bladder removed. The doctor nicked something inside and after the operation, in recovery I was bleeding internally. By the time they reacted to it I had almosr bled to death. I ended up having to spend 3 nights in intensive care, I had a transfusion, collasped lung and I was loaded with blood. My entire right side looked like one big bruise. I never got my strength back after that. I went from a guy who never stopped to a guy who couldn't walk down the driveway without gasping for air. My doctor told me this was normal for what I had been thru and that in time I would get my stength back. Well I never did. Instead I started gaining weight like crazy. I went to the doctor and told him my weight was out of control. I was almost 200 lbs and had been trying to lose weight since about 175 lbs. The doctor didn't say much except to say that I should eat less.I told him I was always exhausted and he actually told me to go to bed earlier. At that point I was gaing about 5 lbs a month. Monthly I went in to see the doctor and I complained about being short of breath and tired and the constant weight gain. When I reached 225lbs he told me my weight was out of control and I should do something about it!!!! Like he just discovered I was having a problem. Anyways today I have diabeties and sleep apneia and high cholesterol. The amazing thing is that my blood pressure is perfect. I am on lipitor, actos, levoxyl and a lasix because I retain fluid. If I miss one lasix pill my shoes are tight and my face is fatter and I can barely make a fist with my right hand. I have been on lasix since the operation. I have tried everything. I have been on a diets since I was 175lbs and have gained over 100lbs. Does anyone have any idea what could be wrong? contact a medical mal practice attorney. a big firm is best. look in the yellow pages of the nearest big city you have been injured by medical neglect and have damages. best of luck. j. > I am 51 years old, male, 5 foot 9 inches tall and weight 282lbs. I > wasn't always like this. Seven years ago I weight 165 lbs. I had [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Does anyone have any idea what could be wrong? Maybe they can leave the money on his grave. > contact a medical mal practice attorney. > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > > > Does anyone have any idea what could be wrong? > I am 51 years old, male, 5 foot 9 inches tall and weight 282lbs. I > wasn't always like this. Seven years ago I weight 165 lbs. I had [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Does anyone have any idea what could be wrong? Have you had your thyroid checked? I am not looking to sue anyone I just want my health back. My thyroid is underactive and I take levoxyl for that. > I am not looking to sue anyone I just want my health back. My thyroid > is underactive and I take levoxyl for that. Then there's the cause of your weight gain and tiredness. You might try another Dr. I was being overdosed on Levoxl for my thyroid. The Dr. was using the theory that since I was overweight, I needed more of it. This actually made me hyperthyroid and totally exhausted. And it also made me gain weight. Once I saw a different Dr. and got on the right dose of the med, things began to reverse.  SignatureSee my webpage: http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm You could buy a lot of TOP of the line medical care with a lawsuit >I am not looking to sue anyone I just want my health back. My thyroid > is underactive and I take levoxyl for that. > You could buy a lot of TOP of the line medical care with a lawsuit > >I am not looking to sue anyone I just want my health back. My thyroid > > is underactive and I take levoxyl for that. The lawsuit is for blood loss. You get paid for the three days in the ICU. The rest is unrelated to the surgery depending on when the surgery was done. > I am not looking to sue anyone I just want my health back. My thyroid > is underactive and I take levoxyl for that. You didn't mention that before. The gallbladder surgery has nothing to do with the thyroid. If it was removed then you probably had symptoms you are not mentioning. Your medical history telling is confusing in terms of timeline and completeness. You need to be aware of below although neoplasia's usually show hormone excess. multiple endocrine neoplasms Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2004 Aug;37(4):715-36, viii. Related Articles, Links Hyperparathyroidism and multiple endocrine neoplasia. Malone JP, Srivastava A, Khardori R. Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, 301 N. 8th Street, Room 5B506, Springfield, IL 62701, USA. jmalone@siumed.edu Multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN) syndromes comprise the group of heritable endocrinopathies, MEN 1, MEN 2A, and MEN 2B. Primary hyperparathyroidism caused by multiglandular involvement is usually the initial manifestation in MEN 1, occurring in more than 90% of patients. In patients with MEN 2A, hyperparathyroidism develops less commonly and is usually milder than in MEN 1. Advances in genetics and molecular biology aid in confirming the diagnosis and screening relatives who are carriers or at risk for the disease. Surgery plays an important role in the management of hyperparathyroidism in both MEN 1 and MEN 2A,although the timing and extent of surgery are areas of controversy.Long-term follow-up reveals a high rate of recurrent hyperparathyroidism in MEN 1 despite surgical intervention. Can this person claim damages? > I am 51 years old, male, 5 foot 9 inches tall and weight 282lbs. I > wasn't always like this. Seven years ago I weight 165 lbs. I