What would you do if...

Quoted message said:

Subject: What would you do if...
From: "Dave Wickware" [email hidden]
Date: 5/28/2004 6:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I will be having that simple
surgical procedure, at a cost of $150.00 CDN, by the way, in the hope that

a/scraping away at your jaw bone is FAR from simple little procedure...

b/anyone who would do it for a mere $150 is suspect...are you getting an
anesthetic?? or a bullet to bite for the pain??

just some questions..

hawki.....

"Hawki63" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: What would you do if...
From: "Dave Wickware" [email hidden]
Date: 5/28/2004 6:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I will be having that simple
surgical procedure, at a cost of $150.00 CDN, by the way, in the hope

that

Quoted message said:

a/scraping away at your jaw bone is FAR from simple little procedure...

b/anyone who would do it for a mere $150 is suspect...are you getting an
anesthetic?? or a bullet to bite for the pain??

just some questions..

hawki.....

He gives a local anesthetic from a very well known dental surgeon who has
been doing these procedures for 18 years.
His fee is according to the Canadian dental fee schedule.

"Dave Wickware" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Hawki63" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: What would you do if...
From: "Dave Wickware" [email hidden]
Date: 5/28/2004 6:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I will be having that simple
surgical procedure, at a cost of $150.00 CDN, by the way, in the hope

that

Quoted message said:

a/scraping away at your jaw bone is FAR from simple little

procedure...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

b/anyone who would do it for a mere $150 is suspect...are you getting an
anesthetic?? or a bullet to bite for the pain??

just some questions..

hawki.....

He gives a local anesthetic from a very well known dental surgeon who has
been doing these procedures for 18 years.
His fee is according to the Canadian dental fee schedule.

Hawki thinks that fair pricing in medicine should be outlawed. Keep those
Mercedes humming........

"Dave Wickware" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Lets say that you have some disease or condition that has been treated by
your doctor until he has nothing further to offer.
At some point he must tell you that he can see no hope and that you are
terminal. Now you have a decision to make. You can accept his word (some

do)

Quoted message said:

and go about preparing for your demise, or you can decide to fight to
continue living (many
do). So, you then proceed to find additional opinions on your condition.

At

Quoted message said:

this juncture, some seek addition medical opinions and some seek

alternative

Quoted message said:

means. If the additional medical opinions end with a terminally ill
diagnoses, those people also seek alternative therapies. Some folks here
appear to be so against alternative ways that they would advocate

accepting

Quoted message said:

the hopeless diagnosis and recommend quietly dieing, to others. The

question

Quoted message said:

I pose is, what if it was yourself? What if it was your child? Would you
still refuse to try an alternative therapy? Would you not be willing to
spend any any amount of money as long as you had some hope of extending

your

Quoted message said:

life?

This is all quite valid. It is why healthfraud activities are primarily
about those making health care claims, not about those consuming them.
Healthfraud is about medical ethics and the science of medicine, matters
which are not necessarily of major interest to the health care consumer.
The health care consumer could help, however , by demanding better standards
of evidence from any claiming have useful remedies.

You have been advised that the surgery is not likely to help you, and that
dentists know nothing about emphysema, but it is up to you what you do. No
one will hold it against you. Or they shouldn't, even if we think those
treating you are either fools or villains.

Quoted message said:

Would you not then find talking to others who had been in your
situation about how they had successfully solved their problem with
alternative means, of value?

If you haven't learnt yet to take WWW testimonial with a huge grain of salt,
you eventually will.

Peter Moran

The ethical and scientific concerns are completely different.

Quoted message said:

I am writing this as a man who has lived those questions. This is not
hypothetical for me. I don't know the correct answer for YOU. But I surely
know the correct answer for me. I have talked about having cavitation
surgery on June 7. Some here have told me it is a scam. It is difficult

for

Quoted message said:

me to even contemplate the inappropriateness of that comment. That person
does not have the ight to even say that to me. I will be having that

simple

Quoted message said:

surgical procedure, at a cost of $150.00 CDN, by the way, in the hope

that

Quoted message said:

it will eliminate chronic infections which limit my physical abilities. I

am

Quoted message said:

doing it because I have talked to a number of people who have had serious
systemic diseases eliminated by this procedure.

Can you begin to imagine the impact of discovering that a simple little
procedure, performed with a local anesthetic in a dentists office, in 30
minutes could eliminate a major source of many diseases such as heart
disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis and other systemic diseases?

