Group: sci.med.diseases.lyme
Lyme Disease: patient support, research & information.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
Blumenthal's REAL findings show that the IDSA's Lyme Treatment
guidelines process was SEVERELY flawed and unprofessional.. In other
words, the boyz with bugz at IDSA were reprimanded publicly by the
State of Connecticut for shoddy work..... while ILADS was NOT
reprimanded..... Blumenthal's findings include the following, as
written on Blumenthal's website (my comments are followed by a ----):
1) The IDSA FAILED to conduct a CONFLICTS OF INTEREST review for any
of the panelists prior to their appointment to the 2006 Lyme disease
guideline panel; Subsequent disclosures demonstrate that several of
the 2006 Lyme disease panelists had CONFLICTS OF INTEREST;
--- er, um... CONFLICT OF INTEREST means that IDSA committee members
did not act in the interest of SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY (i.e. committee
members did not accept and review the many distinguished studies
which CONFIRM persistence of infection....) and they did not act in
the interest of PATIENTS... due to their commercial CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST in the INSURANCE, DRUG and BIOWAR industries.
2) The IDSA FAILED TO FOLLOW ITS OWN PROCEDURES for appointing the
2006 panel chairman and members, enabling the chairman, who held a
BIAS regarding the existence of chronic Lyme, to handpick a
LIKEMINDED panel without scrutiny by or formal approval of the IDSA's
oversight committee;
.----- that's both collusion, malfeasance and incompetence .. PLUS
utter disregard for patient welfare..worthy of lawsuits against the
misguided IDSA Epidemic Intelligence Officers who ignore persistent
infection for their own financial gain ---as well as to cover up
bioweapons "mistakes" they and their colleagues may have engaged in.
Sounds like "thank you for smoking" science to me... Long courses of
intravenous anitbiotics are EXPENSIVE... insurance does not want PAY
for LONG courses of treatment. .. OBVIOUS....despite 3rdshmuk and
Wormser's bizzare obsession to the contrary..... the panelists had
conflicts of interest, and the top legal authority in Connecticut
stated this VERY CLEARLY in his wonderful findings...
3) The IDSA's 2000 and 2006 Lyme disease panels refused to accept or
meaningfully consider information regarding the existence of chronic
Lyme disease, once removing a panelist from the 2000 panel who
dissented from the group's position on chronic Lyme disease to achieve
"consensus";
------YUP... no matter how much 3rdSHMUK may fantasize otherwise....
DOZENS of scientific articles ---and even many youtube videos have
demonstrated the existence of "persistence of infection" of the
spirochete and cysts... even WIKIPEDIA admits that there are numerous
"mechanisms of persistence" of the organism-- mechanisms that defy
standard short term treatment periods. A patient could sue IDSA on
the basis of the darkfield live blood VIDEOS ALONE showing living,
swiming spirochetes in patients' blood....so the JIG IS UP, 3rdshmuk.
4) The IDSA blocked appointment of scientists and physicians with
divergent views on chronic Lyme who sought to serve on the 2006
guidelines panel by informing them that the panel was fully staffed,
even though it was later expanded;
---yeeup... sounds like COLLUSION and MANIPULATION to me.... blocking
scientific evidence is FRAUD... by any definition of the word...
Blumenthal stated it... its now up to citizens to SUE and make sure
that these Epidemic Intelligence Officer IDSA FRAUDSTERS are held
accountable for their egregious scientific misconduct and disregard
for public health-- before more people are damaged by their
unprofessional, illegal conduct......Also, it is ILLEGAL for
intelligence agencies to operate domestically.. Ya know... You boys
are acting ILLEGALLY if you are covering up bioweapons mistakes....in
your positions as Epidemic Intelligence Officers....
5) The IDSA portrayed another medical association's Lyme disease
guidelines as corroborating its own when it knew that the two panels
shared several authors, including the chairmen of both groups, and
were working on guidelines at the same time. In allowing its panelists
to serve on both groups at the same time, IDSA violated its own
conflicts of interest policy.
....YEEEEEUP!!!... UNPROFESSIONAL, LYING BEHAVIOR RESULTING IN DAMAGE
TO PATIENTS THROUGH THE WITHHOLDING OF BOTH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON
PERSISTENCE OF INFECTION, AND TREATMENT PROTOCOLS BASED ON THE
IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF PERSISTENCE OF INFECTION...
Yup--- 3rd shmuk--- we ALL KNOW that this disease is a RELAPSING
FEVER. EXTENDED TREATMENT BUYS US TIME....but may not CURE US...
That's why we need the treatment research money from Congress.
3rdmoron--- You are unamerican, and you are not going to win at this
game... you are simply riling up very ill patients with your
ridiculous diatribes here .. causing them to act and post when maybe
they would not have otherwise done so...
....3rdwanker--- your bosses will soon fire you, I predict... but
then, that's what always happens to pathetic and arrogant schmucks
like you.
Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
Blumenthal's REAL findings show that the IDSA's Lyme Treatment
guidelines process was SEVERELY flawed and unprofessional.. In other
words, the boyz with bugz at IDSA were reprimanded publicly by the
State of Connecticut for shoddy work..... while ILADS was NOT
reprimanded..... Blumenthal's findings include the following, as
written on Blumenthal's website (my comments are followed by a ----):
1) The IDSA FAILED to conduct a CONFLICTS OF INTEREST review for any
of the panelists prior to their appointment to the 2006 Lyme disease
guideline panel; Subsequent disclosures demonstrate that several of
the 2006 Lyme disease panelists had CONFLICTS OF INTEREST;
--- er, um... CONFLICT OF INTEREST means that IDSA committee members
did not act in the interest of SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY (i.e. committee
members did not accept and review the many distinguished studies
which CONFIRM persistence of infection....) and they did not act in
the interest of PATIENTS... due to their commercial CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST in the INSURANCE, DRUG and BIOWAR industries.
2) The IDSA FAILED TO FOLLOW ITS OWN PROCEDURES for appointing the
2006 panel chairman and members, enabling the chairman, who held a
BIAS regarding the existence of chronic Lyme, to handpick a
LIKEMINDED panel without scrutiny by or formal approval of the IDSA's
oversight committee;
.----- that's both collusion, malfeasance and incompetence .. PLUS
utter disregard for patient welfare..worthy of lawsuits against the
misguided IDSA Epidemic Intelligence Officers who ignore persistent
infection for their own financial gain ---as well as to cover up
bioweapons "mistakes" they and their colleagues may have engaged in.
Sounds like "thank you for smoking" science to me... Long courses of
intravenous anitbiotics are EXPENSIVE... insurance does not want PAY
for LONG courses of treatment. .. OBVIOUS....despite 3rdshmuk and
Wormser's bizzare obsession to the contrary..... the panelists had
conflicts of interest, and the top legal authority in Connecticut
stated this VERY CLEARLY in his wonderful findings...
3) The IDSA's 2000 and 2006 Lyme disease panels refused to accept or
meaningfully consider information regarding the existence of chronic
Lyme disease, once removing a panelist from the 2000 panel who
dissented from the group's position on chronic Lyme disease to achieve
"consensus";
------YUP... no matter how much 3rdSHMUK may fantasize otherwise....
DOZENS of scientific articles ---and even many youtube videos have
demonstrated the existence of "persistence of infection" of the
spirochete and cysts... even WIKIPEDIA admits that there are numerous
"mechanisms of persistence" of the organism-- mechanisms that defy
standard short term treatment periods. A patient could sue IDSA on
the basis of the darkfield live blood VIDEOS ALONE showing living,
swiming spirochetes in patients' blood....so the JIG IS UP, 3rdshmuk.
