Remember that Cheerleader and the Flu Shot? Hoax!!

[The Villi Phanatic]

They also interviewed a Doctor that specializes in Dystonia(?) and he claims with 100% certainty that the physical symptoms that she was exhibiting were not caused by the disease.

Doctors that have examined her believe that her "condition" is psychogenic.

This is moreso an aside as I know zero about dystonia and am not going to argue with being skeptical about this cheerleader's situation, but doctors including specialists often believe patients' conditions are psychogenic if they are unable to identify the cause of the symptoms. If you have a disease that is presenting in an atypical fashion or a disease that is not very well understood by the general medical community, then you are likely to go from doctor to doctor for years (including recommended specialists) prior to getting a diagnosis, and the majority of these patients will have a doctor tell them "it's all in your head" at one point. For instance, the average delay in diagnosis from the onset of symptoms for a disease such as celiac disease (which is hardly that rare of a condition) is about 10 years (http://www.celiac.com/articles/48/1/USA---Average-Time-to-Diagnosis--10-Years/Page1.html) and many if not most of these patients will probably be informed their symptoms are psychogenic by at least one of their doctors during this timeframe.

[desioreo87]

The thing is that there is nothing in these vaccines to cause any type of disease.

This is a dead virus. It cant do anything except generate antibodies against the flu virus.

[Special K]

People turn to alternatives when what they are getting isn't working, so often it's a failing of conventional medicine. Our GPs seem too quick to prescribe drugs or surgery for conditions that can be addressed through diet and exercise. Probably because they don't think their patients will adhere to diet and exercise.

Or, patients come in prepared with a laundry list of medications they want to be prescribed...

[Special K]

The thing is that there is nothing in these vaccines to cause any type of disease.

This is a dead virus. It cant do anything except generate antibodies against the flu virus.

Well, there are risks with vaccines. And there are flu vaccines that are live (attenuated).

It is just that these risks are completely blown out of proportion by our media and the benefits of vaccinations are not emphasized, in fact, I would say they are largely ignored by the media who are in constant search of high ratings.

[Corcaigh]

Or, patients come in prepared with a laundry list of medications they want to be prescribed...

The ads on TV kill me. "Ask your doctor about XXXX". Or how about you shut the **** up and let the doctor do some diagnosis.

[Special K]

The ads on TV kill me. "Ask your doctor about XXXX". Or how about you shut the **** up and let the doctor do some diagnosis.

Seriously. It's ridiculous. I hate our pharm. industry and the fact that they can advertise on tv like they're pawning cornflakes or something.

One of my favorite office stories was when this one patient came into my dad's ortho. office and he asked for some Viagra. My dad, totally taken aback was like "uh, I don't treat that type of bone"

[The Villi Phanatic]

I'm wondering where all the vaccine-bashing ESers are now? They sure did line up to take shots (sorry for the pun) at the industry back when this was first reported.

Working for a vaccine company, I trust data - not rumor and hyperbole. I'm not sure all the data are in on this case yet, but they're looking pretty poor so far in terms of being able to prove a link between the vaccine and dystonia.

Certainly the MMR/autism situation is beginning to crystallize a bit, and it turns out our anti-hero has been found to have violated Good Clinical Practice during the study on which he based his conclusions. Also, the Lancet withdrew the article in which he suggested the link. He's going to be sanctioned by the General Medical Council in the UK, and probably lose his license.

I'm doling out crow to those of you who'd like to step up...

I'm probably not in your target audience as I'm not a vaccine-basher, but I figured I'll respond anyway as I question the safety/necessity/risk-benefits analysis of various vaccines, particularly for certain individuals, and some people seem to think that it's absurd to simply question these aspects of vaccines.

First off, this girl's reaction or lack thereof to a vaccination shouldn't theoretically factor in much in relation to vaccine safety discussions. It was simply an individual incident that became a news headline but those who are level-headed on both sides of the vaccine coin should already know that severe adverse reactions (including death) to vaccines do occur, it's just that there's disagreement on how frequently they occur, whether or not certain reactions are attributable to vaccinations, how often less severe and discernable adverse reactions occur, how do the benefits compare to the risks for people in general/certain subsets, etc.