I will be letting you and lots of others know my results.

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Dave Wickware" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Lets say that you have some disease or condition that has been treated

by

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

your doctor until he has nothing further to offer.
At some point he must tell you that he can see no hope and that you are
terminal. Now you have a decision to make. You can accept his word (some

do)

Quoted message said:

and go about preparing for your demise, or you can decide to fight to
continue living (many
do). So, you then proceed to find additional opinions on your condition.

At

Quoted message said:

this juncture, some seek addition medical opinions and some seek

alternative

Quoted message said:

means. If the additional medical opinions end with a terminally ill
diagnoses, those people also seek alternative therapies. Some folks here
appear to be so against alternative ways that they would advocate

accepting

Quoted message said:

the hopeless diagnosis and recommend quietly dieing, to others. The

question

Quoted message said:

I pose is, what if it was yourself? What if it was your child? Would you
still refuse to try an alternative therapy? Would you not be willing to
spend any any amount of money as long as you had some hope of extending

your

Quoted message said:

life?

This is all quite valid. It is why healthfraud activities are primarily
about those making health care claims, not about those consuming them.
Healthfraud is about medical ethics and the science of medicine, matters
which are not necessarily of major interest to the health care consumer.
The health care consumer could help, however , by demanding better

standards

Quoted message said:

of evidence from any claiming have useful remedies.

You have been advised that the surgery is not likely to help you, and that
dentists know nothing about emphysema, but it is up to you what you do.

No

Quoted message said:

one will hold it against you. Or they shouldn't, even if we think those
treating you are either fools or villains.

Quoted message said:

Would you not then find talking to others who had been in your
situation about how they had successfully solved their problem with
alternative means, of value?

If you haven't learnt yet to take WWW testimonial with a huge grain of

salt,

Quoted message said:

you eventually will.

Peter Moran

The ethical and scientific concerns are completely different.

Quoted message said:

I am writing this as a man who has lived those questions. This is not
hypothetical for me. I don't know the correct answer for YOU. But I

surely

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

know the correct answer for me. I have talked about having cavitation
surgery on June 7. Some here have told me it is a scam. It is difficult

for

Quoted message said:

me to even contemplate the inappropriateness of that comment. That

person

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

does not have the ight to even say that to me. I will be having that

simple

Quoted message said:

surgical procedure, at a cost of $150.00 CDN, by the way, in the hope

that

Quoted message said:

it will eliminate chronic infections which limit my physical abilities.

I

Quoted message said:

am

Quoted message said:

doing it because I have talked to a number of people who have had

serious

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

systemic diseases eliminated by this procedure.

Can you begin to imagine the impact of discovering that a simple little
procedure, performed with a local anesthetic in a dentists office, in 30
minutes could eliminate a major source of many diseases such as heart
disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis and other systemic diseases?

I will be letting you and lots of others know my results.

So did you answer that you would rather die than face your own ignorance?
As for testimonials...your words of warning have no power, I am already a
living testimonial
for what you struggle to not see.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: What would you do if...
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 5/28/2004 2:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

"Dave Wickware" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Lets say that you have some disease or condition that has been treated by
your doctor until he has nothing further to offer.
At some point he must tell you that he can see no hope and that you are
terminal. Now you have a decision to make. You can accept his word (some

do)

Quoted message said:

and go about preparing for your demise, or you can decide to fight to
continue living (many
do). So, you then proceed to find additional opinions on your condition.

At

Quoted message said:

this juncture, some seek addition medical opinions and some seek

alternative

Quoted message said:

means. If the additional medical opinions end with a terminally ill
diagnoses, those people also seek alternative therapies. Some folks here
appear to be so against alternative ways that they would advocate

accepting

Quoted message said:

the hopeless diagnosis and recommend quietly dieing, to others. The

question

Quoted message said:

I pose is, what if it was yourself? What if it was your child? Would you
still refuse to try an alternative therapy? Would you not be willing to
spend any any amount of money as long as you had some hope of extending

your

Quoted message said:

life?

This is all quite valid. It is why healthfraud activities are primarily
about those making health care claims, not about those consuming them.

Dave didn't ask for sermon, he asked what would YOU do???

Quoted message said:

Healthfraud is about medical ethics

Oh?? WHICH ones????