4) The IDSA blocked appointment of scientists and physicians with
divergent views on chronic Lyme who sought to serve on the 2006
guidelines panel by informing them that the panel was fully staffed,
even though it was later expanded;
---yeeup... sounds like COLLUSION and MANIPULATION to me.... blocking
scientific evidence is FRAUD... by any definition of the word...
Blumenthal stated it... its now up to citizens to SUE and make sure
that these Epidemic Intelligence Officer IDSA FRAUDSTERS are held
accountable for their egregious scientific misconduct and disregard
for public health-- before more people are damaged by their
unprofessional, illegal conduct......Also, it is ILLEGAL for
intelligence agencies to operate domestically.. Ya know... You boys
are acting ILLEGALLY if you are covering up bioweapons mistakes....in
your positions as Epidemic Intelligence Officers....
5) The IDSA portrayed another medical association's Lyme disease
guidelines as corroborating its own when it knew that the two panels
shared several authors, including the chairmen of both groups, and
were working on guidelines at the same time. In allowing its panelists
to serve on both groups at the same time, IDSA violated its own
conflicts of interest policy.
....YEEEEEUP!!!... UNPROFESSIONAL, LYING BEHAVIOR RESULTING IN DAMAGE
TO PATIENTS THROUGH THE WITHHOLDING OF BOTH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON
PERSISTENCE OF INFECTION, AND TREATMENT PROTOCOLS BASED ON THE
IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF PERSISTENCE OF INFECTION...
Yup--- 3rd shmuk--- we ALL KNOW that this disease is a RELAPSING
FEVER. EXTENDED TREATMENT BUYS US TIME....but may not CURE US...
That's why we need the treatment research money from Congress.
3rdmoron--- You are unamerican, and you are not going to win at this
game... you are simply riling up very ill patients with your
ridiculous diatribes here .. causing them to act and post when maybe
they would not have otherwise done so...
....3rdwanker--- your bosses will soon fire you, I predict... but
then, that's what always happens to pathetic and arrogant schmucks
like you.
Re: Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
On May 16, 4:07 pm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail,com > wrote:
> Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
>
> Blumenthal's REAL findings show that the IDSA's Lyme Treatment
> guidelines process was SEVERELY flawed and unprofessional.. In other
> words, the boyz with bugz at IDSA were reprimanded publicly by the
> State of Connecticut for shoddy work..... while ILADS was NOT
> reprimanded..... Blumenthal's findings include the following, as
> written on Blumenthal's website (my comments are followed by a ----):
>
> 1) The IDSA FAILED to conduct a CONFLICTS OF INTEREST review for any
> of the panelists prior to their appointment to the 2006 Lyme disease
> guideline panel; Subsequent disclosures demonstrate that several of
> the 2006 Lyme disease panelists had CONFLICTS OF INTEREST;
>
> --- er, um... CONFLICT OF INTEREST means that IDSA committee members
> did not act in the interest of SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY (i.e. committee
> members did not accept and review the many distinguished studies
> which CONFIRM persistence of infection....) and they did not act in
> the interest of PATIENTS... due to their commercial CONFLICTS OF
> INTEREST in the INSURANCE, DRUG and BIOWAR industries.
>
> 2) The IDSA FAILED TO FOLLOW ITS OWN PROCEDURES for appointing the
> 2006 panel chairman and members, enabling the chairman, who held a
> BIAS regarding the existence of chronic Lyme, to handpick a
> LIKEMINDED panel without scrutiny by or formal approval of the IDSA's
> oversight committee;
>
> .----- that's both collusion, malfeasance and incompetence .. PLUS
> utter disregard for patient welfare..worthy of lawsuits against the
> misguided IDSA Epidemic Intelligence Officers who ignore persistent
> infection for their own financial gain ---as well as to cover up
> bioweapons "mistakes" they and their colleagues may have engaged in.
> Sounds like "thank you for smoking" science to me... Long courses of
> intravenous anitbiotics are EXPENSIVE... insurance does not want PAY
> for LONG courses of treatment. .. OBVIOUS....despite 3rdshmuk and
> Wormser's bizzare obsession to the contrary..... the panelists had
> conflicts of interest, and the top legal authority in Connecticut
> stated this VERY CLEARLY in his wonderful findings...
>
> 3) The IDSA's 2000 and 2006 Lyme disease panels refused to accept or
> meaningfully consider information regarding the existence of chronic
> Lyme disease, once removing a panelist from the 2000 panel who
> dissented from the group's position on chronic Lyme disease to achieve
> "consensus";
>
> ------YUP... no matter how much 3rdSHMUK may fantasize otherwise....
> DOZENS of scientific articles ---and even many youtube videos have
> demonstrated the existence of "persistence of infection" of the
> spirochete and cysts... even WIKIPEDIA admits that there are numerous
> "mechanisms of persistence" of the organism-- mechanisms that defy
> standard short term treatment periods. A patient could sue IDSA on
> the basis of the darkfield live blood VIDEOS ALONE showing living,
> swiming spirochetes in patients' blood....so the JIG IS UP, 3rdshmuk.
>
> 4) The IDSA blocked appointment of scientists and physicians with
> divergent views on chronic Lyme who sought to serve on the 2006
> guidelines panel by informing them that the panel was fully staffed,
> even though it was later expanded;
> ---yeeup... sounds like COLLUSION and MANIPULATION to me.... blocking
> scientific evidence is FRAUD... by any definition of the word...
> Blumenthal stated it... its now up to citizens to SUE and make sure
> that these Epidemic Intelligence Officer IDSA FRAUDSTERS are held
> accountable for their egregious scientific misconduct and disregard
> for public health-- before more people are damaged by their
> unprofessional, illegal conduct......Also, it is ILLEGAL for
> intelligence agencies to operate domestically.. Ya know... You boys
> are acting ILLEGALLY if you are covering up bioweapons mistakes....in
> your positions as Epidemic Intelligence Officers....
>
> 5) The IDSA portrayed another medical association's Lyme disease
> guidelines as corroborating its own when it knew that the two panels
> shared several authors, including the chairmen of both groups, and
> were working on guidelines at the same time. In allowing its panelists
> to serve on both groups at the same time, IDSA violated its own
> conflicts of interest policy.
>
> ....YEEEEEUP!!!... UNPROFESSIONAL, LYING BEHAVIOR RESULTING IN DAMAGE
> TO PATIENTS THROUGH THE WITHHOLDING OF BOTH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON
> PERSISTENCE OF INFECTION, AND TREATMENT PROTOCOLS BASED ON THE
> IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF PERSISTENCE OF INFECTION...
>
> Yup--- 3rd shmuk--- we ALL KNOW that this disease is a RELAPSING
> FEVER. EXTENDED TREATMENT BUYS US TIME....but may not CURE US...
> That's why we need the treatment research money from Congress.
>
> 3rdmoron--- You are unamerican, and you are not going to win at this
> game... you are simply riling up very ill patients with your
> ridiculous diatribes here .. causing them to act and post when maybe
> they would not have otherwise done so...
>
> ....3rdwanker--- your bosses will soon fire you, I predict... but
> then, that's what always happens to pathetic and arrogant schmucks
> like you.
Ok, Kathleen you were right, well thankfully it was exposed and now we
all can live happily ever after. I feel real bad for those guys on the
IDSA, their lives have been ruined, I can imagine how grueling it must
be for them to revisit the guidelines.
