Remember that Cheerleader and the Flu Shot? Hoax!!

[Mickalino]

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.

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.

Not if the patient was informed of the risks of their treatment, and the fact that it was "non-standard", and especially if the patient desires to continue their treatment under their Doctor.

The patients requested the treatment, knowing full well about the risks and ramifications, and the fact that Lyme is often treated off of a clinical diagnosis, as opposed to a laboratory diagnosis, which unfortunately has to be the case these days, due to sub-standard testing. Doctors frequently diagnose Fibromyalgia or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome without any Laboratory evidence. They prescribe Psychiatric drugs, after hearing a half sentence from the patient and ZERO laboratory testing. And so on. And so on. How is that much different ?

But you're telling me that a disease that is so obviously debilitating as Chronic Lyme disease needs to meet such and such testing, when it's so blatantly obvious from a clinical evaluation what is happening to them ? And that the alternative to that treatment - going to a typical Doctor who doesn't believe in Chronic Lyme, will get a response treating them as if they are psycho, and leave them to suffer bed-ridden and possibly die ?

Who initiated these charges ?

Not the patient being treated.

But people with ulterior motives.

The State needs to keep their nose out of where it doesn't belong.

Let the Doctors do their jobs, and leave freakin politics out of the way of someone's health.

If there is no evidence of harm to the patient, drop it. Leave it to their discretion.

Bottom Line : Anyone who opposes the Doctors like the one above is either

1) Badly misinformed

or

2) Insensitive to suffering people

[PeterMP]

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.

Thank you.

[Mickalino]

Thank you.

You're missing the whole point.

[PeterMP]

Not if the patient was informed of the risks of their treatment, and the fact that it was "non-standard", and especially if the patient desires to continue their treatment under their Doctor.

The patients requested the treatment, knowing full well about the risks and ramifications, and the fact that Lyme is often treated off of a clinical diagnosis, as opposed to a laboratory diagnosis, which unfortunately has to be the case these days, due to sub-standard testing. Doctors frequently diagnose Fibromyalgia or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome without any Laboratory evidence. They prescribe Psychiatric drugs, after hearing a half sentence from the patient and ZERO laboratory testing. And so on. And so on. But you're telling me that a disease that is so obviously debilitating as Chronic Lyme disease needs to meet such and such testing, when it's so blatantly obvious from a clinical evaluation what is happening to them ? And that the alternative to that treatment - going to a typical Doctor who doesn't believe in Chronic Lyme, will get a response treating them as if they are psycho, and leave them to suffer bed-ridden and possibly die ?

Who initiated these charges ?

Not the patient being treated.

But people with ulterior motives.

The State needs to keep their nose out of where it doesn't belong.

Let the Doctors do their jobs, and leave freakin politics out of the way of someone's health. If there is no evidence of harm to the patient, drop it.

Bottom Line : Anyone who opposes the Doctors like the one above is either

1) Badly misinformed

or

2) Insensitive to suffering people

You aren't listening to what people are saying. It isn't even the prescription of medicine w/o a test. I can certainly see in some cases starting medication while waiting for test results (though completely skipping the test never makes sense to me).

It is the prescription of medicine w/o even meeting the patient to conduct ANY exam.

It isn't badly misinformed. Its standard medical practice for a good reason.

The state didn't get involved in this on their own. There was a complaint. It is POSSIBLE the complaint was due to a disgrunteled parent that is part of a divorace, but IRREGARDLESS once the state steps in and finds evidence of poor medical practices there has to be consequences. Saying the patient didn't initiate the query is a joke, the patients are kids.

It doesn't matter what the medicine or the disease. If you prescribe medicine without ever meeting a patient, you are going to be in trouble.

[Mickalino]

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.

But these parents just happened to be going through a divorce during that exact time period the charges were filed. Not a coincidence. Therefore, the statistic regarding percentage of divorces is completely irrelevant.

[Mickalino]

You aren't listening to what people are saying. It isn't even the prescription of medicine w/o a test. I can certainly see in some cases starting medication while waiting for test results (though completely skipping the test never makes sense to me).