As for you referring to being able to prove a link between a vaccine and an adverse reaction, this is one of my major gripes with the evaluation of vaccines and their risks by the medical community. Typically, vaccines are dismissed, often off the bat, as possible culprits when adverse reactions ensue following vaccinations, even if the vaccine presents as the most likely culprit. Consequently, there is a very large under-reporting of reactions to VAERS and the data on vaccine safety doesn't accurately reflect the actual risks (not to mention less traceable potential adverse reactions to vaccines from say, a specific cytokine being upregulated, that might not manifest sypmtomatically for a period of time after the vaccination).

[The Villi Phanatic]

Seriously. It's ridiculous. I hate our pharm. industry and the fact that they can advertise on tv like they're pawning cornflakes or something.

One of my favorite office stories was when this one patient came into my dad's ortho. office and he asked for some Viagra. My dad, totally taken aback was like "uh, I don't treat that type of bone"

Well, every now and then we're in agreement, keeastman. I have issues with how pharma. companies advertise from TV commercials to filling doctors' offices with tissue boxes/clocks/etc. with their names/products listed on them (not to mention, how drug reps interact with doctors and treat them to things, although I think that's at least quite a bit improved and regulated from how it had been in the past).

[The Villi Phanatic]

So now the CDC is exerting pressure on a Medical Examining Board, which itself is made of doctors, via insurance companies.

And why would an insurance compay care what the CDC has to say?

I think Mickalino's referring to the IDSA specifically (don't think they're tied to the CDC directly but the CDC does at the least link to the IDSA guidelines) and how lyme disease is diagnosed and treated throughout the country. There are a lot of controversial aspects to lyme disease that I won't delve into here, but putting all that aside, doctors who don't diagnose and treat lyme according to the IDSA guidelines are often brought before medical boards and have their licenses challenged. Many have lost their licenses as a result and many other doctors now have limited to no involvement with diagnosing/treating lyme disease due to fear of reprisal.

Again, controversial aspects of lyme disease aside, doctors should have discretion to diagnose and treat as they determine to be the best course of action for an individual's situation so long as they aren't otherwise violating medical license rules. This is commonplace across different medical fields but is not the case for lyme disease. There was actually a law in CT recently passed to specifically protect doctors who choose to treat patients not based on IDSA guidelines (which even are stated to simply be recommendations). Doesn't protect them from incompetency of course, just allows them the same discretion that is standard across the medical profession.

[PeterMP]

Many have lost their licenses as a result and many other doctors now have limited to no involvement with diagnosing/treating lyme disease due to fear of reprisal.

I think in every there has been an accusuation by the person involved or somebody associated with the person (when the person died) of neglegence or incompetence on the doctor's part.

I'd love to see a link that consisted of the medical community going after a doctor for not following IDSA reccomendations.

Things like on this page are going to cause issues for you if you are a doctor.

http://www.aldf.com/news.shtml

Note, one of the biggest issues for such doctors is NOT what they did, but that they didn't inform people of the risk/reward as currently understood by the biomedical research community.

**EDIT**

And oh of course the dead bodies didn't help.

[Mickalino]

I think in every there has been an accusation by the person involved or somebody associated with the person (when the person died) of negligence or incompetence on the doctor's part.

False.

Case 1 : A ex-husband fighting in a bitter custody battle over children, threaten's his Ex (or the children's mother), that if he can't have custody over the kids, he is going to report their doctor for not following IDSA guidelines, despite the children themselves begging to continue their treatment, and believing it was working. Interesting that the ex-husband only took offense at their treatment protocol, when he realized his own children could be used as a bargaining tool. Determination : Motivation for custody of the children was the cause, and not the actual doctor's treatment methods.

Case 2 : Blue Cross/Blue Shield sues a doctor for millions of dollars for continuing long-term antibiotics for Lyme, in spite of the fact this doctor has successfully treated literally thousands of Lyme cases, and on top of that, he has hundreds of people on a waiting list (months long), just to see him for a first visit. Again, if this doctor is such a mal-conduct, then why are there thousands of people begging to see him ? So, like Case #1, the motive for going after the Doctor was selfishness or greed, and not doctor's negligence.