On May 16, 4:07 pm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail,com > wrote:
> Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
>
> Blumenthal's REAL findings show that the IDSA's Lyme Treatment
> guidelines process was SEVERELY flawed and unprofessional.. In other
> words, the boyz with bugz at IDSA were reprimanded publicly by the
> State of Connecticut for shoddy work..... while ILADS was NOT
> reprimanded..... Blumenthal's findings include the following, as
> written on Blumenthal's website (my comments are followed by a ----):
>
> 1) The IDSA FAILED to conduct a CONFLICTS OF INTEREST review for any
> of the panelists prior to their appointment to the 2006 Lyme disease
> guideline panel; Subsequent disclosures demonstrate that several of
> the 2006 Lyme disease panelists had CONFLICTS OF INTEREST;
>
> --- er, um... CONFLICT OF INTEREST means that IDSA committee members
> did not act in the interest of SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY (i.e. committee
> members did not accept and review the many distinguished studies
> which CONFIRM persistence of infection....) and they did not act in
> the interest of PATIENTS... due to their commercial CONFLICTS OF
> INTEREST in the INSURANCE, DRUG and BIOWAR industries.
>
> 2) The IDSA FAILED TO FOLLOW ITS OWN PROCEDURES for appointing the
> 2006 panel chairman and members, enabling the chairman, who held a
> BIAS regarding the existence of chronic Lyme, to handpick a
> LIKEMINDED panel without scrutiny by or formal approval of the IDSA's
> oversight committee;
>
> .----- that's both collusion, malfeasance and incompetence .. PLUS
> utter disregard for patient welfare..worthy of lawsuits against the
> misguided IDSA Epidemic Intelligence Officers who ignore persistent
> infection for their own financial gain ---as well as to cover up
> bioweapons "mistakes" they and their colleagues may have engaged in.
> Sounds like "thank you for smoking" science to me... Long courses of
> intravenous anitbiotics are EXPENSIVE... insurance does not want PAY
> for LONG courses of treatment. .. OBVIOUS....despite 3rdshmuk and
> Wormser's bizzare obsession to the contrary..... the panelists had
> conflicts of interest, and the top legal authority in Connecticut
> stated this VERY CLEARLY in his wonderful findings...
>
> 3) The IDSA's 2000 and 2006 Lyme disease panels refused to accept or
> meaningfully consider information regarding the existence of chronic
> Lyme disease, once removing a panelist from the 2000 panel who
> dissented from the group's position on chronic Lyme disease to achieve
> "consensus";
>
> ------YUP... no matter how much 3rdSHMUK may fantasize otherwise....
> DOZENS of scientific articles ---and even many youtube videos have
> demonstrated the existence of "persistence of infection" of the
> spirochete and cysts... even WIKIPEDIA admits that there are numerous
> "mechanisms of persistence" of the organism-- mechanisms that defy
> standard short term treatment periods. A patient could sue IDSA on
> the basis of the darkfield live blood VIDEOS ALONE showing living,
> swiming spirochetes in patients' blood....so the JIG IS UP, 3rdshmuk.
>
> 4) The IDSA blocked appointment of scientists and physicians with
> divergent views on chronic Lyme who sought to serve on the 2006
> guidelines panel by informing them that the panel was fully staffed,
> even though it was later expanded;
> ---yeeup... sounds like COLLUSION and MANIPULATION to me.... blocking
> scientific evidence is FRAUD... by any definition of the word...
> Blumenthal stated it... its now up to citizens to SUE and make sure
> that these Epidemic Intelligence Officer IDSA FRAUDSTERS are held
> accountable for their egregious scientific misconduct and disregard
> for public health-- before more people are damaged by their
> unprofessional, illegal conduct......Also, it is ILLEGAL for
> intelligence agencies to operate domestically.. Ya know... You boys
> are acting ILLEGALLY if you are covering up bioweapons mistakes....in
> your positions as Epidemic Intelligence Officers....
>
> 5) The IDSA portrayed another medical association's Lyme disease
> guidelines as corroborating its own when it knew that the two panels
> shared several authors, including the chairmen of both groups, and
> were working on guidelines at the same time. In allowing its panelists
> to serve on both groups at the same time, IDSA violated its own
> conflicts of interest policy.
>
> ....YEEEEEUP!!!... UNPROFESSIONAL, LYING BEHAVIOR RESULTING IN DAMAGE
> TO PATIENTS THROUGH THE WITHHOLDING OF BOTH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON
> PERSISTENCE OF INFECTION, AND TREATMENT PROTOCOLS BASED ON THE
> IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF PERSISTENCE OF INFECTION...
>
> Yup--- 3rd shmuk--- we ALL KNOW that this disease is a RELAPSING
> FEVER. EXTENDED TREATMENT BUYS US TIME....but may not CURE US...
> That's why we need the treatment research money from Congress.
>
> 3rdmoron--- You are unamerican, and you are not going to win at this
> game... you are simply riling up very ill patients with your
> ridiculous diatribes here .. causing them to act and post when maybe
> they would not have otherwise done so...
>
> ....3rdwanker--- your bosses will soon fire you, I predict... but
> then, that's what always happens to pathetic and arrogant schmucks
> like you.
Ok, Kathleen you were right, well thankfully it was exposed and now we
all can live happily ever after. I feel real bad for those guys on the
IDSA, their lives have been ruined, I can imagine how grueling it must
be for them to revisit the guidelines.
Re: Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
On May 16, 6:18 pm, chronichel...@yahoo,com wrote:
>
> Ok, Kathleen you were right, well thankfully it was exposed and now we
> all can live happily ever after. I feel real bad for those guys on the
> IDSA, their lives have been ruined, I can imagine how grueling it must
> be for them to revisit the guidelines.-
Not Kathleen.
There are more of them out there, I'm afraid.
This one's name is Carla.
(And...actually none of the previous members of the panel will be
involved in the review, according to the terms of the settlement
agreement).
On May 16, 6:18 pm, chronichel...@yahoo,com wrote:
>
> Ok, Kathleen you were right, well thankfully it was exposed and now we
> all can live happily ever after. I feel real bad for those guys on the
> IDSA, their lives have been ruined, I can imagine how grueling it must
> be for them to revisit the guidelines.-
Not Kathleen.
There are more of them out there, I'm afraid.
This one's name is Carla.
(And...actually none of the previous members of the panel will be
involved in the review, according to the terms of the settlement
agreement).
Re: Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
On May 16, 6:07 pm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail,com > wrote:
Sorry.
I"m afraid not.
If you bother to read the terms of the settlement agreement (always
helpful) you will no doubt notice a section that says that the
agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the parties and
basically precludes any other actions between the parties.
You might also notice that the IDSA did NOT waive their rights to
contest the jusrisdiction of the Conn AG in the matter.
But, you see, the AG is simply an adversarial party that represnts the
State of Connecticut. And as such, the statements of the AG are not to
be taken as a "ruling", or "finding". They are merely assertions that
can be proven or disproven. In this case, neither, as they will never
be tried because of the settlement agreement between the parties.
Whatever Blumenthal's personal OPINIONS may be in regard to the
matter...they really are just that...and to be "rulings" or
"findings"...they must be presented to a COURT of competent
jurisdiction and be ruled upon BY A JUDGE.
NOT Blumenthal.
Understand?
The ONLY things that are legally enforceable are the written terms of
the agreement. Whatever Blumenthal says his office "found" is hearsay
and irrelevant. His statements are largely political...not legal. They
have NO legal meaning. They are simply contentions, assertions.