had [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Does anyone have any idea what could be wrong? > Can this person claim damages? For what? All that has been suggested by this person is that "The doctor nicked something inside..". He ends up by asking "Does anyone have any idea what could be wrong?". You will need quite a lot more than that to claim damages. What happened, in fact? I was put on the thyroid medication after the weight gain started. Right now my thyroid, under medication, seems to be okay according to blood tests. I have changed doctors numerous times during this ordeal. I think one of the problems is that as soon as I tell them I was healthy before I had my gall bladder removed they think I want to sue somebody. The doctors are telling me all my problems are because I am obese but I know in my heart I am obese because of all my problems. It just seems like my system has shut down for some reason. I have had a parathyroid removed for having too much calcium in my blood and that is under control now. I have a high BUN reading but my creatine is right in the middle of the normal range. Usually these cause and effects go together and one will never know which came first (the chicken or the egg). Try to rehabilitate yourself and give yourself a few years to get back on track, diet, exercise and supplements. Di it all and you may find even your mental, physical and sexual state improves a lot. > I was put on the thyroid medication after the weight gain started. > Right now my thyroid, under medication, seems to be okay according to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > is under control now. I have a high BUN reading but my creatine is > right in the middle of the normal range. > I was put on the thyroid medication after the weight gain started. > Right now my thyroid, under medication, seems to be okay according to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > doctors are telling me all my problems are because I am obese but I > know in my heart I am obese because of all my problems. The gallbladder has nothing to do with it. If you were pregnant and had a severe hemorrahage then your pituitary might get damaged (pituitary apoplexy Sheehans syndrome). That would result in all low hormone levels. > It just seems like my system has shut down for some reason. I have had > a parathyroid removed for having too much calcium in my blood and that > is under control now. I have a high BUN reading but my creatine is > right in the middle of the normal range. How long ago from the surgery was that done? A very high BUN /creatinine ration reflects blood in the GI gut that is being used as a protein source. Otherwise it shows a high protein diet. > I was put on the thyroid medication after the weight gain started. > Right now my thyroid, under medication, seems to be okay according to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > is under control now. I have a high BUN reading but my creatine is > right in the middle of the normal range. So, what happened to this bit? "All my problems started when I had my gall bladder removed. The doctor nicked something inside...". No evidence of the doctor being at fault at all? If so, no evidence supporting a claim for damages. > > I was put on the thyroid medication after the weight gain started. > > Right now my thyroid, under medication, seems to be okay according to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > If so, no evidence supporting a claim for damages. Negligence must be proved on the part of the surgeon. There are many consequences that can happen during surgery that are patient dependent. Reminds me of a surgeon who was sued after having a young patient die on him after surgery was performed. He bleed to death. Another surgeon even testified against him from another hospital. It was later determined that the 17 year old had genetically weakened arteries that suturing could not hold. Most of the time it's no harm no foul. You have to prove damages first followed by negligence. A person signs off on surgery before hand and what they are signing off is normal complications associated with surgery up to and including death. Accidents do happen which is why you were seatbealts. >>> I was put on the thyroid medication after the weight gain started. >>> Right now my thyroid, under medication, seems to be okay according [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Most of the time it's no harm no foul. You have to prove damages first > followed by negligence. Actually, you have to prove liability first, whether breach of contract or negligence. If you do that, damages is the second step. Damages without liability had no meaning in law. > A person signs off on surgery before hand and > what they are signing off is normal complications associated with > surgery up to and including death. Accidents do happen which is why > you were seatbealts. > >>> I was put on the thyroid medication after the weight gain started. > >>> Right now my thyroid, under medication, seems to be okay according [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > negligence. If you do that, damages is the second step. Damages without > liability had no meaning in law. Poor wording on my part, you have to prove you were damaged or hurt first not in line with the type of surgery performed and not referring to the monetary award you are seeking. Once that is done then you have to prove that the doctor was responsible due to lack the poor or lack of standard of care. That is the practical way it happens from the first lawyer to finding doctors who will testify on your side. They have to say