Things like on this page are going to cause issues for you if you are a doctor.

http://www.aldf.com/news.shtml

This "Dr. Baker" and his associate "Dr Wormser" are the problem, and not the answer.

Blatant misinformation on that website take away their credibility.

Note, one of the biggest issues for such doctors is NOT what they did, but that they didn't inform people of the risk/reward as currently understood by the biomedical research community.

This, I can somewhat agree with.

**EDIT**

And oh of course the dead bodies didn't help.

Again, it's this type of misinformation, and in most cases, insensitivity, that is causing such problems. There are much more people who have died from Lyme disease, than from the treatment using long-term antibiotics. Even the Dr on the website you subscribed to, admitted there was only one fatality involved in the long-term antibiotics. So, could you not give the benefit of the doubt to that one case (that perhaps there were other variables involved in that case), just as you believe there was, in the cases of Dr's brought before the medical board for lyme treatment ? There are more cases to argue that the Lyme Dr's have been mistreated by the IDSA/CDC/Insurance companies/Medical Board, than cases in which the patients have been mistreated by the Drs.

If you truly subscribe to Dr's like Dr Baker, that there is no such thing as Chronic Lyme, then I'd be glad to me give you email addresses of friends of mine, whose family members who are bed-ridden with immeasurable pain from head-to-toe with Lyme disease, pain which isn't even appeased by the most potent painkillers like morphine and dilaudid, and who are being refused treatment by Doctors (due to misinformation on their end). And I would ask you, "Would you tell them that their pain is 'all in their head' ?"

[PeterMP]

False.

Case 1 : A ex-husband fighting in a bitter custody battle over children, threaten's his Ex (or the children's mother), that if he can't have custody over the kids, he is going to report their doctor for not following IDSA guidelines, despite the children themselves begging to continue their treatment, and believing it was working. Interesting that the ex-husband only took offense at their treatment protocol, when he realized his own children could be used as a bargaining tool. Determination : Motivation for custody of the children was the cause, and not the actual doctor's treatment methods.

Case 2 : Blue Cross/Blue Shield sues a doctor for millions of dollars for continuing long-term antibiotics for Lyme, in spite of the fact this doctor has successfully treated literally thousands of Lyme cases, and on top of that, he has hundreds of people on a waiting list (months long), just to see him for a first visit. Again, if this doctor is such a mal-conduct, then why are there thousands of people begging to see him ? So, like Case #1, the motive for going after the Doctor was selfishness or greed, and not doctor's negligence.

So in which case did somebody lose their medical liscense?

So in which case was their not an initial complaint by somebody that was a patient or associated with a patient?

People using our legal system to gain advantage over somebody else is not the fault of the biomedical community. It is a characteristic of our legal system.

Again, it's this type of misinformation, and in most cases, insensitivity, that is causing such problems. There are much more people who have died from Lyme disease, than from the treatment using long-term antibiotics. Even the Dr on the website you subscribed to, admitted there was only one fatality involved in the long-term antibiotics. So, could you not give the benefit of the doubt to that one case (that perhaps there were other variables involved in that case), just as you believe there was, in the cases of Dr's brought before the medical board for lyme treatment ? There are more cases to argue that the Lyme Dr's have been mistreated by the IDSA/CDC/Insurance companies/Medical Board, than cases in which the patients have been mistreated by the Drs.

If you truly subscribe to Dr's like Dr Baker, that there is no such thing as Chronic Lyme, then I'd be glad to me give you email addresses of friends of mine, whose family members who are bed-ridden with immeasurable pain from head-to-toe with Lyme disease, pain which isn't even appeased by the most potent painkillers like morphine and dilaudid, and who are being refused treatment by Doctors (due to misinformation on their end). And I would ask you, "Would you tell them that their pain is 'all in their head' ?"