In addition, I would note that the IDSA is a PRIVATE organization and
that the legal ability of the AG's office to enforce or interpret the
internal rules of panel composition or ethical conduct has NOT been
established and would have to be demonstrated before a JUDGE in COURT.
Again, do you understand this? Blumenthal's office has to demonstrate
before a COURT that it has the legal ability to enforce and make
decisions on the internal affairs of what is a private, professional
organization. Don't really know, but I would be willing to bet that is
something the IDSA attorneys would not be too quick to concede.
In the beginning, this "investigation" was supposedly a matter of
purported civil antitrust.
According to Blumenthal, himself, his office had to show that there
was economic benefit being derived by the panel members'
recommendations and that this benefit was the reason WHY other
potential contrary voices were excluded from the panel.
This simply hasn't happened.
And I STILL want someone to explain HOW it ever could have been a
POSSIBILITY in the first place.
The essential question remains unanswered..."HOW COULD RECOMMENDING
GENERIC DRUGS OF SHORT TERM DURATION PROVIDE ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO THE
PANEL MEMBERS"?
On May 16, 6:07 pm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail,com > wrote:
Sorry.
I"m afraid not.
If you bother to read the terms of the settlement agreement (always
helpful) you will no doubt notice a section that says that the
agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the parties and
basically precludes any other actions between the parties.
You might also notice that the IDSA did NOT waive their rights to
contest the jusrisdiction of the Conn AG in the matter.
But, you see, the AG is simply an adversarial party that represnts the
State of Connecticut. And as such, the statements of the AG are not to
be taken as a "ruling", or "finding". They are merely assertions that
can be proven or disproven. In this case, neither, as they will never
be tried because of the settlement agreement between the parties.
Whatever Blumenthal's personal OPINIONS may be in regard to the
matter...they really are just that...and to be "rulings" or
"findings"...they must be presented to a COURT of competent
jurisdiction and be ruled upon BY A JUDGE.
NOT Blumenthal.
Understand?
The ONLY things that are legally enforceable are the written terms of
the agreement. Whatever Blumenthal says his office "found" is hearsay
and irrelevant. His statements are largely political...not legal. They
have NO legal meaning. They are simply contentions, assertions.
In addition, I would note that the IDSA is a PRIVATE organization and
that the legal ability of the AG's office to enforce or interpret the
internal rules of panel composition or ethical conduct has NOT been
established and would have to be demonstrated before a JUDGE in COURT.
Again, do you understand this? Blumenthal's office has to demonstrate
before a COURT that it has the legal ability to enforce and make
decisions on the internal affairs of what is a private, professional
organization. Don't really know, but I would be willing to bet that is
something the IDSA attorneys would not be too quick to concede.
In the beginning, this "investigation" was supposedly a matter of
purported civil antitrust.
According to Blumenthal, himself, his office had to show that there
was economic benefit being derived by the panel members'
recommendations and that this benefit was the reason WHY other
potential contrary voices were excluded from the panel.
This simply hasn't happened.
And I STILL want someone to explain HOW it ever could have been a
POSSIBILITY in the first place.
The essential question remains unanswered..."HOW COULD RECOMMENDING
GENERIC DRUGS OF SHORT TERM DURATION PROVIDE ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO THE
PANEL MEMBERS"?
Re: Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
On May 16, 6:07 pm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail,com > wrote:
> Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
>
> Blumenthal's REAL findings show that the IDSA's Lyme Treatment
> guidelines process was SEVERELY flawed and unprofessional.. In other
> words, the boyz with bugz at IDSA were reprimanded publicly by the
> State of Connecticut for shoddy work..... while ILADS was NOT
> reprimanded..... Blumenthal's findings include the following, as
> written on Blumenthal's website (my comments are followed by a ----):
>
> 1) The IDSA FAILED to conduct a CONFLICTS OF INTEREST review for any
> of the panelists prior to their appointment to the 2006 Lyme disease
> guideline panel; Subsequent disclosures demonstrate that several of
> the 2006 Lyme disease panelists had CONFLICTS OF INTEREST;
What is the source of the legal authority of the Connecticut AG to
review the internal precedures of a private professional society and
make such a decision, please?
>
> --- er, um... CONFLICT OF INTEREST means that IDSA committee members
> did not act in the interest of SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY (i.e. committee
> members did not accept and review the many distinguished studies
> which CONFIRM persistence of infection....) and they did not act in
> the interest of PATIENTS... due to their commercial CONFLICTS OF
> INTEREST in the INSURANCE, DRUG and BIOWAR industries.
Does the Connecticut AG have the legal authority to decide what does
or does not, constitute "scientific integrity"?
Doesn't that insert an elected official as the arbiter of complex
scientific controversy?
Is that soemthing that we should want, as a democratic society?
>
> 2) The IDSA FAILED TO FOLLOW ITS OWN PROCEDURES for appointing the
> 2006 panel chairman and members, enabling the chairman, who held a
> BIAS regarding the existence of chronic Lyme, to handpick a
> LIKEMINDED panel without scrutiny by or formal approval of the IDSA's
> oversight committee;
What is the source of the legal authority of the Connecticut AG to
review the internal precedures of a private professional society and
make such a decision, please?
>
> .----- that's both collusion, malfeasance and incompetence
LOL. And are these some sort of actionable "things", in your opinion?
.. PLUS
> utter disregard for patient welfare..worthy of lawsuits against the
> misguided IDSA Epidemic Intelligence Officers who ignore persistent
> infection for their own financial gain ---as well as to cover up
> bioweapons "mistakes" they and their colleagues may have engaged in.
> Sounds like "thank you for smoking" science to me... Long courses of
> intravenous anitbiotics are EXPENSIVE... insurance does not want PAY
> for LONG courses of treatment. .. OBVIOUS....despite 3rdshmuk and
> Wormser's bizzare obsession to the contrary..... the panelists had
> conflicts of interest, and the top legal authority in Connecticut
> stated this VERY CLEARLY in his wonderful findings...
The Connecticut AG is the state's top legal enforcement official.
But his opinions have to be ajudicated in Court, before a judge.
>
> 3) The IDSA's 2000 and 2006 Lyme disease panels refused to accept or
> meaningfully consider information regarding the existence of chronic
> Lyme disease, once removing a panelist from the 2000 panel who
> dissented from the group's position on chronic Lyme disease to achieve
> "consensus";
So?
It is a PRIVATE organization.
WHY do YOU think that they should be obligated to include people who
the majority does not agree with?
If I am a member of a scientific panel whose purpose is to propose
that the earth is round...you mean Blumenthal thinks he can force me
to include people who say it is flat?
From whence does the great Blumenthal presume to derive this awesome
power?
I have edited out all the rest of the personal attacks and other
nonsense.
You REALLY have NO business distributing legal advice, whatever. Your
comments reveal exactly how little you understand.
And you are NOT helping others understand with this kind of demented
diatribe.
On May 16, 6:07 pm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail,com > wrote:
> Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
>
> Blumenthal's REAL findings show that the IDSA's Lyme Treatment
> guidelines process was SEVERELY flawed and unprofessional.. In other
> words, the boyz with bugz at IDSA were reprimanded publicly by the
> State of Connecticut for shoddy work..... while ILADS was NOT
> reprimanded..... Blumenthal's findings include the following, as
> written on Blumenthal's website (my comments are followed by a ----):
>
> 1) The IDSA FAILED to conduct a CONFLICTS OF INTEREST review for any
> of the panelists prior to their appointment to the 2006 Lyme disease
> guideline panel; Subsequent disclosures demonstrate that several of
> the 2006 Lyme disease panelists had CONFLICTS OF INTEREST;
What is the source of the legal authority of the Connecticut AG to
review the internal precedures of a private professional society and
make such a decision, please?
