Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > Lifestyle

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-12-2016, 05:20 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMDCCCLXXXIX
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
When you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages.
Utterly bereft of truth. A couple of questions:

1. Where do you get this nonsense?

2. Why are you so resistant to using the list?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
As godfry correctly points out, regulatory agencies ain't exactly the best sources of complete information in a profit-based healthcare system. And indeed, there are plenty of LASIK problem stories out there. Mary Pierce, a former pro tennis player of some renown, reportedly had some serious issues back in the early 2000s.

But, as always, unsubstantiated conspiracy mongering and emotionalistic claptrap amount to exactly jack.
Either they were aware of serious risks and ignored them, or they didn't have enough knowledge about the potential risks. Waxler said how many eyes and lives will be ruined in order to make a living?
The first sentence isn't germane to anything I wrote, and the second is borderline gibberish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Dr. Waxler petitioned the FDA to withdraw pre-market approval for the devices used to perform LASIK procedures and issue a public health advisory. The FDA's response is available here. Perhaps you could explain, in a detailed point-by-point manner, exactly where and how the FDA went wrong in its response.

Also - and I realize this may be a bridge too far - please provide the detailed, point-by-point exposition without citing the websites of any anti-Semitic, moon landing denying Sandy Hook truthers, plzkthx.
Waxler said he gave approval but was not informed of the risks, only the benefits. I'm sure he has guilt for approving a procedure that has caused serious harm to a good portion (20% approximately) of those who were told the complications are temporary.
If you can't or won't or don't want to provide the requested detailed point-by-point exposition of where and how the FDA went wrong in its response to Dr. Waxler, then please just say so. Candor is better than inept obfuscatory nonsense, yes?
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (10-13-2016), But (10-12-2016), The Man (10-12-2016), thedoc (10-13-2016)
  #52  
Old 10-12-2016, 05:46 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCLXXIV
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
When you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
Utterly bereft of truth. A couple of questions:

1. Where do you get this nonsense?
Why then are surgeons insistent that you sign this consent form? It obviously protects them from legal recourse by an unhappy patient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
2. Why are you so resistant to using the list?
Because the list doesn't apply here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
As godfry correctly points out, regulatory agencies ain't exactly the best sources of complete information in a profit-based healthcare system. And indeed, there are plenty of LASIK problem stories out there. Mary Pierce, a former pro tennis player of some renown, reportedly had some serious issues back in the early 2000s.

But, as always, unsubstantiated conspiracy mongering and emotionalistic claptrap amount to exactly jack.
Either they were aware of serious risks and ignored them, or they didn't have enough knowledge about the potential risks. Waxler said how many eyes and lives will be ruined in order to make a living?
She's one of thousands. It will probably take a well known celebrity who has been damaged to bring this issue to a head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
The first sentence isn't germane to anything I wrote, and the second is borderline gibberish.
It's not gibberish. Waxler said, "How many eyes will be ruined for the sake of making a living?" Sorry if that doesn't make sense to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Dr. Waxler petitioned the FDA to withdraw pre-market approval for the devices used to perform LASIK procedures and issue a public health advisory. The FDA's response is available here. Perhaps you could explain, in a detailed point-by-point manner, exactly where and how the FDA went wrong in its response.

Also - and I realize this may be a bridge too far - please provide the detailed, point-by-point exposition without citing the websites of any anti-Semitic, moon landing denying Sandy Hook truthers, plzkthx.
They didn't do enough premarketing testing before approval, which has now caused many injuries.

Quote:
Waxler said he gave approval but was not informed of the risks, only the benefits. I'm sure he has guilt for approving a procedure that has caused serious harm to a good portion (20% approximately) of those who were told the complications are temporary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin"
If you can't or won't or don't want to provide the requested detailed point-by-point exposition of where and how the FDA went wrong in its response to Dr. Waxler, then please just say so. Candor is better than inept obfuscatory nonsense, yes?
I am not here to condemn the FDA as a regulatory entity other than to say most people take for granted that when a procedure is given approval that means it is safe. It is hard to draw the line as to who owns most of the responsibility for the growing number of people whose lives have been devastated. Somewhere along the line the ethical ball has been dropped.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 10-12-2016 at 05:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-12-2016, 07:30 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMDCCCLXXXIX
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
When you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
Utterly bereft of truth. A couple of questions:

1. Where do you get this nonsense?
Why then are surgeons insistent that you sign this consent form? It obviously protects them from legal recourse by an unhappy patient.
:facepalm: I'll never understand your need to hold forth on subjects about which you know nothing.

It's simply not true signing a consent form leaves the patient "no recourse to sue for damages." I've been involved in dozens upon dozens of civil lawsuits against physicians and other healthcare providers over the years. In every one of those cases the patient signed a consent form. In exactly none of those cases did the consent form preclude recovery.