I'm still waiting for a single case where somebody was actually mistreated by the CDC or the IDSA. That insurance companie use the legal system to their benefit to save money is not knew and not isolated to Lymes' disease.

Is the solution really for no organization to offer doctors guidance about how to treat diseases?

I don't know if there is chronic lyme disease or not. However, the evidence using placebo double blind studies would seem to indicate that if there is, long term antibiotics don't seem to help it to a significant manner.

That doesn't mean they don't suffer from chronic lyme's disease or some other real physical ailment.

It would indicate if there is a substantial number of people feeling better due to long term antibiotic use that in many cases (not all as it is possible for some to actually be helped, but the number helped not be significant so doesn't show in things like clinical trials as a significant number) the feeling better part is in their head.

Of course, as I've stated in other alternative medicine threads, if you really think something is helping you, keep doing it, even if it is unlikely that it really is. If you think you are being helped by accupunture, then keep doing it.

(However, I would point out that you also should be aware that you might be putting yourself at an unnecessary risk in terms of taking medicine and/or not getting real treatment for a real ailment.)

***EDIT***

I think in terms of the law suit you are talking about his guy:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/520328/doctors_unorthodox_treatments_land_him_in_the_lyme_wars/index.html

"One of the patients died. Another, Phillip Moore, said he got worse while taking IV antibiotics for more than four months. "He was treating me for something he couldn't prove I really had."

Moore expects to testify against Jemsek when the two sides face off at a public hearing in Raleigh on June 14."

One dead and a living complaining person claiming he got worse.

Oh and:

"Phillip Moore, a 40-year-old Concord patient who expects to testify for the medical board in June, said Jemsek never explained to him that long-term antibiotic therapy for Lyme disease was not standard practice."

So we have a dead person and a claim that he wasn't telling people that what he was doing wasn't normal and that he was treating for something that they couldn't or didn't pass a test for having.

And he still didn't lose his liscense.

[Mickalino]

Like the Villi said, many of these Doctors stay under the radar, for fear of reprisal, so I would be hesitant to give out any names. But for the sake of not appearing as a cop-out, or coming across as some nut-job conspiracy theorist, I will gladly PM you which Doctors I am referring to, out of respect for their privacy, because of the fact that these Doctors put their reputation on the line, for the sole purpose, and the self-less purpose, of being on a mission to help those who have no advocate, due to a failing medical establishment.

As for the one or more people who complained about getting worse before they got better, that's an easy one. Virtually every single case of Lyme treatment, they get worse before they get better. It's a trademark of that disease and it's treatment, and it is well-documented, and well-known.

[PeterMP]

Like the Villi said, many of these Doctors stay under the radar, for fear of reprisal, so I would be hesitant to give out any names. But for the sake of not appearing as a cop-out, or coming across as some nut-job conspiracy theorist, I will gladly PM you which Doctors I am referring to, out of respect for their privacy, because of the fact that these Doctors put their reputation on the line, for the sole purpose, and the self-less purpose, of being on a mission to help those who have no advocate, due to a failing medical establishment.

As for the one or more people who complained about getting worse before they got better, that's an easy one. Virtually every single case of Lyme treatment, they get worse before they get better. It's a trademark of that disease and it's treatment, and it is well-documented, and well-known.

If you lost your medical liscense or there was even an investigation, there should be official and public documentation.

At this point in time what you are telling me is that there are a group of paranoid doctors that are treating people as if they have an unprovabale disease with a treatment that there is no solid scientific evidence does any good.

I hope they aren't paying you to be a spokesman.

[Mickalino]

At this point in time what you are telling me is that there are a group of paranoid doctors that are treating people as if they have an unprovabale disease with a treatment that there is no solid scientific evidence does any good.