>
> --- er, um... CONFLICT OF INTEREST means that IDSA committee members
> did not act in the interest of SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY (i.e. committee
> members did not accept and review the many distinguished studies
> which CONFIRM persistence of infection....) and they did not act in
> the interest of PATIENTS... due to their commercial CONFLICTS OF
> INTEREST in the INSURANCE, DRUG and BIOWAR industries.
Does the Connecticut AG have the legal authority to decide what does
or does not, constitute "scientific integrity"?
Doesn't that insert an elected official as the arbiter of complex
scientific controversy?
Is that soemthing that we should want, as a democratic society?
>
> 2) The IDSA FAILED TO FOLLOW ITS OWN PROCEDURES for appointing the
> 2006 panel chairman and members, enabling the chairman, who held a
> BIAS regarding the existence of chronic Lyme, to handpick a
> LIKEMINDED panel without scrutiny by or formal approval of the IDSA's
> oversight committee;
What is the source of the legal authority of the Connecticut AG to
review the internal precedures of a private professional society and
make such a decision, please?
>
> .----- that's both collusion, malfeasance and incompetence
LOL. And are these some sort of actionable "things", in your opinion?
.. PLUS
> utter disregard for patient welfare..worthy of lawsuits against the
> misguided IDSA Epidemic Intelligence Officers who ignore persistent
> infection for their own financial gain ---as well as to cover up
> bioweapons "mistakes" they and their colleagues may have engaged in.
> Sounds like "thank you for smoking" science to me... Long courses of
> intravenous anitbiotics are EXPENSIVE... insurance does not want PAY
> for LONG courses of treatment. .. OBVIOUS....despite 3rdshmuk and
> Wormser's bizzare obsession to the contrary..... the panelists had
> conflicts of interest, and the top legal authority in Connecticut
> stated this VERY CLEARLY in his wonderful findings...
The Connecticut AG is the state's top legal enforcement official.
But his opinions have to be ajudicated in Court, before a judge.
>
> 3) The IDSA's 2000 and 2006 Lyme disease panels refused to accept or
> meaningfully consider information regarding the existence of chronic
> Lyme disease, once removing a panelist from the 2000 panel who
> dissented from the group's position on chronic Lyme disease to achieve
> "consensus";
So?
It is a PRIVATE organization.
WHY do YOU think that they should be obligated to include people who
the majority does not agree with?
If I am a member of a scientific panel whose purpose is to propose
that the earth is round...you mean Blumenthal thinks he can force me
to include people who say it is flat?
From whence does the great Blumenthal presume to derive this awesome
power?
I have edited out all the rest of the personal attacks and other
nonsense.
You REALLY have NO business distributing legal advice, whatever. Your
comments reveal exactly how little you understand.
And you are NOT helping others understand with this kind of demented
diatribe.
Re: Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
On May 16, 8:16=EF=BF=BDpm, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@yahoo,com > wrote -s
>
What is the source of the legal authority of the Connecticut AG to
review the internal precedures of a private professional society and
make such a decision, please?
Reply: The Attorney General's Office in the state I live in has a
comlaint dept for professional non-compliance and it deals with
medical items like this subject plus also medical malpractice
complaints. I guess there were complaints in ref. to this subject
so he investigated so-----------------------He has the right. It is
his job.
On May 16, 8:16=EF=BF=BDpm, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@yahoo,com > wrote -s
>
What is the source of the legal authority of the Connecticut AG to
review the internal precedures of a private professional society and
make such a decision, please?
Reply: The Attorney General's Office in the state I live in has a
comlaint dept for professional non-compliance and it deals with
medical items like this subject plus also medical malpractice
complaints. I guess there were complaints in ref. to this subject
so he investigated so-----------------------He has the right. It is
his job.
Re: Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
On May 19, 9:12=C2=A0pm, lipanz <lipanzmari...@aol,com > wrote:
> On May 16, 8:16=EF=BF=BDpm, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@yahoo,com > wrote -s
>
>
>
> What is the source of the legal authority of the Connecticut AG to
> review the internal precedures of a private professional society and
> make such a decision, please?
>
> Reply: =C2=A0The Attorney General's Office in the state I live in has a
> comlaint dept for professional non-compliance and it deals with
> medical items like this subject plus also medical malpractice
> complaints. =C2=A0 =C2=A0I guess there were complaints in ref. to =C2=A0th=
is subject
> so he investigated so-----------------------He has the right. It is
> his job.
No.
That is a different matter. There, you are talking about the power of
the state to regulate the professions...and this is not in dispute.
The state has the authority to license and regulate INDIVIDUAL
misconduct through stautory authority.
Here, I am asking what the legal basis is for intervening in what the
AG himself describes as "procedural deficiencies" of a private
professional medical organization.
I was not previously aware that the AG of any state had the authority
to enforce violations of Robert's Rules of Order...
The question is largely rhetorical...I am trying to suggest that the
authority of the AG to intercede here, was of questionable merit in
the first instance...that this authority would have to be later duly
established...
=2E..and might not have been able to be properly established.
On May 19, 9:12=C2=A0pm, lipanz <lipanzmari...@aol,com > wrote:
> On May 16, 8:16=EF=BF=BDpm, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@yahoo,com > wrote -s
>
>
>
> What is the source of the legal authority of the Connecticut AG to
> review the internal precedures of a private professional society and
> make such a decision, please?
>
> Reply: =C2=A0The Attorney General's Office in the state I live in has a
> comlaint dept for professional non-compliance and it deals with
> medical items like this subject plus also medical malpractice
> complaints. =C2=A0 =C2=A0I guess there were complaints in ref. to =C2=A0th=
is subject
> so he investigated so-----------------------He has the right. It is
> his job.
No.
That is a different matter. There, you are talking about the power of
the state to regulate the professions...and this is not in dispute.
The state has the authority to license and regulate INDIVIDUAL
misconduct through stautory authority.
Here, I am asking what the legal basis is for intervening in what the
AG himself describes as "procedural deficiencies" of a private
professional medical organization.
I was not previously aware that the AG of any state had the authority
to enforce violations of Robert's Rules of Order...
The question is largely rhetorical...I am trying to suggest that the
authority of the AG to intercede here, was of questionable merit in
the first instance...that this authority would have to be later duly
established...
=2E..and might not have been able to be properly established.
Re: Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
On May 19, 10:26=EF=BF=BDpm, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@yahoo,com > wrote:
That is a different matter. There, you are talking about the power of
the state to regulate the professions...and this is not in dispute.
The state has the authority to license and regulate INDIVIDUAL
misconduct through stautory authority.
What does stautory authority mean - state -it has nothing to do with
statute of limitations does it?
Does it mean like authority of the state. Hmmm - do mean like
hospital drs. etc. Well yes they do that. This is another subject but
----- Am I correct that if a doctor or doctors do not release
(example) two important records to a spouse or next of kin (because
they are hiding their errors) we will say --Isn't that office of the
Power of state to regulate the professional misconduct which is
connected to the Attorney Gen.'s Office supposed get those records for
the plaintiff- we will use that word plaintiff.
Isn't it illegal for doctors who work for a hospital to withhold
certain records from the spouse or next of kin etc.