It is the prescription of medicine w/o even meeting the patient to conduct ANY exam.

It isn't badly misinformed. Its standard medical practice for a good reason.

The state didn't get involved in this on their own. There was a complaint. It is POSSIBLE the complaint was due to a disgrunteled parent that is part of a divorace, but IRREGARDLESS once the state steps in and finds evidence of poor medical practices there has to be consequences. Saying the patient didn't initiate the query is a joke, the patients are kids.

It doesn't matter what the medicine or the disease. If you prescribe medicine without ever meeting a patient, you are going to be in trouble.

Meeting the patient in person is not always an option with Lyme disease.

So I guess you don't realize the scope of the disease and treatment, and just who Dr Jones really is.

Dr Jones is literally the ONLY Pediatrician in the world who treats children with Chronic Lyme.

Parents fly from all over the world to see this man, because they are desperate to get help for their children, due to, once again, a failing medical establishment. So, in light of these facts, along with the fact that some children cannot travel due to being bed-ridden, it would make sense, that not every parent and their child is going to be able to transport their child to see him, or afford it, even if the child is able to travel.

He is referred to as the "Lyme Pope" affectionately by his patients and their parents. He's an 80 year old man, who could have retired long ago, but he continues on, because he doesn't consider it "work", and he's not doing it for the money, but rather he considers it a "calling" to help these children who have no other option.

And considering the fact that this Doctor is not only the only Pediatrician in the world who treats children with Chronic Lyme, and not only that, but has successfully treated thousands of them - I would say he knows enough to judge whether he can diagnose and/or treat a child without seeing them. The man is an 80-year-old Genius. He knows more about diagnosing and treating Lyme than ANY of his critics. So, they need to either look inward, or do some serious research before assailing him.

To borrow a principle from the Bible, let him who has had more success than Dr Jones, be the first to cast a stone at him.

You cannot ignore the Elephant in the room, about 7000+ children he's successfully treated. And people want to nitpick about his protocol. Well, he has a right to over-ride conventional protocol by virtue of his accomplishments. In a case like this, RESULTS should take precedence over "conventional thinking and modes of treatment" and even scientific studies. RESULTS. RESULTS. RESULTS.

[PeterMP]

You cannot ignore the Elephant in the room, about 7000+ children he's successfully treated. And people want to nitpick about his protocol. Well, he has a right to over-ride conventional protocol by virtue of his accomplishments. In a case like this, RESULTS should take precedence over "conventional thinking and modes of treatment" and even scientific studies. RESULTS. RESULTS. RESULTS.

How do you know that he has successfully treated anybody?

Where is the evidence?

If there was evidence of RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS, this wouldn't be an issue.

(Well, practically it would because he'd still be in trouble because irregardless of what the patients condition prescribing somebody medicine w/o even conducting a physical exam is gonna get you in some trouble. But of course if he ever took the time to actually properly document his RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS, the kid could probably enter any pediatric hospitial in the country and get the proper care, assuming he really has RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS)

[Mickalino]

How do you know that he has successfully treated anybody ?

I know this from researching it vigorously for over a year.

And I would kindly ask you to research it further also.

If there was evidence of RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS, this wouldn't be an issue.

That's incorrect. The results are there - but it's still an issue, because of the fact this is a disease that is so politicized, that it's virtually impossible for patients, especially children to get treatment for it. No other disease that I know of, does politics get so much in the way of treatment. And that is the tragedy.

[PeterMP]

To borrow a principle from the Bible, let him who has had more success than Dr Jones, be the first to cast a stone at him.

You cannot ignore the Elephant in the room, about 7000+ children he's successfully treated. And people want to nitpick about his protocol. Well, he has a right to over-ride conventional protocol by virtue of his accomplishments.

I want to come back to this part in particular. Take it to the extreme and see where it leads you.

Does he have the right to cut this kid into little pieces because of his "accomplishments"?