that you were indeed hurt first and then determine if that hurt was the direct result of the doctor. Then if it is out of line with the type of surgery undertaken. > > A person signs off on surgery before hand and > > what they are signing off is normal complications associated with > > surgery up to and including death. Accidents do happen which is why > > you were seatbealts. >>>>> I was put on the thyroid medication after the weight gain started. >>>>> Right now my thyroid, under medication, seems to be okay according [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > first not in line with the type of surgery performed and not > referring to the monetary award you are seeking. Still not right. The first step is to find a cause of action (in this case, either a breach of contract by a specific person or persons, or a tort (a civil wrong) by a specific person or persons (probably negligence)). Then you can claim your loss from them, measured in $ terms. The mere fact of harm being suffered, whether physical or financial, is neither here nor there legally, unless you can get someone liable in damages for that cause of action. > Once that is done > then you have to prove that the doctor was responsible due to lack [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>> surgery up to and including death. Accidents do happen which is why >>> you were seatbealts. > >>>>> I was put on the thyroid medication after the weight gain started. > >>>>> Right now my thyroid, under medication, seems to be okay according [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > there legally, unless you can get someone liable in damages for that cause > of action. You have not sued a doctor before. In legal terms that is correct but in practical terms believe it or not the lawyers themselves often tell people to seek a medical expert with a letter to be given to the lawyer stating that the course of treatment was flawed. I had a relative go to a lawyer because a relative went in for surgery on the left foot and they wrongly operated on the right foot. The lawyer would not even take the case without another doctors letter with regard to the case and that relative had to pay out of pocket himself for that opinion. The lawyer did not want to take it to trial so that relative told the laywer to take a hike because he wanted a high percentage of the award. The hospital HMO then said if you get rid of the lawyer we will give you more money. He took the money on a settlement that the lawyer originally told him to take but by doing it then he got more money and he didn't split it with the lawyer. Doctors do not like to testify about other doctors and the ones that do are very expensive. The medical opinion is everything and is the most important thing and everything else is dependent on it. You don't have a case without it. The lawyering comes in second. Breach of contract means nothing in a medical case. It is a medical case first and then you can go for breach or negligence. The facts of the case dictate the legal terms. Just my opinion and not a legal one either. > > Once that is done > > then you have to prove that the doctor was responsible due to lack [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >>> surgery up to and including death. Accidents do happen which is why > >>> you were seatbealts. > You have not sued a doctor before. How do you know that? > In legal terms that is correct but > in practical terms believe it or not the lawyers themselves often > tell people to seek a medical expert with a letter to be given to the > lawyer stating that the course of treatment was flawed. That's the usual causation issue. > I had a relative go to a lawyer because a relative went in for > surgery on the left foot and they wrongly operated on the right foot. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > by doing it then he got more money and he didn't split it with the > lawyer. So, there are plenty of not-so-good lawyers around. Just like any other occupation. > Doctors do not like to testify about other doctors and the ones that > do are very expensive. As above, there are plenty of not-so-good doctors around. There are some good ones prepared to call it as they see it, and take the flack. If they are expensive, what else would you expect? > The medical opinion is everything and is the most important thing and > everything else is dependent on it. You don't have a case without it. > The lawyering comes in second. Breach of contract means nothing in a > medical case. It is a medical case first and then you can go for > breach or negligence. The facts of the case dictate the legal terms. > Just my opinion and not a legal one either. Fair enough. I'm just a lawyer. What would I know? I'm sorry guys, but wasn't this guy looking for some help with his weight? >> You have not sued a doctor before. > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Fair enough. I'm just a lawyer. What would I know? > I'm sorry guys, but wasn't this guy looking for some help with his weight? His TSH should be appropriately adjusted to a better target level. Other than that then it is the same problem that we all have. People are reassessng the clinical cutoff of hypothyroidism at greater then 3.0 TSH. > >> You have not sued a doctor before. > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > > > Fair enough. I'm just a lawyer. What would I know? >> >>> I was put on the thyroid medication after the weight gain started. >> >>> Right now my thyroid, under medication, seems to be okay according [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >hurt first and then determine if that hurt