Doctors who don't care...

Quoted message said:

Subject: Doctors who don't care...
From: "Dave Wickware" [email hidden]
Date: 5/16/2004 5:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I said my holistic surgeon does not do it that way.

said spamming Dave

Quoted message said:

we would recognize that performing oral surgery on both
sides of the mouth at once would leave the patient unable
to chew for a couple of days. If , on the other hand we
performed the oral surgery on one side at a time, the
patient would retain

so...if you can't chew a steak for a few days do you think
you will die of malnutrition?? how silly....take some of
your "ginseng" and you will be fine..

Quoted message said:

The same disussion occured for cataract surgery. Orac
favors doing both at once and leaving the patient totally
blinded rather than do one side at a time.

Orac did NOT favor doing both eyes at the same time...in
fact his reply was quite specific as to why...

apparently you didn't read that far

hawki.....

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Wickware said:

There was some discussion here about why a surgeon would
not perform oral surgery on both sides of the mouth on the
same day. I said my holistic surgeon does not do it that
way. Orac says there is no reason why he wouldn't. This is
quite telling. If we gave any thought about the needs of
the patient we would recognize that performing oral
surgery on both sides of the mouth at once would leave the
patient unable to chew for a couple of days. If , on the
other hand we performed the oral surgery on one side at a
time, the patient would retain the ability to eat.

Red herring. Operating on both sides would not deter you
from eating a soft diet for a couple of days.

Quoted message said:

The same disussion occured for cataract surgery. Orac
favors doing both at once and leaving the patient totally
blinded rather than do one side at a time.

Don't lie about what I said. You know full well I said
nothing of the sort about cataract surgery. In fact, I
explained the rationale as to why cataract surgery is
usually done one side at a time, separated by a period of
time ranging from a few days to a few weeks, as a method of
showing why the two clinical situations were not analogous.
Here is what I said (a direct quote):

"The two situations are not analogous. The reason only one
eye is usually done at a time for cataracts is because of
the small risk of potentially blinding postoperative
infection: endophthaimitis. Obviously that would be
devastating if it happened in both eyes, which is why both
are usually not done at the same time. Another reason is
that it aids in the choice of the intraocular lens based on
the response of the first side.

"There is no such concern for operating on different sides
of the jaw."

From Message-ID: <orac-
[email hidden]>

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"

My point was that you don't show any consideration for the
patient. That just happens to be the number two complaint of
the patients that come to us seeking alternative healing.

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:orac-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Wickware said:

There was some discussion here about why a surgeon would
not perform oral surgery on both sides of the mouth on
the same day. I said my holistic surgeon does not do it
that way. Orac says there is no reason why he wouldn't.
This is quite telling. If we gave any thought about the
needs of the patient we would recognize that performing
oral surgery on both sides of the mouth at once would
leave the patient unable to chew for a couple of days.
If , on the other hand we performed the oral surgery on
one side at a time, the patient would retain the ability
to eat.

Red herring. Operating on both sides would not deter you
from eating a soft diet for a couple of days.

Quoted message said:

The same disussion occured for cataract surgery. Orac
favors doing both at once and leaving the patient totally
blinded rather than do one side at a time.

Don't lie about what I said. You know full well I said
nothing of the sort about cataract surgery. In fact, I
explained the rationale as to why cataract surgery is
usually done one side at a time, separated by a period of
time ranging from a few days to a few weeks, as a method
of showing why the two clinical situations were not
analogous. Here is what I said (a direct quote):

"The two situations are not analogous. The reason only one
eye is usually done at a time for cataracts is because of
the small risk of potentially blinding postoperative
infection: endophthaimitis. Obviously that would be
devastating if it happened in both eyes, which is why both
are usually not done at the same time. Another reason is
that it aids in the choice of the intraocular lens based
on the response of the first side.

"There is no such concern for operating on different sides
of the jaw."

From Message-ID: <orac-
[email hidden]>

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Wickware said:

There was some discussion here about why a surgeon would
not perform oral surgery on both sides of the mouth on
the same day. I said my holistic surgeon does not do it
that way. Orac says there is no reason why he wouldn't.
This is quite telling. If we gave any thought about the
needs of the patient we would recognize that performing
oral surgery on both sides of the mouth at once would
leave the patient unable to chew for a couple of days.
If , on the other hand we performed the oral surgery on
one side at a time, the patient would retain the ability
to eat.