Controls are in place for reason. NOBODY is infalliable. The more you think you are, just makes it the more likely you will mess up.

[ACW]

I know this from researching it vigorously for over a year.

And I would kindly ask you to research it further also.

The burden of proof is on you.

[PeterMP]

I know this from researching it vigorously for over a year.

And I would kindly ask you to research it further also.

That's incorrect. The results are there - but it's still an issue, because of the fact this is a disease that is so politicized, that it's virtually impossible for patients, especially children to get treatment for it. No other disease that I know of, does politics get so much in the way of treatment. And that is the tragedy.

Yeah and people used to taut the "success" of all sorts of "tonics" to treat all sorts of disease, while the tonics actually frequently contained things that made you sick and rarely had any positive benefit.

The treatment isn't politicized. Some group of doctors want to do something that there is no REAL evidence that it does any good, and then they don't even get in trouble for doing THAT.

They get in trouble when they do something else that raises to the clear level of EXTREMELY poor medical practice like giving people they've never examined prescriptions or not making it clear to the patient that there isn't any REAL evidence that what they are doing actually does anything.

[Mickalino]

I want to come back to this part in particular. Take it to the extreme and see where it leads you.

Does he have the right to cut this kid into little pieces because of his "accomplishments"?

What ?? Really ?

Think about what you said.

NOBODY is infalliable. The more you think you are, just makes it the more likely you will mess up.

Good point. His critics are not infallible, either. Rather, they are far from it.

[PeterMP]

Good point. His critics are not infallible, either. Rather, they are far from it.

In terms of his critics, for prescribing drugs to somebody he hadn't examined, his critics are the general medical community. And not just the current general medical community, but the historical general medical community. That larger community is MUCH less likely to make an error than him.

You don't seem to understand that is a HUGE deal. If has much control of his facilities left, he had to know he would get in BIG trouble if this got out.

[PeterMP]

I was talking to a guy I know today, and he was somewhat familiar with this case, and he made three points:

1. What he did is a big deal. In some states, it is written into the law by the legislator as being illegal (he knew for sure MA). In those states, there would have been no medical board hearing. He would have broken the law, and he would have been dumped directly into the criminal justice system.

2. One of the issues in this case wasn't JUST he wrote a prescription without a physical exam, but that it seemed there never had been a physical exam, and there never was a plant to do so. It is a little different if my daughter is clearly the doctor's patient (there is a medical history that includes physical exams), and I call the doctor up on Saturday and say, 'I am out of town for the weekend and my daughter is exhibiting all of the classic signs of an ear infection, can you write me a prescription for antibiotics?' and the doctor says, 'I will write you a prescription for two days, but then I want to see you in the office on Monday morning so I can do a proper diagnosis.'

People that do that sort of thing tend not to really get into trouble (but he did note that technically that is still against the law in places like MA). To his knowledge, this guy was writing long term prescriptions with out ever doing a physical exam and without making any effort to make it even look like he ever planned on doing a physical exam.

3. (And to me this the big thing). He doesn't think there will be any restrictions placed on this doctor once he's made a "proper" diagnosis of chronic Lyme's disease. He'll have to jump through more hoops to make that diagnosis (actually see the patient, and he might have to do some tests to rule other things out, but the guy I know noted if this guy is really these people's last hope, and they've been to a slew of other doctors, in most cases those tests will already have been done so in those cases, he can simply review the chart and do a physical exam and make the diagnosis).

The testimony nor the decision made any comments about his method of treating what he was diagnosing as chronic Lyme's disease. If they try to interfere with that as part of the restrictions that have been placed on his medical liscense (remember he didn't actually lose it or have it suspended), then this doctor has a good grounds for an appeal.

[The Villi Phanatic]

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.

Ah, that's all you took from my post, Peter? I was simply saying I didn't have time to dig, but I had a few minutes today (really, what's more fun to do with a hangover than this?) so here's some links. In every one of these links, the complaints are NOT patient-initiated. In fact, the patients referenced in the medical boards' cases against the doctors are often very pleased patients unaware they are even being referenced in a complaint.