Would you say Dr Wilson had no medical ethics???? WHY did he remain on staff???

WHY did you defend him EVEN THOUGH without a doubt he committed FRAUD.
COVER_UPS and REPEATED DELIBERATE VIOLATIONS OF REGULATIONS???????

<snip>

Quoted message said:

, by demanding better standards

You thought the standards of Dr Wlson were A OK.

Quoted message said:

You have been advised that the surgery is not likely to help you,

By those of *organized medicine* who also deny cavitations,EVEN THOUGH THERE IS
PLEANTY OF PROOF.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

even if we think those
treating you are either fools or villains.

But Dr Wilson is a stand up guy who remains on staff.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

If you haven't learnt yet to take WWW testimonial with a huge grain of salt,
you eventually will.

Peter Moran

If you haven't learned by now the LIES from organized medicine and the double
standards, you just read another example.

The FACTS are Peter Moran is BLINDED!!!!

And didn't answer the question.

Jan

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: What would you do if...
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

This is all quite valid. It is why healthfraud activities are primarily
about those making health care claims, not about those consuming them.

Dave didn't ask for sermon, he asked what would YOU do???

Jan has a control problem. Poor Jan.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Healthfraud is about medical ethics

Oh?? WHICH ones????

Would you say Dr Wilson had no medical ethics???? WHY did he remain on staff???

How did Dr. Wilson get into the conversation?? Diversion. Poor Jan.

Quoted message said:

WHY did you defend him EVEN THOUGH without a doubt he committed FRAUD.
COVER_UPS and REPEATED DELIBERATE VIOLATIONS OF REGULATIONS???????

Poor Jan. All she can do is hurl personal attacks against posters with
whom she disagrees.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

, by demanding better standards

You thought the standards of Dr Wlson were A OK.

I wonder what Jan Drew thinks of the standards of Hulda Clark.
Kaboom!!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You have been advised that the surgery is not likely to help you,

By those of *organized medicine* who also deny cavitations,EVEN THOUGH THERE IS
PLEANTY OF PROOF.

Ad hominem attack. Poor Jan.

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

even if we think those
treating you are either fools or villains.

But Dr Wilson is a stand up guy who remains on staff.

Hulda Clark has the cure for ALL illnesses. Oh, that is right. Jan
just thinks that Hulda is "mistaken". Indeed!!

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

If you haven't learnt yet to take WWW testimonial with a huge grain of salt,
you eventually will.

Peter Moran

If you haven't learned by now the LIES from organized medicine and the double
standards, you just read another example.

Jan DRew is one to talk about lying as lying comes second nature to
her.

Quoted message said:

The FACTS are Peter Moran is BLINDED!!!!

More attacks. Such hatred. I hope Jan Drew gets some help.

Quoted message said:

And didn't answer the question.

Cue Jan to say I did not answer Bubba's questions. Indeed!!!

Aloha,

Rich

Quoted message said:

Jan

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: What would you do if...
From: "Dave Wickware" [email hidden]
Date: 5/28/2004 11:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

He gives a local anesthetic from a very well known dental surgeon who has
been doing these procedures for 18 years.
His fee is according to the Canadian dental fee schedule.

well....good luck to you...from one who cannot tolerate simple cleaning without
local...I cannot even imagine someone scraping away at the jawbone with a
local..

remember a local is pretty much only effective at the skin and mucous membrane
level..

better bring the bullet...

as for the price...it is quite a bargain...

again...good luck

hawki.....

In article
<[email hidden]
m.au>,

Peter Moran said:

"Dave Wickware" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lets say that you have some disease or condition that has been treated by
your doctor until he has nothing further to offer.
At some point he must tell you that he can see no hope and that you are
terminal. Now you have a decision to make. You can accept his word (some

do)

Quoted message said:

and go about preparing for your demise, or you can decide to fight to
continue living (many
do). So, you then proceed to find additional opinions on your condition.

At

Quoted message said:

this juncture, some seek addition medical opinions and some seek

alternative

Quoted message said:

means. If the additional medical opinions end with a terminally ill
diagnoses, those people also seek alternative therapies. Some folks here
appear to be so against alternative ways that they would advocate

accepting

Quoted message said:

the hopeless diagnosis and recommend quietly dieing, to others. The

question

Quoted message said:

I pose is, what if it was yourself? What if it was your child? Would you
still refuse to try an alternative therapy? Would you not be willing to
spend any any amount of money as long as you had some hope of extending

your

Quoted message said:

life?