On May 19, 10:26=EF=BF=BDpm, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@yahoo,com > wrote:
That is a different matter. There, you are talking about the power of
the state to regulate the professions...and this is not in dispute.
The state has the authority to license and regulate INDIVIDUAL
misconduct through stautory authority.
What does stautory authority mean - state -it has nothing to do with
statute of limitations does it?
Does it mean like authority of the state. Hmmm - do mean like
hospital drs. etc. Well yes they do that. This is another subject but
----- Am I correct that if a doctor or doctors do not release
(example) two important records to a spouse or next of kin (because
they are hiding their errors) we will say --Isn't that office of the
Power of state to regulate the professional misconduct which is
connected to the Attorney Gen.'s Office supposed get those records for
the plaintiff- we will use that word plaintiff.
Isn't it illegal for doctors who work for a hospital to withhold
certain records from the spouse or next of kin etc.
Re: Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
On May 19, 10:54=C2=A0pm, lipanz <lipanzmari...@aol,com > wrote:
> On May 19, 10:26=EF=BF=BDpm, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
> That is a different matter. There, you are talking about the power of
> the state to regulate the professions...and this is not in dispute.
> The state has the authority to license and regulate INDIVIDUAL
> misconduct through stautory authority.
>
> What does stautory authority mean - state -it has nothing to do with
> statute =C2=A0of limitations does it?
Statutory authority simply means a law as laid down by
statute...passed by the legislature and published. A staute.
States have the authority to license and regulate certain professions,
notably medicine and law, in order to protect the public from harm.
States also have the authority to punish unlicensed people from
attempting to dispense legal or medical advice without having
satisfied the State's licensing requirements. It is illegal to
practice law without a license to do so.
Malpractice issues are usually matters of private civil litigation
based upon negligence standards.
On May 19, 10:54=C2=A0pm, lipanz <lipanzmari...@aol,com > wrote:
> On May 19, 10:26=EF=BF=BDpm, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
> That is a different matter. There, you are talking about the power of
> the state to regulate the professions...and this is not in dispute.
> The state has the authority to license and regulate INDIVIDUAL
> misconduct through stautory authority.
>
> What does stautory authority mean - state -it has nothing to do with
> statute =C2=A0of limitations does it?
Statutory authority simply means a law as laid down by
statute...passed by the legislature and published. A staute.
States have the authority to license and regulate certain professions,
notably medicine and law, in order to protect the public from harm.
States also have the authority to punish unlicensed people from
attempting to dispense legal or medical advice without having
satisfied the State's licensing requirements. It is illegal to
practice law without a license to do so.
Malpractice issues are usually matters of private civil litigation
based upon negligence standards.
Re: Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
On May 20, 11:21=C2=A0am, the 3rd Man <derdrittemann2...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On May 19, 10:54=C2=A0pm, lipanz <lipanzmari...@aol,com > wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 10:26=EF=BF=BDpm, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
Malpractice issues are usually matters of private civil litigation
> based upon negligence standards. Yes I know that.
You didn't answer this question tho since you do seem to have so much
LEGAL knowledge------
Isn't it illegal for doctors who work for a hospital to withhold
certain records from the spouse or next of kin etc.
It is my understanding that the State Dept that regulates different
areas of professional misconduct handle things like this like as I
mentioned above and if someone complains to that dept and fills out
the form entitled "refusal to release certain records --"aren't they
are required to retreive those records for the person.?
Attorney's use the excuse you have to have a case first as they don't
want to get involved....In the state I live in the Dept of
Professional Misconduct is under the Attorney Gen's Office and from
what I've seen -the dept of professional misconduct is "Crooked" as
Ben Laden's walking stick if not more so -too.
=2E
This question has nothing to do with the Bleumenthal thing. Just an
off topic question.
On May 20, 11:21=C2=A0am, the 3rd Man <derdrittemann2...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On May 19, 10:54=C2=A0pm, lipanz <lipanzmari...@aol,com > wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 10:26=EF=BF=BDpm, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
Malpractice issues are usually matters of private civil litigation
> based upon negligence standards. Yes I know that.
You didn't answer this question tho since you do seem to have so much
LEGAL knowledge------
Isn't it illegal for doctors who work for a hospital to withhold
certain records from the spouse or next of kin etc.
It is my understanding that the State Dept that regulates different
areas of professional misconduct handle things like this like as I
mentioned above and if someone complains to that dept and fills out
the form entitled "refusal to release certain records --"aren't they
are required to retreive those records for the person.?
Attorney's use the excuse you have to have a case first as they don't
want to get involved....In the state I live in the Dept of
Professional Misconduct is under the Attorney Gen's Office and from
what I've seen -the dept of professional misconduct is "Crooked" as
Ben Laden's walking stick if not more so -too.
=2E
This question has nothing to do with the Bleumenthal thing. Just an
off topic question.
Re: Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
On May 20, 8:43 pm, lipanz <lipanzmari...@aol,com > wrote:
>
> You didn't answer this question tho since you do seem to have so much
> LEGAL knowledge------
Well, please understand that just because I am online here and speking
in broad general terms in order to try to help others understand some
issues...that I would rather not deal with specifc questions dealing
with specific fact circumstances...nor should I.
In other words, I don't really wish to engage in dispensing off-the-
cuff legal advice.
I saw the question.
> Isn't it illegal for doctors who work for a hospital to withhold
> certain records from the spouse or next of kin etc.
Generally, the patient has a right to his/her own records. If not the
patient...then you are probably going to have to produce some
documentation that you are the patient's legal representative. They
need this for privacy reasons. They can't release records based upon
someone's insistence that they are the patient's Uncle John...they
need to cover their behinds.
> It is my understanding that the State Dept that regulates different
> areas of professional misconduct handle things like this like as I
> mentioned above and if someone complains to that dept and fills out
> the form entitled "refusal to release certain records --"aren't they
> are required to retreive those records for the person.?
Do you mean is the State agency that oversees licensing and
professional discipline required to force the turning over of a
patient's records?
I would think not, no.
> Attorney's use the excuse you have to have a case first as they don't
> want to get involved....In the state I live in the Dept of
> Professional Misconduct is under the Attorney Gen's Office and from
> what I've seen -the dept of professional misconduct is "Crooked" as
> Ben Laden's walking stick if not more so -too.
Well, that sort of talk really doesn't advance your cause, much. I
think that many state boards are woefully underbudgeted.
> .
> This question has nothing to do with the Bleumenthal thing. Just an
> off topic question.
Right. But please, I'm here because I'm a Lyme patient...and to
discuss Lyme-related issues, okay?
On May 20, 8:43 pm, lipanz <lipanzmari...@aol,com > wrote:
>
> You didn't answer this question tho since you do seem to have so much
> LEGAL knowledge------
Well, please understand that just because I am online here and speking
in broad general terms in order to try to help others understand some
issues...that I would rather not deal with specifc questions dealing
with specific fact circumstances...nor should I.
In other words, I don't really wish to engage in dispensing off-the-
cuff legal advice.
I saw the question.
> Isn't it illegal for doctors who work for a hospital to withhold
> certain records from the spouse or next of kin etc.
Generally, the patient has a right to his/her own records. If not the
patient...then you are probably going to have to produce some
documentation that you are the patient's legal representative. They
need this for privacy reasons. They can't release records based upon
someone's insistence that they are the patient's Uncle John...they
need to cover their behinds.
> It is my understanding that the State Dept that regulates different
> areas of professional misconduct handle things like this like as I
> mentioned above and if someone complains to that dept and fills out
> the form entitled "refusal to release certain records --"aren't they
> are required to retreive those records for the person.?
