Congratulations Eric!!

In article <[email hidden]>,

Peter Bowditch said:

The latest gush of suppuration from Tim Bolen is a response to
something that Eric Bohlman wrote in this very newsgroup.

Congratulations, Eric. A day spent annoying Bolen is not a wasted day.

(I would also congratulate the nameless person who passed on Eric's
thoughts to Bolen, except that the person was too shy to say who they
are.)

What did Eric say in this newsgroup?
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In said:

The latest gush of suppuration from Tim Bolen is a response to
something that Eric Bohlman wrote in this very newsgroup.

Congratulations, Eric. A day spent annoying Bolen is not a wasted day.

(I would also congratulate the nameless person who passed on Eric's
thoughts to Bolen, except that the person was too shy to say who they
are.)

Personally I thought the best part was that Bolen spammed
the world again, but this time from [email hidden]
instead of his usual bulk-blaster at servepath.net using
[email hidden] as the dropbox.

Needless to say, the spam got reported to the appropriate
abuse@ addresses. Bolen may have an absolute right to be
a gibbering idiot and he may even have an absolute right
to make a spectacle of himself, but spam I report.

Period.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end

Quoted message said:

Subject: Congratulations Eric!!
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 7/7/2003 2:06 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

The latest gush of suppuration from Tim Bolen is a response to
something that Eric Bohlman wrote in this very newsgroup.

Congratulations, Eric. A day spent annoying Bolen is not a wasted day.

(I would also congratulate the nameless person who passed on Eric's
thoughts to Bolen, except that the person was too shy to say who they
are.)

I received this also. It wasn't me, who passed it on, I have never been known
to be shy, so it had to be one of the names he sent it to.

Jan

However, it did say:

It is ONLY Baratz's word against a whole industry. There are NO
OTHER WITNESSES, only Baratz. Only Baratz says Kadile has bad
records. 83 separate MDs have offered to testify as to the
quality of Kadile's records - five of which are Wisconsin doctors.

Jan

Jan said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Congratulations Eric!!
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 7/7/2003 2:06 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

The latest gush of suppuration from Tim Bolen is a response to
something that Eric Bohlman wrote in this very newsgroup.

Congratulations, Eric. A day spent annoying Bolen is not a wasted day.

(I would also congratulate the nameless person who passed on Eric's
thoughts to Bolen, except that the person was too shy to say who they
are.)

I received this also. It wasn't me, who passed it on, I have never been known
to be shy, so it had to be one of the names he sent it to.

Jan

However, it did say:

It is ONLY Baratz's word against a whole industry. There are NO
OTHER WITNESSES, only Baratz. Only Baratz says Kadile has bad
records. 83 separate MDs have offered to testify as to the
quality of Kadile's records - five of which are Wisconsin doctors.

When Baratz is cross examined, he can be challenged on the standards he
used to render his opinions. Those standards should be written, and
applied consistently in the case.

If he does not follow that, then his testimony falls apart.

The 83 MDs should be able to provide the defense attorney with thorough
preparation, and, with T^immy sitting there, they should be able to do
exactly what Timmie says he is planning to do.

However, if Baratz' testimony is not picked apart, then Timmie most
likely did not have the resources he claims he has.

Let's wait and see.

Mark Probert said:

Peter Bowditch said:

The latest gush of suppuration from Tim Bolen is a response to
something that Eric Bohlman wrote in this very newsgroup.

Congratulations, Eric. A day spent annoying Bolen is not a wasted day.

(I would also congratulate the nameless person who passed on Eric's
thoughts to Bolen, except that the person was too shy to say who they
are.)

Specifics, Peter, specifics.

Here is the email - note who it is addressed to (emails of innocent
parties munged to prevent harvesting, but there are enough clues):

From: "Tim Bolen" <[email hidden]>
To: <ebohlman@earthlink>
Cc: <[email hidden]>, <[email hidden]>, <peterb@ratbags>,
"DCS" <dcs@lumbercartel>, <rich@ilhawaii>,
"Debbee" <[email hidden]>
Subject: Megalomanic Baratz

Eric Bohlman:

The below e-mail was passed on to me and I thought you might find it
interesting that the ACCUSATIONS that Bobbie Baratz is testifying to
as a so-called EXPERT WITNESS, were also MADE by that same Baratz, not
by someone else.