This is all quite valid. It is why healthfraud activities are primarily
about those making health care claims, not about those consuming them.
Healthfraud is about medical ethics and the science of medicine, matters
which are not necessarily of major interest to the health care consumer.
The health care consumer could help, however , by demanding better standards
of evidence from any claiming have useful remedies.

Precisely. The problem with all too many alt-med practitioners is that
they take advantage of the very desperation of such patients to push
their remedy. Most probably do it with good intentions, truly believing
that their remedy "works," but that does not excuse them. A person
treating a patient, whether doctor or alt-practitioner, has an absolute
obligation to tell the patient what is known about the course of
treatment proposed, what its risks are, and what the likelihood of its
accomplishing what is claimed for it. In order to be able to give such
information, such information must be known, and the best way for it to
be known is through clinical trials. Practitioners like Hulda Clark, who
claims to have the "cure for all cancers" or the "cure for AIDS" make
such claims on the basis of essentially no data or on the basis of data
that is so flawed that it is meaningless.

--
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]
m.au>,

Peter Moran said:

"Dave Wickware" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lets say that you have some disease or condition that has been treated

by

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

your doctor until he has nothing further to offer.
At some point he must tell you that he can see no hope and that you

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

terminal. Now you have a decision to make. You can accept his word

(some

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

do)

Quoted message said:

and go about preparing for your demise, or you can decide to fight to
continue living (many
do). So, you then proceed to find additional opinions on your

condition.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At

Quoted message said:

this juncture, some seek addition medical opinions and some seek

alternative

Quoted message said:

means. If the additional medical opinions end with a terminally ill
diagnoses, those people also seek alternative therapies. Some folks

here

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

appear to be so against alternative ways that they would advocate

accepting

Quoted message said:

the hopeless diagnosis and recommend quietly dieing, to others. The

question

Quoted message said:

I pose is, what if it was yourself? What if it was your child? Would

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

still refuse to try an alternative therapy? Would you not be willing

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

spend any any amount of money as long as you had some hope of

extending

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

your

Quoted message said:

life?

This is all quite valid. It is why healthfraud activities are primarily
about those making health care claims, not about those consuming them.
Healthfraud is about medical ethics and the science of medicine, matters
which are not necessarily of major interest to the health care consumer.
The health care consumer could help, however , by demanding better

standards

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of evidence from any claiming have useful remedies.

Precisely. The problem with all too many alt-med practitioners is that
they take advantage of the very desperation of such patients to push
their remedy. Most probably do it with good intentions, truly believing
that their remedy "works," but that does not excuse them. A person
treating a patient, whether doctor or alt-practitioner, has an absolute
obligation to tell the patient what is known about the course of
treatment proposed, what its risks are, and what the likelihood of its
accomplishing what is claimed for it. In order to be able to give such
information, such information must be known, and the best way for it to
be known is through clinical trials. Practitioners like Hulda Clark, who
claims to have the "cure for all cancers" or the "cure for AIDS" make
such claims on the basis of essentially no data or on the basis of data
that is so flawed that it is meaningless.

This dental surgeon is not an alt-med practitioner he is main stream mercury
using dentist. He told me the risks, he told me it won't likely make any
difference
and I signed a waiver to that effect. What is so very sad is that he had to
do it to
protect himself not from me, but from persecution from his own College of
Dentistry.

I will let you all know if I survive this event. Based on the discovery of
this problem
and all the research that has been done (I posted it previously and Jan
re-posted it)
showing the results I can expect, I am making arrangements for the walk a
round of
golf with Dave day. So far I have 9 CPGA golfers, and 6 medical doctors and
a host
of others who have actually witnessed my healing over the past year.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: What would you do if...
From: "Dave Wickware" [email hidden]
Date: 5/28/2004 6:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

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

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]
m.au>,

Peter Moran said:

"Dave Wickware" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

> Lets say that you have some disease or condition that has been treated

by

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> your doctor until he has nothing further to offer.
> At some point he must tell you that he can see no hope and that you

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> terminal. Now you have a decision to make. You can accept his word

(some

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

do)
> and go about preparing for your demise, or you can decide to fight to
> continue living (many
> do). So, you then proceed to find additional opinions on your

condition.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At
> this juncture, some seek addition medical opinions and some seek
alternative
> means. If the additional medical opinions end with a terminally ill
> diagnoses, those people also seek alternative therapies. Some folks

here

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> appear to be so against alternative ways that they would advocate
accepting
> the hopeless diagnosis and recommend quietly dieing, to others. The
question
> I pose is, what if it was yourself? What if it was your child? Would

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> still refuse to try an alternative therapy? Would you not be willing

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> spend any any amount of money as long as you had some hope of

extending

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

your
> life?