was the direct result of the >doctor. Then if it is out of line with the type of surgery undertaken. No, you must demonstrate tangible damage to yourself. Then you must prove negligence by the doctor AND that this negligence caused your demonstrated damage. That's the basis of tort law in Austrailia. >>>>>> I was put on the thyroid medication after the weight gain >>>>>> started. Right now my thyroid, under medication, seems to be [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > prove negligence by the doctor AND that this negligence caused your > demonstrated damage. That's the basis of tort law in Austrailia. Since tort law in Australia covers a little more than negligence, and some torts don't require proof of "damage", you have just demonstrated that you don't know much about that subject. And likely not much about any other. >>>>>>> I was put on the thyroid medication after the weight gain >>>>>>> started. Right now my thyroid, under medication, seems to be [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > >Since tort law in Australia covers a little more than negligence, Does this contradict what I said? >and some >torts don't require proof of "damage", For instance? Relevant to suing a doctor for damage he caused you, mind. >you have just demonstrated that you >don't know much about that subject. We'll see. >And likely not much about any other. For example? >>> No, you must demonstrate tangible damage to yourself. Then you must >>> prove negligence by the doctor AND that this negligence caused your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Does this contradict what I said? What you claimed to be the basis ot tort law in Australia was patently wrong. >> and some torts don't require proof of "damage", > For instance? For one, trespass in its different forms. > Relevant to suing a doctor for damage he caused you, mind. You don't get to do the limiting. You unlimited proposition was patently wrong. >> you have just demonstrated that you don't know much about that subject. > > We'll see. Wrong tense. We have seen that you don't know what you are talking about regarding tort law. The proposition was advanced that you don't know much about anything else, and you have just embarked on proving that. >> And likely not much about any other. > > For example? Your last post was one. Watch for your next post for another. >>>> No, you must demonstrate tangible damage to yourself. Then you must >>>> prove negligence by the doctor AND that this negligence caused your [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >What you claimed to be the basis ot tort law in Australia was patently >wrong. And yet you confirmed what I said? >>> and some torts don't require proof of "damage", > >> For instance? > >For one, trespass in its different forms. And this is relevant to the suing of a doctor for damages? >> Relevant to suing a doctor for damage he caused you, mind. > >You don't get to do the limiting. No, the subject of the thread does that. >You unlimited proposition was patently >wrong. Unlimited? I said the "basis". There are of course all sorts of peripheral issues, but what I said was the basis, and you confirmed this. >>> you have just demonstrated that you don't know much about that subject. >> >> We'll see. > >Wrong tense. We have seen that you don't know what you are talking about >regarding tort law. And yet you confirmed what I said? >The proposition was advanced that you don't know much >about anything else, and you have just embarked on proving that. I asked for an example of what you based that on, and received the null response that I expected. >>> And likely not much about any other. >> >> For example? > >Your last post was one. Watch for your next post for another. Which one? Receipt of posts is not necessarily in the same order for everyone. Now let's see where you stand. We are talking about the possibility of suing a doctor for some problem that a poster has apparently suffered. I claim that the actual damage to this patient must be adequately demonstrated to a court, and then the doctor must be shown to have been negligent and that this negligence directly caused the damage demonstrated. You have a different opinion? >>>>> No, you must demonstrate tangible damage to yourself. Then you >>>>> must prove negligence by the doctor AND that this negligence [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > And yet you confirmed what I said? I said that you knew nothing about tort law in Australia. And likely about anything else. Then suggested that you would confirm the latter. As you did, and continue to do. Follow? >>>> and some torts don't require proof of "damage", >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And this is relevant to the suing of a doctor for damages? Evasive. >>> Relevant to suing a doctor for damage he caused you, mind. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > And yet you confirmed what I said? See above. There you go again. >> The proposition was advanced that you don't know much >> about anything else, and you have just embarked on proving that. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > You have a different opinion? You are obviously somewhat bewildered from all those 360s. Have a cup of tea, and a good lie down. You will feel better in the morning, with any luck. >>>>>> No, you must demonstrate tangible damage to yourself. Then you >>>>>> must prove negligence by the doctor AND that this negligence [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >I said that you knew nothing about tort law in Australia. And then went on to confirm what I said. Go figure! >And likely about >anything else. And you could give no example of what you based that on. >Then suggested that you would confirm the latter. As you >did, and continue to do. Follow? Your ranting does not fit the facts recorded. You have not contradicted anything I've said, and even confimed it, but then go on to respond with mere insult, and then claim you have "shown me something"? >>>>> and some torts don't require proof of "damage", >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Evasive. No. That's called ON Topic. Your nonsense and insult is the evasive stuff. Why do you think you respond with insult instead of substantive comment? >>>> Relevant to suing a doctor for damage he caused you, mind. >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >See above. There you go again. I can do little else than reiterate the facts which are recorded here. There comes a time when I will cease, even though you keep on with the contrary, or mere insult. >>> The proposition was advanced that you don't know much >>> about anything else, and you have just embarked on proving that. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >tea, and a good lie down. You will feel better in the morning, with any >luck. And again, you respond with empty rhetoric. I take that as the best acknowledgement that you can muster that I was correct in my original comment on this matter presented here. You are incapable of justifying your contradiction of it? >>>>>>> No, you must demonstrate tangible damage to yourself. Then you >>>>>>> must prove negligence by the doctor AND that this negligence [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > correct in my original comment on this matter presented here. > You are incapable of justifying your contradiction of it? This was your original comment - "No, you must demonstrate tangible damage to yourself. Then you must prove negligence by the doctor AND that this negligence caused your demonstrated damage. That's the basis of tort law in Austrailia.". It was nonsense then, and it's still nonsense. For the reasons I gave. If you don't understand what was said, you only have to ask. Whether you will understand the answer is problematical. But not my problem. >This was your original comment - "No, you must demonstrate tangible damage >to yourself. Then you must prove negligence by the doctor AND that this >negligence caused your demonstrated damage. That's the basis of tort law in >Austrailia.". > >It was nonsense then, and it's still nonsense. I said this in response to: >"Poor wording on my part, you have to prove you were damaged or hurt first >not in line with the type of surgery performed and not referring to the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >hurt first and then determine if that hurt was the direct result of the >doctor. Then if it is out of line with the type of surgery undertaken." Which seems to be saying that you don't need to prove causative negligence on the part of the doctor who caused your damage. I was clarifying this with the proviso that American law might be different. > For the reasons I gave. That it is NOT the "basis" with respect to this matter being discussed? You confirmed that it was, by saying that tort law was basically this, with a few extra aspects. You responded with: "Since tort law in Australia covers a little more than negligence, and some torts don't require proof of "damage", <snip empty insults>" Now what exactly are you disagreeing so violently with? The matter in discussion was a damages case. Or didn't you realise that? > If >you don't understand what was said, you only have to ask. And you will distract with whatever comes to your mind? > Whether you will >understand the answer is problematical. But not my problem. More distraction? Try contradicting what I said with this particular case in mind. Pehaps you did not read the earlier posts in the thread? Then perhaps you should refrain from jumping into threads that you haven't got a clue about? >> This was your original comment - "No, you must demonstrate tangible >> damage to yourself. Then you must prove negligence by the doctor AND [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Then perhaps you should refrain from jumping into threads that you > haven't got a clue about? 360 >Negligence must be proved on the part of the surgeon. And equally importantly, the damages that you demonstrate to the court must be a direct (able to be forseen) result of this negligence. >> Negligence must be proved on the part of the surgeon. > > And equally importantly, the damages that you demonstrate to the court > must be a direct (able to be forseen) result of this negligence. No, that is an element of negligence, not something separate. But please keep trying to invent the law. >>> Negligence must be proved on the part of the surgeon. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >No, that is an element of negligence, not something separate. But please >keep trying to invent the law. So let's see, a doctor drops a surgical instrument on the floor and continues to use it without sterilysis. He then proceeds to operate on the wrong foot. You could sue him for damage to your good foot by demonstrating his negligence with the contaminated instrument? I'm sure glad you don't practice in my town :-) >>>> Negligence must be proved on the part of the surgeon. >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > negligence with the contaminated instrument? > I'm sure glad you don't practice in my town :-) You should. I'd operate on your head with a contaminated instrument. >>>>> Negligence must be proved on the part of the surgeon. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >You should. And with no damage demnonstrated? Some lawyer you claim to be! > I'd operate on your head with a contaminated instrument. Wow, what an intellect! Are you sure you passed your finals? Or are you a first-year student? You sound about 14-years-old with that last pathetic quip. >>>>>> Negligence must be proved on the part of the surgeon. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > And with no damage demnonstrated? Some lawyer you claim to be! Goodness me! Do try to keep up. You should be glasd that I don't practice in your town. Go back and follow the dots from there. >> I'd operate on your head with a contaminated instrument. > > Wow, what an intellect! Are you sure you passed your finals? Or are > you a first-year student? You sound about 14-years-old with that last > pathetic quip. Thank you. Just keeping myself amused by talking down to your level. I'm happy if you are impressed. >>>>>>> Negligence must be proved on the part of the surgeon. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Goodness me! Do try to keep up. You should be glasd that I don't practice >in your town. Go back and follow the dots from there. I notice that you respond with empty insult, instead of a substantive comment? I wonder why that is. I'll ask my question again: Can you use just any negligence by a doctor to show responsibility for damage? Or do you have to show that the negligence shown has directly caused the damages demonstrated? >>> I'd operate on your head with a contaminated instrument. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Thank you. Just keeping myself amused by talking down to your level. I'm >happy if you are impressed. That was sarcasm, in case you are too slow. You claim to be talking down to my level, but so far you have not shown that your level is anywhere near as advanced as mine, as you have not said anything cogent or concrete. I'll be interested if you can possibly contradict what I've said about this particular legal matter. >> Goodness me! Do try to keep up. You should be glad that I don't >> practice in your town. Go back and follow the dots from there. > > I notice > I wonder > I'll ask It's all about you, isn't it? Of course it is. > That was sarcasm, in case you are too slow. You claim to be talking > down to my level, but so far you have not shown that your level is > anywhere near as advanced as mine, as you have not said anything > cogent or concrete. That's my point. At your level, nothing is said that is cogent or concrete. Did you not realise that before being told? Surely even you can't be that dense? Prove me wrong. You did realise, didn't you? > I'll be interested That's you all over. "Me", "me", "me". That's why you are so easily led without being aware of it. Far too much focus on the "I" and the "me", and no self-awareness. >>> Goodness me! Do try to keep up. You should be glad that I don't >>> practice in your town. Go back and follow the dots from there. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >It's all about you, isn't it? Of course it is. Yes, "I" do the perceptions for "me". What about you? Again, I notice the distraction behaviour that you seem to be expert in. Nothing to say on the topic? >>That was sarcasm, in case you are too slow. You claim to be talking >> down to my level, but so far you have not shown that your level is >> anywhere near as advanced as mine, as you have not said anything >> cogent or concrete. > >That's my point. Which is unfortunately not the point of this thread. I wonder why you are posting in sci.med.nutrition? Do you know a lot about empty posting here too? >At your level, nothing is said that is cogent or concrete. And yet you have confimed my original assertion about this matter brought up in sci.med.nutrition, and then gone on with nothing but empty rhetoric. Aiming to be a politician are we, when we grow up? >Did you not realise that before being told? Surely even you can't be that >dense? Prove me wrong. You did realise, didn't you? You really have nothing substantive to say, have you. Do admit it, as it's all here on the written record. >> I'll be interested > >That's you all over. "Me", "me", "me". That's why you are so easily led >without being aware of it. Far too much focus on the "I" and the "me", and >no self-awareness. More legal light on the matter? Let's see, what else can you distract with? Answer the question in hand: To successfully sue for medical damage, you must demonstrate actual personal damage, you must show the medical practitioner was negligent, and you must also show that this negligence directly caused the damage previously demonstrated. That's how I see it, you seem to contradict this. Can you point out where? Thought not. I'll lay odds that you come back with some other distraction. I'll bet the beak loves you! >>>> Goodness me! Do try to keep up. You should be glad that I don't >>>> practice in your town. Go back and follow the dots from there. [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > where? Thought not. I'll lay odds that you come back with some other > distraction. I'll bet the beak loves you! 360 >Can this person claim damages? Of course, if he can demonstrate actual damage, a causal link to someone and actual negligence as a cause by that someone, in Australian law, anyways. >> I am 51 years old, male, 5 foot 9 inches tall and weight 282lbs. I >> wasn't always like this. Seven years ago I weight 165 lbs. I had [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >> >> Does anyone have any idea what could be wrong? |
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.