Here's a thumbnail sketch of how it works. There are two potential causes of action that one must generally consider in a heathcare-gone-awry situation. (There are more than two, but these two are the most widely applicable.) The first is professional negligence. Consent forms have no effect at all on negligence claims. Courts have held countless times that signing a consent form does not constitute the patient's acquiescence in receiving substandard medical care. That proposition is so well established that you might even be able to find something about it on Ranger Mike's search engine.

The second is failure to obtain informed consent. That cause of action authorizes an injured patient to recover where: (1) the doctor provided treatment to the patient; (2) the doctor failed to obtain the patient's informed consent in advance; (3) a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would not have consented to the treatment had s/he been property informed; and (4) the doctor's failure to obtain informed consent caused damages.

Clearly, a signed consent form is relevant to the informed consent claim, but it doesn't automatically foreclose recovery. The patient can still recover if the information on the form, and/or any disclosures the doctor provided verbally, are inadequate. A complete failure to inform the patient of the risk that ultimately materialized would be one example of an arguably inadequate disclosure.

So no, it is not the case that "[w]hen you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages."

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
2. Why are you so resistant to using the list?
Because the list doesn't apply here.
Of course the list applies here. You wrote, "When you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages." That's a law-related claim you clearly made up from whole cloth. Distinguishing actual legal reasoning from made-up crapola is the reason ChuckF devised the list. :yup: (That, and lulz.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Waxler said, "How many eyes will be ruined for the sake of making a living?"
See there? What a difference a comma and a set of quote marks can make!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin"
If you can't or won't or don't want to provide the requested detailed point-by-point exposition of where and how the FDA went wrong in its response to Dr. Waxler, then please just say so. Candor is better than inept obfuscatory nonsense, yes?
I am not here to condemn the FDA as a regulatory entity other than to say most people take for granted that when a procedure is given approval that means it is safe. It is hard to draw the line as to who owns most of the responsibility for the growing number of people whose lives have been devastated. Somewhere along the line the ethical ball has been dropped.
Alrighty then! Obfuscation > candor. I stand corrected.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-12-2016), Angakuk (10-13-2016), But (10-12-2016), ChuckF (10-12-2016), chunksmediocrites (10-19-2016), Crumb (10-12-2016), Stormlight (10-14-2016), The Man (10-12-2016)
  #54  
Old 10-12-2016, 08:40 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMCDLXXXV
Images: 2
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
When you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages.
:lol: Let me do the heavy lifting for you and apply the list: this is shit you made up. A consent form documents consent. In some medical settings, a consent form cannot include exculpatory provisions, and if it does, they are void, see, e.g. 21 CFR 50.20. However, this would apply to the obligation to obtain informed consent from subjects involved in medical research - the kind of thing your most-favored quacks don't bother with.

ETA: Ok, Maturin already did this.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (10-13-2016), livius drusus (10-13-2016), Stephen Maturin (10-12-2016), The Man (10-12-2016)
  #55  
Old 10-12-2016, 08:42 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCLXXIV
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
When you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
Utterly bereft of truth. A couple of questions:

1. Where do you get this nonsense?
Why then are surgeons insistent that you sign this consent form? It obviously protects them from legal recourse by an unhappy patient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
:facepalm: I'll never understand your need to hold forth on subjects about which you know nothing.
I can just as easily say the same about you. :giggle:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
It's simply not true signing a consent form leaves the patient "no recourse to sue for damages." I've been involved in dozens upon dozens of civil lawsuits against physicians and other healthcare providers over the years. In every one of those cases the patient signed a consent form. In exactly none of those cases did the consent form preclude recovery.
Are you a malpractice lawyer? From what I've gathered it would be extremely difficult to win a case if you signed a form where you accepted the potential risks, as long as there was no clear negligence on the part of the surgeon. Unfortunately, they make light of the adverse effects that can be permanent by classifying them as temporary symptoms. Do you see the spin?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
Here's a thumbnail sketch of how it works. There are two potential causes of action that one must generally consider in a heathcare-gone-awry situation. (There are more than two, but these two are the most widely applicable.) The first is professional negligence. Consent forms have no effect at all on negligence claims. Courts have held countless times that signing a consent form does not constitute the patient's acquiescence in receiving substandard medical care. That proposition is so well established that you might even be able to find something about it on Ranger Mike's search engine.