This is all quite valid. It is why healthfraud activities are primarily
about those making health care claims, not about those consuming them.
Healthfraud is about medical ethics and the science of medicine, matters
which are not necessarily of major interest to the health care consumer.
The health care consumer could help, however , by demanding better

standards

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of evidence from any claiming have useful remedies.

Precisely.

And wrong.

The problem with all too many alt-med practitioners is that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they take advantage of the very desperation of such patients to push
their remedy

Spoken by a good little *organized medicine member*, who is repeating the jagon
from the source.

The truth is, alternative practitioners look for the root of the problem,
neither do they take advantage of anyone. Facts are more and more are turning
to alternative because THEY ARE DISSATISFIED with conventional medicine.

The non answers aren't acceptable, the problem is buried in the book of denial,
therefore the doctors don't look.

Those of organized medicine need to blame the alternative practitioners, rather
than look in the mirror.

It is noted that neither Peter or Orac can answer the question, rather they go
off into a rant of lies.

<snip more of the usual about Hulda Clark>

Quoted message said:

This dental surgeon is not an alt-med practitioner he is main stream mercury
using dentist. He told me the risks, he told me it won't likely make any
difference and I signed a waiver to that effect. What is so very sad is that

he had to do it to protect himself not from me, but from persecution from his
own
College of Dentistry.

Indeed.

Quoted message said:

I will let you all know if I survive this event. Based on the discovery of
this problem
and all the research that has been done (I posted it previously and Jan
re-posted it)
showing the results I can expect, I am making arrangements for the walk a
round of
golf with Dave day. So far I have 9

CPGA golfers, and 6 medical doctors and a host

Quoted message said:

of others who have actually witnessed my healing over the past year.

Good luck, Dave and God Bless, Prayers are being said for you.

Jan

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: What would you do if...
From: "Dave Wickware" [email hidden]
Date: 5/28/2004 7:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

He told me the risks, he told me it won't likely make any
difference
and I signed a waiver to that effect. What is so very sad is that he had to
do it to
protect himself not from me, but from persecution from his own College of
Dentistry.

I will let you all know if I survive this event. Based on the discovery of
this problem
and all the research that has been done (I posted it previously and Jan
re-posted it)
showing the results I can expect, I am making arrangements for the walk a
round of
golf with Dave day. So far I have 9 CPGA golfers, and 6 medical doctors and
a host
of others who have actually witnessed my healing over the past year.

actually the waiver you signed means you can not sue him...in the
us...mediation only..

I would think he has farrrr more to gain from your not being able to sue
him.....

then from whatever "His" college of denstry might...could...do to him..

hawki.....

To my knowledge. medical-type waivers are always executed to protect the
practitioner from a patient's always potential lawsuit, not from a
professional governing body. If your dentist "actually" told you
otherwise, it sounds like BS.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Wickware said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]
m.au>,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is all quite valid. It is why healthfraud activities are primarily
about those making health care claims, not about those consuming them.
Healthfraud is about medical ethics and the science of medicine, matters
which are not necessarily of major interest to the health care consumer.
The health care consumer could help, however , by demanding better

standards

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of evidence from any claiming have useful remedies.

Precisely. The problem with all too many alt-med practitioners is that
they take advantage of the very desperation of such patients to push
their remedy. Most probably do it with good intentions, truly believing
that their remedy "works," but that does not excuse them. A person
treating a patient, whether doctor or alt-practitioner, has an absolute
obligation to tell the patient what is known about the course of
treatment proposed, what its risks are, and what the likelihood of its
accomplishing what is claimed for it. In order to be able to give such
information, such information must be known, and the best way for it to
be known is through clinical trials. Practitioners like Hulda Clark, who
claims to have the "cure for all cancers" or the "cure for AIDS" make
such claims on the basis of essentially no data or on the basis of data
that is so flawed that it is meaningless.