To the contrary, there has been solid scientific evidence to prove that the testing approved by the CDC to detect Lyme disease only detects a fraction of the total number of the strains of the Spirochete bacteria Borrelia Burgdorferi, and it's dozen or so co-infections. During the past few decades, the Borrelia Burgdorferi has morphed into about a dozen co-infections, while the CDC has not adjusted their testing, to detect them. This would most likely explain why we have more cases of Chronic Lyme in the current state, because Chronic Lyme sufferers are now sick long-term, due to co-infections, known as Babesiosis, Ehrlichiosis, Bartonella, and so on. But does the CDC testing even capable of finding these strains if they exist ? No. For this reason, standard mainstream testing emits False Negatives. Are there alternate testing methods that prove otherwise ? Yes - Igenex Labs, for instance. Does the CDC accept their testing ? No. Why don't they ? Conflict of Interests. Does that make Igenex testing invalid ? No. Because like I said, there is scientific evidence to prove otherwise. Looking for evidence of this ? Research Dr Alan McDonald, to name one.

I wouldn't surprise me if that's not enough to change your mind, because after all, the Lyme debate has become a long-lasting, controversial, legal, and bitter debate, so undoubtedly, if we were to continue arguing about this, this micro-debate would go on just as long as the national debate on the issue, wouldn't it ? That's simply common sense.

[The Villi Phanatic]

I'd love to see a link that consisted of the medical community going after a doctor for not following IDSA reccomendations.

I hate just quickly finding links and not researching more about them but there's only so much time so, here's a link (written by a member of the NY medical board) in which the guidelines are specifically referenced in regards to the conclusion the board came to regarding a doctor who lost his license.

(from the link):

"In the case of Lyme disease, the Centers for Disease Control, American Lyme Disease Foundation, Medical Letter, and a host of other sources have provided guidance for the standard care of Lyme disease. Rarely, if ever, have these guidelines indicated that anything more than two-three weeks of antibiotics are required to cure Lyme disease."

I admittedly don't know too much about the medical board process (ie. the specifics of how it is determined that a physician's license should be reviewed, etc.), but it seems to me there is some arbitrary decision-making involved. In the link above, the board member states "Investigations are conducted by professional staff at the Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC), often assisted by attorneys assigned from the Division of Legal Affairs. Where the investigation reveals that a physician may have engaged in professional medical misconduct, defined by statute to include an act of gross negligence or incompetence or repeated acts of simple negligence or incompetence, the case is reviewed by an Investigation Committee of the Board, consisting of two physicians and a lay member. If the Investigation Committee determines that a hearing is warranted".

Based off this segment, it appears there are at least 2 spots for arbitrary decision-making by non-patient, medical professionals during the medical board process prior to a hearing being conducted. The wording also references "repeated acts of simple negligence or incompetence", which might not even be determined solely from patient-initiated complaints.

Just about if not every single doctor could have their license questioned based on some aspect of their treatment of patients. In regards to lyme disease specifically, everything I've read indicates that the arbitrary decision-making by the medical boards favors pursuing investigations and hearings of the doctors more frequently in comparison to what could be considered equivalent actions taken by doctors treating other conditions/diseases.

[PeterMP]

I hate just quickly finding links and not researching more about them but there's only so much time so, here's a link (written by a member of the NY medical board) in which the guidelines are specifically referenced in regards to the conclusion the board came to regarding a doctor who lost his license.

So I'll take that as, no, you can't find a single REAL case where somebody had a medical liscense revoked where the issue didn't start from a complaint of neglegence or incompetence from a patient.

[PeterMP]

To the contrary, there has been solid scientific evidence to prove that the testing approved by the CDC to detect Lyme disease only detects a fraction of the total number of the strains of the Spirochete bacteria Borrelia Burgdorferi, and it's dozen or so co-infections. During the past few decades, the Borrelia Burgdorferi has morphed into about a dozen co-infections, while the CDC has not adjusted their testing, to detect them. This would most likely explain why we have more cases of Chronic Lyme in the current state, because Chronic Lyme sufferers are now sick long-term, due to co-infections, known as Babesiosis, Ehrlichiosis, Bartonella, and so on. But does the CDC testing even capable of finding these strains if they exist ? No. For this reason, standard mainstream testing emits False Negatives. Are there alternate testing methods that prove otherwise

COME ON! Just because the tests has false negatives that isn't evidence that everybody that tests negative has the disease.

