Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

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.

That's a lie.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you legally called a malpractice lawyer?

Originally Posted by Steven Maturin

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

You're disgusting.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will not let you high jack this thread like you did with the other.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturing

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.

You don't get to sue in cases where you assume the risks and agree by signing the informed consent. This absolves the doctor of any responsibility, which is fine. The problem arises due to the downplaying of the injuries that can occur and the emotional impact it can cause.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not conflating anything.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

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.

I'm not conflating these terms.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe misrepresenting the seriousness of the risks needs to be given special attention. Is that better?

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Much better! The revised version is non-gibberish. Well done!

You love to nitpick!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you deflecting to this degree if you have so much more to say other than denigrating my wording?

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin"

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?

If a person signs the consent form, they will have very little chance of winning if they sue. I don't think the life changing risks are emphasized enough because customers would opt out.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't get to sue in cases where you assume the risks and agree by signing the informed consent. This absolves the doctor of any responsibility, which is fine.

Complete failure to provide support noted. Your complete failure to provide support is also understandable, since your statement is false.

Regardless of what your idiot parents may have told you, repeating the same bullshit over and over can't magically make it true.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't get to sue in cases where you assume the risks and agree by signing the informed consent. This absolves the doctor of any responsibility, which is fine.

Which state is this again? Because I know some pharma clients who would really like to know.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't get to sue in cases where you assume the risks and agree by signing the informed consent. This absolves the doctor of any responsibility, which is fine.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Complete failure to provide support noted. Your complete failure to provide support is also understandable, since your statement is false.

I am not on trial. This thread is not about culpability. It's about alerting the public to the risks of iffy procedures that are approved by the FDA and aggressively marketed.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Regardless of what your idiot parents may have told you, repeating the same bullshit over and over can't magically make it true.

Leave my parents out of it!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Which state is this again? Because I know some pharma clients who would really like to know.

There has to be negligence by the doctor that goes beyond the reasonable standard of care.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There has to be negligence by the doctor that goes beyond the reasonable standard of care.

That sentence sure does have legal-sounding words in it.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

I'm still wondering what progress there is on the Krahling & Wlochowski whistleblower case against Merck, Inc., if any.

Man oh man! I think we've all heard about how the wheels of justice turn slowly and all, but this is ridiculous!

According to this, penned by a law professor with an interest in vaccine-related legal issues, Krahling and Wlochowski are ex-Merck virologists who filed suit against their former employer pursuant to the federal False Claims Act in 2010. The principal allegation seems to be that the effectiveness of the mumps component of the MMR vaccine has decreased over the years, and that Merck has faked test results in support of a false claim that the vaccine is as effective as ever.

The federal court consolidated the Krahling/Wlochowski case with a separate putative class action brought a group of doctors in 2012 alleging that Merck's false statements regarding the MMR vaccine created a monopoly in violation of the Sherman Act.

Merck moved to dismiss both cases. The judge (mostly) denied the motion to dismiss back in September of 2014. According to Prof. Reiss's article, the judge has since set a partial case management schedule with dealines extending into early 2018.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

That sentence sure does have legal-sounding words in it.

The analysis looks incomplete to me. I mean, what about physician negligence that does not go beyond the reasonable standard of care?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

The analysis looks incomplete to me. I mean, what about physician negligence that does not go beyond the reasonable standard of care?

It is an efferent liability that is proximately caused by the reasonable person.

[Stephen Maturin]

Ah, that makes sense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

The analysis looks incomplete to me. I mean, what about physician negligence that does not go beyond the reasonable standard of care?

If a doctor does a job that is considered adequate by the medical community, then he would not be considered negligent. If he does not provide a reasonable standard of care in comparison to other physicians, then he could be sued for negligence although part of the responsibility would be with the patient for failing to check his credentials. The failure to disclose all known risks by the doctor can lead to a malpractice suit if the outcome is less than satisfactory. The doctor has to make sure the patient knows the complications that could arise down the road and make sure he or she understands what is being said in lay terms. I would love to see the consent form. I'm assuming there is a standard form.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If a doctor does a job that is considered adequate by the medical community, then he would not be considered negligent. If he does not provide a reasonable standard of care in comparison to other physicians, then he could be sued for negligence although part of the responsibility would be with the patient for failing to check his credentials. The failure to disclose all known risks by the doctor can lead to a malpractice suit if the outcome is less than satisfactory. The doctor has to make sure the patient knows the complications that could arise down the road and make sure he or she understands what is being said in lay terms. I would love to see the consent form. I'm assuming there is a standard form.

Good answer. No, wait - stupid answer.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would love to see the consent form. I'm assuming there is a standard form.

So Peacegirl has never seen let alone signed a consent form, and doesn't know what she is talking about. Peacegirl, have you gotten your information from the loonie anti-medicine sites that were linked from your loonie anti-vaxx sites?

[But]

[thedoc]

Does ignorance constitute a conflict of interest? if so then Peacegirl is in conflict with almost everything.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Something else is going on?

[peacegirl]

True Side Effects of LASIK Eye Surgery Revealed -...

[But]

Why are you suddenly obsessed with eye surgery?

Oh, and what's going on with the moons of Jupiter?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If a doctor does a job that is considered adequate by the medical community, then he would not be considered negligent. If he does not provide a reasonable standard of care in comparison to other physicians, then he could be sued for negligence although part of the responsibility would be with the patient for failing to check his credentials. The failure to disclose all known risks by the doctor can lead to a malpractice suit if the outcome is less than satisfactory. The doctor has to make sure the patient knows the complications that could arise down the road and make sure he or she understands what is being said in lay terms. I would love to see the consent form. I'm assuming there is a standard form.

Today on Fuck-All Ignorant Dunning-Kruger Ignoramuses and Other Assorted Internet Retards, well-known layabout, public funds thief and 15-year veteran Internet moron peacegirl waxes microcephalic regarding the law governing the civil liability of healthcare providers.

But first, a word from our sponsor.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Today on Fuck-All Ignorant Dunning-Kruger Ignoramuses and Other Assorted Internet Retards, well-known layabout, public funds thief and 15-year veteran Internet moron peacegirl waxes microcephalic regarding the law governing the civil liability of healthcare providers.

But first, a word from our sponsor.

This thread is not about civil liability so you shouldn't be so threatened. You're just a mean old grump!

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by But

Why are you suddenly obsessed with eye surgery?

Unsurprisingly, peacegirl's latest source is a treasure trove of the far right wing conspiracy nutjobbery that peacegirl adores almost as much as alcohol. Looks like a "come for the tired, old anti-vax canards, stay for the LASIK" kind of thing.

[ChuckF]

peacegirl, send them some more money.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This thread is not about civil liability so you shouldn't be so threatened. You're just a mean old grump!

That's very good, when you have nothing to say, resort to an ad hominem attack. Actually the thread is about civil liberties, I thought the the ability to sue for damages was one of our civil liberties, but I could be wrong.

[thedoc]

Is electing to have Lasik surgery one of our "civil liberties"?

[Stormlight]

Talking about iffy ...

FDA: Homeopathic teething gels may have killed 10 babies, sickened 400 | Ars Technica

Yesterday the agency said it is investigating 10 infant deaths and more than 400 reports of seizures, fever, and vomiting that may be connected to the use of the teething treatments in the past six years.

Fucking FDA.