This dental surgeon is not an alt-med practitioner he is main stream mercury
using dentist.

Who has apparently figured out he can increase his practice income by
adopting some altie fad diagnoses and treatments, such as "cavitations."

Quoted message said:

He told me the risks, he told me it won't likely make any
difference and I signed a waiver to that effect.

So let me get this straight. He told you that the procedure probably
won't help you, but will have risks, and you wanted it anyway?

And why on earth would you trust a practitioner who tells you that the
SURGICAL PROCEDURE (and make no mistake about it, what he proposes to do
about your "cavitations" is a surgical procedure) will likely make no
difference in your symptoms but is willing to do it anyway if you sign a
waiver (and, of course, pay him is fee)? To me, such actions bespeak a
questionable, at best, sense of professional ethics.

Quoted message said:

What is so very sad
is that he had to do it to protect himself not from me, but from
persecution from his own College of Dentistry.

In the U.S., having a patient sign such a waiver would not protect a
dentist or doctor from either prosecution by the State Medical Board or
from malpractice suits. I doubt it would in Canada, either.

Quoted message said:

I will let you all know if I survive this event.

Why would you think you wouldn't survive? Survival wasn't the question,
even among those of us like me who are extremely skeptical of the whole
concept of "cavitations." Existence of the claimed diagnosis and
efficacy of the proposed treatment were. True, given what you've told
us, you aren't in the greatest of health; so there is certainly a higher
than average risk from the anaesthesia, but it's still pretty unlikely
you would die from this.

--
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]>,

Quoted message said:

To my knowledge. medical-type waivers are always executed to protect the
practitioner from a patient's always potential lawsuit, not from a
professional governing body. If your dentist "actually" told you
otherwise, it sounds like BS.

Moreover, such waivers are almost utterly ineffective at protecting a
doctor or dentist from being sued (at least in the U.S., anway). A
patient can always claim he signed it under duress, because the doctor
wouldn't treat him if he didn't sign it.

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

Jeez! Blah, blah, blah, blah and you run in tight little circles.

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Wickware said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article

<[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

m.au>,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> This is all quite valid. It is why healthfraud activities are

primarily

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> about those making health care claims, not about those consuming

them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Healthfraud is about medical ethics and the science of medicine,

matters

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> which are not necessarily of major interest to the health care

consumer.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The health care consumer could help, however , by demanding better

standards

Quoted message said:

> of evidence from any claiming have useful remedies.

Precisely. The problem with all too many alt-med practitioners is that
they take advantage of the very desperation of such patients to push
their remedy. Most probably do it with good intentions, truly

believing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that their remedy "works," but that does not excuse them. A person
treating a patient, whether doctor or alt-practitioner, has an

absolute

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

obligation to tell the patient what is known about the course of
treatment proposed, what its risks are, and what the likelihood of its
accomplishing what is claimed for it. In order to be able to give such
information, such information must be known, and the best way for it

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be known is through clinical trials. Practitioners like Hulda Clark,

who

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

claims to have the "cure for all cancers" or the "cure for AIDS" make
such claims on the basis of essentially no data or on the basis of

data

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that is so flawed that it is meaningless.

This dental surgeon is not an alt-med practitioner he is main stream

mercury

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

using dentist.

Who has apparently figured out he can increase his practice income by
adopting some altie fad diagnoses and treatments, such as "cavitations."

Quoted message said:

He told me the risks, he told me it won't likely make any
difference and I signed a waiver to that effect.

So let me get this straight. He told you that the procedure probably
won't help you, but will have risks, and you wanted it anyway?

And why on earth would you trust a practitioner who tells you that the
SURGICAL PROCEDURE (and make no mistake about it, what he proposes to do
about your "cavitations" is a surgical procedure) will likely make no
difference in your symptoms but is willing to do it anyway if you sign a
waiver (and, of course, pay him is fee)? To me, such actions bespeak a
questionable, at best, sense of professional ethics.

Quoted message said:

What is so very sad
is that he had to do it to protect himself not from me, but from
persecution from his own College of Dentistry.

In the U.S., having a patient sign such a waiver would not protect a
dentist or doctor from either prosecution by the State Medical Board or
from malpractice suits. I doubt it would in Canada, either.

Quoted message said:

I will let you all know if I survive this event.