Even if you BELIEVE that the tests has a high rate of false negatives (I couldn't find anything substantial on the false negative rate), that isn't a good reason to NOT do the tests at all.

ALL TESTS HAVE FALSE NEGATIVES. That's an argument NEVER to do a test.

NOT DOING THE TESTS EVEN IF YOU THINK THE TESTS IS LIKELY TO BE WRONG IN TERMS OF BEING NEGATIVE IS UNBELIEVEBLY STUPID AND SLOPPPY, when doing the test itself essentially has no negative consequences (tests that have high false positive rates a bit different).

If nothing else, it starts to allow you to group patients into those that were negative, but seemed to respond to treatments. This would allow you to start to better understand exactly what the issues are.

Yes - Igenex Labs, for instance. Does the CDC accept their testing ? No. Why don't they ? Conflict of Interests. Does that make Igenex testing invalid ? No. Because like I said, there is scientific evidence to prove otherwise. Looking for evidence of this ? Research Dr Alan McDonald, to name one.

Now, I'm assuming you can actually give me a link where the CDC has said something about Igenex Labs specifically?

Igenex isn't a test, but a company. They aren't doing anything really different that other companies out there aren't doing. The problem became when they were producing positive results for tests where other companies weren't and INDIVIDUAL DOCTORS AND PATIENTS COMPLAINED due to the inconsistencies. The investigations of them were NOT tied to some imaginary vandetta/conspriacy/conflict of interest from the biomedical community.

I wouldn't surprise me if that's not enough to change your mind, because after all, the Lyme debate has become a long-lasting, controversial, legal, and bitter debate, so undoubtedly, if we were to continue arguing about this, this micro-debate would go on just as long as the national debate on the issue, wouldn't it ? That's simply common sense.

And this is the problem.

IT IS REALLY FREAKING EASY TO CONVINCE ME. STEP UP AND DO THE REAL TESTS THAT SHOWS WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS ACTUALLY DOING SOME GOOD.

As of now, these doctors are practicing pretend medicine that isn't substantially different than "doctors" from the Middle Ages (noting that "doctors" in the middle ages didn't have everything wrong). This NONSENSE isn't how we do medicine, and it isn't how we got to where we are in terms of medicine.

That isn't how science or medicine are done. If you believe you have a real case, freaking conduct the appropriate study. OTHERWISE standup and admit you have no CLUE what you are REALLY doing, but that you are going to continue to do it because it "FEELS RIGHT" and shut-up and get out of the way while real doctors and scientists do the actual work that will improve the health of the human race.

I can understand why the patients and ordinary people buy into this stuff, but the doctors really should know better. If I ever find an ex-student from one of my classes is involved in such nonsese, I'll see what I can do about retroactively changing their grade to an F.

(And now tomorrow some poor unexpecting students are going to hear me rant about the importance of actually doing REAL tests in medicine.)

[MassSkinsFan]

...severe adverse reactions (including death) to vaccines do occur, it's just that there's disagreement on how frequently they occur, whether or not certain reactions are attributable to vaccinations, how often less severe and discernable adverse reactions occur, how do the benefits compare to the risks for people in general/certain subsets, etc.

Which is why there is extensive statistical analysis based upon stats plans set in advance. I'm not a doctor so I don't pretend to understand all the ins and outs of this analysis, but AEs (discernible or less severe SAEs) are monitored, data are collected and they are analyzed. This is the origin of the litany of side-effects on all the commercials. On a side note, my favorite AE of all-time is hangover. Love it.

As for you referring to being able to prove a link between a vaccine and an adverse reaction, this is one of my major gripes with the evaluation of vaccines and their risks by the medical community. Typically, vaccines are dismissed, often off the bat, as possible culprits when adverse reactions ensue following vaccinations, even if the vaccine presents as the most likely culprit.

Do you have something concrete to prove this assertion? I'm not being accusatory - I just haven't heard this yet. Perhaps my exposure to clinical trials is relatively limited, but the dozen or so for which I reviewed data included a number of definitely related SAE rankings and also possibly related. The majority were "definitely not related" but it was by no means a 95% to 5% ratio as one might expect if SAE were typically dismissed as related.