Do you mean is the State agency that oversees licensing and
professional discipline required to force the turning over of a
patient's records?
I would think not, no.
> Attorney's use the excuse you have to have a case first as they don't
> want to get involved....In the state I live in the Dept of
> Professional Misconduct is under the Attorney Gen's Office and from
> what I've seen -the dept of professional misconduct is "Crooked" as
> Ben Laden's walking stick if not more so -too.
Well, that sort of talk really doesn't advance your cause, much. I
think that many state boards are woefully underbudgeted.
> .
> This question has nothing to do with the Bleumenthal thing. Just an
> off topic question.
Right. But please, I'm here because I'm a Lyme patient...and to
discuss Lyme-related issues, okay?
Re: Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
On May 16, 6:07 pm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail,com > wrote:
> Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
>
>> ------YUP... no matter how much 3rdSHMUK may fantasize otherwise....
If, by any chance...this "shmuk" business is a reference to an
attorney from Philadelphia who used to post here...we have been over
and over this...and no, I am NOT that person.
As I have said many times, I live in Chicago ...and a simple IP
address check conforms that FACT.
You need to learn that you will never build yourself up by attempting
to tear others down. You wanna be a "player" in the whackjob games
these internet bag"ladies" pull? Is that it? You think they will
accept you if you routinely badmouthing and bashing McSweegan? Think
you can prove yourself like that? Well, what kind of an admission
ticket is that? What are you trying to gain entrance to, exactly? and
what kind of people would associate with that kind of behavior?
Well, try not to be so obvious about trying to elevate yourself by
attacking others and calling names.
To anyone with a half a brain, you're just shaming and discrediting
yourself.
On May 16, 6:07 pm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail,com > wrote:
> Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
>
>> ------YUP... no matter how much 3rdSHMUK may fantasize otherwise....
If, by any chance...this "shmuk" business is a reference to an
attorney from Philadelphia who used to post here...we have been over
and over this...and no, I am NOT that person.
As I have said many times, I live in Chicago ...and a simple IP
address check conforms that FACT.
You need to learn that you will never build yourself up by attempting
to tear others down. You wanna be a "player" in the whackjob games
these internet bag"ladies" pull? Is that it? You think they will
accept you if you routinely badmouthing and bashing McSweegan? Think
you can prove yourself like that? Well, what kind of an admission
ticket is that? What are you trying to gain entrance to, exactly? and
what kind of people would associate with that kind of behavior?
Well, try not to be so obvious about trying to elevate yourself by
attacking others and calling names.
To anyone with a half a brain, you're just shaming and discrediting
yourself.
Re: Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
On May 16, 8:53=EF=BF=BDpm, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On May 16, 6:07=EF=BF=BDpm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail,com > wr=
ote:
>
> > Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: =EF=BF=BDA 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone=
>
> >> =EF=BF=BD------YUP... no matter how much 3rdSHMUK may fantasize otherwi=
se....
>
> If, by any chance...this "shmuk" business is a reference to an
> attorney from Philadelphia who used to post here...we have been over
> and over this...and no, I am NOT that person.
>
> As I have said many times, I live in Chicago ...and a simple IP
> address check conforms that FACT.
>
>Just for the record -off topic- In reference to the "shmuk" I accidentally=
found out that the real "schmukk" the attorney from Phil. is a very good fr=
iend of a crooked rattlesnake attorney who works for a prominent firm in Phi=
l.
The only thing is he works completely alone-- the schmukk's friend -
has no para-legal - does all his own sleuth work. A very good lawyer
- knows all the ropes and has been around.
This lawyer is an unbelievable crooked rattlesnake and I am beginning
to wonder -birds of a feather flock together.......so be it..........
On May 16, 8:53=EF=BF=BDpm, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On May 16, 6:07=EF=BF=BDpm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail,com > wr=
ote:
>
> > Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: =EF=BF=BDA 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone=
>
> >> =EF=BF=BD------YUP... no matter how much 3rdSHMUK may fantasize otherwi=
se....
>
> If, by any chance...this "shmuk" business is a reference to an
> attorney from Philadelphia who used to post here...we have been over
> and over this...and no, I am NOT that person.
>
> As I have said many times, I live in Chicago ...and a simple IP
> address check conforms that FACT.
>
>Just for the record -off topic- In reference to the "shmuk" I accidentally=
found out that the real "schmukk" the attorney from Phil. is a very good fr=
iend of a crooked rattlesnake attorney who works for a prominent firm in Phi=
l.
The only thing is he works completely alone-- the schmukk's friend -
has no para-legal - does all his own sleuth work. A very good lawyer
- knows all the ropes and has been around.
This lawyer is an unbelievable crooked rattlesnake and I am beginning
to wonder -birds of a feather flock together.......so be it..........
Re: Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
On May 16, 7:07=EF=BF=BDpm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail,com > wrot=
e:
> Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: =EF=BF=BDA 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
>
4) The IDSA blocked appointment of scientists and physicians with
divergent views on chronic Lyme who sought to serve on the 2006
guidelines panel by informing them that the panel was fully staffed,
even though it was later expanded;
---yeeup... sounds like COLLUSION and MANIPULATION to me.... blocking
scientific evidence is FRAUD... by any definition of the word...
Blumenthal stated it... its now up to citizens to SUE and make sure
Yes the class action lawsuit in ref. to the lyme vaccine- what
happened they lost. And when Steere was asked would he take the
vaccine -he replied he doesn't live in an epidemic area -Mass. not
epidemic ho ho. Good answer...............
that these Epidemic Intelligence Officer IDSA FRAUDSTERS are held
accountable for their egregious scientific misconduct and disregard
for public health-- before more people are damaged by their
unprofessional, illegal conduct......Also, it is ILLEGAL for
intelligence agencies to operate domestically.. Ya know... You boys
are acting ILLEGALLY if you are covering up bioweapons
mistakes....in
your positions as Epidemic Intelligence Officers....
5) The IDSA portrayed another medical association's Lyme disease What
was it per change the AMERICAN LYME FDTN.
guidelines as corroborating its own when it knew that the two panels
shared several authors, including the chairmen of both groups, and
were working on guidelines at the same time. In allowing its
panelists
to serve on both groups at the same time, IDSA violated its own
conflicts of interest policy.
=2E...YEEEEEUP!!!... UNPROFESSIONAL, LYING BEHAVIOR RESULTING IN
DAMAGE
TO PATIENTS THROUGH THE WITHHOLDING OF BOTH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON
PERSISTENCE OF INFECTION, AND TREATMENT PROTOCOLS BASED ON THE
IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF PERSISTENCE OF INFECTION...
Thought criminal, I basically agee with you yes. But what I have seen
and experienced it comes to the answer that you can't fight city hall
and evil seems to 99% of the time wins out with it's deceit and double
talk in THIS WORLD. I don't know what happens to these deceitful
people in the next world - tho.
On May 16, 7:07=EF=BF=BDpm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail,com > wrot=
e:
> Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: =EF=BF=BDA 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
>
4) The IDSA blocked appointment of scientists and physicians with
divergent views on chronic Lyme who sought to serve on the 2006
guidelines panel by informing them that the panel was fully staffed,
even though it was later expanded;
---yeeup... sounds like COLLUSION and MANIPULATION to me.... blocking
scientific evidence is FRAUD... by any definition of the word...