The second is failure to obtain informed consent. That cause of action authorizes an injured patient to recover where: (1) the doctor provided treatment to the patient; (2) the doctor failed to obtain the patient's informed consent in advance; (3) a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would not have consented to the treatment had s/he been property informed; and (4) the doctor's failure to obtain informed consent caused damages.
Sadly, even when a consent form is given, the patient doesn't believe it is relevant in his case because he's told he's a perfect candidate for the surgery, which makes reading about the potential complications as unnecessary. He believes it doesn't apply to him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
Clearly, a signed consent form is relevant to the informed consent claim, but it doesn't automatically foreclose recovery. The patient can still recover if the information on the form, and/or any disclosures the doctor provided verbally, are inadequate. A complete failure to inform the patient of the risk that ultimately materialized would be one example of an arguably inadequate disclosure.

So no, it is not the case that "[w]hen you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages."
I'm not sure why they aren't being honored; afterall telling patients that dry eyes, halos, starbursts, double vision is temporary is a failure to inform. In fact it's an outright deception.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
2. Why are you so resistant to using the list?
Because the list doesn't apply here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
Of course the list applies here. You wrote, "When you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages." That's a law-related claim you clearly made up from whole cloth. Distinguishing actual legal reasoning from made-up crapola is the reason ChuckF devised the list. :yup: (That, and, lulz)
You have zero to none recourse if you sign that you understand the risks, which are unrelated to negligence or never having received the form. Most lawsuits fall outside of these two categories.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Waxler said, "How many eyes will be ruined for the sake of making a living?"
See there? What a difference a comma and a set of quote marks can make!
Fair enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin"
If you can't or won't or don't want to provide the requested detailed point-by-point exposition of where and how the FDA went wrong in its response to Dr. Waxler, then please just say so. Candor is better than inept obfuscatory nonsense, yes?
I am not here to condemn the FDA as a regulatory entity other than to say most people take for granted that when a procedure is given approval that means it is safe. It is hard to draw the line as to who owns most of the responsibility for the growing number of people whose lives have been devastated. Somewhere along the line the ethical ball has been dropped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Steven Maturin
Alrighty then! Obfuscation > candor. I stand corrected.
What's that suppose to mean? :confused: As Waxler said, he gave his approval based on the data given by the laser manufacturers. And the public puts their trust in this approval otherwise what good is it?
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-12-2016, 10:23 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCLXXXII
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
When you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages.
It is my understanding that a "consent form" only allows the medical professional to provide the service or preform the procedure, waving your right for recourse would be a completely different form, and to my knowledge that form is not used in the medical profession. If my memory is correct the insurance industry once offered lower rates if the customer waved their right to sue the insurance company. Several years ago the doctor's office I went to posted a notice about the rising prices of service, due to the rising cost of malpractice insurance. If people were signing away their right of recovery, insurance costs would not be going up like they were.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (10-12-2016)
  #57  
Old 10-12-2016, 10:27 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCLXXXII
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

I wonder what kind of nonsense Peacegirl will make out of signing the HIPAA agreement.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-12-2016, 10:27 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMDCCCLXXXIX
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
:facepalm: I'll never understand your need to hold forth on subjects about which you know nothing.
I can just as easily say the same about you. :giggle:
I suppose you could, but your statement would be false. As we both know, I'm careful to avoid pontificating about subjects on which I know nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
It's simply not true signing a consent form leaves the patient "no recourse to sue for damages." I've been involved in dozens upon dozens of civil lawsuits against physicians and other healthcare providers over the years. In every one of those cases the patient signed a consent form. In exactly none of those cases did the consent form preclude recovery.
Are you a malpractice lawyer?
Nah. I got involved in dozens of civil lawsuits against physicians and other healthcare providers just for the laughs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
From what I've gathered it would be extremely difficult to win a case if you signed a form where you accepted the potential risks, as long as there was no clear negligence on the part of the surgeon.
First of all, you haven't "gathered" anything. You made all this up.

Second, there is no medical consent form anywhere by which the patient affirms that "I accept all potential risks." Such a form wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.

Third, "clear negligence" isn't the test for anything.

Fourth, you're making all this up as you go along. :yup: I can't imagine who you think you're fooling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
The second is failure to obtain informed consent. That cause of action authorizes an injured patient to recover where: (1) the doctor provided treatment to the patient; (2) the doctor failed to obtain the patient's informed consent in advance; (3) a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would not have consented to the treatment had s/he been property informed; and (4) the doctor's failure to obtain informed consent caused damages.
Sadly, even when a consent form is given, the patient doesn't believe it is relevant in his case because he's told he's a perfect candidate for the surgery, which makes reading about the potential complications as unnecessary. He believes it doesn't apply to him.
Made-up stream-of-consciousness collection of words noted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
Clearly, a signed consent form is relevant to the informed consent claim, but it doesn't automatically foreclose recovery. The patient can still recover if the information on the form, and/or any disclosures the doctor provided verbally, are inadequate. A complete failure to inform the patient of the risk that ultimately materialized would be one example of an arguably inadequate disclosure.