Consequently, there is a very large under-reporting of reactions to VAERS and the data on vaccine safety doesn't accurately reflect the actual risks (not to mention less traceable potential adverse reactions to vaccines from say, a specific cytokine being upregulated, that might not manifest sypmtomatically for a period of time after the vaccination).

I agree there is underreporting to VAERS, and also inaccuracy, absence of unvaccinated control group, incomplete data, etc.

However, it is an improvement on what we had in the past - nothing. It does have its uses, including lot to lot surveillance (trending) of AEs, overall trending of AEs for a product, etc. Given the n of the data pool, it is not without merit as a tool for keeping an eye on vaccines. Also, FDA has in the past few years begun requiring manufacturers to tie AE reporting to their manufacturing investigations systems. So, for any SAE, or for an AE trend, Medical Affairs must notify Manufacturing and QA to start an investigation into the process to see if there is a relation to the issue in question. I guess my long-winded point is that some folks think there is a totally capricious attitude on the part of industry (vaccine makers, FDA, etc.) and it is actually highly-regulated and pretty effective.

[MassSkinsFan]

I'm probably not in your target audience as I'm not a vaccine-basher, but I figured I'll respond anyway as I question the safety/necessity/risk-benefits analysis of various vaccines, particularly for certain individuals, and some people seem to think that it's absurd to simply question these aspects of vaccines.

I forgot to respond to this part.

I agree with you 100%. Those things NEED to be questioned, for every single vaccine. I think the systems for questioning them are adequate but not 100% effective.

But, I'd challenge anyone to make them 100% effective - what's that? Can't be done? Oh, right, there are humans involved!!! :laugh:

[Boss_Hogg]

The treatments she was receiving were being administered by a Doc that has several allegations against him for being a nut job (alternative medicine doctor) which boils down to him ripping cancer patients off for crazy amounts of money for treatments that had 0 effect.

If this video is just of the interview in the parking lot then there is alot of information not being shared about this case.

They also interviewed a Doctor that specializes in Dystonia(?) and he claims with 100% certainty that the physical symptoms that she was exhibiting were not caused by the disease.

Doctors that have examined her believe that her "condition" is psychogenic.

This.

This whole thing is/was a sham. The Dr. in NC is and has been under investigation and he is actually due in court in a few days to have his license revoked.

[Mickalino]

So in which case did somebody lose their medical liscense?

I'm still waiting for a single case where somebody was actually mistreated by the CDC or the IDSA. That insurance companie use the legal system to their benefit to save money is not knew and not isolated to Lymes' disease.

If you lost your medical liscense or there was even an investigation, there should be official and public documentation.

So I'll take that as, no, you can't find a single REAL case where somebody had a medical liscense revoked where the issue didn't start from a complaint of neglegence or incompetence from a patient.

This Just In....Just Today.....This should conclude your question.

http://www.courant.com/health/hc-lyme-doctor-jones-0217.artfeb17,0,1835223.story

By ARIELLE LEVIN BECKER The Hartford Courant

February 17, 2010

HARTFORD — - The state medical board on Tuesday voted to discipline Dr. Charles Ray Jones, a New Haven pediatrician known for his support of a controversial form of Lyme disease treatment.

The discipline — a $10,000 fine and a four-year license probation during which Jones' practice will be monitored — will not take effect until the board signs the decision, which is expected to happen next month. It will mark the second time in three years that the board has disciplined Jones, 80.

Jones and his supporters say he has been targeted by health authorities because of how he treats Lyme disease. State health officials say the allegations against Jones are about patient care in general, not Lyme disease.

Jones was accused of violating medical standards in the cases of four children. For one, a 4-year-old girl, Jones allegedly ordered tests, diagnosed Lyme disease and another illness, and prescribed medication — all before meeting or examining her. For two other children, Jones allegedly ordered lab tests to confirm Lyme disease without physically examining them.

A hearing panel for the Connecticut Medical Examining Board found that Jones violated the standard of care in those cases because he failed to consider other diagnoses and prescribed antibiotics for the 4-year-old without an exam or medical history.