Blumenthal stated it... its now up to citizens to SUE and make sure
Yes the class action lawsuit in ref. to the lyme vaccine- what
happened they lost. And when Steere was asked would he take the
vaccine -he replied he doesn't live in an epidemic area -Mass. not
epidemic ho ho. Good answer...............
that these Epidemic Intelligence Officer IDSA FRAUDSTERS are held
accountable for their egregious scientific misconduct and disregard
for public health-- before more people are damaged by their
unprofessional, illegal conduct......Also, it is ILLEGAL for
intelligence agencies to operate domestically.. Ya know... You boys
are acting ILLEGALLY if you are covering up bioweapons
mistakes....in
your positions as Epidemic Intelligence Officers....
5) The IDSA portrayed another medical association's Lyme disease What
was it per change the AMERICAN LYME FDTN.
guidelines as corroborating its own when it knew that the two panels
shared several authors, including the chairmen of both groups, and
were working on guidelines at the same time. In allowing its
panelists
to serve on both groups at the same time, IDSA violated its own
conflicts of interest policy.
=2E...YEEEEEUP!!!... UNPROFESSIONAL, LYING BEHAVIOR RESULTING IN
DAMAGE
TO PATIENTS THROUGH THE WITHHOLDING OF BOTH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON
PERSISTENCE OF INFECTION, AND TREATMENT PROTOCOLS BASED ON THE
IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF PERSISTENCE OF INFECTION...
Thought criminal, I basically agee with you yes. But what I have seen
and experienced it comes to the answer that you can't fight city hall
and evil seems to 99% of the time wins out with it's deceit and double
talk in THIS WORLD. I don't know what happens to these deceitful
people in the next world - tho.
Re: Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: A 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone
On May 17, 12:36 am, lipanz <lipanzmari...@aol,com > wrote:
> On May 16, 7:07=EF=BF=BDpm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail,com > wr=
ote:
>
> > Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: =EF=BF=BDA 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone=
>
> 4) The IDSA blocked appointment of scientists and physicians with
> divergent views on chronic Lyme who sought to serve on the 2006
> guidelines panel by informing them that the panel was fully staffed,
> even though it was later expanded;
> ---yeeup... sounds like COLLUSION and MANIPULATION to me.... blocking
> scientific evidence is FRAUD... by any definition of the word...
> Blumenthal stated it... its now up to citizens to SUE and make sure
> Yes the class action lawsuit in ref. to the lyme vaccine- what
> happened they lost. And when Steere was asked would he take the
> vaccine -he replied he doesn't live in an epidemic area -Mass. not
> epidemic ho ho. Good answer...............
> that these Epidemic Intelligence Officer IDSA FRAUDSTERS are held
> accountable for their egregious scientific misconduct and disregard
> for public health-- before more people are damaged by their
> unprofessional, illegal conduct......Also, it is ILLEGAL for
> intelligence agencies to operate domestically.. Ya know... You boys
> are acting ILLEGALLY if you are covering up bioweapons
> mistakes....in
> your positions as Epidemic Intelligence Officers....
>
> 5) The IDSA portrayed another medical association's Lyme disease What
> was it per change the AMERICAN LYME FDTN.
> guidelines as corroborating its own when it knew that the two panels
> shared several authors, including the chairmen of both groups, and
> were working on guidelines at the same time. In allowing its
> panelists
> to serve on both groups at the same time, IDSA violated its own
> conflicts of interest policy.
>
> ....YEEEEEUP!!!... UNPROFESSIONAL, LYING BEHAVIOR RESULTING IN
> DAMAGE
> TO PATIENTS THROUGH THE WITHHOLDING OF BOTH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON
> PERSISTENCE OF INFECTION, AND TREATMENT PROTOCOLS BASED ON THE
> IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF PERSISTENCE OF INFECTION...
>
> Thought criminal, I basically agee with you yes. But what I have seen
> and experienced it comes to the answer that you can't fight city hall
> and evil seems to 99% of the time wins out with it's deceit and double
> talk in THIS WORLD.
These crooks are not going to win this.
> I don't know what happens to these deceitful
> people in the next world - tho.
Oh, I do.
It's quite specific.
http :// www .actionlyme.org/IGNORANT_MASS.htm
http :// www .actionlyme.org/EXORCISMS.htm
The malicious will certainly suffer, but they can't
unscramble their own confusion and *never* will.
You can see the elegance in God's plan.
They who lie and hate will in the end be doomed to
utter confusion about *why* they hate, and it will
always and forever be over petty imbecilic
nonsense- the kind we witness being posted by
this fake lawyer, Third Man.
Do you see how much effort he puts into nothing
productive?
That's the nature of the damned.
On May 17, 12:36 am, lipanz <lipanzmari...@aol,com > wrote:
> On May 16, 7:07=EF=BF=BDpm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail,com > wr=
ote:
>
> > Read Blumenthal's REAL Findings Here: =EF=BF=BDA 3rdShmuk SPIN FREE Zone=
>
> 4) The IDSA blocked appointment of scientists and physicians with
> divergent views on chronic Lyme who sought to serve on the 2006
> guidelines panel by informing them that the panel was fully staffed,
> even though it was later expanded;
> ---yeeup... sounds like COLLUSION and MANIPULATION to me.... blocking
> scientific evidence is FRAUD... by any definition of the word...
> Blumenthal stated it... its now up to citizens to SUE and make sure
> Yes the class action lawsuit in ref. to the lyme vaccine- what
> happened they lost. And when Steere was asked would he take the
> vaccine -he replied he doesn't live in an epidemic area -Mass. not
> epidemic ho ho. Good answer...............
> that these Epidemic Intelligence Officer IDSA FRAUDSTERS are held
> accountable for their egregious scientific misconduct and disregard
> for public health-- before more people are damaged by their
> unprofessional, illegal conduct......Also, it is ILLEGAL for
> intelligence agencies to operate domestically.. Ya know... You boys
> are acting ILLEGALLY if you are covering up bioweapons
> mistakes....in
> your positions as Epidemic Intelligence Officers....
>
> 5) The IDSA portrayed another medical association's Lyme disease What
> was it per change the AMERICAN LYME FDTN.
> guidelines as corroborating its own when it knew that the two panels
> shared several authors, including the chairmen of both groups, and
> were working on guidelines at the same time. In allowing its
> panelists
> to serve on both groups at the same time, IDSA violated its own
> conflicts of interest policy.
>
> ....YEEEEEUP!!!... UNPROFESSIONAL, LYING BEHAVIOR RESULTING IN
> DAMAGE
> TO PATIENTS THROUGH THE WITHHOLDING OF BOTH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON
> PERSISTENCE OF INFECTION, AND TREATMENT PROTOCOLS BASED ON THE
> IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF PERSISTENCE OF INFECTION...
>
> Thought criminal, I basically agee with you yes. But what I have seen
> and experienced it comes to the answer that you can't fight city hall
> and evil seems to 99% of the time wins out with it's deceit and double
> talk in THIS WORLD.
These crooks are not going to win this.
> I don't know what happens to these deceitful
> people in the next world - tho.
Oh, I do.
It's quite specific.
http :// www .actionlyme.org/IGNORANT_MASS.htm
http :// www .actionlyme.org/EXORCISMS.htm
The malicious will certainly suffer, but they can't
unscramble their own confusion and *never* will.
You can see the elegance in God's plan.
They who lie and hate will in the end be doomed to
utter confusion about *why* they hate, and it will
always and forever be over petty imbecilic
nonsense- the kind we witness being posted by
this fake lawyer, Third Man.
Do you see how much effort he puts into nothing
productive?
That's the nature of the damned.