It is ONLY Baratz's word against a whole industry. There are NO
OTHER WITNESSES, only Baratz. Only Baratz says Kadile has bad
records. 83 separate MDs have offered to testify as to the
quality of Kadile's records - five of which are Wisconsin
doctors.

Little Bobbie is going to rue the day he sent his fake resume to
Wisconsin.

Tim Bolen

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Since most of the complaints against Kadile involve allegations

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

failure to practice general medicine to accepted standards,

Acceptable to whom??

Organized medciine?!?!

Several of the complaints against Kadile involve allegations that he
failed to keep sufficient medical records (charts) on various
patients, to the extent that if any of those patients were to
experience a medical emergency and Kadile was not immediately
available, the doctor handling the emergency would not be able to
determine what the patient had been diagnosed with and what treatment
he had been receiving, information that would be necessary to properly
deal with the patient's condition.

For example, if my cardiologist had failed to keep a chart
describing the
results of the coronary angiogram I had in 2001 (indicating,
among other
things, single-artery blockage), the treatment administered
(angioplasty
and stenting), and the followup results (basically history and
resting
EKGs) then my health and possibly life would be endangered if I
were to
develop a cardiac problem at a time when my cardiologist was out
of town,
if he had been run over by a truck, etc. It would be endangered
because
the new cardiologist would not know my medical history. If I
were
unconscious, he might not even know if I had ever been diagnosed
with or
treated for CAD. If I were hospitalized for something else and
developed
mild chest pain, it would be quite important for the attending
physician to
know that I had previously presented with ACS and that my
symptoms at the
time were extraordinarily mild.

Yes, it is "organized medicine" that sets standards for the
amount of
detail that must go into a patient's medical records. These
standards are
known to all, and are generally agreed upon in the profession.
"Free
spirits" are perfectly free to go *beyond* those requirements,
but *not* to
go *below* them. Failure to keep adequate medical records is not an
*alternative* modality of treatment (it's not a treatment modality at
all) and it makes no more sense to say that such failure should be
excused on the grounds that Kadile is merely refusing to toe the line
of a self- protecting cabal than it would to excuse a doctor for
billing a patient for services never rendered.

We are talking about really basic stuff here, along the lines of
insisting
that notations that a patient has a fever or hypertension be
backed up with
actual readings of temperature or blood pressure, that a
diagnosis of
diabetes requires a blood glucose reading (and speaking of
diabetes, one of
the complaints against Kadile is that he diagnosed a patient with
diabetes but his records showed no indication that he, as the
patient's primary-care physician, was providing *any* treatment for it
(note that diabetes treatment need not consist of medication) or had
done *any* of the follow- up tests (A1C, microalbuminuria, etc.) that
are indicated after a diagnosis of diabetes. OK, OK, I exaggerated a
bit there; one of the indicated follow-up tests is a measurement of
blood pressure, and I have no doubt that he or someone in his office
took the patient's BP, since you can't get within ten feet of a
doctor's office without having your BP taken), that a patient's weight
be measured with a scale rather than eyeballed, and that teeth which
have no amalgam fillings not be extracted in the name of
preventing/treating mercury poisoning (an entirely separate issue from
the one of whether or not amalgam fillings need to be removed, and one
that Hal Huggins lost his dental license over). It's like not
performing an emergency appendectomy on a patient with
lower-right-quadrant abdominal pain if medical records show that the
patient already *had* his appendix out. It's like not diagnosing
pregnancy in a male patient.

Do you think any of the requirements I listed in the previous
paragraph are
unreasonable?

Tim Bolen
JuriMed - Public Relations and Research Group
[email hidden]
949-728-0838

--
Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight

<<
I received this also. It wasn't me, who passed it on, I have never been known
to be shy, so it had to be one of the names he sent it to.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe someone didn't like the fact that I am out to try and prove Bolen
wrong!!! Kind of arrogant...?? or is that observation just mine?

"If you're gonna walk on thin ice, you may as well dance." (Jessie Winchester).

DEBBEE1023 said:

<<
I received this also. It wasn't me, who passed it on, I have never been known
to be shy, so it had to be one of the names he sent it to.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe someone didn't like the fact that I am out to try and prove Bolen
wrong!!! Kind of arrogant...?? or is that observation just mine?

only you.

I posted a message which showed that he is wrong wrt to one of his
claims regarding Baratz' credentials.

Include that in your summary.