The panel dismissed allegations involving the fourth child.

Jones said before the vote that he would appeal a ruling against him. "I haven't done anything wrong," he said.

Before the medical board voted, Jones' attorney, Elliott Pollack, described the case as the result of complaints by "disgruntled" parents, some involved in divorces.

"No patient complained here," Pollack said. "No patient was harmed here. All patients were helped here."

More than a dozen of Jones' supporters attended Tuesday's board meeting. Jones is considered a hero to those who believe that Lyme disease can be a chronic condition that requires extended antibiotic therapy. They say that many doctors and tests miss the condition, leaving patients to suffer.

The mainstream medical community has rejected many of the long-term Lyme arguments, saying that such cases are rare and that doctors who diagnose it often overlook other causes of the symptoms.

[ACW]

What exactly is your point?

[bcl05]

So this doctor "ordered tests, diagnosed Lyme disease and another illness, and prescribed medication — all before meeting or examining her."

I'm a licensed doctor, and doing that would lead to the loss of my license, whether it was for Lyme disease or not. That is grossly negligent, in my opinion.

[PeterMP]

This Just In....Just Today.....This should conclude your question.

http://www.courant.com/health/hc-lyme-doctor-jones-0217.artfeb17,0,1835223.story

By ARIELLE LEVIN BECKER The Hartford Courant

February 17, 2010

HARTFORD — - The state medical board on Tuesday voted to discipline Dr. Charles Ray Jones, a New Haven pediatrician known for his support of a controversial form of Lyme disease treatment.

The discipline — a $10,000 fine and a four-year license probation during which Jones' practice will be monitored — will not take effect until the board signs the decision, which is expected to happen next month. It will mark the second time in three years that the board has disciplined Jones, 80.

Jones and his supporters say he has been targeted by health authorities because of how he treats Lyme disease. State health officials say the allegations against Jones are about patient care in general, not Lyme disease.

Jones was accused of violating medical standards in the cases of four children. For one, a 4-year-old girl, Jones allegedly ordered tests, diagnosed Lyme disease and another illness, and prescribed medication — all before meeting or examining her. For two other children, Jones allegedly ordered lab tests to confirm Lyme disease without physically examining them.

A hearing panel for the Connecticut Medical Examining Board found that Jones violated the standard of care in those cases because he failed to consider other diagnoses and prescribed antibiotics for the 4-year-old without an exam or medical history.

The panel dismissed allegations involving the fourth child.

Jones said before the vote that he would appeal a ruling against him. "I haven't done anything wrong," he said.

Before the medical board voted, Jones' attorney, Elliott Pollack, described the case as the result of complaints by "disgruntled" parents, some involved in divorces.

"No patient complained here," Pollack said. "No patient was harmed here. All patients were helped here."

More than a dozen of Jones' supporters attended Tuesday's board meeting. Jones is considered a hero to those who believe that Lyme disease can be a chronic condition that requires extended antibiotic therapy. They say that many doctors and tests miss the condition, leaving patients to suffer.

The mainstream medical community has rejected many of the long-term Lyme arguments, saying that such cases are rare and that doctors who diagnose it often overlook other causes of the symptoms.

Come on, are you really going to defend somebody that is prescribing medicine to somebody without ever conducting a physical exam of the person?

This guy isn't in trouble for following a questionable approach for Lyme's disease, he's in trouble for being SLOPPY AND STUPID. You DO NOT prescribe medicine to a patient you never met. I can't even get my daughter's doctor to prescribe antibiotics over the phone when she has all the classic symptoms of an ear infection, and she REALLY is their patient.

SOME of the marriages had ended divorace. You do realize that about 1/2 the marriages in this country do end in marriages. You'd be hard pressed to take any reasonable sample of kids and NOT find one that DIDN'T end in a divorace and what about the ones that AREN'T part of a divorace.

And no the patients didn't complain because they are kids, and we don't leave judgements like this to kids in terms of filing complaints, which is why originally I stated somebody associated with the patient.