So no, it is not the case that "[w]hen you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages."
I'm not sure why they aren't being honored;
What isn't "being honored"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
afterall telling patients that dry eyes, halos, starbursts, double vision is temporary is a failure to inform. In fact it's an outright deception.
Yes. If in fact they're knowingly misrepresenting the risks with intent to induce consent, they're not just failing to obtain informed consent but also committing the intentional tort of fraud. A lawyer has to be careful about how s/he pleads these things, though, since ya don't want to give the doctor's professional liability insurer a basis for denying coverage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
Of course the list applies here. You wrote, "When you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages." That's a law-related claim you clearly made up from whole cloth. Distinguishing actual legal reasoning from made-up crapola is the reason ChuckF devised the list. :yup: (That, and, lulz)
You have zero to none recourse if you sign that you understand the risks, which are unrelated to negligence or never having received the form. Most lawsuits fall outside of these two categories.
:laugh:

You made all that up, every last bit of it. First off, :lol:@"zero to none." Also, as noted above, there's no such thing as a consent form that says "I understand all the risks." It's good to see your seeming acknowledgement that consent forms have no effect on negligence claims. That's progress. And, of course, you have no earthly idea whatsoever where "most lawsuits fall."

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Steven Maturin
Alrighty then! Obfuscation > candor. I stand corrected.
What's that suppose to mean? :confused:
It's like conversing with a bag of hammers.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-12-2016), Angakuk (10-13-2016), But (10-12-2016), ChuckF (10-13-2016), chunksmediocrites (10-19-2016), JoeP (10-13-2016), Stormlight (10-14-2016), The Man (10-12-2016), thedoc (10-13-2016)
  #59  
Old 10-12-2016, 10:49 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCLXXXII
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
It's like conversing with a bag of hammers.
You expected more out of Peacegirl?
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (10-13-2016), JoeP (10-13-2016), Stormlight (10-14-2016)
  #60  
Old 10-12-2016, 11:08 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCLXXIV
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
:facepalm: I'll never understand your need to hold forth on subjects about which you know nothing.
I can just as easily say the same about you. :giggle:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
I suppose you could, but your statement would be false. As we both know, I'm careful to avoid pontificating about subjects on which I know nothing.
OH YES YOU DO! Don't even go there Maturin cuz I'm not going to get sucked into a debate as to how qualified you seem to be on subjects you know very little about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
It's simply not true signing a consent form leaves the patient "no recourse to sue for damages." I've been involved in dozens upon dozens of civil lawsuits against physicians and other healthcare providers over the years. In every one of those cases the patient signed a consent form. In exactly none of those cases did the consent form preclude recovery.
Are you a malpractice lawyer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Nah. I got involved in dozens of civil lawsuits against physicians and other healthcare providers just for the laughs.
So are you or aren't you? You're so sarcastic it makes it difficult to converse with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
From what I've gathered it would be extremely difficult to win a case if you signed a form where you accepted the potential risks, as long as there was no clear negligence on the part of the surgeon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
First of all, you haven't "gathered" anything. You made all this up.
No I did not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Second, there is no medical consent form anywhere by which the patient affirms that "I accept all potential risks." Such a form wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.
So what is the patient accepting if not to agree that he will take responsibility for any unforeseen risks that occur not including negligence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Third, "clear negligence" isn't the test for anything.
What are you talking about? There are indications as to whether a doctor was negligent. Those would not fall under the signed consent form.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Fourth, you're making all this up as you go along. :yup: I can't imagine who you think you're fooling.
I'm not trying to fool anyone. I'm just sickened by what I've learned regarding this procedure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
The second is failure to obtain informed consent. That cause of action authorizes an injured patient to recover where: (1) the doctor provided treatment to the patient; (2) the doctor failed to obtain the patient's informed consent in advance; (3) a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would not have consented to the treatment had s/he been property informed; and (4) the doctor's failure to obtain informed consent caused damages.
Sadly, even when a consent form is given, the patient doesn't believe it is relevant in his case because he's told he's a perfect candidate for the surgery, which makes reading about the potential complications as unnecessary. He believes it doesn't apply to him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Made-up stream-of-consciousness collection of words noted.
Not at all. I have listened to people who said they were perfect candidates for the procedure meaning they didn't have large pupils; they didn't have dry eyes; they didn't have any of the warning signs that would indicate they were not good candidates. When someone hears the good news, they don't take the complication risk seriously because they don't believe it applies to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
Clearly, a signed consent form is relevant to the informed consent claim, but it doesn't automatically foreclose recovery. The patient can still recover if the information on the form, and/or any disclosures the doctor provided verbally, are inadequate. A complete failure to inform the patient of the risk that ultimately materialized would be one example of an arguably inadequate disclosure.