Red herring. Operating on both sides would not deter you
from eating a soft diet for a couple of days.

Indeed, I found that out at the age of 17. After the removal
of 4 impacted wisdom teeth (which unexpectedly became badly
infected literally overnight, requiring hospitalization & IV
antibiotics after oral antibiotics failed to do the trick
before surgery) my friends & I went out for a lovely pasta
dinner that night without any problems.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Wickware said:

My point was that you don't show any consideration for the
patient. That just happens to be the number two complaint
of the patients that come to us seeking alternative
healing.

Regardless of what your intended point was, you totally
misrepresented what I said, claiming that I advocated
operating on bilateral cataracts at the same session, when
in fact I was explaining why that is usually not done and
why your example was not analogous to bilateral cataracts.
Referring to the other thread, in which I discussed why I so
rarely call anyone a liar (mainly because for a lie to be a
lie the person saying it has to be aware that it is untrue
when he says it), I think using the term is justified in
your case. The meaning of the post by me that you
misrepresented was not ambiguous, and you clearly read it.
So, unless you are going to plead stupidity or some lame
claim of "sarcasm," I have little choice but to conclude
that you intentionally said something you knew not to be
true; i.e., you lied.

If you choose to lie about little things (such as a post by
someone on Usenet, to which you could have responded and
made *exactly* the same point about my supposed lack of
consideration just as effectively without resorting to lying
about its content, but instead chose to misrepresent my
statement as saying exactly the opposite of what it did, in
fact, say), then why should I (or anyone else here) believe
other assertions that you make?

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"

Good grief! Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:orac-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Wickware said:

My point was that you don't show any consideration for
the patient. That just happens to be the number two
complaint of the patients that come to us seeking
alternative healing.

Regardless of what your intended point was, you totally
misrepresented what I said, claiming that I advocated
operating on bilateral cataracts at the same session, when
in fact I was explaining why that is usually not done and
why your example was not analogous to bilateral cataracts.
Referring to the other thread, in which I discussed why I
so rarely call anyone a liar (mainly because for a lie to
be a lie the person saying it has to be aware that it is
untrue when he says it), I think using the term is
justified in your case. The meaning of the post by me that
you misrepresented was not ambiguous, and you clearly read
it. So, unless you are going to plead stupidity or some
lame claim of "sarcasm," I have little choice but to
conclude that you intentionally said something you knew
not to be true; i.e., you lied.

If you choose to lie about little things (such as a post
by someone on Usenet, to which you could have responded
and made *exactly* the same point about my supposed lack
of consideration just as effectively without resorting to
lying about its content, but instead chose to misrepresent
my statement as saying exactly the opposite of what it
did, in fact, say), then why should I (or anyone else
here) believe other assertions that you make?

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Wickware said:

Good grief! Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

You're the one who chose blatant misrepresentation as a
means of making a point, not me. I'm sorry to see that you
treat it so lightly, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised,
given that you use inflated claims to sell overpriced
Ginseng through an MLM scheme.

Quoted message said:

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:orac-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>, "Dave

Wickware said:

My point was that you don't show any consideration for
the patient. That just happens to be the number two
complaint of the patients that come to us seeking
alternative healing.

Regardless of what your intended point was, you totally
misrepresented what I said, claiming that I advocated
operating on bilateral cataracts at the same session,
when in fact I was explaining why that is usually not
done and why your example was not analogous to bilateral
cataracts. Referring to the other thread, in which I
discussed why I so rarely call anyone a liar (mainly
because for a lie to be a lie the person saying it has
to be aware that it is untrue when he says it), I think
using the term is justified in your case. The meaning of
the post by me that you misrepresented was not
ambiguous, and you clearly read it. So, unless you are
going to plead stupidity or some lame claim of
"sarcasm," I have little choice but to conclude that you
intentionally said something you knew not to be true;
i.e., you lied.

If you choose to lie about little things (such as a
post by someone on Usenet, to which you could have
responded and made *exactly* the same point about my
supposed lack of consideration just as effectively
without resorting to lying about its content, but
instead chose to misrepresent my statement as saying
exactly the opposite of what it did, in fact, say),
then why should I (or anyone else here) believe other
assertions that you make?

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"