Oregon dr. treating lyme with complaint filed by insurance company

"One method used by ethically challenged HMO’s and health insurers to discourage extended treatment is to file anonymous complaints to state medical boards against doctors who “overdiagnose and overtreat” Lyme disease. In fact, Kaiser instigated one of the earliest cases of Lyme physician harassment in the United States by filing a complaint against an Oregon doctor who was diagnosing and treating Lyme patients, one of whom was a Kaiser member. Kaiser was “tipped off” to this physician when the patient attempted to fill a prescription for long-term antibiotics through a Kaiser pharmacy. Kaiser paid for an East Coast "Lyme expert" to testify before the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners on whom Kaiser appears to have an undue influence, not only in this case but other cases as well not involving Lyme disease. This “Lyme expert” is now part of the investigation by the Connecticut Attorney General. "

New York doctor treating lyme with anonymous complaint filed:

link 1 - "Dr. Burrascano, meanwhile, was notified in December that he must face a hearing before the New York's medical licensing board, the State Office of Professional Medical Conduct.

Dr. Burrascano said he was first notified that he was under investigation seven years ago after he testified in Congress against limiting antibiotics for Lyme patients. Shortly afterward, state inspectors visited his office, he said, and took files of Lyme patients. To his knowledge, he said, none of his patients have complained to the state authorities."

link 2 - "In their complaint, state investigators charged him with mistreating nine patients. But those patients side with their doctor.

Ruth Giglio, 77, a retired schoolteacher who took several courses of antibiotics over a six-year illness, was surprised to learn her charts are evidence against Burrascano. `I totally agree with everything he did,' she says. `I m better, and that's thanks to Dr. B.'"

A dr. in California who had charges filed against her by the state medical board... not sure how applicable this case is, but it appears that A.) the charges were not patient-initiated (I'm inferring this as it doesn't indicate either way but at least one of the 5 patients referenced in the suit is a staunch defender of the doctor) and B.) not sure how related to her treating lyme patients the initiation of the charges is but there are multiple patients of hers with lyme mentioned in the article, one who couldn't get treatment from any other doctor in the region and another who travels from Vegas for treatment of her lyme disease

"Later, Yang confirmed that Angel Vipond was "A.V." – one of five patients named only by their initials in the medical board complaint.

...

Angel Vipond staunchly defended Yang, her physician since December 2000.

"She is really getting knocked on," Vipond said. "That is really, really wrong.""

A doctor having a non-patient initiated investigation spurred by an insurance company (not for treatment of lyme but I'm including it as it references doctors treating lyme being similarly investigated in non-patient initiated medical board investigations and illustrates how an insurance company can initiate such an investigation with the patients being referenced in the complaint being unaware, pleased patients)

"An anonymous third party complaint was made to the board against me, citing five specific patients as being mistreated. You may ask “What is an anonymous third party complaint?” This type of complaint is made to the board without the knowled2:e or consent of the patient. The complaint against me was almost certainly made by United Health Care/Oxford. All five patients cited in the complaint had no knowledge that they or their information was being used in this way. Further, none of the patients are alleging mistreatment or malpractice against me and all five are still under my care. Additionally, these patients have all written to the Texas Medical Board and informed them that they are not part of this complaint and they are not making any allegations against me of any kind. Two of the patients have stated that I saved their lives.

The Texas Medical Board has dismissed the protests of these patients and continues to pursue charges against me. Further, the board refuses to officially reveal who made the complaint, what I am alleged to have done, or what evidence was presented against me"

I'm not speaking in favor or against the aforementioned doctors' practices or competency nor am I discussing the science behind the varying diagnosis and treatment methodologies for lyme. I'm simply providing the above links to present a glimpse into the history and current climate of how things are in this country with doctors diagnosing and treating lyme disease (specifically, those who don't follow IDSA guidelines) including being investigated by medical boards without patient initiated complaints.

[Capt Rich Fla]

Here's the big question. Is the chick full of beans, or what?