So no, it is not the case that "[w]hen you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages."
Quote:
I'm not sure why they aren't being honored;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
What isn't "being honored"?
The claim because surely many of these doctors are giving inadequate disclosure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
afterall telling patients that dry eyes, halos, starbursts, double vision is temporary is a failure to inform. In fact it's an outright deception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Yes. If in fact they're knowingly misrepresenting the risks with intent to induce consent, they're not just failing to obtain informed consent but also committing the intentional tort of fraud. A lawyer has to be careful about how s/he pleads these things, though, since ya don't want to give the doctor's professional liability insurer a basis for denying coverage.
Right, then the patient would be left with nothing. And I believe misrepresenting the seriousness of the risks (which could be permanent) are being withheld. I don't believe if people knew what they could be left with just so they don't have to wear glasses, they would think twice. That's what I'm upset about. A person can do what he wants, but it's not a true consent if he doesn't have all the facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
Of course the list applies here. You wrote, "When you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages." That's a law-related claim you clearly made up from whole cloth. Distinguishing actual legal reasoning from made-up crapola is the reason ChuckF devised the list. :yup: (That, and, lulz)
You have zero to no recourse if you sign that you understand the risks, which are unrelated to negligence or never having received the form. Most lawsuits fall outside of these two categories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
:laugh:

You made all that up, every last bit of it.
I'm just repeating what you said. You can still sue under certain conditions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
First off, :lol:@"zero to none." Also, as noted above, there's no such thing as a consent form that says "I understand all the risks." It's good to see your seeming acknowledgement that consent forms have no effect on negligence claims. That's progress. And, of course, you have no earthly idea whatsoever where "most lawsuits fall."
I would assume that most lawsuits have to do with negligence of some kind. They wouldn't help in a case where a person signed away his rights by claiming he understands that there are risks yet still wants to go forward. I don't think a person would win unless it was proved that there was fraud. When a doctor doesn't spell out the permanent nature of the side effects which can be intolerable, and they say the symptoms are most likely temporary, that's fraud.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
Alrighty then! Obfuscation > candor. I stand corrected.
Quote:
What's that suppose to mean? :confused:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
It's like conversing with a bag of hammers.
At least I'm honest. So elaborate.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 10-13-2016, 12:01 AM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMCDLXXXV
Images: 2
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
So what is the patient accepting if not to agree that he will take responsibility for any unforeseen risks that occur not including negligence.
:lol: Is that clear negligence or opaque negligence (or in California and Illinois, translucent negligence)?

Here's a hint. Evidence that a consent form was signed tends to suggest that a patient - big reveal here - gave his or or consent to a medical process or procedure.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-25-2016), Angakuk (10-13-2016), Stephen Maturin (10-13-2016), The Man (10-13-2016)
  #62  
Old 10-13-2016, 12:37 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMDCCCLXXXIX
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
:facepalm: I'll never understand your need to hold forth on subjects about which you know nothing.
I can just as easily say the same about you. :giggle:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
I suppose you could, but your statement would be false. As we both know, I'm careful to avoid pontificating about subjects on which I know nothing.
OH YES YOU DO!
That's right. I do indeed carefully avoid pontificating about subjects on which I know nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Are you a malpractice lawyer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Nah. I got involved in dozens of civil lawsuits against physicians and other healthcare providers just for the laughs.
So are you or aren't you? You're so sarcastic it makes it difficult to converse with you.
I'm not a med mal lawyer in the sense that I do nothing else, but yes, I've handled many such cases over the decades, always on the plaintiff side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
From what I've gathered it would be extremely difficult to win a case if you signed a form where you accepted the potential risks, as long as there was no clear negligence on the part of the surgeon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
First of all, you haven't "gathered" anything. You made all this up.
No I did not.
Sure you did. I know made-up bullshit about civil law when I see it, and your original contention that "[w]hen you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages" is made-up bullshit about civil law. So is your amended contention quoted above. :yup:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Second, there is no medical consent form anywhere by which the patient affirms that "I accept all potential risks." Such a form wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.
So what is the patient accepting if not to agree that he will take responsibility for any unforeseen risks that occur not including negligence.
You're conflating consent forms, disclosures and exculpatory agreements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Third, "clear negligence" isn't the test for anything.
What are you talking about?
I'm talking about your laughably inaccurate contention that "it would be extremely difficult to win a case if you signed a form where you accepted the potential risks, as long as there was no clear negligence on the part of the surgeon." You simply made that up and launched it from your shitter as if you knew what you were talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Fourth, you're making all this up as you go along. :yup: I can't imagine who you think you're fooling.
I'm not trying to fool anyone.
Good. Cuz if you were trying, you've failed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Yes. If in fact they're knowingly misrepresenting the risks with intent to induce consent, they're not just failing to obtain informed consent but also committing the intentional tort of fraud. A lawyer has to be careful about how s/he pleads these things, though, since ya don't want to give the doctor's professional liability insurer a basis for denying coverage.
Right, then the patient would be left with nothing.
Yep, that's right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
And I believe misrepresenting the seriousness of the risks (which could be permanent) are being withheld.
You might want to revisit that sentence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't believe if people knew what they could be left with just so they don't have to wear glasses, they would think twice.
Ditto.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
A person can do what he wants, but it's not a true consent if he doesn't have all the facts.
I agree. More precisely, it isn't informed consent if the patient lacks the information that might reasonably affect the decision whether or not to undergo the procedure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
:laugh:

You made all that up, every last bit of it.
I'm just repeating what you said.
:laugh:

Show me where I said "You have zero to no recourse if you sign that you understand the risks, which are unrelated to negligence or never having received the form. Most lawsuits fall outside of these two categories" and I'll go to Amazon.com right now and write the most glowingly positive review of your dad's book you could ever imagine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I would assume that most lawsuits have to do with negligence of some kind. They wouldn't help in a case where a person signed away his rights by claiming he understands that there are risks yet still wants to go forward. I don't think a person would win unless it was proved that there was fraud.
When will you ever learn that you can't Dunning-Kruger your way through discussions like this at :ff: ? I'm gonna guess never.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
At least I'm honest.
:laugh:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
So elaborate.
Never mind. If you haven't figured it out by now, :whoosh:.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-25-2016), Angakuk (10-13-2016), But (10-13-2016), ChuckF (10-13-2016), chunksmediocrites (10-19-2016), Crumb (10-13-2016), Stormlight (10-14-2016), The Man (10-13-2016), thedoc (10-13-2016)
  #63  
Old 10-13-2016, 12:38 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMDCCCLXXXIX
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
:lol: Is that clear negligence or opaque negligence (or in California and Illinois, translucent negligence)?
And in Ohio, where I'm originally from, prescious, juicy negligence.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-25-2016), Angakuk (10-13-2016), ChuckF (10-13-2016), chunksmediocrites (10-19-2016), The Man (10-13-2016), thedoc (10-13-2016)
  #64  
Old 10-13-2016, 12:43 AM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCCXXVII
Images: 523
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Let's be fair: If peacegirl limited herself to discussion of topics on which she had even the slightest degree of actual knowledge or understanding, she'd never be able to discuss anything at all.
__________________
ďThe greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.Ē
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (10-13-2016), ChuckF (10-13-2016), JoeP (10-13-2016), livius drusus (10-13-2016), Stephen Maturin (10-13-2016), Stormlight (10-14-2016), The Man (10-13-2016), thedoc (10-13-2016)
  #65  
Old 10-13-2016, 12:46 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCLXXXII
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

At least I'm honest. So elaborate.
Wow! Peacegirl caught in another lie, she is the most dishonest person on this forum, and now she is claiming to be honest? After over 5 years you would think that she would learn, but apparently she can't, but then she has stated from the beginning that she is not here to learn, she is hear to teach us uninformed members about her fathers joke.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (10-13-2016)
  #66  
Old 10-13-2016, 01:06 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCXII
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm


:loud:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (10-13-2016), ChuckF (10-13-2016), livius drusus (10-13-2016), Stephen Maturin (10-13-2016), Stormlight (10-14-2016), The Lone Ranger (10-13-2016), The Man (10-13-2016)
  #67  
Old 10-13-2016, 01:20 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMDCCCLXXXIX
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
You know, if the word of a billion-year-old god from Andromeda galaxy isn't good enough for the FDA, then fuck the everluvin' hell right out of the FDA. :fuming:
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (10-13-2016), Ari (10-13-2016), livius drusus (10-13-2016), Pan Narrans (10-13-2016), The Man (10-13-2016)
  #68  
Old 10-13-2016, 02:07 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCLXXIV
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Let's be fair: If peacegirl limited herself to discussion of topics on which she had even the slightest degree of actual knowledge or understanding, she'd never be able to discuss anything at all.
The lie noted, a belated happy birthday Lone Ranger.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 10-13-2016, 02:22 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCLXXIV
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
:facepalm: I'll never understand your need to hold forth on subjects about which you know nothing.
I can just as easily say the same about you. :giggle:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
I suppose you could, but your statement would be false. As we both know, I'm careful to avoid pontificating about subjects on which I know nothing.
OH YES YOU DO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
That's right. I do indeed carefully avoid pontificating about subjects on which I know nothing.
You are not all that Stephen. You know a lot about law but that's about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Are you a malpractice lawyer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Nah. I got involved in dozens of civil lawsuits against physicians and other healthcare providers just for the laughs.
So are you or aren't you? You're so sarcastic it makes it difficult to converse with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
I'm not a med mal lawyer in the sense that I do nothing else, but yes, I've handled many such cases over the decades, always on the plaintiff side.
Are you legally called a malpractice lawyer? No you aren't. Therefore you are not knowledgeable on this issue, end of sentence. Isn't that what you did to my father? Let it go, okay? It was a rhetorical question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
From what I've gathered it would be extremely difficult to win a case if you signed a form where you accepted the potential risks, as long as there was no clear negligence on the part of the surgeon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
First of all, you haven't "gathered" anything. You made all this up.
No I did not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Sure you did. I know made-up bullshit about civil law when I see it, and your original contention that "[w]hen you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages" is made-up bullshit about civil law. So is your amended contention quoted above. :yup:
That isn't even the thread I started. You are diverting attention away from the cause. I will not let you high jack this thread like you did with the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Second, there is no medical consent form anywhere by which the patient affirms that "I accept all potential risks." Such a form wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.
So what is the patient accepting if not to agree that he will take responsibility for any unforeseen risks that occur not including negligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
You're conflating consent forms, disclosures and exculpatory agreements.
Quote:
So explain it because you're losing ground if you haven't noticed.
I'm not conflating anything. When a person tells a patient that there is nothing to worry about because the side effects are temporary, THAT IS SOMETHING TO WORRY ABOUT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Third, "clear negligence" isn't the test for anything.
What are you talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
I'm talking about your laughably inaccurate contention that "it would be extremely difficult to win a case if you signed a form where you accepted the potential risks, as long as there was no clear negligence on the part of the surgeon." You simply made that up and launched it from your shitter as if you knew what you were talking about.
So give me proof where I was wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Fourth, you're making all this up as you go along. :yup: I can't imagine who you think you're fooling.
I'm not trying to fool anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Good. Cuz if you were trying, you've failed.
But that's hypothetical because I wasn't trying Maturin, so I haven't failed at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Yes. If in fact they're knowingly misrepresenting the risks with intent to induce consent, they're not just failing to obtain informed consent but also committing the intentional tort of fraud. A lawyer has to be careful about how s/he pleads these things, though, since ya don't want to give the doctor's professional liability insurer a basis for denying coverage.
Right, then the patient would be left with nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Yep, that's right.
That's why careful attention needs to be given to liability when someone is hurt badly by false promises.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
And I believe misrepresenting the seriousness of the risks (which could be permanent) are being withheld.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
You might want to revisit that sentence.
I believe misrepresenting the seriousness of the risks needs to be given special attention. Is that better? You are making light of the contract that should give all side effects that could occur that could jeopardize someone's quality of life. Why are you deflecting to this degree if you have so much more to say other than denigrating my wording? :fuming:
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 10-13-2016 at 05:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 10-13-2016, 03:50 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCXII
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Are you legally called a malpractice lawyer? No you aren't. Therefore you are not knowledgeable on this issue, end of sentence.
:lol:

Yes, Stephen Maturin, are you legally called a malpractice lawyer?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-25-2016), Angakuk (10-13-2016), chunksmediocrites (10-19-2016), livius drusus (10-13-2016), Stephen Maturin (10-13-2016), Stormlight (10-14-2016), The Man (10-13-2016)
  #71  
Old 10-13-2016, 04:21 PM
godfry n. glad's Avatar
godfry n. glad godfry n. glad is offline
rude, crude, lewd, and unsophisticated
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Puddle City, Cascadia
Gender: Male
Posts: XXMMDCCXLIX
Images: 12
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Can we discuss influenza vaccines and Tamiflu?

I understand that the FDA has approved both and both are basically as 'iffy' as pharmaceutical therapies come. There are also a whole shipload of 'me, too' drugs which the industry has been pumping out and marketing aggressively because the patents on their original medications are expiring. Yeah, they are FDA approved, but, from my understanding that FDA approval is based on the medication being able to do anything just a bit better than a placebo (note - not better than their prior medication for that purpose, possibly even much worse)...even the most infinitesimal of 'better than placebo', attempting to displace their earlier medications which had already proven to be significantly better than placebo, but upon which the patents had expired. Thus, many pharmaceuticals are marketed to replace tried and proven therapies with significantly less effective medications, simply because the pharmaceutical company hold the patents and can exclude competitors.

Then there is the list of medications approved by the FDA and later withdrawn, so it seems that the FDA is hardly the definitive demanding and overbearing regulatory agency which many think it is, and the revolving door of the authoritative in the field in and out of regulatory authority is, as I've stated before, a rather obvious ongoing conflict of interest.