Why would you think you wouldn't survive? Survival wasn't the question,
even among those of us like me who are extremely skeptical of the whole
concept of "cavitations." Existence of the claimed diagnosis and
efficacy of the proposed treatment were. True, given what you've told
us, you aren't in the greatest of health; so there is certainly a higher
than average risk from the anaesthesia, but it's still pretty unlikely
you would die from this.

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

"Dave Wickware" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jeez! Blah, blah, blah, blah

You finally are posting what you are reallysaying.

"Dave Wickware" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>

The ethical and scientific concerns are completely different.

Quoted message said:

I am writing this as a man who has lived those questions. This is not
hypothetical for me. I don't know the correct answer for YOU. But I

surely

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

know the correct answer for me. I have talked about having cavitation
surgery on June 7. Some here have told me it is a scam. It is

difficult

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for

Quoted message said:

me to even contemplate the inappropriateness of that comment. That

person

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

does not have the ight to even say that to me.

If you have the right to be going on about a treatment of which you lack the
expertise to evaluate and of which you don't even have any sure personal
knowledge, others who know a bit about human pathology and disease have the
right to assert that it is a scam. You could have gone and had the
treatment and kept quiet about it. You also, I suspect, knew well that it
would provoke adverse comment before you posted.

This is a worse than average form of quackery. Firstly it involves an
invasive treatment that will inevitably have risk, or ongoing discomforts,
or create the need for further procedures for some. Secondly it is not
being advised for unexplained facial pain, wherein the idea of cavitations
could remotely have some merit (although postulating bizarre pathological
processes never previously noted), it is being advised for serious
conditions even for cancer, with utterly no evidence at all that it is
likely to be of benefit. Illustrative of this is the [censored] and bull story
fed to you about sinus infections from cavitations from wisdom teeth causing
your recurrent chest infections.

I think that if I were as desperate as you I might also try treatments that
have only a small likelihood of working, but that does not justify armies of
quacks exploiting those who are gullible as well as desperate. It also
scarcely excuses the arrogance of those so blissfully ignorant of medical
matters as to do the quack's advertising for them.

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: What would you do if...
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 5/29/2004 3:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

"Dave Wickware" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]

..com.au...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >

The ethical and scientific concerns are completely different.

>
> I am writing this as a man who has lived those questions. This is not
> hypothetical for me. I don't know the correct answer for YOU. But I

surely

Quoted message said:

> know the correct answer for me. I have talked about having cavitation
> surgery on June 7. Some here have told me it is a scam. It is

difficult

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for
> me to even contemplate the inappropriateness of that comment. That

person

Quoted message said:

> does not have the ight to even say that to me.

If you have the right to be going on about a treatment of which you lack the
expertise to evaluate and of which you don't even have any sure personal
knowledge

Are you completely stupid?????

He has done his own research and has posted it, now go back and read the above,
he said NOTHING about not having knowledge about it.

Quoted message said:

others who know a bit about human pathology and disease have the
right to assert that it is a scam.

You know zelch about cavitations, you deny them.

Quoted message said:

You could have gone and had the
treatment and kept quiet about it. You also, I suspect, knew well that it
would provoke adverse comment before you posted.

LOL. ANY alternative posted gets that response from the *gang*

Quoted message said:

This is a worse than average form of quackery

NO IT IS NOT!!!!!!!!!

I had a cavitation cleaned twice and YOU have NOT ONE CLUE AS TO THE PAIN, one
can cause.

Quoted message said:

Firstly it involves an
invasive treatment that will inevitably have risk, or ongoing discomforts,
or create the need for further procedures for some.

Can you name one that doesn't??????

Quoted message said:

Secondly it is not
being advised for unexplained facial pain, wherein the idea of cavitations
could remotely have some merit (although postulating bizarre pathological

processes never previously noted), it is being advised for serious

Quoted message said:

conditions even for cancer, with utterly no evidence at all that it is
likely to be of benefit.

WRONG WRONG AND WRONG!!!!

http://www.y2khealthanddetox.com/cavitations.htm

http://www.consultclarity.com/blazing/dentalware.html

http://curezone.com/forums/m.asp?f=43&i=121

http://www.holistichelp.net/newsletter29.html

http://www.web-light.nl/AMALGAM/EN/SCIENCE/bernie_science.html

<snip>

Quoted message said:

blissfully ignorant

Peter Moran

Indeed YOU are!!!!

Jan