Does anybody here care to defend therapies approved by the FDA and pushed by the CDC to treat 'the flu'?
__________________
Free Cascadia!
...........................
..:chicken:.....:redchicken:.....:blackhen:.....:blackhen:

Last edited by godfry n. glad; 10-13-2016 at 04:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (10-13-2016)
  #72  
Old 10-13-2016, 05:14 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMDCCCLXXXIX
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You are not all that Stephen.
That's absolutely true. And because I'm not all that, I'm careful to avoid pontificating about subjects on which I know nothing. You, on the other hand, have no discernible expertise of any sort yet consider yourself qualified to pontificate on all subjects. :yup:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
I'm not a med mal lawyer in the sense that I do nothing else, but yes, I've handled many such cases over the decades, always on the plaintiff side.
Are you legally called a malpractice lawyer?
:lol:

There's no such thing as "legally called a malpractice lawyer," you brainless cow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I will not let you high jack this thread like you did with the other.
I called you out on your made-up bullshit contention that "[w]hen you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages." Your made-up bullshit contention has been the topic of this thread ever since. Perhaps your dementia is preventing you from seeing it, but the "hijacking" is a done deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm not conflating anything.
Sure you are. You're conflating consent, disclosure and exculpation. That's the sort of thing that happens when a know-nothing such as yourself feigns expertise. :yup:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
And I believe misrepresenting the seriousness of the risks (which could be permanent) are being withheld.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
You might want to revisit that sentence.
I believe misrepresenting the seriousness of the risks needs to be given special attention. Is that better?
Much better! The revised version is non-gibberish. Well done! :cheer:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Why are you deflecting to this degree if you have so much more to say other than denigrating my wording? :fuming:
I dunno. Why are you so dishonest and cowardly that you can't acknowledge that your made-up bullshit contention "[w]hen you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages" is false?
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (10-13-2016), chunksmediocrites (10-19-2016), The Man (10-13-2016)
  #73  
Old 10-13-2016, 05:19 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMDCCCLXXXIX
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by godfry n. glad View Post
Can we discuss influenza vaccines and Tamiflu?
I've never gotten a flu shot, but the primary reason is that I'm a big fat needle-averse baby. I've wondered how effective these vaccines are, or even can be, but never bothered to look it up.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (10-13-2016)
  #74  
Old 10-13-2016, 05:27 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCCLXXIV
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by godfry n. glad View Post
Can we discuss influenza vaccines and Tamiflu?

I understand that the FDA has approved both and both are basically as 'iffy' as pharmaceutical therapies come. There are also a whole shipload of 'me, too' drugs which the industry has been pumping out and marketing aggressively because the patents on their original medications are expiring. Yeah, they are FDA approved, but, from my understanding that FDA approval is based on the medication being able to do anything just a bit better than a placebo (note - not better than their prior medication for that purpose, possibly even much worse)...even the most infinitesimal of 'better than placebo', attempting to displace their earlier medications which had already proven to be significantly better than placebo, but upon which the patents had expired. Thus, many pharmaceuticals are marketed to replace tried and proven therapies with significantly less effective medications, simply because the pharmaceutical company hold the patents and can exclude competitors.

Then there is the list of medications approved by the FDA and later withdrawn, so it seems that the FDA is hardly the definitive demanding and overbearing regulatory agency which many think it is, and the revolving door of the authoritative in the field in and out of regulatory authority is, as I've stated before, a rather obvious ongoing conflict of interest.

Does anybody here care to defend therapies approved by the FDA and pushed by the CDC to treat 'the flu'?
It appears that when a drug is approved, it does not mean it's safe. It's only when enough people are injured that a drug is taken off the market. That means a lot of people have to die or be severely hurt for there to be a ban. We become guinea pigs. Why would treating the flu be any different especially when profit is involved? This is a competitive industry like any other. The only difference is that the CDC and the FDA can kill people with impunity.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 10-13-2016, 05:51 PM
godfry n. glad's Avatar
godfry n. glad godfry n. glad is offline
rude, crude, lewd, and unsophisticated
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Puddle City, Cascadia
Gender: Male
Posts: XXMMDCCXLIX
Images: 12
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by godfry n. glad View Post
Can we discuss influenza vaccines and Tamiflu?
I've never gotten a flu shot, but the primary reason is that I'm a big fat needle-averse baby.
Yeah, me too. But, I'm also an insulin-dependent diabetic, so I have to play mind games with myself to administer.

Quote:
I've wondered how effective these vaccines are, or even can be, but never bothered to look it up.
Not very, according to the nabobs at Cochrane. Bad science being propped up by the CDC.

I'm still wondering what progress there is on the Krahling & Wlochowski whistleblower case against Merck, Inc., if any.
__________________
Free Cascadia!
...........................
..:chicken:.....:redchicken:.....:blackhen:.....:blackhen:
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > Lifestyle


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.40406 seconds with 13 queries